A Randomized Phase 2 Study of Erenumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine in Japanese Adults

Updated Canadian Headache Society Migraine Prevention Guideline with Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We have updated the migraine prevention guideline of the Canadian Headache Society from 2012, as there are new therapies available, and additionally, we have provided guidelines for the prevention of chronic migraine, which was not addressed in the previous iteration.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review to identify new studies since the last guideline. For studies identified, we performed data extraction and subsequent meta-analyses where possible. We composed a summary of the evidence found and undertook a modified Delphi recommendation process. We provide recommendations for treatments identified and additionally expert guidance on the use of the treatments available in important clinical situations.

RESULTS

We identified 61 studies that were included in this evidence update and identified 16 therapies we focused on. The anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) agents were approved by Health Canada between 2018 and 2024 and provide additional options for episodic and chronic migraine prevention. We also summarize evidence for the use of propranolol, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA in addition to anti-CGRP agents as treatments for chronic migraine. We have downgraded topiramate to a weak recommendation for use and gabapentin to a weak recommendation against its use in episodic migraine. We have weakly recommended the use of memantine, levetiracetam, enalapril and melatonin in episodic migraine.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence synthesis, we provide updated recommendations for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine utilizing treatments available in Canada. We additionally provided expert guidance on their use in clinical situations.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder. Several drugs targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), such as erenumab (an anti-CGRP receptor mAb), have been developed recently. However, the real-world effects of erenumab are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of erenumab for reducing migraine intensity and frequency in the real world.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to December 2023. Studies estimating the real-world effect of erenumab on monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), headache impact test (HIT-6), number of days in medication (NDM), acute monthly intake (AMI), pain intensity (PI) and safety outcomes were included. Meta-analyses of proportions or mean differences were performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. At 3-months, the effect was -7.18 days for MMD, -6.89 days for MHD, -6.97 for HIT-6, -6.22 days for NDM, -15.75 for AMI, and -1.71 for PI. Generally, the effect at 6- and 12-months increased slightly and gradually. The MMD/MHD response rates revealed that approximately one-third of patients exhibited a response greater than 30%, while one-sixth demonstrated a response exceeding 50%. Additionally, 3-4% of patients achieved a response rate of 100%. Adverse event rates were 0.34 and 0.43 at 6- and 12-months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study provides strong evidence of the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in the real world; to our knowledge, this is the first real-world meta-analysis specific to erenumab. Erenumab represents a solid therapeutic option for physicians.

Reporting Quality and Risk of Bias Analysis of Published RCTs Assessing Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Objective: Phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are vulnerable to many types of bias beyond randomization. Insights into the reporting quality of RCTs involving migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide system (anti-CGRP MAbs) are currently lacking. Our aim was to analyze the reporting quality of phase II/III RCTs involving migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the PubMed and EMBASE databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, for relevant RCTs in either episodic or chronic migraine prevention. Additionally, an adapted version of the 2010 CONSORT statement checklist was utilized. The ROBvis online tool was used to document the risk of bias. Results: From the initially identified 179 articles, we finally found 31 RCTs that were eligible for evaluation. The average CONSORT compliance was 88.7% (69.7-100%), while 93.5% (N = 29) of the articles had a compliance greater than 75%. Twenty-eight CONSORT items were reported in more than 75% of the articles. The average compliance of the analyzed RCTs was 93.9% for Galcanezumab, 91.3% for Fremanezumab, followed by 85.4% for Erenumab and Eptinezumab studies. Implementation of the ROB2 tool showed some concerning "missing information" arising from the inadequate reporting. Specifically, 50% of the studies (N = 16) were categorized as having inadequate information regarding the randomization process. Conclusions: Adequate reporting quality was disclosed in the evaluated RCTs with anti-CGRP MAbs in migraine prevention. However, some methodological issues need to be highlighted to be addressed in future studies assessing the efficacy of new molecules targeting CGRP or other candidate pathways implicated in migraine pathophysiology.

Characteristics associated with response to subcutaneously administered anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody medications in a real-world community cohort of persons living with migraine: A retrospective clinical and genetic study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate response to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) migraine preventives in a real-world community cohort of persons living with migraine and to identify clinical and genetic characteristics associated with efficacious response.

BACKGROUND

Erenumab-aooeb, fremanezumab-vrfm, and galcanezumab-gnlm target CGRP or its receptor; however, many patients are non-responsive.

METHODS

In this retrospective clinical and genetic study, we identified 1077 adult patients who satisfied the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine without aura, migraine with aura, or chronic migraine and who were prescribed an anti-CGRP migraine preventive between May 2018 and May 2021. Screening of 558 patients identified 289 with data at baseline and first follow-up visits; data were available for 161 patients at a second follow-up visit. The primary outcome was migraine days per month (MDM). In 198 genotyped patients, we evaluated associations between responders (i.e., patients with ≥50% reduction in MDM at follow-up) and genes involved in CGRP signaling or pharmacological response, and genetic and polygenic risk scores.

RESULTS

The median time to first follow-up was 4.4 (0.9-22) months after preventive start. At the second follow-up, 5.7 (0.9-13) months later, 145 patients had continued on the same preventive. Preventives had strong, persistent effects in reducing MDM in responders (follow-up 1: η2  = 0.26, follow-up 2: η2  = 0.22). At the first but not second follow-up: galcanezumab had a larger effect than erenumab, while no difference was seen at either follow-up between galcanezumab and fremanezumab or fremanezumab and erenumab. The decrease in MDM at follow-up was generally proportional to baseline MDM, larger in females, and increased with months on medication. At the first follow-up only, patients with prior hospitalization for migraine or who had not responded to more preventive regimens had a smaller decrease in MDM. Reasons for stopping or switching a preventive varied between medications and were often related to cost and insurance coverage. At both follow-ups, patient tolerance (1: 92.2% [262/284]; 2: 95.2% [141/145]) and continued use (1: 77.5% [224/289]; 2: 80.6% [116/145]) were high and similar across preventives. Response consistency (always non-responders: 31.7% [46/145]; always responders: 56.5% [82/145], and one-time only responders: 11.7% [17/145]) was also similar across preventives. Non-responder status had nominally significant associations with rs12615320-G in RAMP1 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.7 [1.5, 14.7]), and rs4680-A in COMT (0.6[0.4, 0.9]). Non-responders had a lower mean genetic risk score than responders (1.0 vs. 1.1; t(df) = -1.75(174.84), p = 0.041), and the fraction of responders increased with genetic and polygenic risk score percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world setting, anti-CGRP preventives reduced MDM persistently and had similar and large effect sizes on MDM reduction; however, clinical and genetic factors influenced response.

Efficacy of Erenumab for Migraine Prevention in Japanese Patients with Episodic and Chronic Migraine: Results of a Post-Hoc Pooled Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is approved in Japan for the prevention of adult migraine. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of erenumab in Japanese patients with low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) versus those with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

A pooled analysis of data from the 24-week double-blind treatment phases (DBTPs) of phase 2 and 3 studies evaluated the efficacy of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg in Japanese patients. Patients were categorized into subgroups by monthly migraine days (MMD): LFEM and HFEM/CM. The main efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD), and six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores.

