Total Migraine Freedom, a Potential Primary Endpoint to Assess Acute Treatment in Migraine: Comparison to the Current FDA Requirement Using the Complete Rizatriptan Study Database

Multimodal Migraine Management and the Pursuit of Migraine Freedom: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a neurologic disease with a complex pathophysiology that can be controlled with current treatment options but not cured. Therefore, treatment expectations are highly variable. The concept of migraine freedom was recently introduced and can mean different things, with some, for example, expecting complete freedom from headache and associated symptoms and others accepting the occasional migraine attack if it does not impact functioning. Therefore, migraine management should be optimized so that patients can have the best opportunity to achieve their optimal treatment goals. With migraine freedom as a goal and, given the complex pathophysiology of migraine and the high incidence of comorbidities among individuals with migraine, treatment with a single modality may be insufficient, as it may not achieve migraine freedom in those with more frequent or disabling attacks. In this clinical perspective article, we have identified four key, partially overlapping principles of multimodal migraine treatment: (1) manage common comorbidities; (2) control modifiable risk factors for progression by addressing medication and caffeine overuse; (3) diagnose and treat secondary causes of headache, if present; and (4) individualize acute and preventive treatments to minimize pain, functional disability, and allodynia. There are many barriers to pursuing migraine freedom, and strategies to overcome them should be optimized. Migraine freedom should be an aspirational goal both at the individual attack level and for the disease overall. We believe that a comprehensive and multimodal approach that addresses all barriers people with migraine face could move patients closer to migraine freedom.

Study of the Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches of Migraine in Women and Pregnancy: A Literature Review

Headache is a significant and debilitating health problem, affecting more than half of the population worldwide. Migraine is a type of headache that is strongly associated with women and accounts for the high number of years lived with disability among women. The pathophysiology of migraine attacks may begin with a premonitory phase, followed by an aura phase and migraine headache. In women, many factors influence the prevalence of migraine, and sex hormone fluctuations around the menstruation cycle were believed to impact the pathogenesis of migraine. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition identifies menstrual migraine as pure menstrual migraine without aura and menstrually related migraine without aura. While migraine without aura (MwoA) was clearly associated with menstruation, migraine with aura (MwA) was generally unrelated to menstruation. Studies suggested that estrogen withdrawal is a trigger for MwoA, but high estrogen states are a trigger for MwA. During pregnancy, the increase in estrogen hypothetically prevents migraine attacks. There are several strategies for managing menstrual migraine, from acute/abortive, mini-preventive, and continuous preventive treatment. Managing migraine during pregnancy follows a similar strategy, but the drugs' safety profile should be considered.

Rapid Onset and Sustained Efficacy of Lasmiditan Among Japanese Patients with Migraine: Prespecified Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Rapid onset and sustained efficacy are important for acute migraine treatment. Global phase 3 trials have demonstrated the early onset and sustained efficacy of the 5-HT_1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. In this prespecified analysis of the MONONOFU study, we assessed the onset and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study conducted in Japan (May 2019-June 2020). Eligible adults with migraine (N = 846; modified intent-to-treat population, N = 682) were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg, taken orally within 4 h of moderate-to-severe migraine onset. Patients recorded headache severity and symptoms predose and 0.5-48 h postdose. Sustained and modified sustained pain freedom were defined as patients who were headache pain-free 2 h postdose and had no pain (sustained pain freedom) or had mild or no pain (modified sustained pain freedom) at 24 or 48 h without rescue/recurrence medications. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression. Patients also recorded the actual time of pain-free and of meaningful pain relief (Kaplan-Meier analysis).

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, significantly more lasmiditan-treated (100 or 200 mg) patients were headache pain-free, had pain relief, were free of their most bothersome symptom, or had total migraine freedom (no headache or migraine-associated symptoms) within 30-60 min. Median time to pain-free was 9.26, 6.88, 2.75, and 2.30 h in placebo, 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg lasmiditan groups, respectively. Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with 100 (19.7-29.5%) or 200 mg (21.1-35.7%) lasmiditan had sustained or modified sustained pain freedom at 24 or 48 h compared with placebo (10.4-15.8%).

