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

Characterizing neck pain during headache among people with migraine: Multicountry results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study.

BACKGROUND

Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability.

METHODS

The CaMEO-I was a prospective, cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non-migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine-specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries.

RESULTS

Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non-migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non-migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function-Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain.

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.

Evaluating patient and family preferences for acute and preventive pediatric headache treatment

OBJECTIVE

To describe acute and preventive treatment preferences among youth with migraine and their parents/guardians, and to describe the degree of youth-parent/guardian preference agreement.

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are common in youth, but little is known about patient and family preferences for headache treatments and outcomes.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional survey, a headache treatment preferences questionnaire was co-created with stakeholders, piloted, and distributed to consenting youth with migraine aged 9-18 years and parents/guardians at a tertiary care headache clinic in western Canada. Response data were summarized for youth and parents/guardians separately, and agreement rates within a youth-parent/guardian pair were compared to a hypothesized agreement rate of 80% for the primary questionnaire items.

RESULTS

Seventy-two youth and n = 94 parents/guardians participated, with n = 63 in youth-parent/guardian pairs. Freedom from pain and rapid relief, and reducing pain severity and headache frequency were top acute and preventive treatment priorities, respectively. More than 90% (69/72) agreed that ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency was a good target. For both acute and preventive interventions, swallowed pill-based options were most often selected as the preferred first-line treatment, with neuromodulation selected as the preferred second-line treatment. The level of agreement within youth-parent/guardian pairs on preferred treatment modalities was lower than hypothesized for acute (63% [40/63], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 52-75%, χ2 = 10.73, p = 0.001) but not for preventive treatment (73% [46/63], 95% CI = 62-84%, χ2 = 1.92, p = 0.166). Regarding which treatment modalities were perceived as most effective, youth-parent agreement was lower than hypothesized for both acute (48% [30/63], 95% CI = 35-60%, χ2 = 41.29, p < 0.001) and preventive treatment (46% [29/63], 95% CI = 34-58%, χ2 = 45.43, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Youth and family preferences aligned qualitatively, but sometimes diverged quantitatively, from typical clinical trial outcomes. The level of agreement within youth-parent/guardian pairs on treatment preferences and perceptions was low. Clinicians should consider both perspectives as they may be divergent.

Clinically significant differences in self-reported pain scores in children with headaches

OBJECTIVES

Changes in pain scores that represent clinically significant differences in children with headaches are necessary for study design and interpretation of findings reported in studies. We aimed to determine changes in pain scores associated with a minimum clinically significant difference (MCSD), ideal clinically significant difference (ICSD), and patient-perceived adequate analgesia (PPAA) in this population.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of two prospective studies of children with headaches presenting to an emergency department. Two serial assessments were performed in children aged 6-17 and 4-17 years who self-reported their pain intensity using the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS) and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), respectively. Children qualitatively described any endorsed change in pain score; those who received an analgesic were asked if they wanted additional analgesics to decrease their pain intensity. We used receiver operating characteristic curve-based methodology to identify changes in pain scores associated with "a little less" (MCSD) and "much less" (ICSD) pain and patients declining additional analgesics because they experienced adequate analgesia after treatment (PPAA).

RESULTS

We analyzed 105 children: 63.8% were female and the median (IQR) age was 13 (10-15) years. Ninety-eight children were analyzed for the VNRS and 101 were analyzed for the FPS-R. For the VNRS, raw change and percent reductions in pain scores associated with MCSD, ICSD, and PPAA were 2/10 and 25%, 4/10 and 56%, and 3/10 and 50%, respectively, and for the FPS-R, 2/10 and 25%, 4/10 and 67%, and 4/10 and 60%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) associated with a MCSD for both scales ranged from 94% to 98%; the AUC associated with an ICSD or PPAA for both scales ranged from 76% to 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified changes in pain score associated with patient-centered outcomes in children with headaches suitable for designing trials and assigning clinical significance to changes in pain scores reported in studies.

The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs.