RESULTS

Patients with migraine (n = 532) were included in the analysis (LFEM, n = 215; HFEM, n = 215; CM, n = 102). Overall, mean age was 44 years, 86.5% were female, and 63.3-88.2% had used or were taking migraine preventive treatment at baseline. Throughout the DBTP, the placebo-adjusted mean change from baseline in MMD, MSMD, and HIT-6 scores with erenumab was similar across LFEM and HFEM/CM subgroups. The proportion of patients achieving at least 50% or 75% reduction from baseline in MMD and MSMD was similar across migraine frequency groups. Reduction in MMD moderately correlated with improvement in HIT-6 scores in the LFEM and HFEM/CM groups. Furthermore, the proportion of patients converting from HFEM/CM to LFEM during the DBTP was higher in the erenumab group than in the placebo.

CONCLUSION

In Japanese patients with different migraine frequencies, erenumab treatment resulted in significant improvements in MMD, MSMD, and headache impact. This pooled analysis of data from phase 2 and 3 studies increases confidence that erenumab is efficacious in patients with high MMD, which is associated with increased disability.

Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP in migraine prevention. GRADE tables elaborated by the ad hoc working group of the International Headache Society

OBJECTIVES

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tables were created using a standardized and independent assessment of the efficacy and side effects of treatments with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or the CGRP receptor for the prevention of migraine. We hope to provide support for author groups writing national or regional treatment or management guidelines for migraine prevention.

METHODS

We formulated patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) questions for the efficacy and safety of mAb against CGRP or the CGRP-receptor for the prevention of migraine attacks. We performed a systematic literature research for randomized studies with eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab and a pooled analysis was done, using RevMan 5.4 software. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratio, and for continuous outcomes we used the mean difference to compare and summarize the evidence between groups. The evidence across studies, for each outcome, except serious adverse events, was assessed using GRADE evidence tables. Additionally, we report the serious adverse effects in the tables of the characteristics of the studies.

RESULTS

All mAb are superior to placebo for the reduction in monthly migraine days (days in which a headache consistent with migraine occurred) in participants with episodic and chronic migraine. There are no major differences between the mAb.

CONCLUSIONS

The GRADE evidence summary tables provided will support author groups to write treatment guidelines for the prevention of migraine with mAb.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Five Anti-calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Agents for Migraine Prevention: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) agents are some of the newest preventive medications for migraine. There is limited literature comparing the efficacy of the most recent CGRP antagonist, atogepant, to CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention. In this network meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety of migraine treatments including different doses of atogepant and CGRP monoclonal antibodies were evaluated to provide a reference for future clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified all randomized controlled trials published through May 2022 and including patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine and treated with erenumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, galcanezumab, atogepant, or placebo. The primary outcomes were the reduction of monthly migraine days, 50% response rate, and the number of adverse events (AEs). The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

In this study, 24 articles were considered for analysis. Regarding efficacy, all interventions were superior to placebo with a statistically significant difference. The most effective intervention was monthly fremanezumab 225 mg in change from baseline of migraine days (standard mean difference = -0.49, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.37) and 50% response rate (risk ratio = 2.98, 95% CI: 2.16,4.10), while the optimal choice for reducing acute medication days was monthly erenumab 140 mg (standard mean difference = -0.68, 95% CI: -0.79, -0.58). In terms of AEs, all therapies and placebo did not achieve statistical significance except for monthly galcanezumab 240 mg and quarterly fremanezumab 675 mg. There was no significant difference in discontinuation due to AEs between interventions and placebo.

DISCUSSION

All anti-CGRP agents were more effective than placebo in migraine prevention. Overall, monthly fremanezumab 225 mg, monthly erenumab 140 mg, and daily atogepant 60 mg were effective interventions with fewer side effects.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in Japanese patients with episodic and chronic migraine: results from a 28-week open-label treatment period of a randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the 1-year efficacy and safety of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg following a 24-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP) of a phase III randomised study of Japanese patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

DESIGN

Multicentre open-label study.

SETTING

A total of 41 centres in Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients completing the DBTP continued into the 28-week open-label treatment period (OLTP). 254 of 261 (97.3%) randomised patients continued into the OLTP; 244 (93.5%) completed treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Once-monthly subcutaneous erenumab 70 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) reported via patient eDiary; proportion of ≥50% and ≥75% responders in MMD reduction from baseline; incidence and exposure-adjusted incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

At week 24 of the DBTP, the mean (SE) change from baseline in MMD for the erenumab group was -3.8 (0.4) days (EM, -3.0 (0.4); CM, -5.2 (0.8)); in MSMD, -2.6 (0.4) days (EM, -2.1 (0.4); CM, -3.4 (0.7)). At the end of the OLTP (52 weeks postbaseline), the mean (SE) change from baseline in MMD was -4.7 (0.3) days (EM, -3.4 (0.3); CM, -6.9 (0.6)); in MSMD, -3.3 (0.3) days (EM, -2.4 (0.3); CM, -4.6 (0.5)). The proportion of ≥50% responders for MMD reduction in the erenumab group was 34.1% at week 24; 44.4% at week 52. The exposure-adjusted incidence of TEAEs was 219.7 per 100 patient-years during the OLTP (DBTP, 251.0 for the erenumab group). The most common TEAEs during the OLTP were nasopharyngitis, constipation and influenza. No new safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab treatment was associated with reduced migraine frequency in Japanese patients with EM or CM for up to 1 year. Overall safety results from the OLTP were consistent with DBTP results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03812224.

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group".

RESULTS

Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as "good" quality and 13 studies were graded as "fair".

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review

Migraine is considered one of the most disabling diseases. Currently, there are few studies on clinical migraine treatment based on sex-related differences, despite the important role of sex in migraine. Our aim was to evaluate gender bias in published clinical trials on monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab). We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published before December 2021. The search identified 760 articles, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all the patients included in these trials, 85.1% were women. Only one study had female lead authors. Two of the 25 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. None of the articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. The proportion of men recruited in trials is scarce and more studies are needed to guarantee the safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies used in male migraine. As observed in our study, despite the high number of women recruited, only 2 studies analysed the results separately by sex. Thus, a potential risk of gender bias was found in these clinical trials.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.

CONCLUSION

Placebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.

Erenumab efficacy in migraine headache prophylaxis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to show the efficiency of Erenumab in the preventive therapy of episodic and chronic migraine, which is still under research.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic neurovascular disorder that causes disability and a social burden. There are various medications used for migraine prevention regimens, most of which have unwanted side effects and aren't often quite effective. Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide receptors and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for migraine prevention.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we searched through Scopus and PubMed databases using "Erenumab" or "AMG 334" and "migraine" as keywords, and all the studies from 2016 to March 18, 2022, were included. Original English articles assessing any outcomes referring to the efficacy of Erenumab in migraine headache treatment were included in this study.

RESULTS

We found 53 out of 605 papers eligible to be investigated. Erenumab in both dosages of 70 mg and 140 mg could decrease the mean of monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Erenumab also has a higher rate of ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, and 100 % reduction in monthly migraine days from the baseline in different regions. The efficacy of Erenumab was initiated in the first week of administration and sustained throughout and after treatment. Erenumab was also potent in the treatment of migraine with allodynia, aura, prior preventive therapy failure, medication overuse headache, and menstrual migraine. Erenumab also had favorable outcomes in combination therapy with other preventive drugs like Onabotulinumtoxin-A.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab had remarkable efficacy in the short and long-term treatment of episodic and chronic migraine, notably the patients with difficult-to-treat migraine headaches.

