Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in preventive migraine clinical trials

Review on the Burden of Episodic Migraine and Utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine affects a large portion of the world's population. Migraine encompasses a broad range of symptoms, with broad reaching ramifications in the form of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) factors. In our review we sought to understand the aspects encompassing the burden of disease on both an individual and population level. Furthermore, we reviewed the development and incorporation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), questionnaires that assess HRQoL in real time, in how they have been incorporated in clinical research up to now and how they can be utilized in clinical practice moving forward.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has been shown that there is much heterogeneity within the field in PROM development processes as well as their utilization in episodic migraine (EM) clinical trials. Furthermore, they are inconsistently used in clinical practice. Among the most commonly used PROMs, the MSQv2.1 is among the most valid and reliable. Beyond that, it also shows promise to help in guidance of clinical management of migraine.

Resting-state electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography in migraine-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Magnetoencephalography/electroencephalography (M/EEG) can provide insights into migraine pathophysiology and help develop clinically valuable biomarkers. To integrate and summarize the existing evidence on changes in brain function in migraine, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021272622) of resting-state M/EEG findings in migraine. We included 27 studies after searching MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Semi-quantitative analysis was conducted by vote counting, and meta-analyses of M/EEG differences between people with migraine and healthy participants were performed using random-effects models. In people with migraine during the interictal phase, meta-analysis revealed higher power of brain activity at theta frequencies (3-8 Hz) than in healthy participants. Furthermore, we found evidence for lower alpha and beta connectivity in people with migraine in the interictal phase. No associations between M/EEG features and disease severity were observed. Moreover, some evidence for higher delta and beta power in the premonitory compared to the interictal phase was found. Strongest risk of bias of included studies arose from a lack of controlling for comorbidities and non-automatized or non-blinded M/EEG assessments. These findings can guide future M/EEG studies on migraine pathophysiology and brain-based biomarkers, which should consider comorbidities and aim for standardized, collaborative approaches.

Symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle from the patient's perspective: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the breadth and frequency of symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle using data captured from qualitative patient interviews conducted through the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project.

BACKGROUND

People living with migraine experience a range of symptoms across the pre-headache, headache, post-headache, and interictal phases of the migraine cycle. Although clinical diagnostic criteria and clinical trial endpoints focus largely on cardinal symptoms or monthly migraine days, migraine symptom profiles are far more complex. As a part of the MiCOAS project, semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken to better understand the migraine-related symptomology from the patient's viewpoint.

METHODS

This concept elicitation study used iterative purposeful sampling to select 40 people with self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine for interviews that were conducted via audio-only web conferencing. Key topics related to migraine symptoms, including mood/emotion symptoms, were identified using content analysis. Interview transcripts were also coded to reflect the phase of migraine under discussion, so that patient experiences could be compared by phase.

RESULTS

Forty participants (50%, n = 20 episodic migraine; 50%, n = 20 chronic migraine), aged from 21 to 70 years old reported a total of 60 unique symptoms, which were categorized into 30 broader symptom categories. Participants reported between 7 and 22 unique symptom categories across all phases. During pre-headache and headache, participants reported a median of 7.5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 5.5) and 8 (IQR = 4.0) different symptom categories compared to 4 (IQR = 3.0) and 1.5 (IQR = 2.5) for the post-headache and interictal periods, respectively. Head pain during the headache phase was the only universally reported symptom (100%, n = 40). Pooling across all phases, the next most reported symptoms were light sensitivity (93%, n = 37), nausea (88%, n = 35), irritability/impatience (83%, n = 24), sound sensitivity (80%, n = 32), and fatigue/exhaustion (80%, n = 32). One or more interictal symptoms were reported by 73% (n = 29) of participants and included mood/emotion symptoms, such as anxiety (30%, n = 12), depression (18%, n = 7), and anger (15%, n = 6), as well as cardinal symptoms, such as light sensitivity (13%, n = 5) and nausea (13%, n = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experience a range of symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle. Results often aligned with clinical expectations, but non-cardinal migraine-related symptoms were reported both inside and outside the headache phase, including between attacks. These discoveries highlight the importance of assessing a range of symptoms and timing when developing patient-reported outcome measures for migraine clinical trials.

