Comparative effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA versus oral migraine prophylactic medications on headache-related resource utilization in the management of chronic migraine: Retrospective analysis of a US-based insurance claims database

Real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies compared to OnabotulinumtoxinA (RAMO) in chronic migraine: a retrospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling condition with high prevalence in the general population. Until the recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (Anti-CGRP mAbs), OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was the only treatment specifically approved for CM prophylaxis. Direct comparisons between the two treatments are not available so far.

METHODS

We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study in Italy to compare the real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A. Patients with CM who had received either treatment according to Italian prescribing regulations were extracted from available clinical databases. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in monthly headache days (MHD), MIgraine Disability ASsessment test (MIDAS), and monthly acute medications (MAM) evaluated at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was MHD change from baseline at 12 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAE) and treatment discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted models were used for the analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen potentially eligible patients were screened; 183 (86 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 97 BoNT-A) were included. One hundred seventy-one (80 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 91 BoNT-A) and 154 (69 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 85 BoNT-A) patients were included in the efficacy analysis at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A both resulted in a mean MHD reduction at 6 (-11.5 and -7.2 days, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.3; 95%CI -6.6 to -2.0; p = 0.0003) and 12 months (-11.9 and -7.6, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.4; 95%CI -6.8 to -2.0; p = 0.0002) of follow-up. Similar results were observed after adjusting for baseline confounders. Anti-CGRP mAbs showed a significant MIDAS (-31.7 and -19.2 points, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0296, respectively) and MAM reduction (-5.1 and -3.1 administrations, p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0574, respectively) compared to BoNT-A at 6 and 12 months. No SAEs were reported. One patient receiving fremanezumab discontinued treatment due to arthralgia. Treatment discontinuations, mainly for inefficacy, were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Both Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A were effective in CM patients with Anti-CGRP mAbs presenting higher effect magnitude, with comparable safety. Still, BoNT-A remains a valuable option for CM patients with contraindications to Anti-CGRP mAbs or for frail categories who are candidates to local therapy with limited risk of systemic administration.

OnabotulinumtoxinA: Still the Present for Chronic Migraine

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) is one of the few drugs approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM). Despite this, some aspects of its mechanism of action are still a matter of debate, and the precise magnitude of BT-A effects needs to be completely elucidated. BT-A acts primarily upon trigeminal and cervical nerve endings, by inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators such as calcitonin gene-related peptide, as well as reducing the insertion of ionotropic and metabotropic receptors into the neuronal membrane. These actions increase the depolarization threshold of trigeminal and cervical nerve fibers, thus reducing their activation. The central actions of BT-A are still a matter of debate: a retrograde axonal transport has been postulated, but not clearly assessed in humans. Clinically, the efficacy of BT-A in CM has been assessed by large, randomized placebo-controlled trials, such as the Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. Those results were also confirmed in a wide range of open-label studies, even for long-term periods. Recently, novel findings have led to a better understanding of its pharmacological actions and clinical usefulness in migraine prevention. This narrative review summarizes, updates and critically revises the available data on BT-A and its possible implementation in chronic migraine. Moreover, the current role of BT-A in CM treatment has been discussed.

Real-world experience of OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in female patients with chronic migraine: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) causes great disability and affects an individual's quality of life. OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A, Botox®) was the first prophylactic treatment specifically indicated for CM. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of women with CM treated with OBT-A.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study design is a qualitative descriptive study. A purposeful sampling of 30 women (mean age, 42.7; standard deviation, 10.6) who had received at least two administrations of OBT-A for CM (PREEMPT protocol) was performed. Data collection included in-depth interviews and researchers' field notes. A thematic analysis was carried out according to qualitative research guidelines.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: (a) A long way to go before Botox®, (b) First time hearing about the treatment and its expectations, (c) The administration of Botox®, (d) Treatment effects, and (e) Follow-up. Patients described a long history of treatment failures prior to the start of OBT-A treatment. Information about this migraine treatment came from the neurologist; following the information, patients had high expectations, including unrealistic expectations regarding the onset and duration of effect. They acknowledged fear of the injections and some discomfort due to the procedure. With treatment, participants reported better migraine control and an improvement in their quality of life. Follow-up had some barriers, such as delayed appointments for subsequent doses, but also strengths, such as effectiveness and few side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research offers insight into how patients with CM experience treatment with OBT-A. Our results highlight some relevant aspects that should be considered when providing OBT-A treatment.

