The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) Study: "What Do We Do Now?"

From the New Diagnostic Criteria to COVID-19 Pandemic Passing Through the Placebo Effect. What Have We Learned in the Management of Pediatric Migrane Over the Past 5 Years?

In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies for the treatment of migraine represented a milestone for the management of the disease in adults. On the contrary, the novelties in the field of pediatric migraine are inserted in a different scenario and still concern: (1) diagnostic criteria of the international classification of headache disorders-3 (ICHD-3) that show numerous limits of applicability in the developmental age; (2) the release of the results of the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) study that raised doubts about the usefulness of traditional drugs for the treatment of pediatric migraine; (3) the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put the spotlight on the importance of managing the psychological factors associated with the disease. In this mini review we discuss the most relevant news in pediatric migraine over the last 5 years.

Trajectory of treatment response in the child and adolescent migraine prevention (CHAMP) study: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Identify preventive medication treatment response trajectories among youth participating in the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention study.

METHODS

Data were evaluated from 328 youth (ages 8-17). Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention study participants completed headache diaries during a 28-day baseline period and a 168-day active treatment period during which youth took amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo. Daily headache occurrence trajectories were established across baseline and active treatment periods using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling. We tested potential treatment group differences. We also compared final models to trajectory findings from a clinical trial of cognitive behavioral therapy plus amitriptyline for youth with chronic migraine to test for reproducibility.

RESULTS

Daily headache occurrence showed stability across baseline. Active treatment models revealed decreases in headache frequency that were most notable early in the trial period. Baseline and active treatment models did not differ by treatment group and replicated trajectory cognitive behavioral therapy plus amitriptyline trial findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Replicating headache frequency trajectories across clinical trials provides strong evidence that youth can improve quickly. Given no effect for medication, we need to better understand what drives this clinically meaningful improvement. Results also suggest an expected trajectory of treatment response for use in designing and determining endpoints for future clinical trials.Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01581281.

Transnasal Sphenopalatine Ganglion Block for the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Daily Headache in Adolescents

Chronic headaches are a major source of morbidity in the pediatric population, affecting physical function, school attendance, social capacity, mood, and sleep. In adults, repetitive sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) blockade has been studied as a preventive treatment for chronic migraines. This case series aims to evaluate the SPG block for the preventive treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH) in adolescents. We prospectively evaluated 17 adolescents (14 females, 14 ± 1 year) with CDH not responding to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), physiotherapy, and standard medications. Each patient received 10 SPG blocks (two blocks/week) using the Tx360® device. At the end of treatment, 10 patients (59%) reported a Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score ≥ 67%, and 3 months after the end of treatment, nine patients (53%) sustained a PGIC ≥ 67%. There was also a statistically significant reduction in the depression subscale of the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS) at the end of treatment and 3 months post-treatment compared with baseline. The procedure was well tolerated with no adverse effects. In our study, the use of repeat SPG blockade was associated with sustained benefits on the PGIC and the depression subscale of the RCADS when used as preventive headache treatment in adolescents with refractory CDH.

Prevalence of Headache Days and Disability 3 Years After Participation in the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention Medication Trial

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is a common neurological disease that often begins in childhood and continues into adulthood; approximately 6 million children and adolescents in the United States cope with migraine, and many frequently experience significant disability and multiple headache days per week. Although pharmacological preventive treatments have been shown to offer some benefit to youth with migraine, additional research is needed to understand whether and how these benefits are sustained.

OBJECTIVE

To survey clinical status of youth with migraine who participated in the 24-week Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial over a 3-year follow-up period.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used internet-based surveys collected from youth ages 8 to 17 years at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after completion of the CHAMP trial, which randomized participants to amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo. At the end of the trial, the study drug was stopped, and participants received clinical care of their choice thereafter. The CHAMP trial was conducted between May 2012 and November 2015, and survey follow-up was conducted June 2013 to June 2018. Participants in this survey study were representative of those randomized in the trial. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to April 2021.

EXPOSURES

Survey completion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Headache days, disability (assessed using the Pediatric Migraine Disability Scale [PedMIDAS]), and self-report of ongoing use of prescription preventive medication.