SUMMARY

The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

Efficacy and tolerability of 100 mg of lasmiditan for migraine: A multi-center, prospective observational real-world study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan, a new medication for acute migraine attacks, is necessary.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational, multi-center, real-world study. A total of 48 patients with migraine (44 females, 44.6 ± 12.9 years old) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients (47.9%) reported they were headache-free two hours after taking lasmiditan and were categorized into the responder group. In total, 44 patients (91.7%) experienced at least one side effect within two hours of taking the medication. Dizziness, somnolence, malaise, nausea, and palpitations were reported by 56.3% (n = 27), 45.8% (n = 22), 37.5% (n = 18), 20.8% (n = 10), and 14.6% (n = 7) of patients respectively. Of 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) indicated that they preferred lasmiditan to their previous acute treatment. There were no predictive factors for efficacy.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan. More than 90% of patients experienced side effects from lasmiditan. Approximately 40% of patients preferred lasmiditan despite the occurrence of side effects.

Results of a Web-Based Survey on 2565 Greek Migraine Patients in 2023: Demographic Data, Imposed Burden and Satisfaction to Acute and Prophylactic Treatments in the Era of New Treatment Options

Objective: The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients conducted its third in-line population web-based survey in 2023 to ascertain if the burden of the disease and the patients' satisfaction with conventional and novel migraine therapies are changing compared to our previous findings from 2018 and 2020. Methods: The sampling process was based on a random call to participants to reply to a specific migraine-focused self-administered questionnaire, including 83 questions in Greek, which was distributed nationwide through the online research software SurveyMonkey. Results: We eventually enrolled 2565 patients, the majority of which were females. Our findings clearly demonstrate that migraine is still a burdensome condition. The degree of its impact on all aspects of productivity depends on the monthly frequency of migraine and the response rates to acute and prophylactic treatments. A total of 1029 (42.4%) of the patients had visited the emergency room mainly for unresponsiveness to acute treatments or aura-related symptoms. Triptans seem to be partly effective as acute therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA seems to be effective for almost half of chronic migraine patients (43.9%) to report adequate satisfaction with this treatment (27.8% were "fairly happy", 10.6% were "very happy", and 5.5% were "extremely happy"). Due to their high rates of preventative effectiveness, most respondents treated with anti-CGRP Mabs expressed their optimism concerning their future while living with their migraine (88.25%), as well as towards further improvements in their quality of life (82.8%) status, mostly with fremanezumab. Conclusions: The patients recognize the usefulness of anti-CGRP Mabs in migraine prevention and consequently seem to be more optimistic than before about living with migraine. Considering the market change that is anticipated with the use of gepants and ditans, larger longitudinal population-based studies are warranted to further explore if the new era of migraine therapeutics might further lessen the burden of the disease.

Migraine treatment consensus document of the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN), Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Society of Primary Care Medicine (SEMERGEN) and Spanish Association of Migraine and Headache (AEMICE) on migraine treatment

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse.

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.

Acute Treatment of Migraine: Expert Consensus Statements from the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

INTRODUCTION

Migraine, characterized by recurrent headaches and often accompanied by other symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL) and daily functioning. The global burden of migraines is reflected not only in terms of reduced QoL but also in the form of increased healthcare costs and missed work or school days. While UAE (United Arab Emirates)-specific consensus-based recommendations for the effective use of preventive calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-based migraine therapies have been published previously, an absence of such regional guidance on the management of acute migraine represents a gap that needs to be urgently addressed.

METHODS

A task force of eight neurologists from the UAE with expertise in migraine management conducted a comprehensive literature search and developed a set of expert statements on the management of acute migraine that were specific to the UAE context. To ensure diverse perspectives are considered, a Delphi panel comprising 16 neurologists plus the task force members was set up. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi survey method. Consensus was predefined as a median rating of 7 or higher without discordance (if > 25% of the Delphi panelists rate an expert statement as 3 or lower on the Likert scale). Expert statements achieving consensus were adopted.

RESULTS

The Modified Delphi method was used successfully to achieve consensus on all nine expert statements drafted by the task force. These consensus statements aim to provide a comprehensive guide for UAE healthcare professionals in treating acute migraine. The statements cover all aspects of acute migraine treatment, including what goals to set, the timing of treatment, treatment strategy to use in case of inadequate response to triptans, safety aspects of combining gepants for acute attacks with preventive CGRP-based therapies, special population (pregnant and pediatric patients) considerations, and the management of the most bothersome symptoms (MBS).

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting these consensus statements on the treatment of acute migraine can help enhance patient care, improve outcomes, and standardize treatment practices in the UAE. The collaborative effort of experts with diverse experiences in developing these consensus statements will strengthen the credibility and applicability of these statements to various healthcare settings in the country.

