The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Inhibitors in the Treatment of Migraine in the Pediatric and Adolescent Populations: A Review

There are limited well-studied treatments for migraine in the pediatric population. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors are an established safe and effective treatment in adults, and use may be appropriate for pediatric patients in certain clinical situations. We describe migraine pathophysiology as it relates to CGRP, provide an overview of available medications, and discuss clinical usage in this population.

Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine versus nortriptyline for the preventive treatment of migraine: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Migraine, as a primary headache disorder, stands as one of the primary causes of disability worldwide. Consequently, prophylactic treatments are highly recommended for individuals experiencing recurrent migraine episodes. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of venlafaxine and nortriptyline in the prophylactic management of migraine.

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 210 migraine patients were allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. One group received venlafaxine (37.5 mg, orally twice daily), while the other group administered nortriptyline (25 mg, orally once daily). A neurologist documented (1) headache intensity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 6-point Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS-6), (2) headache frequency (per month), and (3) headache duration (in hours) of participants on days 0, 45, and 90 of the intervention.

RESULTS

Following the 90-day intervention, a significant decrease was observed in VAS, BRS-6, frequency, and duration of headaches within both groups (all with p-values <0.001). No difference in VAS, BRS-6, or headache durations was observed between the two groups after 45 and 90 days of treatment (all p-values > 0.05). Although the headache frequency exhibited no difference between the groups after 45 days (p-value = 0.097), a significantly lower frequency in the venlafaxine group was observed at day 90 of the intervention (p-value = 0.011). The reductions in attack parameters in the 0-45- and 0-90-day intervals did not meet statistical significance between the two groups (p-values > 0.05). 77.0 % of the participants in the venlafaxine group and 79.2 % in the nortriptyline group experienced a minimum of 50 % improvement in all attack parameters. Venlafaxine demonstrated a statistically significant lower incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to nortriptyline (p-value = 0.005). A total of 33 adverse drug reactions were documented in the venlafaxine group and 53 in the nortriptyline group, with insomnia observed in the former and xerostomia in the latter as the most prevalent side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Venlafaxine and nortriptyline demonstrate clinically significant and comparable therapeutic efficacy for migraine patients in reducing the intensity, frequency, and duration of headache attacks. Venlafaxine may be preferred to nortriptyline in the context of migraine preventive treatment under comparable conditions due to its lower incidence of adverse effects.

Intranasal Delivery of Medications for the Treatment of Neurologic Conditions: A Pharmacology Update

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Nurses have a central role in educating patients and families about treatment options and how to integrate them into action plans for neurologic conditions. In recent years, a growing number of intranasal formulations have become available as rescue therapy for neurologic conditions or symptoms including migraine, opioid overdose, and seizures. Rescue therapies do not replace maintenance medications or emergency care but are designed to enable rapid treatment of urgent or disabling conditions in community settings. Yet, discussion of rescue therapies for neurologic conditions remains limited in nursing literature. CONTENT: Intranasal formulations are specifically formulated for delivery and absorption in the nose and have several characteristics that are well suited as rescue therapies for neurologic conditions. Intranasal formulations include triptans for migraine, naloxone and nalmefene for opioid overdose, and benzodiazepines for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy. Therapeutic attributes discussed here include ease of use in community settings by nonmedical professionals, relatively rapid onset of action, and favorable safety profile and patient experience. This information is critical for nurses to make informed decisions about rescue therapy options, incorporate these into plans of care, and educate patients, care partners, and other healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: Rescue therapies are increasingly important in the care of people with neurologic conditions. Various formulations are available and continue to evolve, offering easy and quick ways for nurses, patients, and nonmedical care partners to administer critical rescue medications. For nurses overseeing medication management, the attributes of intranasal rescue therapies should be considered in the context of providing patients with the right care at the right time.

CGRP Modulating Therapies: An Update

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) is a vasoactive neuropeptide involved in the pathophysiology ofmigraine. CGRP has been targeted for both preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

Provide a summary of the most clinically relevant literature surrounding CGRP modulating therapies.

METHODS

This update on CGRP modulating therapies includes articles selected as most clinically relevant by theauthors.

CONCLUSION

CGRP modulating therapies are an exciting new addition to migraine treatment given their safety andtolerability. Additionally, compared to traditional migraine preventive medication these treatments are migrainespecific.Further real-world and clinical data is ongoing to better understand these treatments that continue to gainfavor in the management of migraine.

Sustained benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: An analysis of the pooled Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the long-term (56-week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy.

METHODS

The two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase and a 32-week open-label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double-blind phase (Weeks 21-24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13-24) and the entire study (Weeks 53-56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4-week period). We assessed the long-term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1).

RESULTS

We analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double-blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open-label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56-week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% (n = 175) and 29.3% (n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13-24 of the double-blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA-treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo-treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month (p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25-56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53-56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12-week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT-6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within-group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21-24 had a greater mean HIT-6 score reduction (-6.5 vs. -1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role-Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache-related disability and migraine-specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15-monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long-term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM.

[Non-medical Approaches to Headache Prevention: What is the Evidence?]

Primary headaches can be prevented by medication, exercise, behavioral therapy, or lifestyle changes. It is important to note that if medication is used for prophylaxis, non-drug approaches should also be recommended as a complement. Patients often wish to address their headaches without medication. Except for cognitive behavioral therapy and biofeedback, the evidence for nonmedication approaches to headache management has not been definitively established. This article reviews the current literature on the evidence for endurance exercise, relaxation exercises, physical therapy, lifestyle factors, and complementary procedures. For tension-type headache, there is an increasing number of studies reporting positive results from physical therapy; long-term follow-up, however, are still pending. Aerobic endurance exercise has the best evidence as a measure for prevention of migraine. However, other methods can also be used.

The impact of updates in headache quality measures on adherence to best practices in a neurology resident clinic: A quality improvement study

OBJECTIVE

To apply the 2019 joint American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society (AHS) quality measures for headache management to a cohort of neurology resident physicians and then assess outcomes related to guideline adherence.

BACKGROUND

The optimization of headache management is essential to reduce both the individual and systemic impact of these disorders. In 2014, the AAN developed 10 quality measures for evidence-based management of patients with headache. A workgroup updated and condensed its headache quality measures in 2019, narrowing the set to six measurements, four of which would primarily focus on the management of migraine and two of which would address the management of cluster headache.