Effects of fremanezumab on migraine-associated symptoms and medication use in Japanese and Korean patients with episodic migraine: Exploratory endpoint analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe exploratory endpoints from a previous phase 2b/3 placebo-controlled trial conducted in Japan and Korea, specifically investigating the effect of fremanezumab or placebo on migraine-associated symptoms and acute headache medication use in patients with episodic migraine (EM).

BACKGROUND

EM is associated with non-head pain symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia, which contribute substantially to the disease burden, healthcare resource utilization, and impaired quality of life. Current EM treatments include a mix of nonspecific/migraine-specific acute headache medications, but medication overuse can induce headaches and progression from EM to chronic migraine (CM). In multiple phase 2b/3 trials, the monoclonal antibody fremanezumab significantly reduced the average number of monthly migraine days experienced by patients with EM/CM compared with placebo.

METHODS

This was a prespecified analysis of exploratory endpoints in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial conducted in Japanese and Korean patients with EM (NCT03303092). Patients were randomized to receive fremanezumab, either monthly or quarterly, or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously at 4-week/28-day ("monthly") intervals to maintain blinding. Exploratory endpoints reported here were the mean change from baseline in the number of days/month with (i) the use of any acute headache medication, (ii) the use of any migraine-specific acute headache medication, (iii) nausea or vomiting, and (iv) photophobia and phonophobia.

RESULTS

Overall, 357 Japanese and Korean patients with EM received either monthly (n = 121) or quarterly (n = 119) fremanezumab or placebo (n = 117). Compared with placebo, fremanezumab administered monthly or quarterly was associated with a significant reduction from baseline in the average number of days/month with acute headache medication use over three months (difference vs. placebo -2.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.52, -2.11]; p < 0.001 and -2.79 [95% CI -3.50, -2.08]; p < 0.001, respectively). Similar findings were observed in the monthly average number of days with migraine-specific acute headache medications (difference vs. placebo with monthly and quarterly fremanezumab, -2.63 [95% CI -3.31, -1.95] for both; p < 0.001), the average number of days/month with nausea or vomiting (difference vs. placebo -1.09 [95% CI -1.60, -0.58]; p < 0.001 for monthly fremanezumab and -1.37 [95% CI -1.88, -0.86]; p < 0.001 for quarterly fremanezumab), and the average number of days with photophobia and phonophobia (difference vs. placebo -1.22 [95% CI -1.80, -0.65]; p < 0.001 and -1.64 [95% CI -2.22, -1.06]; p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Monthly and quarterly administered fremanezumab effectively prevented EM in Japanese and Korean patients. Fremanezumab also improved other disease aspects including the need for acute headache medications and the frequency of migraine-associated symptoms.

The headache research priorities: Research goals from the American Headache Society and an international multistakeholder expert group

OBJECTIVE

To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years.

BACKGROUND

Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely.

METHODS

The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health-care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period.

RESULTS

Twenty-five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non-pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods.

CONCLUSIONS

These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

Intervening in the Premonitory Phase to Prevent Migraine: Prospects for Pharmacotherapy

Migraine is a common brain condition characterised by disabling attacks of headache with sensory sensitivities. Despite increasing understanding of migraine neurobiology and the impacts of this on therapeutic developments, there remains a need for treatment options for patients underserved by currently available therapies. The first specific drugs developed to treat migraine acutely, the serotonin-5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT1B/1D] receptor agonists (triptans), seem to require headache onset in order to have an effect, while early treatment during mild pain before headache escalation improves short-term and long-term outcomes. Some patients find treating in the early window once headache has started but not escalated difficult, and migraine can arise from sleep or in the early hours of the morning, making prompt treatment after pain onset challenging. Triptans may be deemed unsuitable for use in patients with vascular disease and in those of older age and may not be effective in a proportion of patients. Headache is also increasingly recognised as being just one of the many facets of the migraine attack, and for some patients it is not the most disabling symptom. In many patients, painless symptoms can start prior to headache onset and can reliably warn of impending headache. There is, therefore, a need to identify therapeutic targets and agents that may be used as early as possible in the course of the attack, to prevent headache onset before it starts, and to reduce both headache and non-headache related attack burden. Early small studies using domperidone, naratriptan and dihydroergotamine have suggested that this approach could be useful; these studies were methodologically less rigorous than modern day treatment studies, of small sample size, and have not since been replicated. The emergence of novel targeted migraine treatments more recently, specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (gepants), has reignited interest in this strategy, with encouraging results. This review summarises historical and emerging data in this area, supporting use of the premonitory phase as an opportunity to intervene as early as possible in migraine to prevent attack-related morbidity.