OnabotulinumtoxinA Reduces Health Resource Utilization in Chronic Migraine: PREDICT Study

BACKGROUND

PREDICT was a Canadian, multicenter, prospective, observational study in adults naïve to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for chronic migraine (CM). We descriptively assess health resource utilization, work productivity, and acute medication use.

METHODS

OnabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) was administered every 12 weeks over 2 years (≤7 treatment cycles). Participants completed a 4-item health resource utilization questionnaire and 6-item Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem V2.0. Acute medication use was recorded in daily headache diaries. Treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 197 participants were enrolled, and 184 received ≥1 treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and were included in the analysis. Between baseline and the final visit, there were decreases in the percentage of participants who reported headache-related healthcare professional visit(s) (96.2% to 76.8%) and those who received headache-related diagnostic testing (37.5% to 9.9%). Reductions from baseline were also observed in the mean number of headache-related visits to an emergency room/urgent care clinic (2.5 to 1.4) and median headache-related hospital admissions (4.0 to 1.0). OnabotulinumtoxinA improved work productivity and reduced the mean (standard deviation) number of hours missed from work over a 7-day period (6.1 [9.7] to 3.0 [6.8]). Mean (standard deviation) acute medication use decreased from baseline (15.2 [7.6] to 9.1 [6.5] days). No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world evidence from PREDICT demonstrates that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM in the Canadian population reduces health resource utilization and acute medication use and improves workplace productivity, supporting the long-term benefits of using onabotulinumtoxinA for CM.

Real-life use of onabotulinumtoxinA reduces healthcare resource utilization in individuals with chronic migraine: the REPOSE study

Background

Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with substantial economic burden. Real-world data suggests that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM reduces healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) and related costs.

Methods

REPOSE was a 2-year prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational study to describe the real-world use of onabotulinumtoxinA in adult patients with CM. This analysis examined the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on HRU. Patients received onabotulinumtoxinA treatment approximately every 12 weeks according to their physicians’ discretion, guided by the summary of product characteristics (SPC) and PREEMPT injection paradigm. HRU outcome measures were collected at baseline and all administration visits and included headache-related hospitalizations and healthcare professional (HCP) visits. Health economic data, including family doctor and specialist visits, inpatient treatment for headache, acupuncture, technical diagnostics, use of nonpharmacologic remedies, and work productivity were also collected for patients enrolled at German study centres.

Results

Overall, 641 patients were enrolled at 78 study centres across 7 countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and Russia), 633 received ≥1 onabotulinumtoxinA dose, and 128 completed the 2-year study. Patients were, on average, aged 45 years, 85% were female, and 60% (n = 377) were from Germany. At the end of the 2-year observation period, significantly fewer patients reported headache-related hospitalizations (p < 0.02) and HCP visits (p < 0.001) within the past 3 months than in the 3 months before baseline. In the German population, reductions were observed across all health services at all follow-up visits compared with baseline. The percentage of patients who saw a family doctor decreased from 41.7% at baseline to 13.5% at administration visit 8 and visits to a medical specialist decreased from 61.7% to 5.2% of patients. Inpatient acute treatment and technical diagnostics declined from 6.4% and 19.7% of patients at baseline to 0.0% and 1.0% at administration 8, respectively. The use of nonpharmacologic remedies and medication for the acute treatment of migraine also decreased with continued onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. Work incapacity, disability, absenteeism, and impaired performance at school/work improved with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM over the 2-year observation period.