Clinical application of headache impact test (HIT)-6 and epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) for sleep apnea headache

Background

Sleep apnea headache is a major symptom accompanying obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but relatively little evidence has been reported on the magnitude of its negative effects on patients or the evaluation of therapeutic effects. We quantitatively assessed sleep apnea headache using the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) and headache impact test (HIT)-6.

Methods

The first part of this study enrolled 86 patients (72 male; mean [± standard deviation] age 53.2 ± 13.8 years) who had been diagnosed with OSA by polysomnography in our sleep center and investigated the prevalence and characteristics of sleep apnea headache. The second part enrolled 21 patients (12 male; mean age, 47.5 ± 13.0 years) diagnosed with sleep apnea headache by polysomnography and/or peripheral arterial tonometry and evaluated the effects of OSA therapy on headache. Medical records including ESS, HIT-6, and polysomnographic data were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The prevalence of sleep apnea headache among OSA patients was 22.1%, and was higher in female (50.0%) than in male (16.7%). The proportion of N3 and HIT-6 score showed a significant negative correlation (Pearson’s R = -0.51, p < 0.05). In female, median apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) was significantly lower in patients with headache (26.1 /h [interquartile range 21.4–29.6 /h]) than in patients without (54.2 /h [41.3–73.9 /h], p < 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). HIT-6 and ESS scores improved from 56.4 ± 9.7 to 45.9 ± 8.4 and from 9.0 ± 4.4 to 5.3 ± 4.2 in patients with oral appliance (OA), and from 54.3 ± 10.7 to 44.6 ± 6.1 and from 10.0 ± 4.0 to 4.9 ± 2.9 with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In patients with good CPAP adherence, these scores improved from 58.1 ± 10.8 to 44.0 ± 6.0 and from 9.6 ± 3.8 to 3.6 ± 1.7.

Conclusion

Among patients with OSA, prevalence of sleep apnea headache was higher in female than in male. In female, headache was associated with relatively mild OSA. OA showed substantial effects on headache in mild to moderate OSA patients. CPAP adherence was important for improving the headache. HIT-6 score appears useful for the diagnosis and management of sleep apnea headache.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle

BACKGROUND

Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles).

RESULTS

There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response.

CONCLUSION

No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

A phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study of erenumab for the prevention of chronic migraine in patients from Asia: the DRAGON study

ABSTACT

BACKGROUND: DRAGON was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study which evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) from Asia not adequately represented in the global pivotal CM study.

METHODS

DRAGON study was conducted across 9 Asian countries or regions including mainland China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Patients (N = 557) with CM (aged 18-65 years) were randomised (1:1) to receive once-monthly subcutaneous erenumab 70 mg or matching placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline to the last 4 weeks of the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP). Secondary endpoints included achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in MMD, change in monthly acute headache medication days, modified migraine disability assessment (mMIDAS), and safety. Study was powered for the primary endpoint of change from baseline in MMD.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean (SD) age was 41.7 (± 10.9) years, and 81.5% (n = 454) patients were women. The mean migraine duration was 18.0 (± 11.6) years, and the mean MMD was 19.2 (± 5.4). 97.8% (n = 545) randomised patients completed the DBTP. Overall, demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced between the erenumab and placebo groups except for a slightly higher proportion of women in the placebo group. At Week 12, the adjusted mean change from baseline in MMD was - 8.2 days for erenumab and - 6.6 days for placebo, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (adjusted mean difference vs placebo: - 1.57 [95%CI: - 2.83, - 0.30]; P = 0.015). A greater proportion of patients treated with erenumab achieved ≥ 50% reduction in MMD versus placebo (47.0% vs 36.7%, P = 0.014). At Week 12, greater reductions in monthly acute headache medication days (- 5.34 vs - 4.66) and mMIDAS scores (- 14.67 vs - 12.93) were observed in patients treated with erenumab versus placebo. Safety and tolerability profile of erenumab was comparable to placebo, except the incidence of constipation (8.6% for erenumab vs 3.2% for placebo).

CONCLUSION

DRAGON study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of erenumab 70 mg in patients with CM from Asia. No new safety signals were observed during the DBTP compared with the previous trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03867201.

Different dosage regimens of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a worldwide epidemic neurological disorder that has a significant influence on the quality of life. Migraine attacks are considered to be related to a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling molecule, and anti-CGRP medications are used to abort and prevent migraine attacks. Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the CGRP receptor, is the first migraine preventive medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. In the present study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of erenumab.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab as a migraine preventive treatment compared to a placebo.

METHODS

Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blind trials were searched through MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2022. The efficacy outcomes we collected include changes from baseline on monthly migraine days, monthly acute migraine-specific medication days, ≥50% responder rate, ≥75% responder rate, and 100% responder rate at week 12. Safety outcomes include treatment emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and any adverse event that leads to discontinuation of treatment. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registry number: CRD42022338861).

RESULT

In all eight included trials, we found that erenumab (28, 70, and 140 mg) is very effective and has a significantly greater reduction in baseline monthly migraine days (28 mg: mean difference [MD] = -1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.0 to -0.2, p = 0.020; 70 mg: MD = -1.4, 95% CI: -1.8 to -1.1, p < 0.001, I²  = 26%; 140 mg: MD = -1.8, 95% CI: -2.1 to -1.4, p < 0.001, I²  = 0%) than placebo at week 12, especially with 140 mg. Otherwise, we found that there were no statistical differences in the occurrence of adverse events (7 mg: risk ratio [RR] = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.2, p = 0.570; 21 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.2, p = 0.730; 28 mg: RR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.1, p = 0.340; 70 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0, p = 0.230, I²  = 0%; 140 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.1, p = 0.880, I²  = 40%) between the erenumab and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we found that erenumab, especially at the dose of 140 mg, is an effective and well-tolerated preventive treatment for migraine.

European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update

Background

A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments.

Methods

The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided.

Results

We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts’ opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives.

Conclusion

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01431-x.

Assessment and Characteristics of Erenumab therapy on migraine management

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies and Antagonists in Migraine: Current Evidence and Rationale

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37 amino-acid neuropeptide found mostly in peptidergic sensory C-fibers, has been suggested to be implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological disorders seen in medical practice, affecting almost 16% of the US population. While previously thought to be a vascular condition, migraine attacks are the result of neurogenic inflammation and peripheral/central sensitization through dysfunctional activation of the trigeminovascular system. To date, two classes of therapeutic agents have been developed to interrupt the function of CGRP: CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule antagonists (gepants). There are currently four CGRP-targeted mAbs and three gepants that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of migraine. Multiple phase II and III studies have established the efficacies and tolerability of these treatments. Previously, we reviewed the fundamental role of CGRP in migraine pathogenesis. Here, we discuss in depth the clinical evidence (randomized controlled trials and real-world studies), safety, and tolerability of CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants for treating migraine.