Characterizing gaps in the preventive pharmacologic treatment of migraine: Multi-country results from the CaMEO-I study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries.

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it.

METHODS

The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability).

RESULTS

Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen.

Medication "underuse" headache

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification.

METHODS

Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication.

RESULTS

The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A large language model-based generative natural language processing framework fine-tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records

OBJECTIVE

To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free-text clinical notes.

BACKGROUND

Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine-tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2) Question Answering (QA) model zero-shot, (3) GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT-2 generative model few-shot training fine-tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT-2 generative model was the best-performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R2 score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT-2-based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R2 score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R2 score was higher than the GPT-2 QA zero-shot model or GPT-2 QA model few-shot training fine-tuned model.

CONCLUSION

We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state-of-the-art large language model, a GPT-2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free-text clinical notes with high accuracy and R2 score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT-2-based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT-2 generative model and inference code with open-source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine-tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health-care systems for various clinical use cases.

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.

Variation in Endpoints in FDA Medication Approvals: A Review of Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics and extent of variation of the endpoints used in trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of medications treating migraine.

METHODS

Using the Drugs@FDA online database, we identified novel prescription medications approved by the FDA between January 2001 and September 2022, for migraine with or without aura, for both acute and preventive treatment, and for episodic and chronic presentations. For each medication, we used the most recent FDA-approved labeling to identify indication, mechanism of action, mode of administration, manufacturer, approval year, number of pivotal trials, trial design, and primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixteen FDA-approved medications for the acute or preventive treatment of migraine were supported by 45 pivotal trials. There were 5 primary endpoint types: (1) change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline; (2) change in mean monthly migraine attacks from baseline; (3) change in mean monthly headache days from baseline; (4) mild to no pain After 2 hours; (5) pain free at 2 hours. There were 3 combinations of coprimary endpoints: (1) Headache Pain Free at 2 Hours and Most Bothersome Symptom Free at 2 Hours; (2) Pain Free at 2 Hours and Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 Hours Postdose; (3) Pain Free at 2 Hours and 2-24 Hours Sustained Pain Free and 2-Hour Pain Relief. Of the 8 preventive migraine medications, the timing of endpoint measurement included the full double-blind period, segments of the double-blind period, and the final month of the double-blind period.

DISCUSSION

Migraine medication trial endpoints were inconsistent within the same indication (episodic or chronic), mechanistic class, and route of administration, frustrating direct comparison among these medications. Furthermore, inconsistent definitions for the indications "episodic" and "chronic" migraine were also observed. Consistent endpoint selection for medications approved for preventive and acute migraine treatment would enhance the ability of patients, physicians, and payers to make informed choices among these medications.

Priority acute and preventive migraine treatment benefits: Results of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) qualitative study of people living with migraine

BACKGROUND

There is renewed emphasis on including patients in determining, defining, and prioritizing outcomes for migraine treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain insights directly from people living with migraine on their priorities for treatment.

METHODS

A total of 40 qualitative interviews were conducted as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a United States Food and Drug Administration grant-funded program to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Interviews included a structured exercise in which participants rank-ordered pre-defined lists of potential benefits for acute and preventive migraine therapy. The 40 study participants who reported being diagnosed with migraine by a clinician ranked the benefits and explained their rationale.

RESULTS

Study participants consistently ranked either pain relief or absence of pain as their top priority for acute treatment. Relief/absence of other migraine symptoms and improved functioning were also prioritized. For preventive treatment, participants prioritized reductions in migraine frequency, symptom severity, and attack duration. Few differences were found between participants with episodic migraine and those with chronic migraine. However, participants with chronic migraine ranked "increased predictability of attacks" much higher than those with episodic migraine. Participants' rankings were influenced by prior expectations and experiences of migraine treatments, which caused many participants to deprioritize desired benefits as unrealistic. Participants also identified several additional priorities, including limited side-effects and reliable treatment efficacy in both acute and preventive treatments.