Conclusions

Real-world evidence from REPOSE demonstrates that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment is associated with decreased HRU and supports the long-term benefits associated with the use of onabotulinumtoxinA for CM in clinical practice.

Trial registration

NCT01686581. Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. URL of registry: Date of retrospective registration: September 18, 2012. Date of enrolment of first patient: July 23, 2012.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01260-4.

The migraine signature study: Methods and baseline results

Objective

To characterize patients who utilize services for migraine in a large integrated health care network, and describe patterns of care and utilization.

Background

Within health care systems, migraine is a common reason for seeking primary and neurology care, but relatively little is documented about who seeks care and the factors that explain variation in utilization.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Sutter Health primary care (PC) patients who had at least one office visit to a PC clinic between 2013 and 2017. Migraine status was ascertained from diagnosis codes and medication orders. Control status was assigned to those with no evidence of care for any type of headache. We divided the primary care migraine cohort into two groups: those who received all their care for migraine from PC (denoted PC‐M) and those who had ≥1 encounter with a neurologist for migraine (denoted N‐M). Migraine cases were also designated as having preexisting migraine if they had an encounter with a migraine diagnosis within (±) 6 months of their first study period PC visit and, otherwise, designated as first migraine consult. Two levels of contrasts included: patients with migraine and controls; and within the group of patients with migraine, PC‐M and N‐M groups. Comorbid conditions were determined from EHR encounter diagnosis codes.

Results

We identified 94,149 patients with migraine (including 21,525 N‐M and 72,624 PC‐M) and 1,248,763 controls. Comorbidities: Proportions of psychiatric [29.8% (n = 28,054) vs. 11.8% (n = 147,043)], autoimmune [(4.4% (n = 4162) vs. 2.6% (n = 31,981)], pain [13.2% (n = 12,439) vs. 5.8% (n = 72,049)], respiratory [24.6% (n = 23,186) vs. 12.3% (n = 153,692)], neurologic [2.9% (n = 2688) vs. 0.9% (n = 11,321)], and cerebrovascular [1.0% (n = 945) vs. 0.6% (n = 7500)] conditions were higher in the migraine group compared to controls, all p < 0.001. Among patients with migraine, the N‐M group was similar to the PC‐M group in sex, age, ethnicity, and marital status, but were more likely to have preexisting migraine (49.9% (n = 10,734) vs. 36.2% (n = 26,317), p < 0.001). Proportions of comorbid conditions were higher among the N‐M group than the PC‐M group {psychiatric [38.5% (n = 8291) vs. 27.2% (n = 19,763)], autoimmune [6.3% (n = 1365) vs. 3.9% (n = 2797)], pain [19.6% (n = 4218) vs. 11.3% (n = 8211)], respiratory [30.3% (n = 6516) vs. 23.0% (n = 16,670)], neurologic [6.0% (n = 1288) vs. 1.9% (n = 1400)], cardiovascular [9.7% (n = 2091) vs. 7.0% (n = 5076)], and cerebrovascular [2.3% (n = 500) vs. 0.6% (n = 445)], all p < 0.001}. Medications: During the study period, 82.6% (n = 77,762) of patients with migraine received ≥1 prescription order for an acute migraine medication [89.4% (n = 19,250) of N‐M vs. 80.6% (n = 58,512) of PC]. Opioids were prescribed to 52.9% (n = 49,837) of patients with migraine [63.5% (n = 13,669) for N‐M and 49.8% (n = 36,168) for PC‐M patients). During the study period, 61.4% (n = 57,810) of patients received ≥1 prescription for a migraine preventive medication [81.4% (n = 17,521) of N‐M and 55.5% (n = 40,289) of PC‐M patients]. The most commonly prescribed classes of preventive medications were antidepressants.