Behavioral carry-over effect and power consideration in crossover trials

A crossover trial is an efficient trial design when there is no carry-over effect. To reduce the impact of the biological carry-over effect, a washout period is often designed. However, the carry-over effect remains an outstanding concern when a washout period is unethical or cannot sufficiently diminish the impact of the carry-over effect. The latter can occur in comparative effectiveness research, where the carry-over effect is often non-biological but behavioral. In this paper, we investigate the crossover design under a potential outcomes framework with and without the carry-over effect. We find that when the carry-over effect exists and satisfies a sign condition, the basic estimator underestimates the treatment effect, which does not inflate the type I error of one-sided tests but negatively impacts the power. This leads to a power trade-off between the crossover design and the parallel-group design, and we derive the condition under which the crossover design does not lead to type I error inflation and is still more powerful than the parallel-group design. We also develop covariate adjustment methods for crossover trials. We evaluate the performance of cross-over design and covariate adjustment using data from the MTN-034/REACH study.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of pharmacological preventive treatment for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache.

METHODS

The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

Vaporized Cannabis versus Placebo for Acute Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Preclinical and retrospective studies suggest cannabinoids may be effective in migraine treatment. However, there have been no randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute migraine.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, adults with migraine treated up to 4 separate migraine attacks, 1 each with vaporized 1) 6% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-dominant); 2) 11% cannabidiol (CBD-dominant); 3) 6% THC+11% CBD; and 4) placebo cannabis flower in a randomized order. Washout period between treated attack was ≥1 week. The primary endpoint was pain relief and secondary endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, all assessed at 2 hours post-vaporization.

Results

Ninety-two participants were enrolled and randomized, and 247 migraine attacks were treated. THC+CBD was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 2.85 [1.22, 6.65], p=0.016), pain freedom (34.5% vs. 15.5%, 3.30 [1.24, 8.80], p=0.017) and MBS freedom (60.3% vs. 34.5%, 3.32 [1.45, 7.64], p=0.005) at 2 hours, as well as sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. THC-dominant was superior to placebo for pain relief (68.9% vs. 46.6%, 3.14 [1.35, 7.30], p=0.008) but not pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. CBD-dominant was not superior to placebo for pain relief, pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Acute migraine treatment with 6% THC+11% CBD was superior to placebo at 2 hours post-treatment with sustained benefits at 24 and 48 hours.

Most bothersome symptom in migraine and probable migraine: A population-based study

Recently, the most bothersome symptom has been recommended as a co-primary endpoint in clinical trials on the acute treatment of migraine. Probable migraine is a subtype of migraine that fulfills all but one criterion for migraine diagnosis. We aimed to compare the most bothersome symptom between probable migraine and migraine. This study analyzed data from a nationwide study conducted in Korea, and the most bothersome symptom was assessed by requesting the participants to select one of the four typical accompanying symptoms of migraine. Responses to acute treatment were evaluated using the migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-6. Nausea was the most bothersome symptom, followed by phonophobia and vomiting in the migraine group (nausea, 61.8%; phonophobia, 25.3%; vomiting, 10.0%; and photophobia, 2.9%) and the probable migraine group (nausea, 82.2%; phonophobia, 9.5%; vomiting, 5.6%; and photophobia, 2.7%). In participants with migraine, vomiting (adjusted odds ratio = 6.513; 95% confidence interval, 1.763-24.057) and phonophobia (adjusted odds ratio = 0.437; 95% confidence interval, 0.206-0.929) were significantly associated with severe headache intensity and nausea was significantly associated with >3 headache days per 30 days (adjusted odds ratio = 0.441; 95% confidence, 0.210-0.927). Different patterns of associations were observed in probable migraine.

Evaluating therapeutic benefits of ubrogepant via latent class models: A post hoc exploratory analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an alternative method of defining acute treatment success in migraine by combining multiple indicators into a single dichotomous measure of success.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is characterized by a symptom complex; combining these features as a single endpoint may improve the measurement of treatment effects and better predict patient satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

We used a confirmatory latent class model (LCM) with two latent classes interpreted as treatment success and treatment failure. Pooled data for placebo and ubrogepant 50 mg from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials and data for ubrogepant 100 mg from ACHIEVE I were used. LCM inputs included pre-dose and 2-h post-dose measures of pain severity (0-3), the presence/absence of associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia [0 or 1]), and functional disability (0-3). All definitions were validated against satisfaction with study medication (SWSM) at 24 h post-dose; results were compared with 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis included 2247 participants. At 2 h post-dose in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, 53.2% (472/887) and 54.9% (246/448) of participants, respectively, were classified as achieving treatment success using the LCM-based approach, compared to 39.0% (356/912) of participants in the placebo group. The results for treatment success using the 2hPF endpoint were 20.7% (184/887) and 21.5% (96/447) in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, respectively, compared to 12.7% (116/912) for placebo. Using 24-h SWSM as an external validator, the LCM approach sensitivity and correct classification rates were higher than for 2hPF.