CONCLUSION

The results showed the participants prioritized treatment benefits aligned with existing core clinical outcomes used in migraine research, but also valued benefits that are not typically assessed, such as predictability. Participants also deprioritized important benefits when they believed treatment was unlikely to deliver those outcomes.

Validation of the Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale (version 2) as a headache-specific photophobia assessment tool

OBJECTIVE

To present an updated version of the Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale version 2 (UPSIS2), providing robust clinical and psychometric validation, to improve headache-specific evaluation of light sensitivity and headache-related photophobia.

BACKGROUND

The original UPSIS filled a gap in available tools for assessment of headache-associated light sensitivity by providing patient-reported evaluation of the impact of light sensitivity on activities of daily living (ADLs). We have since revised the original questionnaire to provide a more robust item construct and refined validation approach.

METHODS

We conducted a psychometric validation of the UPSIS2 through a primary analysis of an online survey of volunteers with recurrent headaches recruited from the University of Utah clinics and surrounding community. Volunteers completed the original UPSIS and UPSIS2 questionnaire versions in addition to measures of headache impact, disability, and frequency. The UPSIS2 now includes a pre-defined recall period and a 1-4 Likert scale with standardized response anchors to improve clarity. Internal construct validity, external construct validity, and test-retest reliability, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 163 volunteers, with UPSIS2 scores ranging from 15 to 57 (out of a possible 15-60) with a mean (standard deviation) of 32.4 (8.80). Construct validity was satisfactory, as evidenced by sufficient unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence. Reliability was excellent, with Rasch test reliability = 0.90 and Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, and an intraclass correlation of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.88) for participants who took the test twice. UPSIS2 correlates well with other headache measures (Spearman's correlations >0.50), as well as the original UPSIS (Spearman's correlation = 0.87), indicating good convergent validity. UPSIS2 scores differ significantly across International Classification of Headache Disorders (third edition) groups, indicating good known group validity.

CONCLUSION

The UPSIS2 provides a well-validated headache-specific outcome measure for the assessment of photophobia impact on ADLs.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.

Validation and meaningful within-patient change in work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire (WPAI) for episodic or chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

No available studies demonstrate validity and meaningful change thresholds of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in patients with migraine. In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed reliability, validity, responsiveness, and meaningful within-patient change from baseline to Month 3 for Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) domain scores in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

METHOD

The Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CONQUER study (NCT03559257, N = 462) enrolled patients with EM or CM who failed two to four categories of prior preventive medication in past ten years. The analyses were performed for WPAI domain scores (absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work productivity, and non-work-related activity impairment). Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1) domain scores (Role Function-Restrictive [RFR] and Role Function-Preventive [RFP]), and monthly migraine headache days were used as anchors. Responder criteria were changes from baseline to Month 3 for each of these anchors and were defined as: increase in MSQ-RFR by ≥ 25.71 points and MSQ-RFP by ≥ 20.00 points and a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headache days. Assessments were performed for overall population, and patients with EM or CM. The meaningful change threshold was determined based on Youden index, Phi coefficient and sensitivity.

RESULTS

Of 462 randomized patients, 444 who completed WPAI questionnaire were included in post-hoc analysis. Test-retest reliability over 3 months in a stable subgroup revealed moderate correlations for non-work-related Activity Impairment (ICC = 0.446) presenteeism (ICC = 0.438) and a fair correlation for overall work productivity loss (ICC = 0.360). At baseline, all correlations between WPAI domain scores and continuous anchor variables exceeded recommended threshold of ≥ 0.30, except for WPAI domain scores with number of monthly migraine headache days. Patients achieving pre-specified responsiveness thresholds for monthly migraine headache days, and MSQ-RFP, MSQ-RFR from baseline to Month 3 (responders) showed significant improvements in WPAI domain scores compared with non-responders (P < 0.001). The meaningful change thresholds of -20 (% unit) were identified for WPAI domain scores.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, WPAI has sufficient validity, reliability, responsiveness, and appropriate interpretation standards to assess the impact of EM or CM on presenteeism and overall work productivity loss and non-work-related activity impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number of CONQUER study, NCT03559257.

Patient-reported experiences with migraine-related cognitive symptoms: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To capture patients' perspectives on migraine-related cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, headache, post-headache, and interictal periods.