CONCLUSION

This prespecified analysis of data from MONONOFU has confirmed that the efficacy of lasmiditan is rapid in onset and sustained in patients with moderate-to-severe migraine in Japan.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03962738).

Onset of Efficacy Following Oral Treatment With Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Integrated Results From 2 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Studies

Objective

To expand on available information on the efficacy of oral lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine with particular focus on the timing of the effect and on its impact on migraine‐associated symptoms.

Background

Lasmiditan is a novel selective 5‐hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist that lacks vasoconstrictive activity. In 2 phase 3 studies, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, lasmiditan met primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours following initial dose.

Methods

Integrated analyses were completed from 2 phase 3 clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Baseline data and data collected every 30 minutes up to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to determine the onset of efficacy. A total of 5236 patients were randomized to be treated with placebo (N = 1493), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 750), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1498), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1495). Data were analyzed to determine the onset of improvement for the following efficacy measures: pain freedom, most bothersome symptom freedom, pain relief, freedom from associated individual symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea), total migraine freedom (defined as pain freedom and freedom from associated symptoms), and freedom from migraine‐related functional disability. Time to meaningful headache relief and time to first become pain free were also analyzed.

Results

Significantly higher rates of pain freedom (100 mg, 10.0%, P = .012; 200 mg, 15.5%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.0%) and total migraine freedom (100 mg, 8.9%, P = .017; 200 mg, 12.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 6.1%) were achieved starting at 60 minutes in 100‐ and 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated groups compared with placebo group. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom (100 mg, 11.1%, P = .015; 200 mg, 13.0%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.9%), and pain relief (100 mg, 17.5%, P = .007; 200 mg, 19.1%, P < .001; Placebo, 13.4%) were significantly higher starting as early as 30 minutes in lasmiditan 100‐ and 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated group achieved freedom from photophobia (13.7%, P = .005; Placebo, 9.2%) and phonophobia (17.4%, P = .042; Placebo, 13.4%) starting at 30 minutes. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated group achieved freedom from migraine‐related functional disability starting at 60 minutes (16.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 11.1%). All efficacy measures, except for freedom from nausea, were statistically significant after lasmiditan treatment (50, 100, or 200 mg) compared with placebo at 90 and 120 minutes. Finally, patients taking lasmiditan had a higher likelihood of achieving meaningful headache relief and becoming headache pain free within 24 hours compared with those taking placebo (P < .001).

Conclusions

Patients treated with lasmiditan for a migraine attack reported an earlier onset of efficacy compared with those treated with placebo. Some of the efficacy measures such as pain relief demonstrated improvement as early as the first assessment at 30 minutes after 100‐ or 200‐mg lasmiditan treatment.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults: Fourth edition

The quality of clinical trials is an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. Scientific and clinical developments in headache medicine led to second and third editions in 2000 and 2012, respectively. The current, fourth edition of the Guidelines retains the structure and much content from previous editions. However, it also incorporates evidence from clinical trials published after the third edition as well as feedback from meetings with regulators, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and patient associations. Its final form reflects the collective expertise and judgement of the Committee. These updated recommendations and commentary are intended to meet the Society's continuing objective of providing a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Menstrual migraine: a review of current and developing pharmacotherapies for women

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders in the general population. It affects 18% of women and 6% of men. In more than 50% of women migraineurs the occurrence of migraine attacks correlates strongly with the perimenstrual period. Menstrual migraine is highly debilitating, less responsive to therapy, and attacks are longer than those not correlated with menses. Menstrual migraine requires accurate evaluation and targeted therapy, that we aim to recommend in this review.

AREAS COVERED

This review of the literature provides an overview of currently available pharmacological therapies (especially with triptans, anti-inflammatory drugs, hormonal strategies) and drugs in development (in particular those acting on calcitonin gene-related peptide) for the treatment of acute migraine attacks and the prophylaxis of menstrual migraine. The studies reviewed here were retrieved from the Medline database as of June 2017.

EXPERT OPINION

The treatment of menstrual migraine is highly complex. Accurate evaluation of its characteristics is prerequisite to selecting appropriate therapy. An integrated approach involving neurologists and gynecologists is essential for patient management and for continuous updating on new therapies under development.

