Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness and safety of pharmacological prophylaxis for chronic migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) significantly impacts both the physical and mental health of patients. Current studies on the safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological prophylaxis interventions for CM are limited. To address this gap, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of various drugs in preventing CM.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched four databases from their inception to August 1, 2023, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subsequently, they performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. A NMA was then performed. Continuous outcomes and binary outcomes were displayed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR), respectively, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank each intervention separately.

RESULTS

24 RCTs involving 8789 patients were included. Compared to placebo, Botulinum toxin A demonstrated the most significant effect in reducing the monthly migraine days for CM patients (MD = 3.88, 95% CI 0.48, 7.28); in terms of improving the response rate by a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, Topiramate (RR = 50.06, 95% CI 3.18, 787.30) was the most effective; there was no statistically significant difference between all preventive drugs and placebo in improving the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score; in terms of the incidence of adverse events, Eptinezumab (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.8, 1.54) exhibited the highest safety profile.

CONCLUSION

Among all the drugs for the preventive drugs for CM, Botulinum toxin A has the best efficacy and safety profile, closely followed by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

Preferences and perceptions of 617 migraine patients on acute and preventive migraine treatment attributes and clinical trial endpoints

BACKGROUND

To identify the preferences and perceptions of migraine patients for acute and preventive treatment options and to investigate which treatment outcomes are the most important.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The authors performed a choice-format survey in a cohort of migraine patients from Greece and Cyprus. A self-administered questionnaire developed in collaboration with the Greek Society of Migraine Patients was used.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were collected from 617 migraine patients. Efficacy was preferred over safety as the single most important parameter, both in acute and preventive treatment. When analyzing single outcomes, patients prioritized a complete pain remission at 1-hour post-dose for acute therapies. Regarding migraine prevention, a 75% reduction in frequency, intensity of pain, accompanying symptoms and acute medication intake were considered as most important. Conversely, outcomes routinely used in clinical trials, namely complete or partial pain remission at 2-hours post-dose for acute treatment and 50% or 30% reduction in migraine frequency for prevention, were not deemed particularly relevant. Tablet formulation was mostly preferred, both in acute and preventive treatment. Conclusion: Listening to patients' needs may add a piece of the puzzle that is generally missing in clinical practice and often explains the lack of adherence in both acute and preventative anti-migraine therapies.

Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: A multicenter, real-world study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

To compare the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine (CM) patients.

METHODS

This multicenter study involved retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinumtoxinA, including difficult-to-treat (DTT) patients (i.e., ≥3 preventive failures). Treatment outcomes were determined at 6 months based on prospective headache diaries and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS).

RESULTS

The study included 316 (55 M/261F, mean age 44.4 ± 13.5 years) and 333 (61 M/272F, mean age 47.9 ± 13.4 years) CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinbumtoxinA, respectively. At 6 months, CGRP mAb treatment was associated with a greater decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) (-13.0 vs. -8.7 days/month, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% responder rate (RR) (74.7% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001) compared with onabotulinumtoxinA injections. The findings were consistent in DTT patients (-13.0 vs. -9.1 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 73.9% vs. 50.3%, p < 0.001) or those with medication-overuse headache (MOH) (-13.3 vs. -9.0 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 79.0% vs. 51.6%, p < 0.001). Besides, patients receiving CGRP mAbs had greater improvement (-42.2 vs. -11.8, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% RR (62.0% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.001) in MIDAS scores and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) (6.0% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001). However, none of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, real-world study, CGRP mAbs were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in CM patients, even in DTT or MOH patients. All of these injectables were well tolerated. Further prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

Acupuncture plus topiramate placebo versus topiramate plus sham acupuncture for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A single-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been used for the treatment of chronic migraine, but high-quality evidence is scarce. We aimed to evaluate acupuncture's efficacy and safety compared to topiramate for chronic migraine.

METHODS

This double-dummy randomized controlled trial included participants aged 18-65 years diagnosed with chronic migraine. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive acupuncture (three sessions/week) plus topiramate placebo (acupuncture group) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus sham acupuncture (topiramate group) over 12 weeks, with the primary outcome being the mean change in monthly migraine days during weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

Of 123 screened patients, 60 (mean age 45.8, 81.7% female) were randomly assigned to acupuncture or topiramate groups. Acupuncture demonstrated significantly greater reductions in monthly migraine days than topiramate (weeks 1-12: -2.79 [95% CI: -4.65 to -0.94, p = 0.004]; weeks 13-24: -3.25 [95% CI: -5.57 to -0.92, p = 0.007]). No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture may be safe and effective for treating chronic migraine. The efficacy of 12 weeks of acupuncture was sustained for 24 weeks and superior to that of topiramate. Acupuncture can be used as an optional preventive therapy for chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.org Identifier 13563102.

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

These were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated.

RESULTS

In ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8-81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3-61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8-41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4.

CONCLUSION

Over 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

Consensus recommendations on the role of nurses in headache care: A European e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Nurses work at headache centres throughout Europe, and their care for migraine patients is acknowledged. However, the specific roles and tasks of nursing vary, and a unified understanding is lacking, posing challenges to knowledge sharing and research.

OBJECTIVES

Using an e-Delphi study method, the objective is to obtain healthcare professional headache experts' opinions on nursing-specific roles and tasks and combine this into consensus statements for nurse recommendations for migraine treatment.