BACKGROUND

Migraine-related cognitive symptoms are reported by people with migraine both during and between attacks. Associated with disability, they are increasingly viewed as a priority target for treatment. The Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project is focused on developing a patient-centered core set of outcome measures for the evaluation of migraine treatments. The project focuses on incorporating the experience of people living with migraine and the outcomes most meaningful to them. This includes an examination of the presence and functional impact of migraine-related cognitive symptoms and their perceived impact on quality of life and disability.

METHODS

Forty individuals with self-reported medically diagnosed migraine were recruited via iterative purposeful sampling for semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted using audio-only web conferencing. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify key concepts around migraine-related cognitive symptoms. Recruitment continued until concept saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described symptoms consistent with migraine-related deficits in language/speech, sustained attention, executive function, and memory that manifest during pre-headache (36/40 [90%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), headache (35/40 [88%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), post-headache (27/40 [68%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), and interictal periods (13/40 [33%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature). Among participants reporting cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, 32/40 (81%) endorsed 2-5 cognitive symptoms. Findings were similar during the headache phase. Participants reported language/speech problems consistent with, for example, impairments in receptive language, expressive language, and articulation. Issues with sustained attention included fogginess, confusion/disorientation, and trouble with concentration/focus. Deficits in executive function included difficulty processing information and reduced capacity for planning and decision-making. Memory issues were reported across all phases of the migraine attack.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level qualitative study suggests that cognitive symptoms are common for persons with migraine, particularly in the pre-headache and headache phases. These findings highlight the importance of assessing and ameliorating these cognitive problems.

Effect of Atogepant for Preventive Migraine Treatment on Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 ADVANCE Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is indicated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. We evaluated changes in patient-reported outcomes with atogepant in adults with migraine.

METHODS

In this phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (ADVANCE), adults with 4-14 migraine days per month received atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) once daily or placebo. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (RFR) domain at week 12 and mean monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domains across the 12-week treatment period. Exploratory endpoints included change in MSQ Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domains; AIM-D total scores; and change in Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 scores.

RESULTS

Of 910 participants randomized, 873 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant: 10 mg [n = 214]; 30 mg [n = 223]; and 60 mg [n = 222]; placebo [n = 214]). All atogepant groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements vs placebo in MSQ RFR that exceeded minimum clinically meaningful between-group difference (3.2 points) at week 12 (least-square mean difference [LSMD] vs placebo: 10 mg [9.9]; 30 mg [10.1]; 60 mg [10.8]; all p < 0.0001). LSMDs in monthly AIM-D PDA and PI scores across the 12-week treatment period improved significantly for the atogepant 30 (PDA: -2.54; p = 0.0003; PI: -1.99; and p = 0.0011) and 60 mg groups (PDA: -3.32; p < 0.0001; PI: -2.46; p < 0.0001), but not for the 10 mg group (PDA: -1.19; p = 0.086; PI: -1.08; p = 0.074). In exploratory analyses, atogepant 30 and 60 mg were associated with nominal improvements in MSQ RFP and EF domains, other AIM-D outcomes, and HIT-6 scores at the earliest time point (week 4) and throughout the 12-week treatment period. Results varied for atogepant 10 mg.

DISCUSSION

Atogepant 30 and 60 mg produced significant improvements in key patient-reported outcomes including MSQ-RFR scores and both AIM-D domains. Nominal improvements also occurred for other MSQ domains and HIT-6, reinforcing the beneficial effects of atogepant as a new treatment for migraine prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777059. Submitted: December 13, 2018; First patient enrolled: December 14, 2018.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT03777059.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class II evidence that daily atogepant is associated with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures in patients with 4-14 migraine days per month.

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305)

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities.

RESULTS

Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03732638.

The not so hidden impact of interictal burden in migraine: A narrative review

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease of varying attack frequency. Headache attacks that are accompanied by a combination of impact on daily activities, photophobia and/or nausea are most commonly migraine. The headache phase of a migraine attack has attracted more research, assessment tools and treatment goals than any other feature, characteristic, or phase of migraine. However, the migraine attack may encompass up to 4 phases: the prodrome, aura, headache phase and postdrome. There is growing recognition that the burden of migraine, including symptoms associated with the headache phase of the attack, may persist between migraine attacks, sometimes referred to as the "interictal phase." These include allodynia, hypersensitivity, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, visual/vestibular disturbances and motion sickness. Subtle interictal clinical manifestations and a patient's trepidation to make plans or commitments due to the unpredictability of migraine attacks may contribute to poorer quality of life. However, there are only a few tools available to assess the interictal burden. Herein, we examine the recent advances in the recognition, description, and assessment of the interictal burden of migraine. We also highlight the value in patients feeling comfortable discussing the symptoms and overall burden of migraine when discussing migraine treatment needs with their provider.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks-Successful translation of basic science to clinical practice