METHODS

This quality improvement study was conducted using a pretest-posttest study design. A pre-intervention survey based on retrospective analysis of five clinic notes for adherence to the measures was designed and distributed to all neurology residents (n = 32) at a large, academic tertiary referral center. The intervention included the creation of an electronic medical record template to aid residents in following the measures during clinical encounters, as well as the provision of direct feedback based on pre-intervention results. Finally, a post-intervention survey was distributed for completion based on notes written during the intervention period. Analysis was limited to migraine, given the low percentage of cluster headache seen in clinic.

RESULTS

An increase in adherence was seen in three of the four migraine-related quality measures, with the Use of Abortive Medications for Migraine and Documentation of Counseling on Modifiable Lifestyle and Chronification Factors demonstrating statistically significant improvements (75.8% to 88.0% [p = 0.013] and 83.9% to 94.0% [p = 0.029] adherence, respectively). For secondary outcomes, the increase in the utilization of appropriate diagnostic criteria (82.6% to 93.2%, p = 0.018) was significant, and the self-assessed confidence rating for adherence to guidelines was significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that the quality improvement intervention led to increased adherence to the AAN and AHS migraine-related measures. It is anticipated that increased adherence may lead to improved patient outcomes.

The effectiveness and predictors influencing the outcome of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: understanding from diverse patient profiles in a single session

Objective

This real-world study aimed to investigate how onabotulinumtoxinA affects the outcome of migraine, along with accompanying anxiety, depression, and bruxism among a group of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and define predictors of good response.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with CM who received onabotulinumtoxinA were included in this single-center, real-world retrospective cohort study. Monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), headache intensity (numeric rating scale-NRS) and headache characteristics were evaluated at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores, 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Response to onabotulinumtoxinA (% reduction in MHDs) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were also evaluated. OnabotulinumA was applied to the masseter muscles in patients complaining of bruxism.

Results

A total of 72 patients (mean ± SD age: 36.3 ± 8.5 years; 91.7% were female) diagnosed with CM were included. OnabotulinumtoxinA revealed significant decrease in median (IQR) MHDs [from 20(15-25) at baseline to 6(4-10), p < 0.001], MMDs [from 9(6-12) to 3(1-6), p < 0.001] and NRS [from 9(8-10) to 7(6-8), p < 0.001], and the MIDAS [from 54(30-81) to 16(7-24), p < 0.001], HIT-6 [from 67(65-69) to 58(54-64), p < 0.001], ASC-12 [from 6(1.5-9) to 2(0-9), p = 0.002], BAI [from 12(6.5-19) to 9(3-17), p < 0.001] and BDI [from 11(6.5-17) to 3(2-7) p < 0.001] scores at 12 weeks post-treatment. Patients complaining of bruxism received onabotulinumtoxinA injections in the first n = 27 (37.5%) and 12. week post-treatment n = 19 (70.4%) periods. Overall, 70.8% of patients responded (≥50% reduction in MHDs), while 29.2% did not (<50% reduction). Both groups showed similar characteristics in demographics, migraine history, baseline PROMs scores, comorbidities, and prior treatments.

Conclusion

OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective treatment option that rapidly improves migraine outcomes, disability, and impact while also alleviating comorbid depression and/or anxiety. This study's noteworthy finding is that onabotulinumtoxinA is effective in a majority of CM patients, irrespective of their prior treatment history, migraine characteristics, or concurrent comorbidities. Furthermore, we identified no specific predictors for a favorable response to onabotulinumtoxinA. Applying onabotulinumtoxinA to the masseter muscles can relieve discomfort associated with concurrent bruxism; however, it does not impact migraine outcomes.

Real-world Impact of Fremanezumab on Migraine-Related Health Care Resource Utilization in Patients with Comorbidities, Acute Medication Overuse, and/or Unsatisfactory Prior Migraine Preventive Response

INTRODUCTION

Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Real-world evidence assessing the effect of fremanezumab on migraine-related medication use, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patient populations with comorbidities, acute medication overuse (AMO), and/or unsatisfactory prior migraine preventive response (UPMPR) is needed.

METHODS

Data for this US, retrospective claims analysis were obtained from the Merative® MarketScan® Commercial and supplemental databases. Eligible adults with migraine initiated fremanezumab between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019 (date of earliest fremanezumab claim is the index date), had ≥ 12 months of continuous enrollment prior to initiation (preindex period) and ≥ 6 months of data following initiation (postindex period; variable follow-up after 6 months), and had certain preindex migraine comorbidities (depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease), potential AMO, or UPMPR. Changes in migraine-related concomitant acute and preventive medication use, HCRU, and costs were assessed pre- versus postindex.

RESULTS

In total, 3193 patients met the eligibility criteria. From pre- to postindex, mean (SD) per patient per month (PPPM) number of migraine-related acute medication and preventive medication claims (excluding fremanezumab), respectively, decreased from 0.97 (0.90) to 0.86 (0.87) (P < 0.001) and 0.94 (0.74) to 0.81 (0.75) (P < 0.001). Migraine-related outpatient and neurologist office visits, emergency department visits, and other outpatient services PPPM decreased pre- versus postindex (P < 0.001 for all), resulting in a reduction in mean (SD) total health care costs PPPM from US$541 (US$858) to US$490 (US$974) (P = 0.003). Patients showed high adherence and persistence rates, with mean (SD) proportion of days covered of 0.71 (0.29), medication possession ratio of 0.74 (0.31), and persistence duration of 160.3 (33.2) days 6 months postindex.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with certain migraine comorbidities, potential AMO, and/or UPMPR in a real-world setting had reduced migraine-related medication use, HCRU, and costs following initiation of fremanezumab. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Can calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies ameliorate writer's cramp and migraine?

Recently, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become available as a prophylactic treatment for migraine and have shown high efficacy and safety in clinical practice. CGRP mAbs have been reported to be effective not only for migraine but also for other comorbidities, such as psychiatric complications in patients with migraine. However, there are no reports examining the effect of CGRP mAbs on dystonia. We treated a patient with comorbid migraine and focal task-specific dystonia (writer's cramp) with a CGRP mAb (erenumab) because of an increase in monthly migraine days despite the addition of migraine prophylaxis. In this patient, erenumab treatment for 3 months led to improvements in symptoms of both focal dystonia and migraine, suggesting a role for CGRP in the pathophysiology of both conditions.