METHODS

A three-round questionnaire study was conducted with nurses and neurologists from 18 specialised headache centres in 10 countries. In round 1, statements were compiled from a systematic examination of existing literature and expert opinions. In rounds 2 and 3, the experts rated the importance of statements (from round 1) on a 5-point Likert scale. Statements were analysed using a content analysis method, and the consensus of pre-defined statements was evaluated with gradually increased predetermined criteria using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Twenty-one experts, representing all 10 countries, participated. The predetermined consensus of ≥70% agreement was reached for 42 out of the initial 63 statements. These statements formed the final recommendations within two themes: "The nurses' roles and tasks in the clinical setting" and "The nurses' roles and tasks in educating patients and colleagues." The consensus level of statements was strong, with 40% receiving unanimous agreement (100%) and 97% achieving relatively high agreement (>80%).

CONCLUSION

Nursing plays a vital role with diverse tasks in migraine care. This study offers practical recommendations and a framework for nurses, equipping them with a clinical tool to enhance care and promote a coordinated approach to migraine treatment.

Effects of prophylactic drug therapies and anti-calcitonin peptide-related monoclonal antibodies on subjective sleep quality: An Italian multicenter study

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

sleep alterations strongly influence migraine severity. Prophylactic therapies have a major impact on migraine frequency and associated symptoms. The study purpose was to compare the impact of oral drug therapies or gene-related anti-calcitonin monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) on sleep alterations. We also evaluated which drug therapies are more effective on sleep quality and the different impact on migraine frequency and life quality.

PATIENTS/METHODS

this is a multicenter, prospective study conducted in three specialized headache centers (Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona; University of Palermo, Palermo; Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico, Rome). At baseline, we assigned migraine patients to preventive therapy with first-line drugs or anti-CGRP mAbs. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scales were administered. After three months, we re-evaluated the patients with the same scales.

RESULTS

214 patients were enrolled. Any prophylaxis was significantly associated with a reduction in PSQI score (mean difference 1.841; 95%CI:1.413-2.269; p < 0.0001), most significantly in the anti-CGRP mAb group (mean difference 1.49; 95%CI:2.617-0.366; p = 0.010). Anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in significant improvement in migraine severity and MIDAS scores. Among oral therapies, calcium antagonists and antidepressants were the most effective in reducing PSQI score between T0 and T1 (p = 0.042; p = 0.049; p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

anti-CGRP mAbs revitalized the management of migraine with stable and well-documented efficacy. Our data also suggest that anti-CGRP mAbs result in a positive effect on sleep quality, with a significant improvement in PSQI scores. Knowing the relevant impact of sleep disruption on migraine severity, these data could help for the management of migraine patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.

Objective

To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

Results

A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

Untangling the mess of CGRP levels as a migraine biomarker: an in-depth literature review and analysis of our experimental experience

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is the most promising candidate to become the first migraine biomarker. However, literature shows clashing results and suggests a methodological source for such discrepancies. We aimed to investigate some of these methodological factors to evaluate the actual role of CGRP as biomarker.

METHODS

Previous to the experimental part, we performed a literature review of articles measuring CGRP in migraine patients. Using our 399 bio-bank sera samples, we performed a series of experiments to test the validity of different ELISA kits employed, time of sample processing, long-term storage, sampling in rest or after moderate exercise. Analysis of in-house data was performed to analyse average levels of the peptide and the effect of sex and age.

RESULTS

Literature review shows the high variability in terms of study design, determination methods, results and conclusions obtained by studies including CGRP determinations in migraine patients. CGRP measurements depends on the method and specific kit employed, also on the isoform detected, showing completely different ranges of concentrations. Alpha-CGRP and beta-CGRP had median with IQR levels of 37.5 (28.2-54.4) and 4.6 (2.4-6.4)pg/mL, respectively. CGRP content is preserved in serum within the 24 first hours when samples are stored at 4°C after clotting and immediate centrifugation. Storages at -80°C of more than 6 months result in a decrease in CGRP levels. Moderate exercise prior to blood extraction does not modulate the concentration of the peptide. Age positively correlates with beta-CGRP content and men have higher alpha-CGRP levels than women.

CONCLUSIONS

We present valuable information for CGRP measurements in serum. ELISA kit suitability should be tested prior to the experiments. Alpha and beta-CGRP levels should be analysed separately as they can show different behaviours even within the same condition. Samples can be processed in a 24-h window if they have been kept in 4°C and should not be stored for more than 6 months at -80°C before assayed. Patients do not need to rest before the blood extraction unless they have performed a high-endurance exercise. For comparative studies, sex and age should be accounted for as these parameters can impact CGRP concentrations.

CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine.

RESULTS

A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine.

Pain medication beliefs in individuals with headache

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pain medication beliefs in a community sample of individuals with headache.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of medication adherence for individuals with headache have identified a high rate of prescription nonfulfillment, frequent medication discontinuation, and widely varying levels of medication-related satisfaction. Still, there is a limited understanding of how these individuals view their medications and their relationships with health-care providers. Insight into these perceptions could prove useful in explaining medication adherence behaviors.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study, data from N = 215 adults with headache were analyzed. Participants completed the Pain Medication Attitudes Questionnaire (PMAQ), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2, Weekly Stress Inventory Short Form, and Migraine Disability Scale. These participants also provided a list of their current pain medications.

RESULTS

Using the PMAQ, participants could be characterized as having medication beliefs that were "trusting and unconcerned" (n = 83/215 [38.6%]), "skeptical and somewhat worried" (n = 99/215 [46.0%]), or "skeptical and concerned" (n = 33/215 [15.3%]). Individuals with skeptical and concerned beliefs expressed elevated concerns (z > 1.15) about side effects, scrutiny, perceived need, tolerance, withdrawal, and addiction. Individuals who were trusting and unconcerned expressed low levels (z < -0.40) of these beliefs. Increasing levels of mistrust and medication concerns were correlated with higher depression scores on the CES-D, with values ranging from r = 0.23 to r = 0.38.