Migraine Prevention with Erenumab: Focus on Patient Selection, Perspectives and Outcomes

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor suitable for episodic and chronic migraine prevention. Randomized clinical trials proved the superiority of erenumab to placebo in a strictly selected population, while real-world studies confirmed treatment efficacy in more severe forms of disease – most patients suffered from chronic migraine with medication overuse headache, had prior treatment failures, and long disease duration. According to guidelines, anti-CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies should be reserved to patients who failed or have contraindication to several classes of preventive treatments. However, their ease of use, tolerability and efficacy make these monoclonal antibodies ideally suitable for most patients with migraine; cost-effectiveness needs to be considered when looking at expanding current prescription criteria. Also, data from open label extensions of randomized control trials confirmed sustained benefits of prolonged treatment up to 5 consecutive years without significant risk of adverse events. Further studies will provide insights on optimal treatment duration to achieve migraine remission and predictors of treatment response. In the present work, we aimed at reviewing design and results of the main studies on erenumab and discussing treatment use in the current migraine prevention scenario; we also summarized the main ongoing research projects and provided clinical perspectives for the future.

The Arrival of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine

Remarkable advancements have been made in the field of migraine pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy over the past decade. Understanding the molecular mechanism of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has led to the discovery of a novel class of drugs, CGRP functional blocking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), for migraine prevention. CGRP is a neuropeptide inherently involved in migraine physiology where its receptors are found dispersed throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems. CGRP-targeted mAbs are effective in the preventive treatment of both chronic and episodic migraine. The advantages of mAbs over oral migraine preventives are numerous. Favorable attributes of the mAbs include high affinity and selectivity for CGRP molecular targets, long-circulating plasma half-lives, and limited risk for nonspecific hepatic and renal toxicity. This pharmacological profile leads to fewer off-target (side) effects and drug-drug interactions rendering mAbs an attractive alternative to traditional small molecule therapies, especially for the preventive treatment of migraine. MAbs display minimal drug interaction thus are excellent for patients prescribed with multiple medications. However, the long-term safety of CGRP blockade is incompletely known, and CGRP mAbs use should be avoided during pregnancy. CGRP mAbs represent a radical shift in preventing chronic and episodic migraine.

Erenumab for episodic migraine

In this review, the authors provide an overview of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody used for the preventative treatment of episodic migraine by targeting the CGRP pathway. Randomized controlled trials have shown that erenumab is associated with a statistically significant decrease in monthly migraine days in patients with episodic migraine at monthly doses of 70 or 140 mg when given for a period of 9-12 weeks. Post hoc analyses have also shown long-term maintenance of efficacy. Clinical trials have found erenumab at doses of both 70 and 140 mg to have a favorable safety profile. Erenumab faces significant limitations because of its high financial cost. Additional long-term real-world data are needed to understand the role of erenumab in the treatment of migraine.

Immunogenicity of erenumab: A pooled analysis of six placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions

BACKGROUND

Immunogenicity of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody developed for migraine prevention, has been evaluated throughout clinical development.

METHODS

Integrated post hoc analysis assessing immunogenicity of erenumab across six clinical trials in patients with episodic and chronic migraine (N = 2985). Anti-erenumab antibody incidence and potential impact on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety were evaluated in short-term (double-blind treatment phase 12-24 weeks) and long-term (double-blind treatment phase plus extensions of up to 5 years) analyses.

RESULTS

Anti-erenumab binding antibody incidence was low with few patients developing neutralizing antibodies. Antibody responses were mostly transient with low magnitude. Binding antibodies developed as early as 2-4 weeks after the first dose; the majority developed within the first 6 months and very few after the first year. Serum concentrations of erenumab in antibody-positive patients were generally lower than, but within the range of, antibody-negative patients. There was no impact of anti-erenumab antibodies on erenumab efficacy or safety with no differences between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients in change in monthly migraine days or adverse event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis showed that immunogenicity had no meaningful clinical impact on efficacy or safety of erenumab in patients with migraine.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952574; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02483585; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02174861; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02630459; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03812224.

Post-marketing safety surveillance of erenumab: new insight from Eudravigilance

BACKGROUND

We aimed at evaluating adverse drug reactions during the post-marketing phase with erenumab as the suspected/interacting drug in Eudravigilance, with the final goal of investigating the consistency of the disproportionality signals (DS) for erenumab in Eudravigilance and the American Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA FAERS) and undetected disproportionality signals from Eudravigilance.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Eudravigilance was screened in the period from October 2019 to October 2020. Disproportionality measure was performed using the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) according to the guidelines by the European Medicine Agency and using sumatriptan as the control group.

RESULTS

3381 cases were reported in the study period. Forty DS were identified both in Eudravigilance and FAERS. Sixteen DS were not identified in FAERS, 10 DS were found to have a biological probability and six DS were considered false-positive and potentially related to confounding by indication. The three system organ classes with the highest proportion of adverse events were general disorders and administration site conditions (16.12%), nervous system disorders (15.95%), and gastrointestinal disorders (13.59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events reports were mostly reported as non-serious. The co-analysis of multiple spontaneous reported databases unveiled undetected disproportionality signals for erenumab in individual databases. Future studies should be conducted to confirm the associations and potential clinical implications.

Early onset of efficacy with erenumab for migraine prevention in Japanese patients: Analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

PURPOSE

In two 24-week migraine prevention studies in Japan, erenumab was associated with significantly greater reductions in migraine frequency versus placebo over Weeks 13-24 (primary endpoint). This post hoc analysis evaluated the onset of efficacy within the first 4 weeks after the initiation of erenumab from the 24-week double-blind periods of these studies.

METHODS

Placebo-adjusted differences in least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD) were assessed weekly in each study and by migraine type (episodic (EM]/chronic [CM]) (Study 20170609).

RESULTS

A total of 407 patients from Study 20120309 (70 mg: N = 135; 140 mg: N = 136; placebo: N = 136) and 261 patients from Study 20170609 ([EM] 70 mg: N = 78; placebo: N = 81; [CM] 70 mg: N = 52; placebo: N = 50) were included. For Study 20120309, onset of efficacy was observed as early as Week 1 in favor of erenumab versus placebo. Placebo-adjusted differences in LSM (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline in WMD at Week 1 were -0.38 (-0.71 to -0.05; p = .022) and -0.49 (-0.82 to -0.16; p = .004) in favor of erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively. For Study 20170609, significant placebo-adjusted differences were observed with erenumab 70 mg at Week 1 in patients with EM (LSM [95% CI]: -0.55 [-0.97 to -0.12; p = .012]), and at Week 2 in patients with CM (LSM [95% CI]: -0.81 [-1.53 to -0.09; p = .028]) and for the overall population (LSM [95% CI]: -0.71 [-1.09 to -0.33; p < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab treatment significantly reduced WMD compared with placebo. Onset of erenumab efficacy occurred as early as Week 1 in patients with migraine.

Placebo response with subcutaneous injections in calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody migraine preventative trials – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

The majority of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention are administered subcutaneously. Therefore, we attempted to calculate the pooled placebo response with subcutaneous placebo injections in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods:

We identified 16 randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria through a comprehensive search in five electronic databases (PubMed Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library and clinicaltrials.gov ). The risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled mean monthly migraine days and 50% response rates.

Results:

A total of 4240 subjects were included from 16 studies in this meta-analysis. The pooled mean monthly migraine day reduction with subcutaneous placebo injections was 2.15 (95% CI: 1.60–2.69). The pooled proportion of patients achieving a 50% reduction in mean monthly headache days was 26% (95% CI: 20%–31%). Placebo response accounted for more than 50% of therapeutic gain in our study.