Reframing pain: the power of individual and societal factors to enhance pain treatment

The effectiveness of analgesics can be increased if synergistic behavioural, psychological, and pharmacological interventions are provided within a supportive environment.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in migraine patients: results from a national patient e-survey

Object

This cross-sectional study aims to investigate migraineurs' preferred complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) types and the factors influencing their usage.

Materials and methods

An anonymous e-survey was distributed to Lithuanian Migraine Association members, and social media migraine support communities. The collected data consisted of demographic, migraine-related questions, personal qualities, CAM habits.

Results

470 respondents were analyzed. 95.96% were women with a median age of 37 (IQR 31, 44). The median duration of migraine was 17.5 years (IQR 10, 25) and the median headache severity was rated 8 (IQR 7, 10) out of 10. 68.90% of participants had one or more headache days per week. 71.49% of respondents were triptan users, 27.66% used medical prophylaxis, and 17.87% used monoclonal antibodies. 52.55% of respondents used CAM in the past 12 months. Physical activity (36.17%), dietary changes/fasting (27.02%), relaxation/meditation (26.60%) were the most used CAM types. Reasons for CAM use included dissatisfaction with conventional treatment effectiveness (42.51%), concerns about safety (48.18%) and adverse effects (37.25%). Factors associated with the decision to explore CAM included longer headache duration (p = 0.017, Mann-Whitney U test), frequent sick leaves (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test), current preventive medication use (p = 0.016, chi-square test), positive views on CAM safety/naturality (p = 0.001/ p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test), belief of having a healthy diet (p < 0.001, chi-square test), food-related worries (p = 0.011, Mann-Whitney U test) and Big-five personality trait of openness to experience (p = 0.049, chi-square test). After logistic regression, the frequent need to take sick leaves, having a healthy diet, food-associated fears maintained statistical significance. CAM use was not associated with non-adherence to conventional medicine. 48.99% of CAM consumers disclosed CAM use to their doctors.

Conclusion

CAM is explored by a significant proportion of migraineurs, less than half communicate this to their doctors. In our sample, physical activity, dietary changes, and relaxation techniques were the most common. Many patients opted for CAM due to previously experienced side effects/ineffectiveness of conventional migraine treatment or the fear of potential harm from standard medication. Individual factors, such as openness of personality can be an important contributing factor.

Cardiovascular safety of dihydroergotamine mesylate delivered by precision olfactory delivery (INP104) for the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety of dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) administered by precision olfactory delivery (INP104) from two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND

Although the absolute risk is low, migraine is associated with an increased risk of CV events. DHE is a highly effective acute treatment for migraine, but due to its theoretical risk of promoting arterial vasoconstriction, DHE is contraindicated in patients with CV disease or an unfavorable risk factor profile. The INP104 is a novel drug-device combination product approved for acute treatment of migraine that delivers DHE to the upper nasal space using precision olfactory delivery (POD®).

METHODS

The STOP 101 was a Phase 1 open-label study that assessed the safety, tolerability, and bioavailability of INP104 1.45 mg, intravenous DHE 1.0 mg, and MIGRANAL (nasal DHE) 2.0 mg in healthy participants. The STOP 301 was a pivotal Phase 3, open-label study that assessed the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of INP104 1.45 mg over 24 and 52 weeks in patients with migraine. In both studies, active or a history of CV disease, as well as significant CV risk factors, were exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In STOP 101, 36 participants received one or more doses of investigational product. Treatment with intravenous DHE, but not INP104 or nasal DHE, resulted in clinically relevant changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (BP; 11.4 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-15.0) and diastolic BP (13.3 mmHg, 95% CI 9.4-17.1) at 5 min post-dose, persisting up to 30 min post-dose for systolic BP (6.3 mmHg; 95% CI 3.0-9.5) and diastolic BP (7.9 mmHg, 95% CI 3.9-11.9). None of the treatments produced any clinically meaningful electrocardiogram (ECG) changes. In STOP 301, 354 patients received one or more doses of INP104. Over 24 weeks, five patients (1.4%) experienced a non-serious, vascular treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Minimal changes were observed for BP and ECG parameters over 24 or 52 weeks. Off-protocol concomitant use of triptans and other ergot derivatives did not result in any TEAEs.

CONCLUSION

In two separate studies, INP104 demonstrated a favorable CV safety profile when used in a study population without CV-related contraindications.

Neuroimmunological effects of omega-3 fatty acids on migraine: a review

Migraine is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, imposing enormous clinical and economic burdens on individuals and societies. Current treatments exhibit limited efficacy and acceptability, highlighting the need for more effective and safety prophylactic approaches, including the use of nutraceuticals for migraine treatment. Migraine involves interactions within the central and peripheral nervous systems, with significant activation and sensitization of the trigeminovascular system (TVS) in pain generation and transmission. The condition is influenced by genetic predispositions and environmental factors, leading to altered sensory processing. The neuroinflammatory response is increasingly recognized as a key event underpinning the pathophysiology of migraine, involving a complex neuro-glio-vascular interplay. This interplay is partially mediated by neuropeptides such as calcitonin gene receptor peptide (CGRP), pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP) and/or cortical spreading depression (CSD) and involves oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor family pyrin domain containing-3 (NLRP3) inflammasome formation, activated microglia, and reactive astrocytes. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), crucial for the nervous system, mediate various physiological functions. Omega-3 PUFAs offer cardiovascular, neurological, and psychiatric benefits due to their potent anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive, antioxidant, and neuromodulatory properties, which modulate neuroinflammation, neurogenic inflammation, pain transmission, enhance mitochondrial stability, and mood regulation. Moreover, specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs), a class of PUFA-derived lipid mediators, regulate pro-inflammatory and resolution pathways, playing significant anti-inflammatory and neurological roles, which in turn may be beneficial in alleviating the symptomatology of migraine. Omega-3 PUFAs impact various neurobiological pathways and have demonstrated a lack of major adverse events, underscoring their multifaceted approach and safety in migraine management. Although not all omega-3 PUFAs trials have shown beneficial in reducing the symptomatology of migraine, further research is needed to fully establish their clinical efficacy and understand the precise molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of omega-3 PUFAs and PUFA-derived lipid mediators, SPMs on migraine pathophysiology and progression. This review highlights their potential in modulating brain functions, such as neuroimmunological effects, and suggests their promise as candidates for effective migraine prophylaxis.

Nonspecific oral medications versus anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs).

BACKGROUND

Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs.