CONCLUSIONS

Subgroups of pain medication beliefs were identified, including two groups of patients with at least some concerns about their medical providers. Beliefs ranged from a lack of concern about using pain medications to worries about scrutiny and harm. It is unclear if poor experiences with pain medications cause these beliefs or if they prevent individuals from effectively utilizing medications. Additionally, more negative beliefs about pain medications were associated with more depressive symptoms.

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.

Evaluation of the risk of hypertension in patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in a real-life study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the rate of hypertension incoming in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide.

BACKGROUND

The monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide are unquestionable effective in the prevention of migraine. Despite this, the development of hypertension has been detected in some patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Modena. Patients were visited quarterly up to 1 year.

RESULTS

Globally, no significant increase in the blood pressure was detected. The 5.7% of the patients developed a significant increase in their blood pressure. In particular, patients with a pre-existing hypertension were more likely to have a significant increase in the blood pressure.

CONCLUSION

The risk of developing hypertension during a treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies seems low. Anyway, patients with a pre-existing hypertension should be cautiously monitored because they are more likely to develop hypertension.

Preventive Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

This article describes strategies for the preventive treatment of migraine including the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies and introduces novel paradigms for the preventive treatment of migraine.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Multiple migraine medications targeting CGRP have been introduced since 2018, including injectable monoclonal antibodies (ie, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (ie, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, and zavegepant). With the exceptions of ubrogepant and zavegepant, which are approved only as acute treatments, all of these agents have demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of migraine; the monoclonal antibodies and atogepant have evidence of effectiveness in adults with either episodic or chronic migraine. The safety and tolerability profiles of CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine are favorable.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The goals of preventive migraine therapy include reducing the frequency, severity, duration, and disability associated with attacks, reducing the need for acute treatment and the risk of medication overuse, enhancing self-efficacy and health-related quality of life, and reducing headache-related distress and interictal burden. Six drugs targeting CGRP (four monoclonal antibodies and two gepants) are now available for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. The efficacy of CGRP-targeted medications in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, together with good safety and tolerability, has led to the emergence of new approaches to preventive treatment.

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.

Eptinezumab Demonstrated Efficacy Regardless of Prior Preventive Migraine Treatment Failure Type: Post Hoc Analyses of the DELIVER Study

INTRODUCTION

In the DELIVER study, eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) more than placebo in patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of eptinezumab across the 24-week placebo-controlled period of the DELIVER study in subgroups defined by prior treatment failure type.

METHODS

DELIVER (NCT04418765) randomized adults with migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously every 12 weeks. Changes from baseline in MMDs and percentages of patients with ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMDs (≥ 50% migraine responder rates [MRRs]) were summarized in subgroups of patients defined by prior treatment failure type. Subgroups were not mutually exclusive and included patients for whom topiramate, beta blockers (metoprolol, propranolol), amitriptyline, and/or flunarizine had failed.

RESULTS

Across Weeks 1-12 in all subgroups, patients treated with eptinezumab experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than those receiving placebo (reductions ranged from 4.5-5.5 vs 1.6-2.4, respectively), with larger reductions over Weeks 13-24. Similarly, ≥ 50% MRRs were consistently higher with eptinezumab than placebo and increased following a second infusion.

CONCLUSION

In all subgroups, regardless of prior preventive treatment failure type, eptinezumab demonstrated greater reductions in MMDs and higher MRRs compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765).

Targeting the PACAP-38 pathway is an emerging therapeutic strategy for migraine prevention

INTRODUCTION

The pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) has emerged as a key mediator of migraine pathogenesis. PACAP-38 and its receptors are predominantly distributed in arteries, sensory and parasympathetic neurons of the trigeminovascular system. Phase 2 trials have tested human monoclonal antibodies designed to bind and inhibit PACAP-38 and the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide type I (PAC1) receptor for migraine prevention.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the significance of the PACAP-38 pathway as a target in migraine prevention. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

A PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody was not effective for preventing migraine in a proof-of-concept trial, paving the way for alternative strategies to be considered. Lu AG09222 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PACAP-38 that was effective in preventing physiological responses of PACAP38 and reducing monthly migraine days in individuals with migraine. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the clinical utility, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting the PACAP pathway.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171843.

Study design and rationale of COMPETE: Comparison of the effect of medication therapy in alleviating migraine with patent foramen ovale

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have examined the impact of antithrombotic agents on Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) in relation to migraine. However, differences in effectiveness of different antithrombotic agents and traditional migraine medications are not known.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is an investigator-initiated, randomized, multicenter, single-masked (outcomes assessor), and active-controlled parallel-group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05546320), with the objective of evaluating the prevention efficacy of antithrombotic agents compared to first-line migraine medication in PFO patients. The trial involves 1,000 migraine patients with a right-to-left shunt at the atrial level, randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion to receive either aspirin 300 mg QD, clopidogrel 75 mg QD, rivaroxaban 20 mg QD, or the active-control metoprolol 25 mg BID. The primary efficacy end point is the response rate, defined as a 50% or greater reduction in the average migraine attack days per month or in the average number of migraine attacks per month at 12-week visit compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The COMPETE trial aims to provide valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of antithrombotic agents and standard migraine therapies in patients with PFO. This study holds the promise of advancing treatment approaches for individuals having migraines associated with PFO, thus addressing an important gap in current migraine management strategies.

The Effect of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies on Quality of Life among Migraine Patients: Pilot Study at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics

Background

Migraine has a negative impact on patients' quality of life, with the frequency of attacks being associated with greater disability and poorer health status. Frequent migraine-type headaches require prophylactic treatment, which has so far been of limited effectiveness until advent of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

Materials and Methods

A prospective analysis was conducted of data from 41 migraine patients who experienced 4 or more monthly migraine days (MMD) longer than three months. At the beginning of the study, treatment with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP (fremanezumab 225 mg or erenumab 70 or 140 g per month) was prescribed according to the indications. The effect of the medications was evaluated after 3-month period.