Conclusion:

A substantial placebo response was noted with subcutaneous injections in migraine CGRP monoclonal antibody clinical trials. This meta-analysis may serve as a reference point to calculate sample size in clinical trials using subcutaneous interventions for migraine prevention. We registered our study at PROSPERO (CRD42020185300).

Efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: evidences from direct and indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND

To date, it remains challenging for clinicians to make informed decisions about which dosage of erenumab is more effective for treating adult patients with migraine. Thus, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of erenumab in this group of patients.

METHODS

We searched several databases from inception to May 31, 2021, irrespective of language. We included only RCTs that compared erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, and placebo in migraine patients. The primary efficacy outcome was change in monthly migraine days (MMDs). The primary safety outcome was defined as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). We reported relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) from the analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, eight trials comprising 4281 participants were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that both erenumab 70 mg (MD: - 1.43, 95% CrI: - 1.71 to - 1.16) and erenumab 140 mg (MD: - 1.78, 95% CrI: - 2.21 to - 1.45) were associated with decreased MMDs. Also, erenumab 140 mg was associated with significantly lower MMDs than erenumab 70 mg (MD: - 0.34, 95% CrI: - 0.68 to - 0.01). In terms of primary safety outcome, neither erenumab 70 mg (RR: 0.98, 95% CrI: 0.92 to 1.05) nor erenumab 140 mg (RR: 0.99, 95% CrI: 0.91 to 1.07) was associated with increased risk of TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study suggested erenumab 140 mg might provide better efficacy than 70 mg among adult patients with migraine, without increasing TEAEs. Future elaborated RCTs with a larger number of participants are warranted to validate these discoveries.

CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs

BACKGROUND

Several drugs are available for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The choice of which therapy to initiate first, second, or third is not straightforward and is based on multiple factors, including general efficacy, tolerability, potential for serious adverse events, comorbid conditions, and costs. Recently, a new class of migraine preventive drugs was introduced, i.e. monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor.

METHODS

The present article summarizes the evidence gathered with this new migraine preventive drug class from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. It further puts this into perspective next to the evidence gained by the most widely used agents for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine with an emphasis on efficacy and the robustness with which this efficacy signal was obtained.

RESULTS

Although being a relatively new class of migraine preventive drugs, monoclonal antibodies blocking the CGRP pathway have an efficacy which is at least comparable if not higher than those of the currently used preventive drugs. Moreover, the robustness of this efficacy signal is substantiated by several randomized clinical trials each including large numbers of patients. In addition, because of their excellent tolerability and with long-term safety data emerging, they seem to have an unprecedented efficacy over adverse effect profile, clearly resulting in an added value for migraine prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Balancing the data presented in the current manuscript with additional data concerning long term safety on the one hand and cost issues on the other hand, can be of particular use to health policy makers to implement this new drug class in the prevention of migraine.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab in Japanese migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure or concomitant preventive treatment: subgroup analyses of a phase 3, randomized trial

Background

These subgroup analyses of a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab 70 mg in Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) (“failed-yes” and “failed-no” subgroups) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment (“concomitant preventive-yes” and “concomitant preventive-no” subgroups).

Methods

Overall, 261 patients were randomized; 130 and 131 patients to erenumab 70 mg and placebo, respectively. Subgroup analyses evaluated the change from baseline to Months 4–6 in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) (primary endpoint), achievement of a ≥50% reduction in mean MMD, and change from baseline in mean monthly acute migraine-specific medication (MSM) treatment days. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also evaluated.

Results

Of the 261 patients randomized, 117 (44.8%) and 92 (35.3%) patients were in the failed-yes and concomitant preventive-yes subgroups, respectively. Erenumab 70 mg demonstrated consistent efficacy across all subgroups, with greater reductions from baseline in mean MMD versus placebo at Months 4–6 (treatment difference versus placebo [95% CI], failed-yes: − 1.9 [− 3.3, − 0.4]; failed-no: − 1.4 [− 2.6, − 0.3]; concomitant preventive-yes: − 1.7 [− 3.3, 0.0]; concomitant preventive-no: − 1.6 [− 2.6, − 0.5]). Similar results were seen for achievement of ≥50% reduction in mean MMD and change from baseline in mean monthly acute MSM treatment days. The safety profile of erenumab 70 mg was similar across subgroups, and similar to placebo in each subgroup.

Conclusion

Erenumab was associated with clinically relevant improvements in all efficacy endpoints and was well tolerated across all subgroups of Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT03812224. Registered January 23, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01313-8.

Optimal dose of erenumab for preventive treatment of episodic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Erenumab is a novel monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody that is used for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate the overall safety, efficacy, and dose-response relationship of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine and patients with prior migraine treatment failures.

Methods:

We searched randomized clinical trials on PUBMED, EMBASE database, and Cochrane Library database. A pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian network analysis were performed.

Results:

For efficacy outcomes, the network meta-analysis suggests that in comparison to erenumab 70 mg, participants who received erenumab 140 mg reported a significant decrease in monthly acute Migraine-Specific Medication Days (MSMD) and 50% increase in response rate, and erenumab was most likely to be ranked first for Monthly Migraine Days (MMD), MSMD, and 50% response rate. For safety outcomes, the network meta-analysis has found no significant difference between the 70 mg group and the 140 mg group measured by adverse events and serious adverse events. In the 140 mg erenumab group, a significant decreased in MMD and MSMD and 50% and 75% increased in response rate were reported in patients with ≥ 2 treatment failures compared to placebo. For safety outcomes, no significant difference was found between the 140 mg erenumab group and the placebo group.

Conclusion:

Erenumab was effective in patients with episodic migraine. A total of 140 mg erenumab was associated with better efficacy outcomes without any increased risk for developing adverse events compared to 70 mg erenumab. Furthermore, 140 mg erenumab was effective in patients with prior migraine treatment failures.

Reduction in acute migraine-specific and non-specific medication use in patients treated with erenumab: post-hoc analyses of episodic and chronic migraine clinical trials

Background

In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).

Methods

The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline.

Results

In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM.

Conclusions

In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM.

Trial registrations

NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting CGRP: From Clinical Studies to Real-World Evidence-What Do We Know So Far?

Now more than ever is the time of monoclonal antibody use in neurology. In headaches, disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments existed only for symptomatic management of migraines (i.e., triptans), while the standard prophylactic anti-migraine treatments consist of non-specific and repurposed drugs that share limited safety profiles and high risk for interactions with other medications, resulting in rundown adherence rates. Recent advances in headache science have increased our understanding of the role of calcitonin gene relate peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) pathways in cephalic pain neurotransmission and peripheral or central sensitization, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecules targeting these neuropeptides or their receptors. Large scale randomized clinical trials confirmed that inhibition of the CGRP system attenuates migraine, while the PACAP mediated nociception is still under scientific and clinical investigation. In this review, we provide the latest clinical evidence for the use of anti-CGRP in migraine prevention with emphasis on efficacy and safety outcomes from Phase III and real-world studies.