Conclusions

Among patients with migraine in a large health system, those who were also cared for in neurology were more likely to receive both acute and preventive medication migraine orders than those patients who did not see a neurologist, with triptans and antidepressants the most commonly prescribed classes of acute and preventive pharmacotherapies, respectively. Opioids were prescribed to approximately half of the total sample and more common in the N‐M group. Adjusting for demographics, patients with migraine had higher rates of nearly every comorbidity we assessed and were more likely to utilize services compared to those without migraine. Overall, patients with migraine also cared for in neurology practices used more of all health care resource types under consideration and had more medical issues, which may be due in some part to a more severe, frequent and disabling disease state compared to those who sought care exclusively from PC practices.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from a 1-Year, Real-World, Head-to-Head Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA and Topiramate for Headache Prevention in Adults With Chronic Migraine

Introduction/Objective:

Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic burden, but many people with CM are underdiagnosed and do not receive appropriate preventive treatment. OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate have demonstrated efficacy (treatment benefit under ideal conditions) for the prevention of headaches in people with CM in clinical trials, but real-world studies suggest markedly different clinical effectiveness (treatment benefit based on a blend of efficacy and tolerability). This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate immediate release for people with CM.

Methods:

FORWARD was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 4 study comparing onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks with topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day for ≤36 weeks in people with CM. PROs measured included the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire Quick Depression Assessment (PHQ-9), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire (FIMQ).

Results:

A total of 282 patients were randomized and treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 140) or topiramate (n = 142). From baseline to week 30, mean HIT-6 test scores improved significantly in patients taking onabotulinumtoxinA compared with topiramate (P < .001). Improvements in depression over time were observed via larger changes in PHQ-9 scores with onabotulinumtoxinA than topiramate (P < .001). Work productivity assessed via WPAI:SHP scores revealed significant improvements with onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in Work Productivity Loss (P = .024) and Activity Impairment (P < .001) domains. Results from the FIMQ also revealed a larger reduction from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA vs topiramate (P < .0001).

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment had more favorable real-world effectiveness than topiramate on depression, headache impact, functioning and daily living, activity, and work productivity. The overall study results suggest that the beneficial effects on a range of PROs are the result of improved effectiveness when onabotulinumtoxinA is used as preventive treatment for CM.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:

NCT02191579; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02191579

Wearing Off Response to OnabotulinumtoxinA in Chronic Migraine: Analysis in a Series of 193 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Long-term real-life studies have supported a cumulative effect of OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA) for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine (CM) during consecutive cycles, and individual adaptations have been described to improve clinical response.

METHODS

This was a cohort longitudinal retrospective study of consecutive adult patients from the Headache Unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid and the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (Madrid) on OnabotA treatment for chronic migraine from May 2012 to December 2017. All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Full-length response to OnabotA was defined as ≥50% reduction in headache days for at least 12 weeks, and wearing off response was defined as a clinical response but with duration shorter than 10 weeks. We have analyzed the incidence and clinical predictors of this wearing off response.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients were included, of whom 91 (47.1%) were considered full-length responders and 45 (23.3%) wearing off responders. No statistically significant clinical predictors (including demographic variables and baseline headache characteristics) of full-length response or wearing off response were detected in our study. An increase in dose during the second treatment cycle was attempted in 68.9% of the wearing off patients, achieving a longer duration of response of up to 12 weeks in 74.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing off response to OnabotA during the first treatment cycle is not uncommon in patients with CM. Increasing the dose in subsequent cycles could improve clinical response, but further multicenter long-term studies are needed to establish predictors and solutions to this problem.

Evaluation of the concomitant use of oral preventive treatments and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: the PREVENBOX study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In CM, in addition to a reduction in headache frequency, a decreased reliance on oral prophylactics is also indicative of treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the change in the use of oral prophylactics after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Patients with CM (International Classification of Headache Disorders-3beta) that had been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA were enrolled consecutively. We collected parameters related to each patient's pre-treatment situation, as well as their current situation, focusing on frequency and intensity of migraine, number of oral prophylactics and the respective cycle of onabotulinumtoxinA. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We included 542 patients, 90.0% of whom were taking oral preventive treatments. During treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA, 47.8% withdrew at least one prophylactic and 41.6% stopped using oral prophylactics altogether. Factors associated with a reduction or cessation of oral prophylactics were >50% improvement in frequency and intensity, remission to episodic migraine, use of topiramate as an initial treatment, increased number of infiltrations and shorter chronification period (P < 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that a chronification period <20 months, more than five cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA, >50% improvement in pain intensity and topiramate as an initial treatment were predictors of a reduction in oral prophylactics (area under the curve, 70.3%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA. This treatment reduced the use of oral prophylactics. Withdrawal of oral prophylactics was most likely to occur after five cycles of treatment.