Results

The mean age of patients was 37.17 (±11.78) years. It was found that 17 patients (41.5%) had episodic migraine (EM) and 24 (58.5%) had chronic migraine (CM). Fremanezumab was prescribed to 26 patients (63.4%) and erenumab to 15 patients (36.6%); among the latter, 13 patients used 70 mg/month and 2 patients used 140 mg/month. Three months after treatment, CM changed to EM for 19 patients (79.2%), 27 patients (65.9%) had ≥50% reduction in the number of MMD and total migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score was reduced by >50% in 31 patients (75.6%). Also, all areas of quality of life of patients were improved after 3 months continued treatment compared to baseline.

Conclusions

For more than half the patients using fremanezumab or erenumab after 3-month period, MMD decreased by ≥50% and total MIDAS score by >50 points. All areas of quality of life were improved after prophylactic treatment of migraine.

Early and annual projected savings from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention: a cost-benefit analysis in the working-age population

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have proven to be safe and efficacious as preventive migraine treatments. However, their use is restricted in many countries due to their apparently high cost. Cost-benefit studies are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To study the cost-benefit of anti-CGRP MAbs in working-age patients with migraine.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of consecutive migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) following National reimbursement policy in a specialized headache clinic. Migraine characteristics and the work impact scale (WPAI) were compared between baseline (M0) and after 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) of treatment. Using WPAI and the municipal average hourly wage, we calculated indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) at each time point. Direct costs (emergency visits, acute medication use) were also analysed. A cost-benefit study was performed considering the different costs and savings of treating with MAbs. Based on these data an annual projection was conducted.

RESULTS

From 256 treated working-age patients, 148 were employed (89.2% women; mean age 48.0 ± 8.5 years), of which 41.2% (61/148) were responders (> 50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD)). Statistically significant reductions between M0 and M3/M6 were found in absenteeism (p < 0.001) and presenteeism (p < 0.001). Average savings in indirect costs per patient at M3 were absenteeism 105.4 euros/month and presenteeism 394.3 euros/month, similar for M6. Considering the monthly cost of anti-CGRP MAbs, the cost-benefit analysis showed savings of 159.8 euros per patient at M3, with an annual projected savings of 639.2 euros/patient. Both responders and partial responders (30-50% reduction in MHD) presented a positive cost-benefit balance. The overall savings of the cohort at M3/M6 compensated the negative cost-benefit balance for non-responders (< 30% reduction in MHD).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP MAbs have a positive impact in the workforce significantly reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In Spain, this benefit overcomes the expenses derived from their use already at 3 months and is potentially sustainable at longer term; also in patients who are only partial responders, prompting reconsideration of current reimbursement criteria and motivating the extension of similar cost-benefit studies in other countries.

The introduction of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and their effect on the prescription patterns of chronic migraine preventive medications in a tertiary headache center: A retrospective, observational analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of the introduction of the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) in 2018 on the prescribing of older medications for the prevention of chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 2018, the preventive treatment of migraine borrowed from medications intended to treat other illnesses with the last medication, onabotulinumtoxinA, receiving Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the prevention of chronic migraine in 2010. The FDA approval of three CGRP mAbs in 2018 provided the ideal natural experiment to assess how the introduction of these medications, and a fourth in 2020, affected the generally stable migraine preventive medications market.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using the aggregated de-identified data of 6595 patients. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of ten most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinumtoxinA, or any of the four CGRP mAbs, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from our clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

RESULTS

We observed a statistically significant decrease in the prescription of the top 10 most prescribed medications after the introduction of the CGRP mAbs overall (1456/3144, 46.3%, to 1995/4629, 43.1%, p = 0.001), as well as with most individual medications, including large decreases in verapamil (230/3144, 7.3%, to 125/4629, 2.7%; p < 0.001), the tricyclic antidepressants (494/3144, 15.7%, to 532/4629, 11.5%; p < 0.001), topiramate (566/3144, 18.0%, to 653/4629, 14.1%; p < 0.001), and onabotulinumtoxinA (861/3144, 27.4%, to 1134/4629, 24.5%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of the CGRP mAbs during 2018 resulted in a decrease in utilization of most oral medications and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of migraine. Future work should continue to observe how the prescription patterns of these medications evolve with time.

Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6-17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prescription patterns for patients aged 6-17 years with headaches in the REZULT database.

METHODS

We cross-sectionally investigated (Study 1) the pattern of prescription and the proportion of triptan overprescription (≥30 tablets/90 d of triptans) among patients diagnosed with headaches in 2020. Next, we longitudinally studied patients (Study 2) for more than two years from the initial headache diagnosis (July 2010 to April 2022). The number of prescribed tablets was counted every 90 days.

RESULTS

In Study 1, headache diagnoses were assigned to 62,568 of 543,628 (11.51%) patients, and 1524 of 62,568 (2.44%) patients received acute medication. Single nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans were prescribed to 620/624 (99.36%) and 5/624 (0.80%) of patients aged 6-11 years, respectively, and 827/900 (91.89%) and 91/900 (10.11%) of patients aged 12-17 years, respectively. Triptan overprescription was observed in 11/96 (11.46%) patients, and 5/11 (45.45%) of those patients received prophylactic medication. In Study 2, 80,756/845,470 (9.55%) patients aged 6-17 years were diagnosed with headaches that persisted for at least two years. Over two years, 44/80,756 (0.05%) patients were overprescribed triptans, and 3408/80,756 (4.22%) patients were prescribed prophylaxis on at least one occasion.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on real-world data, the appropriate use of prophylactic treatment is still problematic. Overprescription of triptans was observed, although the number of patients was small.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Real-world treatment satisfaction with erenumab in migraine: analysis of the US National Health and Wellness Survey