Safety and tolerability evaluation of erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine

Introduction: Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the receptor of calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP), is the first disease-specific and mechanism-based treatment approved for the prevention of migraine. Although the safety and tolerability data from randomized trials are clear, the physiological effects of CGRP rise reasonable concerns. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence for safety and tolerability related to erenumab use in migraine. Areas covered: This review outlines the severe adverse events (AEs), common AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation and AEs of special interest, reported in all phase 2, phase 3, open label, and observational studies with erenumab in migraine. Individual safety reports were also included in the systematic review of evidence. Expert opinion: No safety and tolerability flags were detected in this review. The most common AE are local skin reactions and constipation. No severe AEs, or frequent AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were detected. Treatment is well tolerated. The only AE of interest that may play a role in decision making and treatment monitoring is constipation. These findings are in line with previous safety reports, further highlighting the substantial tolerability and safety profile of the modern anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine.

Randomised, controlled trial of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine in patients from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America: The EMPOwER study

OBJECTIVE

EMPOwER, a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

METHODS

Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was -3.1, -4.2, and -4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P < 0.001 [140 mg]). Both erenumab doses were also significantly superior to placebo on all secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days, change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days and change from baseline in the Headache Impact Test-6™ scores. The safety profile of erenumab was comparable with placebo; no new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America met all primary and secondary endpoints. A consistent numerical benefit was observed with erenumab 140 mg versus erenumab 70 mg across all efficacy endpoints. These findings extend evidence of erenumab's efficacy and safety to patients under-represented in previous trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03333109.

Erenumab treatment for migraine prevention in Japanese patients: Efficacy and safety results from a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Objectives

Erenumab is a human anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody approved for migraine prevention. Global studies have demonstrated its efficacy in chronic and episodic migraine (EM). Here we report the outcomes from a Phase 3 study of erenumab in Japanese patients with chronic migraine (CM) or EM.

Methods

Japanese patients with EM (<15 headache days/month, including ≥4 migraine days/month) or CM (≥15 headache days/month, including ≥8 migraine days/month) were randomized 1:1 to placebo or erenumab 70 mg once monthly for a 24‐week double‐blind treatment phase (DBTP). The primary endpoint of change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) over months 4, 5, and 6 of the DBTP was compared between erenumab and placebo groups. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were also assessed.

Results

A total of 261 patients were randomized to placebo (n = 131) or erenumab 70 mg (n = 130); all patients were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. The mean (standard deviation) MMD at baseline was 11.84 (5.70) for the placebo group and 12.40 (5.99) for erenumab 70 mg. The mean (standard error) change in MMD was –1.98 (0.38) for the placebo group (n = 131) and –3.60 (0.38) for erenumab 70 mg (n = 130). The difference in MMD reduction between groups was −1.67 (95% CI: –2.56, –0.78, p < 0.001) for EM and –1.57 (95% CI: –3.39, 0.24, p = 0.089) for CM. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with earlier studies. The most frequent AEs (placebo, erenumab) were nasopharyngitis (28.2% and 26.9%, respectively), back pain (4.6% and 5.4%), and constipation (0.8% and 4.6%).

Conclusion

Treatment with erenumab 70 mg once monthly demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety findings in Japanese patients with EM or CM.

CGRP-antibodies, topiramate and botulinum toxin type A in episodic and chronic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The approval of monoclonal antibodies for prevention of migraine has revolutionized treatment for patients. Oral preventatives are still considered first line treatments as head-to-head trials comparing them with antibodies are lacking.

Methods

The main purpose of this study was to provide a comparative overview of the efficacy of three commonly prescribed migraine preventative medication classes. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE until 20 March 2020. We included RCTs reporting the 50% response rates for topiramate, Botulinum Toxin Type A and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP(r). Studies were excluded if response rates were not reported, treatment allocation was unclear, or if study quality was insufficient. Primary outcome measure were the 50% response rates. The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the random effects model. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020222880).

Findings

We identified 6552 reports. Thirty-two were eligible for our review. Studies assessing monoclonal antibodies included 13,302 patients and yielded pooled odds ratios for the 50% response rate of 2.30 (CI: 2.11–2.50). Topiramate had an overall effect estimate of 2.70 (CI: 1.97–3.69) with 1989 included patients and Botulinum Toxin Type A achieved 1.28 (CI: 0.98–1. 67) with 2472 patients included.

Interpretation

Topiramate, botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies showed higher odds ratios in achieving a 50% response rate compared to placebo. Topiramate numerically demonstrated the greatest effect size but also the highest drop-out rate.

Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibody Against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide or Its Receptor for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Background: The optimal monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for adult patients with migraine has yet to be determined. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of different monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor for adult patients with migraine through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDILNE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant publications from inception until October 30, 2020. Only randomized clinical trials of adults with migraine that assessed any calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody and reported clinical outcomes were included. The primary outcomes were changes in monthly migraine days and treatment-emergent adverse events Results: We initially retrieved 2,070 publications, and ultimately, 18 randomized clinical trials totaling 8,926 patients were included. In terms of efficacy, eptinezumab (MD -1.43, 95% CrI -2.59 to -0.36), erenumab (MD -1.61, 95% CrI -2.40 to -0.84), fremanezumab (MD -2.19, 95% CrI -3.15 to -1.25), and galcanezumab (MD -2.10, 95% CrI -2.76 to -1.45) significantly reduced MMDs compared with placebo. In terms of safety, only galcanezumab increased the incidences of TEAEs (RR 1.11, 95% CrI 1.01-1.22) and serious adverse events (RR 2.95, 95% CrI 1.41-6.87) compared with placebo. Conclusion: Most drugs performed similarly and were superior to placebo in most of our analyses. Further head-to-head research on different types of CGRP monoclonal antibodies is necessary to validate the present findings.

Long-term efficacy and safety during open-label erenumab treatment in Japanese patients with episodic migraine

Objective

To assess long‐term (up to 2 years) efficacy, tolerability, and safety of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine (EM) in Japanese patients.

Background

Previously published results from the double‐blind treatment phase (DBTP) of a phase 2 clinical study have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in Japanese patients with EM.

Methods

Patients completing the 24‐week placebo‐controlled DBTP could continue into the 76‐week open‐label treatment phase (OLTP), receiving erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg subcutaneously once monthly. The initial dose in the OLTP was erenumab 70 mg monthly, which was later changed to 140 mg. After study completion, the following were assessed: change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD), change from baseline in monthly acute migraine‐specific medication days (MSMD), percentage of patients achieving ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in MMD, change from baseline in the 6‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6™) score, and safety (exposure‐adjusted patient‐incidence of adverse events [AEs], calculated as number of patients per 100 patient‐years).

Results

Of 475 patients enrolled in the DBTP, 459 (96.6%) continued in the OLTP. The mean (SD) MMD was 7.9 (2.3) at baseline with the overall change from baseline at week 100 of –2.9 (4.1) days. The monthly acute MSMD was 5.7 (2.8) at baseline with change from baseline at week 100 of −1.7 (3.7) days. The proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in MMD from baseline at week 100 was 177/398 (44.5%) and 94/398 (23.6%), respectively. The HIT‐6™ score was 58.4 (5.4) at baseline with a change of −6.4 (8.2) at week 100. The exposure‐adjusted patient‐incidence of AEs during the OLTP was 207.1/100 patient‐years for the combined erenumab group, similar to that observed for either erenumab (271.0/100 patient‐years) or placebo (257.3/100 patient‐years) during the DBTP, and no new safety signals were detected during the OLTP.

Conclusion

Long‐term erenumab treatment in Japanese patients with EM demonstrated sustained efficacy for up to 2 years, with a safety profile similar to previous studies, supporting erenumab as a potential new therapy for EM prevention in Japan.