Migraine Care Challenges and Strategies in US Uninsured and Underinsured Adults: A Narrative Review, Part 2

OBJECTIVE

To review the challenges and potential solutions in treatment options for quality migraine care in adult patients who are under or uninsured.

BACKGROUND

The Affordable Care Act has improved access to health care for many; however, those who are underserved continue to face treatment disparities and have inadequate access to appropriate migraine management.

METHODS

This manuscript is the second of a 2-part narrative review which was performed after a series of discussions within the Underserved Populations in Headache Medicine Special Interest Section meetings of the American Headache Society. Literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning conceptual boundaries and a broad overview of the subject matter. Published guidelines, state-specific Medicaid websites, headache quality measurement sets, literature review, and expert opinion were used to tailor suggested treatment options and therapeutic strategies. In this second part of our narrative review, we explored migraine care strategies and considerations for underserved and vulnerable adult populations with migraine.

RESULTS

Although common, migraine remains untreated, particularly among those of low socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status may play an important role in the disease progression, prescription of hazardous medications such as opioids, outcomes, and quality of life of patients with migraine and other headache disorders. There are some evidence-based and guideline supported treatment options available at low cost that include prescription medications and supplements, though approved devices are costly. Resources available online and simple nonpharmacological strategies may be particularly useful in the underserved migraine population.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and discussed migraine treatment barriers that affect underserved populations in the US and summarized practical, cost-effective strategies to surmount them. However, more research is needed to identify the best cost-effective measures for migraine management in underserved and vulnerable patients who are uninsured or underinsured.

Cycling Through Migraine Preventive Treatments: Implications for All-Cause Total Direct Costs and Disease-Specific Costs

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disease associated with substantial economic burden. Among patients with migraine, it is unknown if cost differences exist when preventive migraine medication (PMM) switches occur.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the cost burden and health care resource utilization of patients who discontinue or cycle through 1 (PMM1), 2 (PMM2), or ≥ 3 (PMM3) unique PMM drug classes over a 12-month period versus patients who adhere persistently to their initial PMM class.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases to identify adult patients with migraine initiating their first PMM class (antidepressants, antiepileptics, beta blockers, or neurotoxins) from 2011-2013 (index date = first PMM claim). Patients were required to have ≥ 2 outpatient (1 if inpatient) migraine diagnosis codes (ICD-9-CM 346.xx) from 1 year pre-index to 1 year post-index with ≥ 1 code occurring pre-index. Inclusion criteria also required 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous medical and prescription enrollment. All-cause and migraine-specific total direct costs (outpatient, inpatient, emergency department, and prescriptions), based on the 2014 Consumer Price Index, were estimated for each PMM versus a persistent subgroup during the 12-month post-index period. Propensity score bin bootstrapping, controlling for patient baseline characteristics, was used to adjust separate cost comparisons between each PMM subgroup and the persistent subgroup; bootstrap simulations yielded propensity score-adjusted P values.

RESULTS

The study population included 55,402 patients who received a PMM. The study population was mainly female (85%) with a mean age of 39.2 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.31. Antiepileptics were the most common drug class chosen at index across all subgroups; however, lower use of antiepileptics was observed in PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups, which were more likely to be prescribed either antidepressants or beta blockers at index. Mean all-cause total direct costs, including prescription costs, were significantly higher in PMM2 ($13,429) and PMM3 ($18,394) subgroups versus the persistent subgroup ($11,941; each adjusted pairwise comparison, P < 0.001). Mean migraine-specific total direct costs were significantly lower for the persistent subgroup ($2,420) versus PMM2 and PMM3 subgroups and escalated with increasing numbers of drug class discontinuations or switches, from a mean of $2,997 to $5,004 (both adjusted pairwise comparisons, P < 0.001). Subgroup differences in all-cause and migraine-specific direct costs were primarily due to variations in outpatient and emergency department services.