OBJECTIVE

The treatment landscape for the prevention of migraine has rapidly evolved in recent years with the advent of calcitonin gene-related peptide therapy, including erenumab. The objective of this study was to assess patient-reported treatment satisfaction among erenumab users.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey collected during March-July 2019. Respondents self-reporting physician-diagnosed migraine and currently using erenumab were analyzed. Treatment satisfaction was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Data were further reported by the duration of erenumab treatment. Data on respondents' socio-demographic characteristics and treatment patterns were also collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 67 respondents using erenumab with or without other migraine preventives for up to 1 year were included in the analysis. The mean (standard deviation) age was 46.7 (12.9) years. Most of the respondents were women (86.6%), White (74.6%), and commercially-insured (67.2%). Notably, 40.3% had ≥1 comorbidity per the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Approximately half of the respondents were college graduates and employed (49.3% each). Among the 67 respondents, 46 received erenumab exclusively. Across both cohorts, the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with erenumab treatment was slightly higher among those with a longer treatment duration (overall erenumab cohort: 63.6%, 69.6%, and 75.8% for 0-<3, 3-<6, and 6-12 months, respectively; erenumab monotherapy cohort: 62.5%, 71.4%, and 87.5% for 0-<3, 3-<6, and 6-12 months, respectively). Treatment patterns before switching to erenumab revealed that most respondents had used ≥1 preventive treatment for migraine (80.6%; 54/67), over two-thirds (33/54) of whom had ≥2 treatment failures owing to nonresponse.

CONCLUSION

Satisfaction was high among long-term erenumab users, indicating that those using erenumab for a longer duration are more satisfied. Furthermore, this study provided insights on the basic socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and health behaviors of erenumab users as well as their treatment patterns before switching to erenumab.

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.

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

A total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

Eptinezumab for the Prevention of Migraine: Clinical Utility, Patient Preferences and Selection - A Narrative Review

The new Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies have proven high efficacy and tolerability in episodic and chronic migraine. Eptinezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds CGRP with high affinity. Eptinezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on February 21st, 2020, for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. It is administered intravenously over 30 minutes with a standard dose of 100 mg and has a T-max of 30 minutes-1 hour and a half-life of 27 days. These pharmacological properties allow for a very rapid onset of effect and a quarterly administration. It is the first time that a preventive treatment for migraine can be offered as an intravenous administration. As the range of therapeutic possibilities in migraine is expanding, the treatment process must include common decision-making, where physicians should explain in detail to patients the different characteristics of treatment options beyond efficacy and side effects. Patients can now express a preference on a range of opportunities: pharmacological versus non-pharmacological approaches, route of administration, frequency of administration, efficacy, rapidity, side effects, costs, the possibility of titration or dosing, and durability of effectiveness at suspension. Also, patient preferences can be influenced by age, country, migraine severity, and earlier experience with CGRP-targeted therapies. Besides, adherence may be influenced by several factors, including route and the schedule of administration. This narrative review describes a new perspective from the patient's point of view. Clinicians should ally with patients to select treatments that meet each patient's needs and thus apply a tailored approach, addressing not only headaches. In this way, physicians would care for the patients globally and stand out their preferences on different aspects of treatment. Besides, healthcare professionals shall be aware that patients' beliefs about therapies are subject to change with increasing experience with new therapeutic approaches.

Healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with migraine treated with erenumab: A retrospective, non-interventional study using claims data from the United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients who newly initiated erenumab in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective, non-interventional analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) newly initiating erenumab and who had three consecutive monthly claims for erenumab (11/1/2017-9/1/2019) from the Komodo Health database. Outcomes included migraine-related and all-cause costs, use of other preventive/acute migraine medications, and HCRU. All outcomes were compared during the 180-day pre- versus the 180-day post-index periods. Cost outcomes were also assessed for longer periods including post-index Days 91-270 and monthly mean post-index costs for the longest time of continuous insurance enrollment.

RESULTS

Overall, 1839 patients with migraine were included for analysis. Compared to the 180-day pre-index period, an increase in total migraine-related costs (+$2639; p < 0.0001), migraine-related prescription costs (+$3435, p < 0.0001), all-cause total costs (+$2977; p < 0.001), and all-cause prescription costs (+$4102; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-day post-index period after adjusting for covariates. Conversely, reduction in migraine-related medical costs (-$896; p < 0.0001), and significantly lower odds of migraine-related emergency room visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001), migraine-related office visits (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.64; p < 0.0001), and migraine-related neurologist visits (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.75; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-days post-index period. There were significant decreases in the odds of having overall preventive migraine medications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87; p < 0.0001), acute-migraine medications (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00; p = 0.038), and triptan (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85; p < 0.0001) during the 180-day post-index period. Sensitivity analyses on cost outcomes found no statistically significant differences in pre-index migraine-related costs compared to post-index migraine-related costs when assessing longer post-index follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of therapy with a novel treatment is often associated with an increase in overall healthcare costs due to the entrance costs associated with novel therapy. For a chronic condition such as migraine, cost versus health benefits should be evaluated over a long period (e.g., ≥2 years) to better understand the true benefits of therapy. Data from this study suggest that the entrance cost for erenumab, the primary driver of the high post-index prescription costs gets mitigated by reduced medical costs over long-term follow-up. The results indicate better disease management in adult patients with migraine, which should be an important consideration for both patients and payors, as these findings have shown an offset between migraine-related prescription and medical costs.