CONCLUSION

The LCM approach led to higher rates of treatment success and greater separation between ubrogepant and placebo and was a more sensitive predictor of treatment satisfaction than the regulatory endpoint of 2hPF.

Occipital Nerve Block Compared With Acetaminophen and Caffeine for Headache Treatment in Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of occipital nerve block compared with standard care , defined as acetaminophen with caffeine, for treatment of acute headache in pregnancy.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, unblinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial of pregnant patients with headache and pain score higher than 3 on the visual rating scale. Patients with secondary headache, preeclampsia, or allergy or contraindication to study medications were excluded. Participants were randomized to occipital nerve block or standard care (oral 650 mg acetaminophen and 200 mg caffeine). Crossover treatment was given at 2 hours and second-line treatment at 4 hours to those with worsening visual rating scale score or visual rating scale score higher than 3. The primary outcome was headache improvement to a visual rating scale score of 3 or lower within 2 hours of initial therapy. Secondary outcomes included serial visual rating scale scores, receipt of crossover or second-line therapy, patient satisfaction, and perinatal outcomes. Outcomes were assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis. We estimated that a sample of 62 would provide 80% power to detect a difference from 85% to 50% between groups.

RESULTS

From February 2020 to May 2022, 62 participants were randomized to occipital nerve block (n=31) or standard care (n=31). Groups were similar except payer status. The primary outcome, headache improvement to visual rating scale score of 3 or lower, was not significantly different between groups (64.5% vs 51.6%, P =.30). The occipital nerve block group experienced lower median [interquartile range] visual rating scale scores at 1 hour (2 [0-5] vs 6 [2-7], P =.014), and more patients in the occipital nerve block group had visual rating scale scores of 3 or lower at 1 hour. Among patients receiving crossover treatment at 2 hours, the standard care group had a significantly lower visual rating scale score 1 hour after crossover to occipital nerve block than the occipital nerve block group receiving crossover to standard care ( P =.028). There were no significant differences in second-line treatment, refractory headache, satisfaction, or complications. Patients receiving occipital nerve block delivered earlier (36.6 weeks vs 37.8 weeks), but preterm birth did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Occipital nerve block is an effective and quick-acting treatment option for acute headache in pregnancy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03951649.

InfluenCEF study: Clinical phenotype and duration of headache attributed to influenza infection

INTRODUCTION

Headache is a frequent symptom of infections. We aimed to characterize the clinical phenotype and duration of headache attributed to influenza infection.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study done in 53 primary care centers between January and April 2023. Patients were included if they had a confirmed influenza diagnosis, were older than 15 years and had a new-onset headache. Patients' demographics, prior medical history, headache phenotype and duration, associated symptoms and patients' outcomes were assessed. The International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for headache attributed to a systemic viral infection, migraine and tension-type headache were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 478 patients 75 fulfilled eligibility criteria. The mean age was 43, 56% were men, and 27% had a prior headache history. The headache phenotype was a bilateral headache (52%), with frontal topography (48%), pressing quality (61%), moderate intensity, rhinorrhea (79%), nasal congestion (76%), and photophobia (59%). All patients fulfilled headache attributed to acute systemic viral infection criteria, 43% fulfilled migraine criteria and 31% tension-type headache criteria. The median duration of the headache was four (Inter-quartile range: two-six) days.

CONCLUSION

The clinical phenotype of headache attributed to influenza infection was similar to other infections, with more pronounced cranial autonomic symptoms. The headache was an early symptom and was self-limited within a few days.Trial Registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05704335).

Correlation of effectiveness and tolerability assessments from a pharmacy-based observational study investigating the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen plus 100 mg caffeine for the treatment of acute headache

Introduction

Observational studies are valuable for investigating correlations between patient-reported treatment outcomes. In this study, we report a secondary analysis of a published pharmacy-based observational (patient-centered "real-world" outcomes) study on experiences reported by patients who treated their headache with an over-the-counter analgesic.