New Insight on the Safety of Erenumab: An Analysis of Spontaneous Reports of Adverse Events Recorded in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database

AIM

The aim of this article was to provide an overview of adverse events reported for erenumab in post-marketing through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and perform a disproportionality analysis with other drugs used for acute or preventative treatment of migraine as controls.

METHODS

FAERS was screened from the first quarter of 2018 to the second quarter of 2020 (latest data update 30 June 2020). Clinical and demographic characteristics of cases were described along with the seriousness and outcome of adverse events. Disproportionality analyses were performed using the reporting odds ratio (ROR).

RESULTS

In total, 23,312 cases were reported during the study period, 67.0% by consumers. Cases in the age range 18-64 years (10,922 cases; 45.8%), in female sex (15,099 cases; 64.8%), and with adverse events that were classified as non-serious (19,626 cases; 84.2%) were the most prevalent in the database. After the exclusion of duplicates, 146 fatal cases were identified. A total of 1303 unlabeled adverse events were reported, of which 49 had statistically significant disproportionality of reporting in comparison with other drugs used for acute or preventative treatment of migraine. Identified disproportionality signals included alopecia, depression, anxiety, myocardial infarction, increased heart rate, pulmonary embolism, weight alteration, insomnia, tinnitus, and influenza-like symptoms. Injection-site reactions (labeled events) were co-reported with errors in administration procedures.

CONCLUSION

Adverse events reported during the first 2 years of post-marketing surveillance were mostly non-serious and with a favorable prognosis. However, new safety aspects emerged for which further studies are needed to confirm the associations, prioritizing unlabeled events with consistent disproportionality signals (e.g., emerging in at least 4 out of 6 analyses).

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: Results from a 5-year, open-label treatment phase of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Although erenumab has demonstrated significant reduction in migraine frequency and improved quality of life in studies lasting 3 to 12 months, little is known about long-term therapy.

METHODS

This study was an open-label, 5-year treatment phase following a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with episodic migraine. Patients initially received open-label erenumab 70 mg, which increased to 140 mg following a protocol amendment. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly acute migraine-specific medication (AMSM) days, and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Of 383 patients enrolled, 250 switched to 140 mg; 215 (56.1%) completed open-label treatment. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs from baseline of 8.7 (0.2) days was -5.3 (0.3) days; an average reduction of 62.3% at year 5. Among patients using AMSM at baseline (6.3 [2.8] treatment days), mean change in monthly AMSM days was -4.4 (0.3) days at the end of 5 years. Patient-reported outcomes indicated stable improvements in disability, headache impact, and migraine-specific quality of life. Exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were 123.0/100 patient-years; AEs were most frequently nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza. Serious AEs (SAEs) reported by 49 patients (3.8/100 patient-years) were mostly single occurrence. Two fatal adverse events were reported. There were no increases in incidence of AEs, SAEs, or AEs leading to treatment discontinuation over 5 years of exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with erenumab was associated with reductions in migraine frequency and improvements in health-related quality of life that were maintained for at least 5 years. No new safety signals were observed.

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression evaluating the adverse reactions to erenumab in the preventive treatment of migraine

Background: Erenumab has recently been approved as a pharmacological treatment for the prevention of migraine. However, the incidence estimates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were not consistent among studies. Consequently, pooled measures of the incidences of ADRs that accounts for inter-study heterogeneity are desirable. In addition, little is known on the factors leading to such heterogeneity.Research design and methods: Clinical trials evaluating the occurrence of ADRs related to erenumab in migraine patients were searched with Ovid MEDLINE until April 2020. Random intercept models were used to estimate the pooled incidence of the ADRs reported at least in 5 different study populations. To examine whether specific factors correlated with the pooled incidence, we performed random-effects meta-regression.Results: Of 138 retrieved references, 8 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. We observed a significant heterogeneity of the incidence estimates of back pain, influenza, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Most of the observed heterogeneity is ascribed to treatment duration for back pain (p = 0.045), influenza (p < 0.001) and URTI (p < 0.001), and significantly attributed to Body Mass Index (BMI) for nasopharyngitis (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Back pain, influenza, nasopharyngitis and URTI showed a significant heterogeneity of incidence estimates.

Reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine following treatment with erenumab: Results of a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, 12-week, double-blind study and a 52-week, open-label extension

Objective

To determine reversion rates from chronic migraine to episodic migraine during long-term erenumab treatment.

Methods

A daily headache diary was completed during the 12-week, double-blind treatment phase of a placebo-controlled trial comparing erenumab 70 mg, 140 mg, and placebo, and weeks 1–12, 21–24, 37–40, and 49–52 of the open-label treatment phase. Chronic migraine to episodic migraine reversion rates were assessed over the double-blind treatment phase; persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 24 weeks (double-blind treatment phase through the first 12 weeks in the open-label treatment phase), long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 64 weeks (double-blind treatment phase plus open-label treatment phase); delayed reversion to episodic migraine through the first 12 weeks of the open-label treatment phase among patients remaining in chronic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase.

Results

In the double-blind treatment phase, 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 47.8–58.3) of 358 erenumab-treated completers had reversion to episodic migraine; monthly reversion rates to episodic migraine were typically higher among patients receiving 140 mg versus 70 mg. Among 181 completers (receiving erenumab for 64 weeks), 98 (54.1% [95% confidence interval: 46.6–61.6]) had reversion to episodic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase; of those, 96.9% (95% confidence interval: 91.3–99.4) had persistent reversion to episodic migraine, 96.8% (95% confidence interval: 91.1–99.3) of whom had long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine. Delayed reversion to episodic migraine occurred in 36/83 (43.4% [95% confidence interval: 32.5–54.7]) patients; of these, 77.8% (95% confidence interval: 60.9–89.9) persisted in reversion through week 64.

Conclusions

Patients with reversion to episodic migraine at week 12 will likely persist as episodic migraine with longer-term erenumab; others may achieve delayed reversion to episodic migraine.

Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02066415

[Novel migraine treatment with CGRP-related monoclonal antibodies]

Migraine is a common and debilitating neurological disorder characterized by recurrent attacks of moderate to severe throbbing headache accompanied by nausea, vomiting and photophobia/phonophobia. Because of its high prevalence, migraine causes a considerable financial burden on the society as well as impaired quality of life in individual patients. Scientific evidence shows that migraine is a quite complex neurological disorder that involves not only the trigeminovascular and autonomic systems but also the hypothalamus and cerebral cortex. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) was originally discovered as a 37-amino acid neuropeptide derived from a calcitonin gene splicing variant. CGRP is found to be expressed in trigeminal ganglion neurons. Much attention has been attracted to this molecule since CGRP was found to be released from trigeminal terminals in animal migraine models. Subsequent studies demonstrated that CGRP administration induced migraine-like headache attacks specifically in migraineurs, thus highlighting a pivotal role of CGRP in the development of migraine attacks. Several CGRP receptor antagonists were shown to be efficacious for the treatment of acute migraine. Among them, telcagepant, was shown to exert a significant migraine prophylactic action as well. Nevertheless, the development of most of these agents were discontinued due to hepatotoxicity. Currently, newer CGRP receptor antagonists are being developed. On the other hand, monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP and its receptor showed consistent efficacy for migraine prophylaxis with excellent safety profiles in Phase III clinical trials. Furthermore, emerging data support the long-term safety and efficacy of these antibodies. In this review article, the development and perspective of anti-migraine therapeutic strategies using CGRP-related antibodies are discussed.