Retreating migraine patients in the second year with monoclonal antibodies anti-CGRP pathway: the multicenter prospective cohort RE-DO study

BACKGROUND

The outcome of migraine patients retreated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRPr) is not completely known.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective observational cohort study assessed monthly migraine days (MMDs), migraine acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 at baseline, after 90-112 days (Rev-1), after 84-90 days since Rev-1 (Rev-2) and 30 days after the last injection of anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs (Year-end), in the first and the second year after a discontinuation period.

RESULTS

We enrolled 226 patients (79.6% with chronic migraine; 55.3% on erenumab and 44.7% on galcanezumab or fremanezumab). MMDs, MAMI, and HIT-6-did not differ at the respective first and second-year evaluations in the entire cohort, and comparing anti-CGRP with anti-CGRPr Abs. MMDs (18.1 ± 7.8 vs. 3.4 ± 7.8), MAMI (26.7 ± 28.3 vs.17.7 ± 17.2), and HIT-6 scores (63.1 ± 5.9 vs. 67.1 ± 10.3) were lower in the second year than in the pre-treatment baseline (consistently, p < 0.0001). Second-year baseline MMDs were lower in patients on anti-CGRP mAbs (p = 0.001) and with lower pre-treatment baseline MMDs (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs are effective in the second as in the first year. The use of anti-CGRP or CGRPr mAbs influenced the second-year baseline MMDs, but their effectiveness did not differ during the two treatment years.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Non-Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic migraine (CM) affects a large proportion of the population and is a significant source of disability and lost productivity. Numerous non-pharmacological approaches have been attempted during the past decades. This review discusses the most recent and evidence-based advances in acute and preventive non-pharmacological therapeutic approaches for CM, offering alternatives to drug treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

A growing number of non-pharmacological treatment options, including non-invasive or invasive neuromodulation, acupuncture, psychotherapy, and physiotherapy, have shown promising efficacy in CM. There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of non-invasive neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in CM, but less evidence for approaches such as invasive neuromodulation, physical therapy, or dietary approaches. Acupuncture for migraine remains controversial, with the main point of contention still being the placebo effect. Non-pharmacological approaches can be offered as a reliable alternative for patients with CM, and more research is being done to evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation with different parameters and the combination of different treatments in CM.

Impact of a reimbursement policy change on treatment with erenumab in migraine - a real-world experience from Germany

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment.

RESULTS

We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention.

Towards precision medicine in migraine: Recent therapeutic advances and potential biomarkers to understand heterogeneity and treatment response

After 35 years since the introduction of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), we are living in the era of the second great revolution in migraine therapies. First, discoveries of triptans provided a breakthrough in acute migraine treatment utilizing bench-to-bedside research results on the role of serotonin in migraine. Next, the discovery of the role of neuropeptides, more specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine attack led to the development of anti-CGRP therapies that are effective both in acute and preventive treatment, and are also able to reduce migraine-related burden. Here, we reviewed the most recent clinical studies and real-world data on available migraine-specific medications, including triptans, ditants, gepants and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Novel drug targets, such as PACAP and amylins were also discussed. To address the main challenges of migraine therapy, the high heterogeneity of people with migraine, the prevalent presence of various comorbid disorders, and the insufficient medical care of migraine patients were covered. Promising novel approaches from the fields of omics, blood and saliva biomarker, imaging and provocation studies might bring solutions for these challenges with the potential to identify further drug targets, distinguish more homogeneous patient subgroups, contribute to more optimal drug selection strategies, and detect biomarkers in association with headache features or predicting treatment efficacy. In the future, the combined analysis of data of different biomarker modalities with machine learning algorithms may serve precision medicine in migraine treatment.

Update of Gepants in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the unmet therapeutic needs of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and/or medication overuse, available treatment options are limited. Recently, four calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have been approved for the treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the preventive treatment of CM with gepants and highlights recent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown promising results for rimegepant and atogepant as preventive treatments for CM. In an RCT targeting patients with CM, atogepant demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean monthly migraine days, irrespective of acute medication overuse. Moreover, the patients reported no significant safety concerns and exhibited good tolerance to treatment. These findings highlight the potential of gepants as a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with CM and/or medication overuse. Gepant use will help improve the management and quality of life of individuals with this debilitating condition.

The Role of Step Therapy in the Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines recent evidence and applies bioethical principles to evaluate the benefits and risks of using step therapy in the treatment of migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the CGRP mAbs, gepants, and lasmiditan now on the market for up to 5 years, new research, including network meta-analyses and long-term use studies, can evaluate the comparative efficacy, tolerability, and adherence of these medications relative to older acute and preventive medications for the treatment of migraine. Deciding how medications are chosen for patients requires accounting for many factors including sustainability, efficacy, tolerability, and preference. Newer research can help give clarity on the appropriateness of gating certain treatment options behind others.

Immediate analgesic effect of acupuncture intervention within 10 min during acute migraine attacks: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a widespread neurological disorder characterised by recurrent moderate-to-severe headaches. These headaches can seriously affect patients' daily life and work, especially during acute attacks when patients often need immediate pain relief. This study aims to assess the immediate analgesic effect of acupuncture for 10 min during acute migraine attacks.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will randomly divide 80 participants into either the acupuncture group or the sham acupuncture group with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Each group will receive 10 min of treatment, and the post-treatment evaluation will be performed after 0, 0-2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 min of acupuncture. The primary outcome is the pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score assessed before and after treatment at 10 min. Additionally, secondary outcomes include the pain VAS score assessed at 0-2, 4, 6 and 8 min, blinding assessment and treatment effectiveness expectations scale. Data will be collected at baseline time and the end of treatment (after 10 min). Adverse events during each treatment period will be collected and recorded.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine (2022-008). All participants will provide written informed consent before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Chinese Clinical Trial Registration Center (ChiCTR2200066976).