Methods

A pharmacy-based exploratory survey was conducted in German community pharmacies. Patients buying a fixed-dose analgesic combination product (400 mg ibuprofen + 100 mg caffeine; IbuCaff) to treat their headache were offered a questionnaire that contained-among others-questions about time to onset of pain relief (OPR), assessment of time to onset of pain relief (AOPR), assessment of efficacy and tolerability, and pain intensity 2 h after intake. A correlation analysis of the data was performed. Moreover, perceived treatment effects compared to other acute headache medications used in the past were collected.

Results

The correlation between OPR and AOPR was high (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.594, p < 0.0001). Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesic action within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". The other readouts were correlated as well [assessment of efficacy and % pain intensity difference (%PID) at 2 h: r = 0.487; OPR/AOPR and %PID at 2 h: r = 0.295/0.318; OPR/AOPR and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.206/0.397; OPR/AOPR and assessment of efficacy: r = 0.406/0.594; assessment of efficacy and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.608; p < 0.0001 for all correlations]. Compared to previous treatments, most patients (>89%) assessed the speed of analgesic action, efficacy, and tolerability of IbuCaff as equal to or better than for the previous treatment.

Discussion

Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesia within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". Efficacy assessments for acute headache medication appear to be highly correlated.

Approach to headache disorders and the management of migraine: consensus guidelines from the Headache Society of Singapore, first edition (2023)

Headache disorders, particularly migraine, are one of the most common and disabling neurological disorders. There is a need for high-quality, accessible care for patients with headache disorders across all levels of the healthcare system in Singapore. The role of the Headache Society of Singapore is to increase awareness and advance the understanding of these disorders and to advocate for the needs of affected patients. In this first edition of local consensus guidelines, we focus on treatment approaches for headaches and provide consensus recommendations for the management of migraine in adults. The recommendations in these guidelines can be used as a practical tool in routine clinical practice by primary care physicians, neurologists and other healthcare professionals who have a common interest in headache disorders.

Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients.

METHODS

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Long-term outcomes of nummular headache: A series of 168 patients and 1198 patient-years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Since the first description of nummular headache (NH), more than 500 cases have been described, delineating its clinical phenotype and response to treatment. However, data on the natural history of NH and outcomes during long-term follow-up are not currently available. The present study aimed to describe the long-term outcomes and follow-up of a large series of patients with NH.

METHODS

A descriptive observational ambisective study with a series of cases was conducted. The study population included adult patients with primary NH and a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Demographic variables, previous medical history, clinical phenotype, diagnosis and treatment of NH, temporal pattern, and long-term evolution were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 168 patients were enrolled and followed for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of 80.5 (55-118.5) months. The temporal pattern after NH onset was chronic in 67.9% and, at diagnosis, the median (IQR) number of pain days per month was 20 [10-30] days with 138 (82.1%) patients with ≥8 days of pain per month. Preventive treatment was needed by 112 (66.7%) patients. The most frequently used drugs were gabapentin (69/112; 61.6%), onabotulinumtoxinA (38/112; 33.9%), amitriptyline (31/112; 27.7%) and lamotrigine (21/112; 18.7%). Response to preventive treatment was at least partial in 91/112 (81.3%) patients. At the end of follow-up, 81 (48.2%) patients had inactive NH. Of patients with active NH, the median (IQR) number of headache days per month was 3 (1-12) days and patients had ≥8 days of pain in 35 (20.8%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of NH were positive in most patients. After a median of 6.7 years of follow-up, 48% of cases were inactive. Two-thirds of patients required preventive treatment, and 80% of them were treatment-responsive. In NH cases that remained symptomatic, the headache frequency was lower, and the proportion of patients with chronic NH decreased from 68% to 11%.

Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine accompanying symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of basal accompanying symptoms on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies treatment response and their evolution after six months of treatment in migraine patients.