METHODS

Databases were searched for class I or II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGRP mAbs or NOEPs versus placebo for migraine prevention in adults. The primary outcome measure was monthly migraine days (MMD) or moderate to severe headache days.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs for CGRP mAbs, 5 RCTs for topiramate, and 3 RCTs for divalproex were included in the meta-analysis. There was high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, with weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% confidence interval) of -1.64 (-1.99 to -1.28) MMD, which is compatible with small effect size (Cohen's d -0.25 [-0.34 to -0.16]). Certainty of evidence that topiramate or divalproex is more effective than placebo was very low and low, respectively (WMD -1.45 [-1.52 to -1.38] and -1.65 [-2.30 to -1.00], respectively; Cohen's d -1.25 [-2.47 to -0.03] and -0.48 [-0.67 to -0.29], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that information size was adequate and that CGRP mAbs had clear benefit versus placebo. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CGRP mAbs and topiramate (WMD -0.19 [-0.56 to 0.17]) or divalproex (0.01 [-0.73 to 0.75]). No significant difference was seen between topiramate or divalproex (0.21 [-0.45 to 0.86]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, but the effect size is small. When feasible, CGRP mAbs may be prescribed as first-line preventives; topiramate or divalproex could be as effective but are less well tolerated. The findings of this study support the recently published 2024 position of the American Headache Society on the use of CGRP mAbs as the first-line treatment.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas.

METHODS

Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians.

RESULTS

The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine.

BACKGROUND

Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096).

RESULTS

A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the global population. As traditional pharmacological approaches often fall short in alleviating symptoms, the development of innovative therapies has garnered significant interest. This text aims to summarize the current pharmacological options for managing migraine and to explore the potential impact of novel therapies.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional treatments, emerging therapies, and novel compounds in clinical development, including therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic therapies, and other options. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

Several novel treatment options for migraine have become available in recent years. Emerging pharmacological therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic interventions, and other emerging treatment modalities, may prove to be valuable for the treatment of migraine. Further research, clinical trials, and substantiated evidence are necessary to validate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of these therapeutic options.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update

OBJECTIVE

To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches.

METHODS

Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare.

CONCLUSION

The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Rizatriptan benzoate-loaded dissolving microneedle patch for management of acute migraine therapy

In this study, dissolving microneedles (MNs) using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and poly (1-vinylpyrrolidone-co-vinyl acetate) (P(VP-co-VA)) as matrix materials were developed for transdermal delivery of rizatriptan benzoate (RB) for acute migraine treatment. In-vitro permeation studies were conducted to assess the feasibility of the as-fabricated dissolving MNs to release RB. Drug skin penetration were tested by Franz diffusion cells, showing an increase of the transdermal flux compared to passive diffusion due to the as-fabricated dissolving MNs having a sufficient mechanical strength to penetrate the skin and form microchannels. The pharmacological study in vivo showed that RB-loaded dissolving MNs significantly alleviated migraine-related response by up-regulating the level of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and down-regulating the levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP). In conclusion, the RB-loaded dissolving MNs have advantages of safety, convenience, and high efficacy over conventional administrations, laying a foundation for the transdermal drug delivery system treatment for acute migraine.

Characterizing Cannabis Use and Perceived Benefit in a Tertiary Headache Center Patient Sample

Background and Objectives

Research suggests a potential role for cannabinoids in the etiology and treatment of migraine. However, there is a paucity of research on usage patterns and perceived benefits of cannabis use in clinical headache patient populations.

Methods

Patients from a tertiary headache center completed a 1-time online survey regarding cannabis use patterns and perceived benefits of cannabis-based products in treating migraine symptoms, clinical features, and risk factors (e.g., depression, sleep disturbance). Descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

Data were collected from 1373 patients (response rate 25.4% [1,373/5,400]), with 55.7% reporting cannabis-based product use in the past 3 years and 32.5% indicating current use. The most frequently cited reasons for cannabis-based product use were treating headache (65.8%) and sleep concerns (50.8%). Inhaled products (i.e., smoked/vaped) and edibles were the most commonly reported delivery methods, with THC/CBD (∆9 tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol) blends as the most-cited product composition. A majority of participants reported cannabis-related improvements in migraine headache characteristics (i.e., intensity: 78.1%; duration: 73.4%; frequency: 62.4%), nausea (56.3%), and risk factors (sleep disturbance: 81.2%; anxiety: 71.4%; depression: 57.0%). Over half (58.0%) of the respondents reported only using cannabis products when experiencing a headache, while 42.0% used cannabis most days/daily for prevention. Nearly half (48.9%) of the respondents reported that cannabis use contributed to a reduction in medication amount for headache treatment, and 14.5% reported an elimination of other medications. A minority (20.9%) of participants reported experiencing side effects when using cannabis products for headache, most commonly fatigue/lethargy. For those participants who reported no use of cannabis-based products in the previous 3 years, approximately half indicated not knowing what cannabis product to take or the appropriate dosage.

Discussion

This is the largest study to date to document cannabis product usage patterns and perceived benefits for migraine management in a clinical headache patient sample. A majority of patients surveyed reported using cannabis products for migraine management and cited perceived improvements in migraine characteristics, clinical features, and associated risk factors. The findings warrant experimental trials to confirm the perceived benefits of cannabis products for migraine prevention and treatment.

How do Australian osteopaths manage migraines? Outcomes from a national practice-based research network

BACKGROUND

Individuals who experience migraines often seek out a variety of treatment options including manual or physical therapy. Evidence suggests that manual therapy, including osteopathy, can play a role in the management of migraines. Whilst there is some literature on the role osteopathy therapy plays in migraine management, none describes the treatment approaches used by practitioners.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the demographic, practice and clinical management characteristics of Australian osteopaths who report treating migraine 'often' in clinical practice.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 988 osteopaths from the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION), an Australian practice-based research network. Regression analysis was used to identify demographic, practice and clinical management characteristics of Australian osteopaths who reported 'often' treating migraine patients.

RESULTS

Over 40% of respondents (n = 400) indicated treating patients with migraines 'often'. These osteopaths were less likely to be involved in research and be co-located with a dietician compared to osteopaths who do 'not often' treat migraine. Osteopaths who reported 'often' treating migraine were: five times as likely to treat non-English speaking ethnic groups; 2.5 times as likely to treat chronic pain, temporomandibular joint disorders and hand musculoskeletal complaints; compared to those that do not treat migraines 'often'.