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurovascular disorder afflicting more than 15% of the global population. Nearly three times more females are afflicted by migraine in the 18-50 years age group, compared to males. Migraine attacks are most often sporadic, but a subgroup of individuals experience a gradual increase in frequency over time; among these, up to 1%-2% of the global population develop chronic migraine. Although migraine symptoms have been known for centuries, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Two theories have dominated the current thinking-a neurovascular theory and a central neuronal theory with the origin of the attacks in the hypothalamus. During the last decades, the understanding of migraine has markedly advanced. This is supported by the early seminal demonstration of the trigeminovascular reflex 35 years ago and the insight that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks. The more recent findings that gepants, small molecule CGRP receptor blockers, and monoclonal antibodies generated against CGRP, or its canonical receptor are useful for the treatment of migraine, are other important issues. CGRP has been established as a key molecule in the neurobiology of migraine. Moreover, monoclonal antibodies to CGRP or the CGRP receptor represent a breakthrough in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology and have emerged as an efficacious prophylactic treatment for patients with severe migraine with excellent tolerability. This review describes the progression of research to reach the clinical usefulness of a large group of molecules that have in common the interaction with CGRP mechanisms in the trigeminal system to alleviate the burden for individuals afflicted by migraine.

Beyond pain control: Outcome and treatment preferences in pediatric migraine

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures among children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND

Across disciplines, there is increasing recognition of the value of direct input from stakeholders. Little empirical work has been done to determine what outcomes matter most to pediatric patients with migraine and their caregivers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we recruited participants from the multicenter, prospective Pediatric Migraine Registry. We used stratified purposive sampling to recruit children and adolescents of varied ages and headache frequency. Patients with migraine and their caregivers completed semistructured interviews targeting treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures. Emergent themes and subthemes were identified using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty dyads of children/adolescents and their caregivers were enrolled and completed 59 interviews (n = 29 children/adolescent interviews and n = 30 caregiver interviews). Three themes emerged. (1) Symptom relief: Looking beyond headache resolution: Participants described the value of outcomes in addition to pain relief, including a reduction in migraine intensity and improvement in non-pain symptoms. (2) Trade-offs between side effects and relief: Participants described cost-benefit analyses that can occur with headache treatment and acknowledged the impact of drug side effects on daily life and medication adherence. (3) Child-centered treatment: Participants described medication attributes salient to the pediatric context, including age-appropriate routes of administration and adequate safety data.

CONCLUSIONS

Children, adolescents, and caregivers impacted by migraine value outcomes in addition to traditionally studied migraine endpoints. Participants valued decreased pain severity, even in the absence of pain resolution. Participants also prioritized the absence of side effects and key medication attributes, including fast onset and age-appropriate routes of administration. These results highlight an opportunity to design patient-centered clinical trials, develop drugs, and support product labeling that align with the outcomes valued most by children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

Evaluating the clinical utility of the patient-identified most bothersome symptom measure from PROMISE-2 for research in migraine prevention

Objective

To assess the utility of the novel patient‐identified (PI) most bothersome symptom (MBS) measure from PROMISE‐2, a phase 3 trial of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

Background

Relief of bothersome migraine symptoms can influence satisfaction with treatment and therapeutic persistence. Understanding the impact of preventive treatment on a PI‐MBS could improve clinical decision‐making.

Methods

In PROMISE‐2, patients with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to 2 doses (n = 1072). PI‐MBS was an exploratory outcome requiring each patient to self‐report their MBS in response to an open‐ended question. At baseline and week 12, patients rated overall improvement in PI‐MBS. The relationships among PI‐MBS at week 12 and change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to month 3 (weeks 9–12), Patient Global Impression of Change at week 12, and changes from baseline to week 12 in the 6‐item Headache Impact Test total, EuroQol 5‐dimensions 5‐levels visual analog scale, and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey component scores were assessed.