Early Onset of Efficacy and Consistency of Response Across Multiple Migraine Attacks From the Randomized COMPASS Study: AVP-825 Breath Powered® Exhalation Delivery System (Sumatriptan Nasal Powder) vs Oral Sumatriptan

OBJECTIVE

To further characterize the clinical utility of AVP-825 based on additional prespecified outcomes and post hoc analyses of COMPASS, a Phase 3 comparative efficacy trial of AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan (NCT01667679). AVP-825 was approved in January 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration under the name ONZETRA^® Xsail^® (sumatriptan nasal powder) for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.

BACKGROUND

AVP-825 is a delivery system that uses a patient's own breath to deliver low-dose sumatriptan powder to the upper posterior regions of the nasal cavity beyond the narrow nasal valve, areas lined with vascular mucosa conducive to rapid drug absorption into the systemic circulation. The recommended dose of AVP-825 is 22 mg sumatriptan powder administered as one 11 mg nosepiece in each nostril, which delivers approximately 15-16 mg of sumatriptan intranasally. The COMPASS trial compared AVP-825 22-100 mg oral sumatriptan across multiple migraine attacks for efficacy, safety, and tolerability endpoints.

DESIGN/METHODS

COMPASS was a randomized, multicenter, double-dummy, crossover, multiattack, comparative efficacy study with two 12-week double-blind periods. Patients with 2-8 migraine attacks/month were randomized 1:1 to AVP-825 (22 mg) plus oral placebo or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan for the first period, and then patients switched treatments for the second period. Patients treated up to 5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 h of onset, even if the intensity of the attack was mild. Results from the primary endpoint (SPID-30, defined as the sum of pain intensity differences from dosing to 30 minutes), key secondary efficacy endpoints and safety assessments have been reported in the primary publication (Tepper et al., 2015). This article reports additional prespecified outcomes, including the SPID-30 for attacks treated when baseline severity was mild vs moderate/severe, measures of sustained response and consistency of effect in patients who experienced multiple migraine attacks, and the results of post hoc analyses performed to assess total migraine freedom (defined as no pain and no migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia), time to pain freedom, time to meaningful pain relief, and local (occurring at the site of administration in the nose) vs systemic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients completed both treatment periods, yielding 1,531 migraine attacks which were treated and assessed (765 AVP-825, 766 oral sumatriptan). Treatment with AVP-825 provided greater reduction in migraine pain intensity which was statistically significant vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes postdose regardless of whether attacks were treated when pain was mild (least squares mean SPID-30 = 3.90 vs 0.24, P = .0013) or moderate/severe (least squares mean SPID-30 = 13.83 vs 10.07, P = .0002). At every time point from 15 to 90 minutes postdose, the proportion of attacks achieving total migraine freedom was greater and statistically significant after treatment with AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan. AVP-825 treatment resulted in greater odds of achieving pain freedom (odds ratio, OR = 1.29, P < .01) and meaningful pain relief (OR = 1.32, P < .0001), which were also statistically significant compared with oral sumatriptan. In addition, a greater proportion of attacks treated with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan was associated with sustained pain freedom, achieving statistical significance when assessed from 1 h postdose through 24 hours postdose (33.3% vs 27.9%; P < .05) and through 48 hours postdose (32.7% vs 27.4%; P < .05). For patients who treated multiple migraine attacks in both treatment periods, a greater proportion had consistent pain relief and pain freedom following treatment with AVP-825 compared to oral sumatriptan across multiple attacks, a difference that achieved statistical significance at 30 minutes postdose. Local TEAEs of abnormal taste and nasal discomfort were more common following AVP-825 treatment. Of the patients experiencing either of these TEAEs, about 90% described the intensity as mild, and only one discontinued treatment because of either of these two TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results from the COMPASS study further demonstrate that treatment with AVP-825 provides earlier onset and more consistent across-episode improvement of pain and migraine-associated symptoms compared with oral sumatriptan, highlighting the clinical advantages of this newly approved intranasal delivery system for low-dose sumatriptan powder.