CONCLUSION

Australian osteopaths who treat migraine are five times more likely to treat non-English speaking ethnic groups; twice as likely to treat chronic pain; temporomandibular joint disorders, and hand musculoskeletal complaints. More research is needed to identify the practices and patient outcomes associated with osteopathy care for those experiencing migraines.

CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in Japan: insights from an online survey of physician members of the Japanese headache society

BACKGROUND

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) have greatly changed migraine treatment options. In Japan, although CGRPmAb guidelines (≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) and ≥ 1 previous preventive failure) are well-acknowledged, the actual use of CGRPmAbs and the circumstances of the related headache care are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of Japanese Headache Society members, inquiring about the physicians' experience with CGRPmAbs and how they make decisions related to their use.

RESULTS

Of the 397 respondents, 320 had prescribed CGRPmAbs. The threshold number of previous preventive failures for recommending a CGRPmAb was two for the majority of the respondents (n = 170, 54.5%), followed by one (n = 64, 20.5%). The MMD threshold was ≥ 4 for 71 respondents (22.8%), ≥ 6 for 68 (21.8%), ≥ 8 for 76 (24.4%), and ≥ 10 for 81 (26.0%). The respondents tended to assess treatment efficacy after 3 months (episodic migraine: n = 217, 69.6%, chronic migraine: n = 188, 60.3%). The cost of CGRPmAbs was described by many respondents in two questions: (i) any request for a CGRPmAb (27.7%), and (ii) the most frequently reported reason for responders to discontinue CGRPmAbs (24.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the respondents recommended CGRPmAbs to patients with ≥ 2 preventive failures, followed by ≥ 1. The MMD threshold ranged mostly from ≥ 4 to ≥ 10. The concern for costs was raised as a major limiting factor for prescribing CGRPmAbs.

Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM).

RESULTS

The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

The impact of primary headaches on disability outcomes: a literature review and meta-analysis to inform future iterations of the Global Burden of Disease study

BACKGROUND

The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders.

METHODS

We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium.

RESULTS

A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

Efficacy of migraine prophylaxis treatments for treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171843.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Oral CGRP Antagonists, Atogepant and Rimegepant, for the Preventative Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from a US Societal Perspective Model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, atogepant and rimegepant, were approved in 2021 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM), yet no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atogepant 60 mg and rimegepant 75 mg compared with placebo.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed over a 1-year time horizon from a US societal perspective. Patient cohorts were simulated using baseline and change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) reported in the trials to incorporate responder rates and within patient response into the model. Due to heterogeneity between the trial populations, each medication was compared with its respective trial's placebo group. Direct healthcare resource costs, productivity costs, acute medication costs, and quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The atogepant cohort experienced an incremental increase in healthcare plus productivity costs of $11,978 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $450,000/QALY. The rimegepant cohort experienced an incremental increase of $21,692 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.024 QALYs. This yields an ICER of more than $890,000/QALY when comparing rimegepant with placebo. Cost savings between atogepant and atogepant placebo were greatest with respect to acute medication costs at $735 of savings over 1 year, followed by savings of $135 for healthcare resource utilization and $34 for productivity costs. A similar relationship was seen between rimegepant and rimegepant placebo. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis found that monthly acquisition costs of atogepant and rimegepant had the largest impact on the ICER, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant and rimegepant were both unable to meet generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds < 150,0000/QALY. Additional studies are needed to better guide decision making regarding oral CGRPs' place in therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Real-world effectiveness of erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine

Background

Real-world evidence of erenumab effectiveness in migraine patients in Asia with various comorbidities and multiple previous medication failures is still limited.

Methods

A 6-month single-center cohort study of 45 patients with episodic or chronic migraine (CM) treated with erenumab was conducted. In the cohort, 60.0% were switching from other calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs), and 66.7% had ≥4 prophylaxis failures. The change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline and percentages of responders after treatment were calculated. Weekly migraine days (WMDs) were obtained at baseline and at months 1, 2 and 3 and were compared between weeks 2 and 4.

Results

In total, 36%, 47%, and 63% of patients had a ≥30% response at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The cumulative percentage of patients achieving a ≥30% response over 6 months was 85%. Early responders (average ≥ 30% response at 1-3 months) accounted for 37.8%, 55.6%, and 25.9% of the total, CGRP mAb-naïve, and CGRP mAb-switching groups, respectively. Late responders (average < 30% response at 1-3 months and average ≥ 30% response at 4-6 months) accounted for 46.4%, 37.5%, and 58.8% of nonearly responders in the total, CGRP mAb-naïve, and CGRP mAb-switching groups, respectively. Mild adverse reactions were observed in 5 patients (11.1%). Wearing-off, defined as an increase in the number of WMDs ≥2 between week 2 and week 4, was observed in 2.4-12.5% at months 1-3.

Conclusion

Erenumab was effective in migraine patients. At least 4-6 months may be preferable for efficacy evaluation in patients switching to erenumab from other CGRP mAbs.

Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis

Background

Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature.

Methodology

We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references.

Results

By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions.

Conclusion

Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine.

Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references.

RESULTS

By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions.

CONCLUSION

Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine.

Exploring the link between self-management of migraine and emotional wellbeing: a cross-sectional study of community-dwelling migraine sufferers

BACKGROUND

Globally, an estimated 14% of adults live with migraine disease which impacts their physical, emotional and social wellbeing. To target the disease comprehensively, research recommends a multidisciplinary approach to migraine management. Yet, at present, migraine management primarily centers around pharmaceutical treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which emotional awareness could influence the uptake of self-care behaviours of community-dwelling adults with migraine.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey explored personal experiences with migraine disease and strategies or behaviours to manage migraine attacks. Chi-squared tests were used to investigate differences in ratings of migraine prevention and management strategies between users and non-users of the strategies. Univariable logistic regressions were used to assess the effectiveness of self-care behaviours to manage or prevent migraine attacks.

RESULTS

We surveyed 170 community-dwelling adults with migraine in the United Kingdom, Austria, Germany and the United States. Most (85%) respondents had experienced migraine for over five years, where 42% of attacks usually lasted several days. Whereas we did not differentiate between diagnosis by a neurologist or self-diagnosis, the most common diagnoses in the cohort were migraine without aura (38.9%) and migraine with aura (29%). Staying hydrated was the most popular preventative strategy (87%), 70.2% used prescription medication and 64.9% changed their diet and/or supplements. Almost all ( 92.4%) respondents stated that their mood or emotions could trigger their migraine attacks. Keeping a headache or mood diary was the lowest-rated prevention strategy and was rated as "probably ineffective" or causing "no change" in preventing migraine attacks. Over a third (39.7%) kept track of their physical wellbeing and symptoms. Reasons stated for tracking symptoms included to identify triggers (65.8%), show reports to a healthcare professional (59.6%), understand when they must take medication (48.1%), track improvements (67.3%) or deteriorations (67.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine management is dominated by pharmaceutical management for acute pain attacks and lifestyle changes for managing migraine long-term. Perception of the effectiveness of those techniques is high, whereas perception of interventions that target the emotional or psychological components of chronic pain management (keeping a mood diary, and mental health support) is mixed. There exists a gap between the recommended biopsychosocial approach and the current state of migraine management.