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause total direct costs rose with increasing number of PMM switches over the 12-month post-index period, and were significantly higher than in the persistent subgroup, with the exception of PMM1. Additional analyses indicated that the lack of increase between PMM-persistent and PMM1 costs was due to higher pharmacy costs that were likely related to continuous use of medication in the PMM-persistent subgroup. These data suggest an increased cost burden among patients with migraine who cycle through ≥ 2 PMMs versus those who continue to receive their initial medication class.

DISCLOSURES

Eli Lilly and Company was the sole sponsor and funder for this study and was responsible for the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings. All authors are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Nyhuis was employed by Eli Lilly and Company at the time of this study. The findings of this study were presented in part at the 18th Congress of the International Headache Society; September 7-10, 2017; Vancouver, Canada.

Migraine Headache: Updates and Future Developments

Migraine is a common disabling condition that is frequently managed by primary care providers. In recent years, the growing array of migraine therapies has added complexity to patient care. This article serves as a succinct review of pertinent updates and future directions regarding migraine. Our understanding of pathophysiology has progressed along with new advances in biomarkers and genetics. These discoveries have led to a wealth of new options for treatment, many of which are specifically targeted against molecules implicated in migraine headache such as calcitonin gene-related peptide. These treatments include several monoclonal antibodies, calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor antagonists, and 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F (5-HT1F) receptor agonists; new options such as these are important for the large population falling out of eligibility for triptans. Furthermore, various nonpharmacological options including noninvasive brain stimulation have joined the arsenal of therapies used for treating migraine.

Burden of Migraine in Europe Using Self-Reported Digital Diary Data from the Migraine Buddy© Application

Introduction

Migraine is a neurological disease characterized by recurring attacks that can cause severe disabling pain. This study described the burden of migraine as reported by individuals with migraine in the real world using a mobile application.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data captured through the Migraine Buddy© smartphone application from adult, self-diagnosed individuals with migraine in 17 European countries. Data were analyzed descriptively for the most recent 28-day period reported by users (n = 3900) during the study period (June 2015–July 2016) who were randomly selected on the basis of data completeness (completion rates > 70%) and stratified by migraine headache days/month: 4–7 episodic migraine (EM; n = 1500), 8–14 EM (n = 1500), and chronic migraine (≥ 15; CM; n = 900).

Results

More than 95% of users reported that migraine negatively affected their daily activities during at least one migraine attack. Attacks affected 50.5% (184.4 days/year), 26.9% (98 days/year), and 14.5% (53 days/year) of the year among CM, 8–14 EM, and 4–7 EM groups, respectively. On average, 44.8% CM, 40.9% 8–14 EM, and 34.7% of 4–7 EM sufferers, respectively, reported anxiety and/or depression symptoms during migraine attacks. Social or home activities, productivity, and sleep were highly affected, regardless of migraine frequency. Employed respondents (n = 3106) reported an average of 2.3 workdays missed per month and that at least one in four migraines led to work absenteeism; these migraines were commonly reported to have at least moderate to severe levels of pain, corresponding to the inability of persons to perform some or even any activities. Triptans (68%), opioids (46%), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (45%) were self-reported as the most common medicines used.

Conclusions

This study, leveraging patient-reported data collected through a mobile application, demonstrates the high burden and impact of migraine on health-related quality of life, work productivity, and overall well-being of individuals suffering from migraines.

Funding

Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland.

Benefit-risk assessment of erenumab and current migraine prophylactic treatments using the likelihood of being helped or harmed

Objective

This study evaluated the benefit-risk profile of erenumab relative to other therapies approved for migraine prophylaxis and available in the majority of European countries.