Cerebrovascular Fibromuscular Dysplasia - A Practical Review

Fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) is a rare idiopathic, segmental, noninflammatory and nonatherosclerotic arteriopathy of medium-sized arteries. It is classically considered to be a disease of young and middle adulthood, with females more commonly affected than males. FMD is a systemic disease. Although historically considered to be rare, cerebrovascular FMD (C-FMD) has now been recognized to be as common as the renovascular counterpart. Extracranial carotid and vertebral arteries are the most commonly involved vascular territories in C-FMD with the clinical presentation determined by vessels affected. Common symptoms include headaches and pulsatile tinnitus, with transient ischemic attacks, ischemic stroke and subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage constituting the more severe clinical manifestations. Cervical artery dissection involving carotids more often than vertebral arteries and intracranial aneurysms account for the cerebrovascular pathologies detected in C-FMD. Our understanding regarding C-FMD has been augmented in the recent past on account of dedicated C-FMD data from North American, European and other international FMD cohorts. In this review article, we provide an updated and comprehensive overview on epidemiology, clinical presentation, etiology, diagnosis and management of C-FMD.

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.

Associations between dietary diversity score and migraine headaches: the results from a cross-sectional study

Aims

There is limited evidence on the link between diet quality and migraine headaches. The present study aimed to evaluate the association between dietary diversity score (DDS), as a good representative of overall diet quality, and clinical features of migraine headaches.

Methods

In total, 262 subjects (224 females and 34 males), aged 20 to 50  years old were included in the present cross-sectional study. The migraine headache was diagnosed according to the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3). Clinical features of migraine headaches including frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headaches, headache impact test-6 (HIT-6), and serum levels of nitric oxide (NO) were assessed by standard procedures. The dietary intake of participants has been assessed by a validated 168-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and used to calculate DDS. The association between DDS and clinical variables of migraine headaches was investigated using multiple linear regression analysis, and the beta (β) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

Results

A significant inverse association was found between DDS and headache frequency (β = -2.19, 95% CI: -4.25, -0.14) and serum levels of NO (β = -6.60, 95% CI: -12.58, -0.34), when comparing patients in the third tertile of DDS to those in the first tertile. The association remained significant and became stronger after adjustment for confounders for both outcomes of headache frequency (β = -3.36, 95% CI: -5.88, -0.84) and serum levels of NO (β = -9.86, 95% CI: -18.17, -1.55). However, no significant association was found between DDS with HIT-6 score, migraine headache duration, and severity.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that higher dietary diversity is correlated with lower migraine frequency and serum levels of NO.

Ten open questions in migraine prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide pathway: a narrative review

The monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway, collectively called here "anti-CGRP/rec mAbs", have dramatically improved preventive migraine treatment. Although their efficacy and tolerability were proven in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, maybe even more convincingly, in real world settings, a number of open questions remain. In this narrative review, we will analyze published data allowing insight in some of the uncertainties related to the use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in clinical practice: their differential efficacy in migraine subtypes, outcome predictors, switching between molecules, use in children and adolescents, long-term treatment adherence and persistence, effect persistence after discontinuation, combined treatment with botulinum toxin or gepants, added-value and cost effectiveness, effectiveness in other headache types, and potential contraindications based on known physiological effects of CGRP. While recent studies have already provided hints for some of these questions, many of them will not find reliable and definitive answers before larger studies, registries or dedicated RCTs are available.

Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Trigger Points in Patients with Chronic Migraine: A Protocol for a Pilot Study Using a Single-Case Experimental Design

Background and Objectives: Trigger points (TrPs) are prevalent in patients with migraine headaches. Needling interventions targeting TrPs in migraine patients may reduce the intensity and frequency of headaches, yet systematic reviews reveal a lack of robust evidence. Intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) is a modality that delivers electrical current into muscles and TrPs, with recent studies suggesting it may amplify the therapeutic effects of dry needling peripherally and centrally. This could be advantageous for patients with migraine and symptomatic TrPs. Materials and Methods: This study will implement a multiple baseline single-case experimental design (SCED). In a clinical setting, a SCED study lends itself to conducting research with only a few patients that each serve as their own controls. In this SCED study, four participants with chronic migraine will be enrolled in a non-concurrent manner and randomized to one of four baseline measurement periods (4, 5, 6 or 7 weeks), leading to four potentially different start dates for each participant in the intervention phase. During the intervention phase, patients will receive five sessions of dry needling with IMES, one session per week for five weeks. The primary outcome measure will be headache frequency, i.e., the reduction in the number of headache days over a one-month period using electronic headache diary data from the Migraine Buddy smartphone application. Secondary outcome measures will be changes in mean migraine pain intensity using a numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), migraine disability using the Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and changes in selected cervical musculoskeletal impairments including pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over TrPs, the craniocervical flexion test (CCFT), and cervical active range of motion (AROM). Primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed separately using both visual and statistical analyses. Results: Actively recruiting participants. This project was approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board (protocol #2023P000931) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05893914). Conclusions: This study will seek to determine the effects of a five-week intervention period of IMES to TrPs in the posterior cervical muscles of subjects with chronic migraine.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among migraine patients: A German claims database analysis

AIMS

Despite migraine being one of the most common neurological diseases, affected patients are often not effectively treated. This analysis describes the burden of migraine in Germany and assesses real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of preventive-treated migraine patients from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using InGef Research Database claims data from 2018-2019. Migraine patients were stratified into cohorts by acute and preventive treatment status. Patients on preventive treatment were further stratified according to type of prophylaxis received. Disease burden in preventively treated migraine patients was reported via treatment patterns, pathways, and comorbidities. HCRU was assessed through outpatient provider visits, hospitalizations, and sick leave.