Comparison of Treatment Patterns in Patients with Migraine Initiating Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study

Background

Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are indicated for migraine prevention in the United States. Limited data comparing real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAbs are available.

Objective

To compare the treatment patterns among patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab.

Methods

This retrospective study included adult patients with one or more claims for a self-injectable CGRP mAb (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or erenumab), with continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months pre-index and 6 and 12 months post-index using MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases from May 2017 through March 2021. Propensity-score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), medication-possession ratio (MPR), persistence (≤60-day gap), treatment discontinuation, and switch to a non-index drug. Descriptive X2 and t-test analyses were conducted.

Results

At the 12-month follow-up, matched galcanezumab and fremanezumab cohorts each comprised 2674 patients and the galcanezumab and erenumab cohorts 3503 each. The mean (SD) PDC and MPR were both 0.6 (0.3) across all cohorts. Based on PDC ≥0.80 and MPR ≥0.80, a greater proportion of galcanezumab vs fremanezumab (46.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.053; 46.8% vs 44.3%, p=0.053) and galcanezumab vs erenumab (46.2% vs 44%, p=0.156; 46.7% vs 44.5%, p=0.262), respectively, initiators were adherent. Compared to galcanezumab, fremanezumab (248.0 days vs 236.5 days, p=0.001), and erenumab (247.8 days vs 241.7 days, p=0.061) initiators had lower mean persistence. Galcanezumab initiators were less likely to discontinue treatment than fremanezumab (47.8% vs 51.7%, p=0.005) and erenumab (47.7% vs 50.2%, p=0.040) initiators. Across cohorts, most switchers initiated onabotulinum toxin A as subsequent treatment. Similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts.

Conclusion

Patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab showed higher persistence and lower treatment discontinuation rates than those initiating either fremanezumab or erenumab.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: β-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020.

METHODS

We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Headaches treatment with EMG biofeedback: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper was to present an up-to-date evaluation of the efficacy of EMG-biofeedback (EMG-BFB) for primary headaches and to address possible mediators of outcome.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Pedro databases were searched from inception to May 1, 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies using an EMG-BFB to treat headache have been included in this systematic review. The current systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022312827). Methodological quality was assessed through the Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB 2). The effect sizes and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effect models on frequency, intensity, and duration variables. Egger regression and the Begg-Mazumdar rank correlation test were used for publication bias.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 3059 articles were identified through the database searches. 29 articles, involving 1342 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review; of them, 4 were included in the meta-analysis. Ten studies reported a significant improvement in the EMG-BFB group with respect to the control group. Meta-analyses show a reduction in the intensity of attacks in patients subjected to EMG-BFB (ES 0.21 [(95% CI=-0.02; 0.44), P value=0.07] based on 293 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

EMG-BFB represents a non-pharmacological approach to headache treatment as shown via qualitative synthesis, despite not impressive results, this technique can be particularly useful in paediatric or in adult patients who cannot undergo drug therapies. Quantitative synthesis revealed a promising effect in the intensity of headaches attacks. Moreover, no significant effect was found about the effectiveness of EMG-BFB in the reduction of frequency and durations of headache attacks. Future studies with new multimodal technologic assessment and following RCT guidelines can unmask the potentiality of EMG-BFB in the treatment of headache.

Evaluation and treatment approaches for neurological post-acute sequelae of COVID-19: A consensus statement and scoping review from the global COVID-19 neuro research coalition

Post-acute neurological sequelae of COVID-19 affect millions of people worldwide, yet little data is available to guide treatment strategies for the most common symptoms. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed/Medline from 1/1/2020-4/1/2023 to identify studies addressing diagnosis and treatment of the most common post-acute neurological sequelae of COVID-19 including: cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, headache, dizziness/lightheadedness, fatigue, weakness, numbness/pain, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Utilizing the available literature and international disease-specific society guidelines, we constructed symptom-based differential diagnoses, evaluation and management paradigms. This pragmatic, evidence-based consensus document may serve as a guide for a holistic approach to post-COVID neurological care and will complement future clinical trials by outlining best practices in the evaluation and treatment of post-acute neurological signs/symptoms.

Sustained response of galcanezumab in migraine prevention: Patient-level data from a post hoc analysis in patients with episodic or chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, at population and individual patient levels, the sustained response of reduction in migraine headache days in patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of double-blind galcanezumab studies in patients with migraine: two 6-month episodic migraine (EM; EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2), one 3-month chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN), and one 3-month treatment-resistant migraine (CONQUER). Patients received monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 120 mg (after 240 mg initial loading dose), galcanezumab 240 mg, or placebo. In the EM and CM studies, the proportions of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% (EM only) reduction from baseline in average monthly migraine headache days from Months 1 to 3 and Months 4 to 6 were evaluated. A mean monthly response rate was estimated. The sustained effect was defined as maintaining ≥50% response for ≥3 consecutive months in the patient-level data for EM and CM.

RESULTS

A total of 3348 patients with EM or CM from the EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2 (placebo, n = 894, galcanezumab, n = 879), REGAIN (placebo, n = 558, galcanezumab, n = 555), and CONQUER (EM: placebo, n = 132, galcanezumab, n = 137; CM: placebo, n = 98, galcanezumab, n = 95) studies were included. Patients were predominantly female, White, and had monthly migraine headache day averages ranging from 9.1 to 9.5 days (EM) and 18.1 to 19.6 days (CM). In patients with EM and CM, 19.0% and 22.6% of galcanezumab-treated patients, respectively, had significantly higher maintenance of ≥50% response for all months in the double-blind period compared to 8.0% and 1.5% of placebo-treated patients. The odds ratios (OR) of achieving clinical response for EM and CM were double with galcanezumab (OR = 3.0 [95% CI 1.8, 4.8] and OR = 6.3 [95% CI 1.7, 22.7], respectively). At the individual patient level, of patients who had ≥75% response at Month 3 in the galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg dose groups and placebo group, 39.9% (55/138) and 43.0% (61/142), respectively, of galcanezumab-treated patients maintained ≥75% response during Months 4-6 compared to 32.7% (51/156) with placebo.