METHODS

Patients with migraine diagnosis seen in the Headache Clinic and treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab were prospectively recruited. They completed a daily eDiary which provided data on headache frequency and the following accompanying symptoms of each day: photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on 50% or greater reduction in headache days per month at month 6 (≥50% response rate). Accompanying symptoms ratios based on headache days per month were assessed per patient at baseline and after three and six months. Comparisons for basal characteristics, basal accompanying symptoms ratios and their evolution after six months between responders and non-responders were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included, 44% (69/158) showed ≥50% response rate after six months. A significant reduction in headache days per month in both groups was found at month 6 (-9.4 days/month in ≥50% response rate group; p < 0.001, -2.2 days/month in <50% response rate group; p = 0.004). Additionally, significant decreases in photophobia (-19.5%, p < 0.001), phonophobia (-12.1%, p = 0.010) and aura ratios (-25.1%, p = 0.008) were found in ≥50% response rate group. No statistically significant reductions were found in nausea and dizziness in any group since their reduction was correlated with the decrease in headache days per month. Higher photophobia ratios at baseline were predictive of an increased response between months 3 and 6 (Incidence Risk Ratio = 0.928, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

The days per month with photophobia, phonophobia and aura decreased at a higher rate than headache days per month after six months in the ≥50% response group. Higher photophobia ratios were associated with higher response rates between three and six months. It could indicate an involvement of peripheral CGRP in photophobia as well as a central modulation of migraine through these treatments which mainly act on the periphery.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of a Latin American Spanish version of the ID Migraine screening test

OBJECTIVE

To translate, culturally adapt, and validate a version of the ID Migraine into Latin American Spanish.

BACKGROUND

Although still considered a common diagnosis, half of the patients with migraine in Latin America experience diagnostic delay. The ID Migraine is a test developed in 2003 as a valuable tool for the early diagnosis of migraine at the primary care level; however, there is no validated Spanish or culturally adapted version for the Spanish-speaking population.

METHODS

This is an analytical, translation, and test-validation study. We performed back translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The Latin American Spanish version ID Migraine MX was applied to headache clinic patients from March 2021 to January 2022 to perform a validation process against the gold standard: blinded expert diagnosis according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3), criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen patients from the headache clinic of the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery of Mexico City were screened. We found 62/117 (53%) patients positive for screening with ID Migraine MX, and 47/117 (40%) positive for migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria. A sensitivity (95% CI) of 0.91 (0.80-0.97), specificity of 0.73 (0.61-0.82), positive predictive value of 0.694 (0.57-0.794), and negative predictive value of 0.93 (0.83-0.97) were obtained. The positive likelihood ratio was 3.38 (2.27-4.99), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (0.04-0.30). After calling the patients 1 month after the first interview, the calculated Kappa test-retest was 0.75 (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A translated and cross-culturally adapted version into Spanish of the ID Migraine was obtained, with a diagnostic performance similar to the original instrument. Clinicians may use this test at the first level of care to reduce the rate of misdiagnosis and the time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis and treatment of migraine.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Medication is commonly used to treat migraine. However, patients may experience adverse events or fail to respond to medication. In recent years, neuromodulation techniques have emerged as potential non-pharmacological therapy for migraine. This article focuses on a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (n-VNS) for migraine to determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of n-VNS.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases up to July 15, 2022. Primary outcomes were monthly reduced migraine/headache days, and pain-free rates within 2 h. Secondary outcomes were  ≥ 50% responder rate, headache intensity, monthly acute medication reduction days, and adverse events.

Results

Meta-analysis shows that non-invasive cervical vagus nerve stimulation (n-cVNS) significantly impacted ≥50% responder rate (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.47; p = 0.02), but had no significant effect on reducing migraine days (MD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.21 to 0.29; p = 0.23) and headache days (MD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.52 to 0.16; p = 0.11). In contrast, low-frequency non-invasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (n-aVNS) was found to significantly reduce the number of migraine days (MD, -1.8; 95% CI, -3.34 to -0.26; p = 0.02) and headache intensity (SMD, -0.7; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.17; p = 0.009), but not the number of acute medication days per month (MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -3.84 to 1.64; p = 0.43). In addition, n-cVNS was found safe and well-tolerated in most patients.

Conclusion

These findings show that n-VNS is a promising method for migraine management.

The use of clinical scales and PROMs in headache disorders and migraine, summarizing their dissemination and operationalization

Measurements are an essential aspect of scientific research. This review will present clinical scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for headache disorders and migraine that have been endorsed by the International Headache Society (IHS) and are intended for use by both physicians and researchers. A clinical scale is a tool to assess a patient's condition or symptoms in a standardized and quantifiable way. Clinical scales are often used in research settings and can be used to track a patient's progress over time, monitor the effectiveness of treatment, and make decisions. They can be self-administered or completed by a healthcare professional. PROMs are tools used to evaluate a patient's health status, symptoms, and quality of life. These measures are completed by the patient and provide valuable information about the patient's perspective and experience of their condition. PROMs are increasingly used in clinical practice and research to improve patient-centered care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. This review also briefly covers the creation process, testing for reliability and validity, and interpreting the results of the use of clinical scales and PROMs in clinical and research settings in headache disorders. The first step in creating a clinical scale or PROM is to define the purpose of the scale and the population it is intended to assess. The next step is to identify the domains or areas that the scale will assess. Then, the items or questions that will be included in the scale need to be developed. These items should be relevant to the defined purpose and population of the scale and should be worded clearly and concisely. After the items have been developed, the scale or PROM can be administered to a sample of individuals in the target population. This allows researchers to assess the reliability and validity of the scale or PROM, as well as to make any necessary revisions.