RESULTS

160,164 adult migraine patients were identified, of which 55,378 (34.6%) were prescribed preventive treatment with conventional (n = 25,984, 46.9%), calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) (n = 613, 1.1%), or off-label therapies (n = 28,781, 52.0%). 936 (1.7%) patients received Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNTA). CGRP mAb-treated patients had a high rate of triptan prescriptions (2018: 95.5%; 2019: 88.9%), migraine-related hospitalizations (2018: 33.0%; 2019: 21.0%), and sick leave (2018: 26.8%; 2019: 22.5%). A high proportion of CGRP mAb- and BoNTA-treated patients was diagnosed with abdominal and pelvic pain (34.3% and 36.2%) and low back pain (34.1% and 35.3%). These patients also showed a high prevalence of depressive episodes (49.1% and 50.1%) and chronic pain disorders (37.5% and 32.9%).

LIMITATIONS

This study focused on descriptive analyses which do not allow for assessment of causality when comparing treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease burden was high in patients receiving CGRP mAbs suggesting that patients treated preventively with CGRP mAbs shortly after product launch in Germany were severely affected chronic migraine patients. The same may be true for patients receiving BoNTA who also showed an increased disease burden.

Trends in healthcare utilisation of patients with migraine in South Korea: a retrospective observational study using Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Sample data from 2010 to 2018

OBJECTIVE

This study used 2010-2018 Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Sample data to analyse the distribution and healthcare utilisation of patients with migraine in South Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study using serial cross-sectional data.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with primary diagnosis of G43, a Korean Standard Classification of Diseases-10 code for migraine, were included in the analysis. The exclusion criteria were missing code information; code for dental, health centre or psychiatry; institution type specified as nursing hospital, psychiatric hospital, dental hospital, midwifery centre or health centre; blank entries for total cost or days of care. 453 246 records of patients and 117 157 patients corresponding to those records were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were medical service utilisation status, treatment methods and drug use status associated with migraine.

RESULTS

Cases and patients of migraine increased from 48 846 and 19 468 (2010) to 52 729 and 20 802 (2018), respectively, increases of 7.95% and 6.85%, respectively, compared with 2010. Total cost of care increased from $921 857.88 (2010) to $1 711 219.60 (2018). The most common age range of patients was 45-54 years, with 2.69 times more female than male patients. In Western medicine hospitals, subcutaneous or intramuscular injection therapy was used frequently, while in Korean medicine hospitals, acupuncture therapy was used. Among Western medicine outpatients, more than 50% of the therapeutics prescribed for acute migraine were simple analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The number of prescriptions for the prevention of episodic migraine increased from 13 600 cases (2010) to 20 546 cases (2018), representing the steepest increase in drug utilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatments frequently used in Western and Korean medicine hospitals and their frequency of use and costs were identified. The findings of this study can be used as a basis for relevant health policy decisions.

Medication adherence in patients with cluster headache and migraine: an online survey

To examine factors for adherent and non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache and migraine. Adults with cluster headache or migraine were included in this anonymous online survey using a questionnaire accessed via homepages of headache support groups. Medication adherence in preventive treatment was measured with the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-D). Factors for non-adherent behavior were examined (subjective socioeconomic status, psychological comorbidities, self-efficacy, coping, side effects, expectations of treatment, information on medical treatment, and trust in the physician/treatment concept). 200 participants (n = 58 with cluster headache, n = 142 with migraine) were included. The rate of medication adherence in preventive treatment was 32.8% for participants with cluster headache and 20.4% for migraine. The most common reasons for low adherence in participants with cluster headache were altering the prescribed medication dose (34%) or taking less than instructed (14%), which was mostly due to insufficient benefit from the medication or side effects. Positive expectations of medical treatment (p ≤ 0.05) correlated significantly with adherent behavior in cluster headache. Furthermore, the adherence-promoting factors coping and self-efficacy were more pronounced in patients with cluster headache than in those with migraine (p < 0.05). This study is the first to comprehensively investigate medication adherence and factors influencing adherent/non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache. Patients with cluster headache had similar adherence levels to patients with migraine, but had higher resources of adherence-promoting factors.

Remote electrical neuromodulation for migraine prevention: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), used every other day, for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment is key to managing migraine, but it is often underutilized. REN, a non-pharmacological acute treatment for migraine, was evaluated as a method of migraine prevention in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, with 1:1 ratio. The study consisted of a 4-week baseline observation phase, and an 8-week double-blind intervention phase in which participants used either REN or a placebo stimulation every other day. Throughout the study, participants reported their symptoms daily, via an electronic diary.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), of which 179 qualified for the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis (95 active; 84 placebo). REN was superior to placebo in the primary endpoint, change in mean number of migraine days per month from baseline, with mean reduction of 4.0 ± SD of 4.0 days (1.3 ± 4.0 in placebo, therapeutic gain = 2.7 [confidence interval -3.9 to -1.5], p < 0.001). The significance was maintained when analyzing the episodic (-3.2 ± 3.4 vs. -1.0 ± 3.6, p = 0.003) and chronic (-4.7 ± 4.4 vs. -1.6 ± 4.4, p = 0.001) migraine subgroups separately. REN was also superior to placebo in reduction of moderate/severe headache days (3.8 ± 3.9 vs. 2.2 ± 3.6, p = 0.005), reduction of headache days of all severities (4.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.8 ± 4.6, p < 0.001), percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in moderate/severe headache days (51.6% [49/95] vs. 35.7% [30/84], p = 0.033), and reduction in days of acute medication intake (3.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.4 ± 4.3, p = 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the ITT analysis. No serious device-related adverse events were reported in any group.

CONCLUSION

Applied every other day, REN is effective and safe for the prevention of migraine.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

DISCUSSION

Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.