CONCLUSION

More galcanezumab-treated patients achieved ≥50% response within the first 3 months of treatment compared to placebo; responses were sustained during Months 4-6. The odds of achieving ≥50% response were double with galcanezumab.

A Comprehensive Review of the Mechanism, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ubrogepant in the Treatment of Migraine

Ubrogepant is an innovative medication designed for the acute treatment of migraine, a debilitating neurological condition that profoundly impairs quality of life, productivity, and social interactions. This comprehensive review assesses the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and mechanism of action of ubrogepant through a rigorous methodology, including an in-depth literature review from reputable databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. Classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, ubrogepant has emerged as a potential revolutionary medication for migraine treatment. CGRP is a peptide integral to migraine pathophysiology, and its blockade has demonstrated great therapeutic potential. Unlike triptans, known for their cardiovascular risks, ubrogepant lacks vasoconstrictive properties, making it a safer alternative for a broader patient population. Ubrogepant offers significant potential for pain relief, symptom reduction, and restoration of normal function during a migraine attack, and it outperforms placebo in terms of efficacy. It also presents favorable safety, with generally mild adverse drug events (ADEs), such as nausea, dizziness, and somnolence, similar to placebo effects. Consistent results from clinical trials confirm its tolerability, with minor ADEs and no safety alerts for the tested doses, indicating that ubrogepant is a safe and well-tolerated option for migraine treatment. As an effective oral medication, ubrogepant could be an alternative to traditional acute migraine treatments. Its benefits include a unique mechanism of action, rapid onset, and favorable safety profile. However, specific contraindications, such as hypersensitivity, severe hepatic impairment, concurrent use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and uncontrolled hypertension, require caution or avoidance of ubrogepant. Despite these limitations, ubrogepant signals a promising new direction in migraine therapeutics.

Evaluating therapeutic benefits of ubrogepant via latent class models: A post hoc exploratory analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an alternative method of defining acute treatment success in migraine by combining multiple indicators into a single dichotomous measure of success.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is characterized by a symptom complex; combining these features as a single endpoint may improve the measurement of treatment effects and better predict patient satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

We used a confirmatory latent class model (LCM) with two latent classes interpreted as treatment success and treatment failure. Pooled data for placebo and ubrogepant 50 mg from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials and data for ubrogepant 100 mg from ACHIEVE I were used. LCM inputs included pre-dose and 2-h post-dose measures of pain severity (0-3), the presence/absence of associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia [0 or 1]), and functional disability (0-3). All definitions were validated against satisfaction with study medication (SWSM) at 24 h post-dose; results were compared with 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis included 2247 participants. At 2 h post-dose in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, 53.2% (472/887) and 54.9% (246/448) of participants, respectively, were classified as achieving treatment success using the LCM-based approach, compared to 39.0% (356/912) of participants in the placebo group. The results for treatment success using the 2hPF endpoint were 20.7% (184/887) and 21.5% (96/447) in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, respectively, compared to 12.7% (116/912) for placebo. Using 24-h SWSM as an external validator, the LCM approach sensitivity and correct classification rates were higher than for 2hPF.

CONCLUSION

The LCM approach led to higher rates of treatment success and greater separation between ubrogepant and placebo and was a more sensitive predictor of treatment satisfaction than the regulatory endpoint of 2hPF.

Non-Pharmacological Treatment of Primary Headaches-A Focused Review

Headache disorders are a significant global health burden, leading to reduced quality of life. While vast pharmacological treatments are available, they may be associated with adverse effects or inadequate efficacy for some patients, therefore there is a need for exploring alternate treatment strategies. This review gives a brief explanation and evaluation of some established and emerging non-pharmacological approaches for headache management, focusing on nutraceuticals and diet, acupuncture, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), biofeedback, relaxation techniques, autogenic training, and neuromodulation. Special consideration is given to psychological interventions as they increase patient self-efficacy and provide strategies for managing chronic pain. Future research should focus on optimizing these therapies, identifying patient-specific factors influencing their effectiveness, and integrating them into holistic headache management strategies.

Burden of Episodic Migraine, Chronic Migraine, and Medication Overuse Headache in Alberta

OBJECTIVE

To describe demographic and clinical characteristics, healthcare resource use, costs, and treatment patterns in three migraine cohorts.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study using administrative data examined patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM) (without medication overuse headache [MOH]), and medication overuse headache in Alberta, Canada. Migraine patients were identified between 2012 and 2018 based on ≥ 1 diagnostic codes or triptan prescription. Patients with CM were defined using parameter estimates of a logistic regression model, and MOH was defined as patients with an average of ≥ 15 supply days covered of acute medications. EM was defined as patients without CM or MOH. Study outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Patients with EM (n = 144,574), CM (n = 27,283), and MOH (n = 11,485) were included. Higher rates of healthcare use and costs were observed for CM (mean [SD] all-cause cost: ($12,693 [40,664]) and MOH ($16,611.5 [$38,748]) versus episodic migraine ($4,251 [$40,637]). Across all cohorts, opioids were the most dispensed acute medication (range across cohorts: 31.7%-89.8%), while antidepressants and anticonvulsants were the most dispensed preventive medication. Preventative medication classes were used by a minority of patients in each cohort, except anticonvulsants, where 50% of medication overuse patients had a dispensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CM and MOH have a greater burden of illness compared to patients with EM. The overutilization of acute medication, particularly opioids, and the underutilization of preventive medications highlight an unmet need to more effectively manage migraine.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Improving to Four or Fewer Monthly Headache Days Per Month Provides a Clinically Meaningful Therapeutic Target for Patients with Chronic Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Treatment target goals for patients receiving preventive migraine treatment are complicated to assess and not achieved by most patients. A headache "number" could establish an understandable treatment target goal for patients with chronic migraine (CM). This study investigates the clinical impact of reduced headache frequency to ≤ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) as a treatment-related migraine prevention target goal.

METHODS

All treatment arms were pooled for analysis from the PROMISE-2 trial evaluating eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of CM. Patients (N = 1072) received eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo. Data for the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and acute medication use days were combined for all post-baseline assessments and analyzed by MHD frequency (≤ 4, 5-9, 10-15, > 15) in the 4 weeks preceding assessment.