Methods

Trials were identified via a published systematic literature review updated to December 2017 using MEDLINE. Erenumab’s pivotal trials study reports were also included (NCT02066415, NCT02456740). From these sources, ≥ 50% responder rates and discontinuations due to adverse events were extracted to generate numbers needed to treat and harm and likelihood of being helped or harmed, a quantitative benefit-risk measure.

Results

Eleven articles (nine randomized clinical trials) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Low numbers needed to treat (range: 4–13) were observed for most treatments, while numbers needed to harm showed substantial differences (erenumab’s higher numbers needed to harm indicating better tolerability). In chronic and episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed for erenumab 70 mg were 143 and 167, and 42 and 167 for erenumab 140 mg. Likelihoods of being helped or harmed in chronic migraine were 2 and 3 for topiramate (two studies) and 4 for onabotulinumtoxinA. In episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed were 2 for topiramate and 2 for propranolol.

Conclusions

While all prophylactic treatments were more likely to help than harm (likelihood of being helped or harmed > 1), erenumab showed a likelihood of being helped or harmed of high magnitude, supporting its favorable benefit-risk profile across the entire migraine frequency spectrum, in contrast with other prophylactic treatments.

A single-center retrospective study of onabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of 245 chronic migraine patients: survey results of a real-world experience

Preventive treatment in migraine is associated with poor adherence and persistence. In this observational study, our first aim was to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA based on our chronic migraine (CM) patients' treatment experience. The second purpose of this study was to determine the compliance with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in our cohort. Third, we assessed the reasons for withdrawal from treatment in our CM patients. A total of 245 consecutive patients with CM (40.43 ± 10.15 years; 214 females, 31 males) were treated with at least one onabotulinumtoxinA. Data were collected by a standardized interview over the telephone. One-hundred and eighty patients were willing to answer questions about: (1) perceived effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA based on their treatment experience; (2) the current continuity of the treatment; (3) their current migraine-related disability; and (4) their current medication usage. The mean number of onabotulinumtoxinA cycles of all patients and the participants were 2.58 and 2.90, respectively. Of the 180 participants, 149 patients (82.8%) thought that onabotulinumtoxinA was effective in controlling their headaches. The mean score for perceived effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment given by the participants was as 6.94 ± 2.4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). Of the 245 treated subjects, 31 (12.6%) were treated for 12 months. Compliance rates with onabotulinumtoxinA were very low in our population. However, even CM patients who did not complete five cycles of the treatment showed marked improvement of their current migraine-related disability and reduction of their medication intake as compared to baseline.

Optimizing the long-term management of chronic migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA in real life

INTRODUCTION

Management of chronic migraine is challenging. OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A) is the only medication licensed for prevention of chronic migraine, and has been widely adopted in clinical practice. Limited data is available on its long-term use. Areas covered: Data from controlled trials are combined with available data on the long-term use of OBT-A in real-life studies, with information obtained in a recent survey among Italian headache centers, and the clinical experience of the authors. Six areas were identified as relevant to patients with chronic migraine: 1) definition of responders to OBT-A; 2) management of responders to OBT-A; 3) optimal timing of prophylaxis with OBT-A; 4) position of OBT-A in prevention of chronic migraine; 5) management of medication overuse, and 6) patient education. Expert commentary: This review provides an update on the latest evidence regarding the long-term use of OBT-A in chronic migraine and analyzes the critical issues in the decision-making process that emerge from the analysis of the literature and routine practice. A treatment algorithm is proposed for the adoption in the daily practice.

OnabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of patients with chronic migraine: clinical evidence and experience

Chronic migraine is a debilitating neurobiological disorder that affects approximately 1.4–2.2% of the population worldwide. Patients with chronic migraine have 15 or more headache days per month, with at least 8 days per month that meet the criteria for migraine. Injection of onabotulinumtoxinA, using a standardized injection protocol, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the treatment of chronic migraine. The approval was made based on results from two large, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials: the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. Since then, numerous studies have been performed investigating the short-term and long-term benefits, risks and complications of the use of onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the currently available clinical evidence for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA injections for treating patients with chronic migraine.