Burden of migraine among Japanese patients: a cross-sectional National Health and Wellness Survey

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have measured the burden of migraine in Japan. This study aimed at estimating the disease burden of migraine in Japan and identifying factors associated with the burden using the 2017 National Health and Wellness Survey.

METHODS

Migraine patients were defined by ICHD-3 like criteria with ≥4 monthly headache days (MHDs), and non-migraine respondents were selected using 1:4 propensity score matching. Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL), work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the two groups, and to identify factors associated with these outcomes in migraine patients.

RESULTS

In 30,001 respondents, 378 migraine patients were identified. Compared to matched controls (N = 1512), migraine patients had lower physical (45.17 vs. 49.89), mental (42.28 vs. 47.71) and role/social (37.91 vs. 44.19) component summary scores (p < 0.001). Migraine patients had higher absenteeism (6.4% vs. 2.2%), presenteeism (40.2% vs. 22.5%), total work productivity impairment (44.3% vs. 24.5%), total activity impairment (45.0% vs. 23.9%), indirect costs (1,492,520 JPY vs. 808,320 JPY) and more visits to healthcare providers in the past 6 months (7.23 vs. 3.96) (p < 0.001). More MHDs was associated with worse HRQoL, and higher HRU and indirect costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese migraine patients experience an incremental burden. This demonstrates the unmet needs among Japanese migraine patients.

The Spectrum of Response to Erenumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine and Subgroup Analysis of Patients Achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% Response

Objective

To assess the efficacy of erenumab at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) response thresholds, using data from the 6‐month double‐blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Migraine Prevention (STRIVE) pivotal clinical trial.

Methods

Enrolled patients with episodic migraine (EM; ≥4 MMD and <15 monthly headache days) were randomized (1:1:1) to erenumab 70 mg (n = 312), erenumab 140 mg (n = 318), or placebo (n = 316) once monthly. We determined the proportions of patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in MMD over the last 3 months of the STRIVE DBTP (months 4 through 6) and conducted post hoc analyses to contextualize the treatment benefit in patient subgroups achieving, and not achieving, these response thresholds. Outcome measures included changes in MMD, acute migraine‐specific medication days (MSMD), and patient‐reported outcomes.

Results

The proportions of patients with a reduction in MMD from baseline were greater for erenumab than for placebo at all response thresholds. As previously reported for the ≥50% response threshold, 135/312 (43.3%) of patients on erenumab 70 mg and 159/318 (50.0%) on erenumab 140 mg responded, vs 84/316 (26.6%) for placebo. At months 4 through 6, 65/312 (20.8%) and 70/318 (22.0%) of those on erenumab 70 mg and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% reductions vs 25/316 (7.9%) on placebo. A reduction of 100% response, which required no migraine days over 3 consecutive months based on observed data, was achieved by 10/312 (3.2%) of patients treated with erenumab 70 mg and 16/318 (5.0%) for erenumab 140 mg, vs 9/316 (2.8%) for placebo. At all response thresholds, responders achieved numerically greater reductions in mean MMD and MSMD, and greater improvements in disability than did the overall population; importantly, these remarkable responses were noted early. Meanwhile, 60/312 (19.2%) and 53/318 (16.7%) patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, had no reduction in MMD from baseline in months 4 through 6, compared with 104/316 (32.9%) patients on placebo.

Conclusions

The responses at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% thresholds provide context for establishing realistic patient and physician expectations regarding the magnitude of treatment benefit that may be achieved by patients with EM responding to erenumab (STRIVE, NCT02456740).

Monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP transmission: An update on their added value in migraine prevention

The avenue of effective migraine therapies blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) transmission is the successful outcome of 35 years of translational research. Developed after short-acting, the small antagonists of the CGRP receptor (the "gepants"), the monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP or its receptor (CGRP/rec mAbs) have changed the paradigm in migraine treatment. Contrary to the classical acute medications like triptans or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a transient effect, they act for long durations exclusively in the peripheral portion of the trigeminovascular system and can thus be assimilated to a durable attack treatment, unlike the classical preventives that chiefly act upstream on the central facets of migraine pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have included collectively several thousands of patients, making them the most extensively studied class of preventive migraine treatments. Their results clearly indicate that CGRP/rec mAbs are significantly superior to placebo and have been comprehensively reviewed by Dodick [Cephalalgia 2019;39(3):445-458]. In this review we will briefly summarize the placebo-subtracted outcomes and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of these pivotal RCTs and analyze new and post-hoc studies published afterwards focusing on effect size, effect onset and sustainability, response in subgroups of patients, safety and tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. We will also summarize our limited real-world experience with one of the CGRP/rec mAbs. Although methodological differences and lack of direct comparative trials preclude any reliable comparison, the overall impression is that there are only minor differences in efficacy and tolerability profiles between the four monoclonals: the average placebo-subtracted 50% responder rates for reduction in migraine headaches are 21.4% in episodic migraine (NNTs: 4-5), 17.4% in chronic migraine (NNTs: 4-8). Patients with an improvement exceeding 50% are rare, chronic migraineurs with continuous headache are unlikely to be responders and migraine auras are not improved. The effect starts within the first week after administration and is quasi maximal at one month. It is sustained for long time periods and may last for several months after treatment termination. CGRP/rec mAbs are effective even after prior preventive treatment failures and in patients with medication overuse, but the effect size might be smaller. They significantly reduce disability and health care resource utilization. The adverse effect profile of CGRP/rec mAbs is close to that of placebo with few minor exceptions and despite concerns related to the safeguarding role of CGRP in ischemia, no treatment-related vascular adverse events have been reported to date. Putting the CGRP/rec mAbs in perspective with available preventive migraine drug treatments, their major advantage seems not to be chiefly their superior efficacy but their unprecedented efficacy over adverse event ratio. Regarding cost-effectiveness, preliminary pharmaco-economic analyses of erenumab suggest that it is cost-effective for chronic migraine compared to no treatment or to onabotulinumtoxinA, but likely not for episodic migraine unless attack frequency is high, indirect costs are considered and its price is lowered.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine headache in Japanese patients with episodic migraine: A phase 2 randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective:

This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in comparison with placebo for the prevention of migraine in Japanese patients with episodic migraine.

Methods:

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, which was conducted over 6 months, randomized adult patients received subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab (120 mg n = 115, 240 mg n = 114) or placebo ( n = 230) once monthly. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days. The key secondary outcome measures were response rates (≥50%, ≥75%, and 100%); the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive score; monthly migraine headache days requiring acute treatment; and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S).

Results:

The mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days over months 1–6 was significantly ( p < 0.001) greater for the 120-mg galcanezumab dose (−3.60 days) and the 240-mg galcanezumab dose (−3.36 days) compared with placebo (−0.59 days). Both the 120-mg and 240-mg doses of galcanezumab were superior compared with placebo for each of the key secondary endpoints except for PGI-S (only the 240-mg dose was superior). The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were local injection-site reactions; erythema, swelling, pruritus, and pain were more commonly reported by patients who were treated with galcanezumab than those treated with placebo.

Conclusion:

The number of monthly migraine headache days was reduced with both doses of galcanezumab, and both doses were safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with episodic migraine.