RESULTS

Based on pooled data, the percentage of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs associated with "very much improved" PGIC was 40.9% (515/1258) versus 22.9% (324/1415), 10.4% (158/1517), and 3.2% (62/1936) of patient-months with 5-9, 10-15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively. Rates of patient-months with ≥ 10 days of acute medication use were 1.9% (21/1111, ≤ 4 MHDs), 4.9% (63/1267, 5-9 MHDs), 49.5% (670/1351, 10-15 MHDs), and 74.1% (1232/1662, > 15 MHDs). Of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs, 37.1% (308/830) were associated with "little to none" HIT-6 impairment versus 19.9% (187/940), 10.1% (101/999), and 3.7% (49/1311) of patient-months with 5-9, 10-15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Participants improving to ≤ 4 MHDs reported less acute medication use and improved patient-reported outcomes, suggesting that 4 MHDs may be a useful patient-centric treatment target when treating CM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02974153) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02974153 ).

Approach to headache disorders and the management of migraine: consensus guidelines from the Headache Society of Singapore, first edition (2023)

Headache disorders, particularly migraine, are one of the most common and disabling neurological disorders. There is a need for high-quality, accessible care for patients with headache disorders across all levels of the healthcare system in Singapore. The role of the Headache Society of Singapore is to increase awareness and advance the understanding of these disorders and to advocate for the needs of affected patients. In this first edition of local consensus guidelines, we focus on treatment approaches for headaches and provide consensus recommendations for the management of migraine in adults. The recommendations in these guidelines can be used as a practical tool in routine clinical practice by primary care physicians, neurologists and other healthcare professionals who have a common interest in headache disorders.

The durable effect of acupuncture for episodic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Migraine is a common and recurrent type of headache. Avoiding trigger factors is not often successful in reducing headache frequency, duration, and severity. Prophylactic medications may be effective but are limited by strict indications and daily medication intake. This review aimed to investigate the durable effect of acupuncture on episodic migraine.

Methods

Seven databases including Medline, Embase, PubMed, etc., were searched for English and Chinese literature from their inception to 23 November 2022. Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved studies and extracted the data. Primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, and VAS score at 3 months post-treatment. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted where applicable.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in this review. Acupuncture reduced the number of migraine attacks (MD -0.68; 95% CI -0.93, -0.43; p < 0.001), the number of days with migraine (MD -0.86; 95% CI -1.18, -0.55; p < 0.001), and VAS score (MD -1.01; 95% CI -1.30, -0.72; p < 0.001) to a greater degree than sham acupuncture at 3 months after treatment. Significant differences in reducing pain intensity of migraine in favor of acupuncture compared with waitlist (MD -1.84; 95% CI -2.31, -1.37; p < 0.001) or flunarizine (MD -2.00; 95% CI -2.35, -1.65; p < 0.001) at 3 months after treatment were found, and the differences reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Conclusion

This review found that the durable effect of acupuncture for episodic migraine lasted at least 3 months after treatment. More high-quality studies with longer follow-up periods in the future are needed to confirm the findings.

Temporal analysis of remote electric neuromodulation for the prevention of migraine

Aim: To evaluate the onset, magnitude and persistence of efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) compared with placebo for the preventive treatment of migraine. Materials & methods: Analysis was conducted on data from a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy of REN for the prevention of migraine. The number of monthly migraine days (MMD) per group was calculated in 2-week intervals and compared between the groups. Results: Differences between the active (N = 95) and placebo (N = 84) groups reached significance at 2 weeks: therapeutic gain 0.84 MMD; p = 0.036. 4 weeks gain 1.59 MMD; p = 0.025, 6 weeks gain 2.27 MMD; p < 0.001, 8 weeks gain 2.68 MMD; p < 0.001. Conclusion: REN provides rapid and consistent efficacy in preventive treatment of migraine.

Migraine and heart: A reality check

Migraine is a common neurological disorder affecting 12% of the global population. The common risk factors are adolescent age, genetics, and female sex, and are triggered by hormonal fluctuations, emotional stress, sensory overload, weather changes, alcohol consumption, fasting, cheese, chocolate, smoked fish, yeast extract, cured meats, artificial sweeteners, food preservatives containing nitrates and nitrites, and sleep disturbances. Migraine with aura is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, such as myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and cardiac arrhythmias, and has recently been added to the QRISK3 cardiovascular disease prediction score. Population-based cohort studies have shown a significant association of migraine with aura and cardiac arrhythmias, most importantly atrial fibrillation. Patients suffering from migraine with aura are at an increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias; thus, it is essential to screen these patients for undiagnosed cardiovascular disorders.

Real-world experience with monthly and quarterly dosing of fremanezumab for the treatment of patients with migraine in Japan

Background

The effectiveness of fremanezumab in treating migraine has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. However, real-world study results are still limited.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, observational study that included patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) who received fremanezumab monthly or quarterly over 6-month periods. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) and responder achievement after treatment with fremanezumab. The secondary aim was to characterize the predictors of responder at 6 months. We also evaluated the effectiveness of fremanezumab in the patients who switched from other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, and compared the effectiveness of fremanezumab between the monthly and quarterly dosing groups. One hundred twenty-seven patients with migraine (age, 45.2 ± 12.6 years; 96 women) who received at least one dose of fremanezumab with ≥3 months of follow-up were included. The number of MMD was assessed by headache diary.

Results

The changes in MMD from baseline at 1, 3, and 6 months were -6.1 ± 4.7, -7.7 ± 4.4, and - 8.5 ± 4.5 days in the total cohort, respectively (p < 0.001). The ≥50%, ≥ 75 and 100% responder rates at 6 months were 67.6, 22.5, and 5.4% in the total cohort, 90.4, 36.5, and 9.6% in the EM group, and 52.2, 14.9, and 1.5% in the CM group, respectively. Fremanezumab was also effective in 35 patients who switched from other CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Quarterly and monthly fremanezumab doses were equally effective in MMD reduction in the EM and CM groups. In the CM group, 65.1% experienced remission to EM after 6 months. Adverse reactions were mild and occurred in 9.5% of total patients. An at least ≥50% reduction in MMD from months 1 to 3 better predicted a ≥ 50% reduction in MMD at 6 months with 90.5% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In our real-world study, quarterly and monthly fremanezumab dosing showed both favorable effectiveness and tolerability in patients with migraine.