RESULTS

A total of 205 youth (mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.3] years; 139 [68%] girls; mean [SD] history of migraine, 5.7 [3.1] years) participated in the survey. Retention of participants was 189 participants (92%) at month 6, 182 participants (88%) at month 12, 163 participants (80%) at month 18, 165 participants (80%) at month 24, and 155 participants (76%) at month 36. Over the course of the 3-year follow-up, participants consistently maintained meaningful reductions in headache days (mean [SD] headache days per 28 days: CHAMP baseline, 11.1 [6.0] days; CHAMP completion, 5.0 [5.7] days; 3-year follow-up, 6.1 [6.1] days) and disability (mean [SD] score: CHAMP baseline, 40.9 [26.4]; CHAMP completion, 17.9 [22.1]; 3-year follow-up, 12.3 [20.0]). At 3 years after completion of the CHAMP trial, headache days were approximately 1.5 per week (changed from about 3 per week at trial baseline) and disability had improved from the moderate range to the low mild range on the PedMIDAS. Longitudinal analyses showed that amitriptyline and topiramate did not explain intercept random effects for either mean rate of headache days per week (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.07 [0.05]; P = .16; topiramate: estimate [SE], 0.04 [0.05]; P = .50) or headache disability PedMIDAS total score (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.25 [0.38]; P = .52; topiramate: estimate [SE], -0.09 [0.39]; P = .82) changes over time. Of 153 participants who reported on prescription drug use at 3 years, only 1 participant (1%) reported using prevention medication, and most participants reported no medication use at most time points.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that children and adolescents with longer than 5 years history of migraine who participated in the CHAMP trial may sustain positive clinical outcomes over time, even after discontinuing preventive pill-based treatment. This survey study could inform use and discontinuation timing of pharmacological preventive therapies for migraine in youth ages 8 to 17 years. Research is needed to examine mechanisms of treatment improvement and maintenance for preventive therapies, as well as placebo, in the pediatric population.

Development of a Prospective Real-World Data Clinical Registry of Children and Adolescents With Migraine

OBJECTIVE

To develop a multicenter, multistakeholder, prospective clinical registry of children and adolescents with migraine to support the collection of real-world data of sufficient quality to support regulatory submissions and provide site-based infrastructure support for future clinical trials.

BACKGROUND

As new migraine treatments come to market, pediatric efficacy and safety trials of these agents are needed. A clinical registry is an ideal regulatory strategy to provide both real-world data and site infrastructure to execute these trials.

DESIGN

Multicenter, multistakeholder, prospective real-world data clinical registry of children and adolescents, 4-17 years of age, diagnosed with migraine with or without aura. Participants will be followed for up to 12 months at 3-month intervals, with interval recording of clinical data at study sites and self-reported data via mobile health application, as well as biobanking. We developed electronic case report forms that incorporated routinely collected clinical data with National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Headache Common Data Elements (Version 2.0). All data are captured in a 21 CFR Part 11 - compliant electronic data capture system - augmented by a real-time, web-based, and customizable data visualization platform. We engaged vendors to provide ancillary biobanking, patient data entry, and data visualization services.

RESULTS

We used an iterative and highly collaborative multistakeholder approach to design and implement a streamlined registry protocol with input from all participating US sites. At each design and implementation step, we received input from therapeutic area experts, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health, patient and parent advocates, health technology partners, drug developers, and site-based clinical investigators. The registry is governed by a multistakeholder steering committee with representation from sites, industry partners, patient advocates, and a member from the FDA (non-voting with respect to steering committee matters). The multistakeholder and site-driven approach to registry design and execution was highly efficient and resulted in the first patient enrolled within 6 months of concept development.

CONCLUSIONS

By ensuring regulatory compliant implementation of the registry, we created both a source of real-world data and a multisite platform for the conduct of future clinical trials that can be submitted to regulatory authorities to support inclusion of pediatric data in approved drug labeling. A highly collaborative approach with broad stakeholder engagement at all stages of the registry development was a key to our operational success.

Migraine in children: presentation, disability and response to treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review presents findings from investigations of migraine in children. The presentation of pediatric migraine, related consequences, and medication treatments are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of advancements have been made in the study of the presentation, disability, and treatments for migraine in children. However, recent research suggests that not all approaches are equally effective in the treatment of migraine in children. Specifically, a recent study comparing pharmacological interventions found that preventive medications were not statistically more effective than placebo in children. Consistent findings showing clinically meaningful placebo response rates, shorter duration of headaches and other characteristic features (e.g. frontal, bilateral location) have been barriers to the design of randomized clinical trials in children and adolescents with migraine. Better understanding of treatment mechanisms for medication interventions is needed.

SUMMARY

Several migraine treatments have determined to be effective for use in children but few controlled studies have evaluated the effectiveness of medication treatments. Recent research suggests that preventive medications may not be more effective than placebo. Additional research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of medication treatment in migraine headache care.

Similarities and Differences Between Migraine in Children and Adults: Presentation, Disability, and Response to Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents findings from investigations of migraine in children and adults. Similarities and differences in the presentation, related consequences, and treatments between children and adults are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant similarities exist in the presentation, disability, and treatments for migraine between children and adults. Despite such similarities, many adult migraine treatments adapted for use in children are not rigorously tested prior to becoming a part of routine care in youth. Existing research suggests that not all approaches are equally effective across age groups. Specifically, psychological treatments are shown to be somewhat less effective in adults than in children. Pharmacological interventions found to be statistically significant relative to placebo in adults may not be as effective in children and have the potential to present more risk than benefit when used in youth. The placebo effect in both children and adults is robust and is need of further study. Better understanding of treatment mechanisms for all interventions across the age spectrum is needed. Although migraine treatments determined to be effective for adults are frequently adapted for use in children with little evaluation prior to implementation, existing research suggests that this approach may not be the best practice. Adaptation of adult pharmacological treatment for use in youth may present a particular risk in comparison to benefits gained. Because of the known efficacy of psychological treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, more universal use of these interventions should be considered, either as first-line treatment or in combination with pill-based therapies.