The development of a survey to measure completeness of response to migraine therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of a new patient-reported migraine instrument, the Completeness of Response Survey (CORS), which measures a comprehensive set of factors important to patients' decisions regarding the initiation and continuation of treatment.

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, migraine treatments and the instruments used to demonstrate their efficacy have focused on the relief of headache pain. As new treatments emerge with the potential for more complete and consistent migraine relief, more comprehensive tools are needed to demonstrate these benefits. The CORS includes 2 modules, the static CORS, which comprehensively evaluates one treatment at one time point, and the comparative CORS, which provides a more global comparison between 2 treatments at one time point. Together, the 2 modules can measure unmet treatment needs and improvements over the course of a clinical study.

METHODS

Data from an 8-site study comparing 147 patients' recent experiences with their current triptan therapy and 2 months of study treatment with a single-tablet formulation of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium were used to conduct a preliminary psychometric evaluation of the CORS. The study included both modules of the CORS, the Headache Impact Test, the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, and a migraine diary.

RESULTS

The CORS response categories in both the static and comparative modules demonstrated limited floor or ceiling effects and few missing values (<3%). Inter-item correlations, principal components analysis (component loading range: 0.62 to 0.95), and high estimates of internal consistency (alpha range: 0.88 to 0.94) for each composite score supported the structure and proposed scoring algorithm for the static module. The pattern of correlations between the CORS static and comparative items and composites with the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire items and subscales, as well as the relationships between responses to selected static CORS items and the migraine diary, supported the construct validity of the CORS.

CONCLUSIONS

The CORS is capable of demonstrating advantages of more comprehensive migraine therapies over traditional therapies, which are primarily focused on the resolution of headache pain, by addressing the frequency and speed with which the most common migraine symptoms are resolved and patients' return to normal functioning. This research shows evidence for the value and utility for the CORS static and comparative items and components, and further evaluation is underway.

Rizatriptan in migraineurs with unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms: a double-blind trial

The objective and background is to confirm in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study the high triptan response rates we had previously reported in an open study in migraine patients with unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 80 migraineurs with unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms were assigned to receive rizatriptan 10 mg wafer or placebo (ratio 1:1) and treated for a single moderate or severe migraine attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h and total migraine freedom at 2 h. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, no associated symptoms and sustained pain freedom or relief. Significantly more patients reported pain freedom at 2 h after taking rizatriptan (54 %) than after placebo (8 %) (therapeutic gain 46 % [28 %; 64 %]; P < 0.001). Similarly, significantly more patients reported total migraine freedom at 2 h after rizatriptan (51 %) than after placebo (8 %) (therapeutic gain 43 % [26 %; 61 %]; P < 0.001). Rizatriptan was also more effective than placebo on most secondary endpoints. We confirm in a placebo-controlled study our previous data suggesting that the presence of unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms in migraineurs predicts a positive response to triptans, probably owing to intense trigeminal peripheral afferent activation which strongly recruits peripheral neurovascular 5-HT1B/1D receptors. Acute and preventive pharmacological trials in migraine should focus also on this subset of migraine patients.

Multi-center comparison of response to a single tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg and naproxen 500 mg vs usual therapy treating multiple migraine attacks as measured by the completeness of response survey

OBJECTIVE

To investigate a broad definition of migraine resolution that extends beyond specific migraine-associated diagnostic symptoms as measured by the Completeness of Response Survey.

METHODS

Conducted at 8 sites, 135 subjects treated migraines with SumaRT/Nap over 2 months. To measure subjects' experiences with SumaRT/Nap compared to their usual migraine medication, the Headache Impact Test, Revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, and Completeness of Response Survey were administered at baseline and at 2 months.

RESULTS

The effects of the study medicine compared to the subjects' usual migraine medicine reached statistical significance in decreasing headache severity, lessening of associated symptoms, and attaining complete relief with a single dose (60.04% of attacks resolved at 2 hours post-treatment).

CONCLUSION

Compared to a subject's usual treatment, SumaRT/Nap used early and consistently for treatment of acute migraine offers important clinical improvements, including lessening of associated symptoms beyond International Headache Society criteria.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00893737.