Results

Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics and reported a total of 23 unique PI‐MBS, most commonly light sensitivity (200/1072, 18.7%), nausea/vomiting (162/1072, 15.1%), and pain with activity (147/1072, 13.7%). Improvements in PI‐MBS at week 12 correlated with changes in MMDs (ρ = −0.49; p < 0.0001) and other patient‐reported outcomes. Controlling for changes in MMDs, PI‐MBS improvement predicted other patient‐reported outcomes in expected directions. The magnitude of the standardized mean differences between placebo and active treatment for PI‐MBS were 0.31 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) and 0.54 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively.

Conclusions

Improvement in PI‐MBS at week 12 was associated with improvement in other patient‐reported outcome measures, and PI‐MBS may be an important patient‐centered measure of treatment benefits in patients with chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab treatment initiated during a migraine attack is associated with meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcome measures: secondary results from the randomized controlled RELIEF study

Background

Demonstrating therapeutic value from the patient perspective is important in patient-centered migraine management. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of eptinezumab, a preventive migraine treatment, on patient-reported headache impact, acute medication optimization, and perception of disease change when initiated during a migraine attack.

Methods

RELIEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 2019 and 2020 in adults with ≥1-year history of migraine and 4–15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1–6 h of a qualifying migraine attack onset. The 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and 6-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-6) were administered at baseline and week 4, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at week 4. A post hoc analysis of these measures was conducted in patients who reported headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Results

Of 480 patients enrolled and treated, 476 completed the study and are included in this analysis. Mean baseline HIT-6 total scores indicated severe headache impact (eptinezumab, 65.1; placebo, 64.8). At week 4, the eptinezumab-treated group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in HIT-6 total score compared with placebo (mean change from baseline: eptinezumab, − 8.7; placebo, − 4.5; mean [95% CI] difference from placebo: − 4.2 [− 5.75, − 2.63], P < .0001), with greater reductions in each item score vs placebo (P < .001 all comparisons). Change in HIT-6 total score in the subgroup with 2-h headache pain freedom was − 13.8 for the eptinezumab group compared with − 4.9 for the placebo group. mTOQ-6 total score mean change from baseline favored eptinezumab (change, 2.1) compared with placebo (1.2; mean [95% CI] difference: 0.9 [0.3, 1.5], P < .01). More eptinezumab-treated patients rated PGIC as much or very much improved than placebo patients (59.3% vs 25.9%).

Conclusions

When administered during a migraine attack, eptinezumab significantly improved patient-reported outcomes after 4 weeks compared with placebo, with particularly pronounced effects in patients reporting headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04152083. November 5, 2019.

Reducing the physical, social, and emotional impact of episodic migraine: Results from erenumab STRIVE and ARISE phase III randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in the functional impact of migraine following treatment with erenumab, as measured by the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ).

BACKGROUND

The MFIQ, a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) measuring the impact of migraine on four domains (physical function, social function, and emotional function [PF, SF, and EF]; usual activities [UAs]) and a single item assessing overall impact on UA, was included in phase III trials evaluating erenumab 70 and 140 mg monthly for migraine prevention among people with episodic migraine (EM).

METHODS

In the ARISE study, 577 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab 70 mg or placebo. In the STRIVE study, 955 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in MFIQ scores (with associated 95% confidence interval [CI]) were assessed for each active treatment versus placebo.

RESULTS

In ARISE, greater reductions from baseline to month 3 were observed for 70 mg versus placebo for PF (LSM [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.4 to -0.1]; p = 0.046) and EF (-4.0 [-7.3 to -0.7]; p = 0.019) domain scores. In STRIVE, between-group differences also reflected reductions from baseline to the average of months 4-6 that favored erenumab on all four MFIQ domain scores. Reductions in impact for 70 mg compared to placebo were -4.3 (95% CI: -6.8 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for PF, -4.0 (-6.3 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for UA, -3.7 (-6.1 to -1.2; p = 0.003) for SF, and -5.3 (-7.9 to -2.6; p < 0.001) for EF domain scores. Improvements were also observed for 140 mg versus placebo with between-group differences of -5.7 (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.2; p < 0.001) in PF, -5.1 (-7.5 to -2.8; p < 0.001) in UA, -5.0 (-7.4 to -2.6; p < 0.001) in SF, and -7.2 (-9.9 to -4.5; p < 0.001) in EF domain scores. There were also greater improvements in the overall impact on UA score for 70 mg (LSM [95% CI]: -4.3 [-7.0 to -1.7]; p = 0.001) and 140 mg (-5.3 [-8.5 to -3.2]; p < 0.001) versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The MFIQ measures the frequency of impacts and level of difficulty on multiple functional domains that provide a more complete picture of the effects of migraine. MFIQ scores showed that in comparison with placebo, patients treated with erenumab had greater reductions in the functional impact of migraine, providing insight into treatment benefits that extend beyond improvements in clinical status and health-related quality of life previously reported based on clinical end points and other PROs.

Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcome measure in people with episodic migraine and chronic migraine: The Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary

Objective

To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM‐D).

Background

Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance.

Methods

The AIM‐D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM‐D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13‐week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM‐D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM‐D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression – Severity (PGI‐S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function‐Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM‐D.

Results

Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM‐D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11‐item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one‐ and two‐domain structures for the AIM‐D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM‐D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95–0.97), acceptable test–retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI‐S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known‐groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI‐S score and monthly migraine days.

Conclusion

The AIM‐D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Measuring headache day severity using multiple features in daily diary designs

OBJECTIVE

Though migraine is thought of as a symptom complex, symptoms are typically assessed one at a time. For use in clinical research, we developed a composite measure of headache day severity by combining eight well-known symptoms captured in daily diaries.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Data came from adults with a self-reported diagnosis of migraine (n  =  4380) who provided daily diary information assessed using a novel digital platform. Nine observed features theoretically linked to headache day severity were analyzed using latent variable modeling to create a psychometrically robust headache day severity score. Logistic regression was used to assess the cross-sectional relationships of headache day severity scores against an array of clinically-relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants were largely females (90%), approaching middle age (mean age of 37.3) and living in the United States (49%) or United Kingdom (23%). Findings supported a single latent headache day severity construct based on eight observed headache features. Headache day severity scores were associated with an increased odds of physician visits (Odds ratio[95% CI]: 1.71[1.32-2.21]), emergency department visits (4.12[2.23-7.60]), missed school/work (2.90[2.56-3.29]), missed household work (3.37[3.06-3.72]), and missed other activities (3.29[2.97-3.64]) (p < .0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Modern measurement techniques support a single headache day severity construct that reflects migraine is a symptom complex. The headache day severity scores were associated with external validators and initial visualizations showed how headache day severity scores can be applied broadly in clinical practice and research.

Learning the full impact of migraine through patient voices: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize the ways that migraine affects multiple domains of life.

BACKGROUND

Further understanding of migraine burden is needed.

METHODS

Adults with migraine randomized to mindfulness-based stress reduction or headache education arms (n = 81) in two separate randomized clinical trials participated in semistructured in-person qualitative interviews conducted after the interventions. Interviews queried participants on migraine impact on life and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and summarized into a framework matrix. A master codebook was created until meaning saturation was reached and magnitude coding established code frequency. Themes and subthemes were identified using a constructivist grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Despite most participants being treated with acute and/or prophylactic medications, 90% (73/81) reported migraine had a negative impact on overall life, with 68% (55/81) endorsing specific domains of life impacted and 52% (42/81) describing impact on emotional health. Six main themes of migraine impact emerged: (1) global negative impact on overall life; (2) impact on emotional health; (3) impact on cognitive function; (4) impact on specific domains of life (work/career, family, social); (5) fear and avoidance (pain catastrophizing and anticipatory anxiety); and (6) internalized and externalized stigma. Participants reported how migraine (a) controls life, (b) makes life difficult, and (c) causes disability during attacks, with participants (d) experiencing a lack of control and/or (e) attempting to push through despite migraine. Emotional health was affected through (a) isolation, (b) anxiety, (c) frustration/anger, (d) guilt, (e) mood changes/irritability, and (f) depression/hopelessness. Cognitive function was affected through concentration and communication difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine has a global negative impact on overall life, cognitive and emotional health, work, family, and social life. Migraine contributes to isolation, frustration, guilt, fear, avoidance behavior, and stigma. A greater understanding of the deep burden of this chronic neurological disease is needed to effectively target and treat what is most important to those living with migraine.