Real-World Analysis of Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Insufficient Responders and Responders to Prescribed Acute Migraine Treatment in China

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder characterized by attacks of severe pain, sometimes accompanied by symptoms including nausea and photo-/phono-phobia. Real-world data of patients with migraine who sufficiently (responders) and insufficiently (insufficient responders) respond to acute treatment (AT) are limited in China. This analysis explored whether responders to AT differ from insufficient responders in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes in China.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of internists/neurologists and their consulting patients with migraine, conducted in a real-world setting in China, January-June 2014. Responders and insufficient responders to prescribed AT were patients who typically achieved headache pain freedom within 2 h of AT in ≥ 4 and ≤ 3 of five migraine attacks, respectively. Responders were compared with insufficient responders; logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with insufficient response.

RESULTS

Of 777 patients currently receiving AT, 44.0% were insufficient responders. Significantly fewer responders than insufficient responders had migraine with aura (13.1 vs. 23.8%; p = 0.0001). Responders reported a significantly lower mean Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) total score (5.5 vs. 6.6; p = 0.0325). Responders reported a lower mean impairment while working (50.0 vs. 63.9%; p < 0.0001), overall work impairment (52.6 vs. 66.0%; p < 0.0001), and activity impairment (48.9 vs. 59.0%; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant factors associated with insufficient response to AT included diabetes, unilateral pain, vomiting, sensitivity to smell, visual aura/sight disturbance, and an increase in MIDAS total score. However, there were no statistically significant differences in ATs received by responders and insufficient responders at any regimen of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with migraine in China are insufficient responders to AT, experiencing worse symptoms that lead to overall poorer quality of life than responders. This unmet need suggests that new effective treatment options are required for migraine.

Sex differences in migraine attack characteristics: A longitudinal E-diary study

OBJECTIVE

In this prospective cohort study, characteristics of perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks in women were compared with migraine attacks in men.

BACKGROUND

Women report longer migraine attacks and more accompanying symptoms than men in cross-sectional questionnaire studies, but this has not been confirmed in longitudinal studies. Supposed differences could result from different characteristics specific to perimenstrual migraine attacks, or of attacks in women in general.

METHODS

This cohort study was performed among patients with migraine who were treated at the Leiden Headache Clinic. We assessed differences in migraine attack characteristics between men and women who were prospectively followed by a previously validated electronic headache diary. The primary outcome was "attack" duration. Differences between perimenstrual (Days -2 to +3 of the menstrual cycle) and non-perimenstrual attacks in women versus attacks in men were corrected for age, chronic migraine, and medication overuse headache.

RESULTS

A total of 1347 women and 284 men were included, reflecting the preponderance of women in migraine prevalence. Crude median (first and third quartile [Q1-Q3]) attack duration in men was 32.1 [17.7-53.6] h, compared to 36.7 [21.9-62.4] h for non-perimenstrual migraine attacks and 44.4 [17.9-79.0] h for perimenstrual migraine attacks in women. After correction for confounding, perimenstrual migraine attacks were 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-1.79; p < 0.001) and non-perimenstrual 1.15 (95% CI 1.05-1.25; p = 0.003) times longer compared to migraine attacks in men. The mean relapse percentage in men was 9.2%, compared to 12.6% for non-perimenstrual migraine attacks, and 15.7% for perimenstrual migraine attacks. Relapse risk was greater for perimenstrual (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% CI 1.93-2.95; p < 0.001), but not for non-perimenstrual (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97-1.45; p = 0.060) attacks. Migraine attacks in women were more often accompanied by photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea, but less often aura.

CONCLUSION

Compared to attacks in men, both perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks are of longer duration and are more often accompanied by associated symptoms. A sex-specific approach to migraine treatment and research is needed.

Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

METHODS

MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving n = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan.