Onabotulinumtoxin A for the management of chronic migraine in current clinical practice: results of a survey of sixty-three Italian headache centers

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a complex clinical condition often undertreated. Onabotulinumtoxin A (OBT-A) was approved in Italy in 2013 for symptom relief in patients with chronic migraine who have failed, or do not tolerate, oral prophylactic treatments. However, the impact of OBT-A in clinical practice remains to be defined.

METHODS

To investigate the current management of chronic migraine with OBT-A in clinical practice, a web-based survey was conducted among clinicians working in third-level headache centers across Italy. A 26-item questionnaire was designed and developed by a group of 10 Italian headache specialists to address the following issues: treatment paradigm and OBT-A injection intervals, frequency of treatment and retreatment, definition of responders/non-responders, satisfaction with treatment potential impact of early treatment with OBT-A. Ninety-six headache centers were selected and contacted via e-mail. The online survey was anonymous and carried out using a secure website.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 of the 96 centers (66.7%) completed the questionnaire. Most centers (98.4%) had been using OBT-A for >1 year. OBT-A was administered according to the PREEMPT paradigm in most centers (88.9%). While during the first year of prophylaxis with OBT-A most clinicians (93.6%) repeated OBT-A treatment every 3 months, as recommended, in the following years interval duration was variable. Response to OBT-A was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the headache days by 58.7% of the clinicians, and as a ≥ 30% reduction by 25.4% of them. Almost 60% of the clinicians considered OBT-A as a long-lasting therapy, while for one-third of them treatment could be discontinued in patients showing a benefit for ≥6 months. According to 80% of the clinicians, early administration of OBT-A after the onset of chronic migraine was associated with better outcomes, and 47.6% felt that OBT-A should be recommended as a first-line option.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that in third-level headache centers in Italy OBT-A is used in good compliance with current recommendations. There is agreement about the definition of response as a reduction in headache days by 30% to 50%. Additional effort is required to define response to OBT-A and to establish optimal treatment duration.

Evidence and experience with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: Recommendations for daily clinical practice

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been demonstrated to be effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM). Five years after the approval of onabotulinumtoxinA in Spain, the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology considered it worthwhile to gather a group of experts in treating patients with CM in order to draw up, based on current evidence and our own experience, a series of guidelines aimed at facilitating the use of the drug in daily clinical practice. For this purpose, we posed 12 questions that we ask ourselves as doctors, and which we are also asked by our patients. Each author responded to one question, and the document was then reviewed by everyone. We hope that this review will constitute a practical tool to help neurologists treating patients with CM.

Onabotulinum toxin A in the treatment of chronic migraine: patient selection and special considerations

Discovered by serendipity, onabotulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for the prevention of chronic migraine (CM), one of the most disabling and burdensome human conditions. Its efficacy, safety and tolerability, proved by the largest and longest migraine therapeutic trial (the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy program [PREEMPT]), have been replicated by various real-life studies also in the presence of medication overuse. The benefit of BoNT-A prophylaxis is likely due to its ability to counteract peripheral and central nociceptive sensitization through reversible chemical denervation of pericranial sensitive afferents. Its efficacy increases considerably over time during long-term treatments, significantly varying among patients. The present review focuses on the state-of-the art of current knowledge on putative instrumental, biochemical and clinical predictors of BoNT-A responsiveness, outlining the need for a thorough characterization of the full phenotypic migraine picture when trying to predict good responders. Available evidence suggests that disentangling the BoNT-A responsiveness puzzle requires 1) a reappraisal of easy-obtainable clinical details (eg, site and quality of pain, presence of cranial autonomic symptoms), 2) a proper stratification of patients with CM according to their headache frequency, 3) the evaluation of potential synergistic effects of concomitant prophylaxis/treatment and 4) a detailed assessment of modifiable risk factors evolution during treatment.