CONCLUSION

Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself.PROSPERO trial registration: CRD42022308224.

Matching adjusted indirect comparison of acupuncture versus fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

Acupuncture and fremanezumab are second-line treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We aimed to compare acupuncture with fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine by using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis (MAIC).

METHODS

We acquired participant-level data from an acupuncture trial recruiting 302 participants and summary-level data from a fremanezumab trial recruiting 875 participants (290 participants received monthly fremanezumab [MF] and 291 received single-dose fremanezumab [SF]). The primary outcome was the mean reduction in monthly headache days. The secondary outcomes were the mean reduction in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days, days with acute medication, and the adverse events rate.

RESULTS

Before matching, the acupuncture arm had significantly lower BMI, fewer headache days with at least moderate severity, and fewer days with acute medication. After matching, the baseline variables were comparable between groups. The three arms had no difference in the change of monthly migraine days (MF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.3, 95%CI -0.5 to 1.1, p-value = 0.473; SF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.5, 95%CI -0.3 to 1.3, p-value = 0.214). The results were similar in the analyses of secondary outcomes sensitivity analyses. Thirty-six (25%) participants in the acupuncture arm reported adverse events, versus 192(66%) participants in the MF arm and 193 (66%) in the SF arm.

CONCLUSION

The preventive treatment effect of acupuncture is equivalent to fremanezumab, and it presented with a lower adverse event rate, which indicates that acupuncture can be an alternative to fremanezumab.

Fremanezumab and Non-High-Dose Galcanezumab for Comorbid Cluster Headache in Patients with Migraine: Three Cases

A new treatment option for cluster headache (CH) prevention is needed. Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligands are used as a preventative treatment for migraine. Considering the CGRP’s role in the CH attack’s ignition and upkeep, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have been evaluated for CH preventative treatment. However, only high-dose (300 mg) galcanezumab has been approved for episodic CH prevention. We herein report three cases of migraine and comorbid CH with previous failures of preventive treatments. Two cases were treated with fremanezumab and one with non-high-dose galcanezumab. All three cases showed good results, not only for migraine, but also for CH attacks. This report suggests the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention. Our cases differed from cases in the phase 3 trials of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention in two ways: first, our patients had both migraine and comorbid CH, and second, we used a combination of CGRP-mABs with preventative drugs, such as verapamil and/or prednisolone, to treat CH. Future accumulation of real-world data may prove the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention.

Place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans, non-responders and contraindications to triptans and possible combination therapies

Background: For many years triptans have been the cornerstone of acute migraine treatment. Nevertheless, treatment with triptans may not always be initiated due to contraindications (seen in approximately one fifth of patients) or inadequate response (seen in approximately one third of patients). New acute therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)_1F receptor agonists, also known as ditans (lasmiditan) and small molecule antagonists of the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, also known as gepants (rimegepant and ubrogepant), may be an effective alternative. Methods: We searched Pubmed for keywords, summarized the literature and provided a comprehensive review on the place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans. Results and conclusion: Post-hoc analyses reported no differences in efficacy of gepants/ditans between responders and non-responders to triptans, but research is hampered by lack of consensus on the definition of non-responder. Due to (partially) overlapping mechanisms of action, it remains unknown whether combination therapy with lasmiditan, gepants and triptans will have added value over monotherapy. Preclinical studies and post-hoc analyses cautiously indicate that these new drugs are safe for patients with cardiovascular risk factors. However, long-term studies are needed to prove cardiovascular safety. The risk of developing medication overuse headache may differ between triptans, ditans and gepants, but further studies are needed to confirm this difference. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials of acute therapies and combinations of therapies are needed to determine their place in migraine treatment among established therapies.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients.

BACKGROUND

The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Central Mechanism of Acupuncture Treatment in Patients with Migraine: Study Protocol for Randomized Controlled Neuroimaging Trial

Purpose

Acupuncture has been recognized as an effective and safe alternative therapy for migraine, but its central mechanism has not yet been adequately explained. Meanwhile, research into the clinical efficacy and central mechanism of true acupuncture (TA) and sham acupuncture (SA) is lacking. It is necessary to investigate whether TA has better efficacy than SA, and how they achieve different effects. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of TA and SA, observe the brain response caused by TA and SA, and further investigate the central nervous mechanism of TA and SA treatment for patients with migraine.

Patients and Methods

This is a randomized controlled neuroimaging trial combining acupuncture treatment with functional magnetic resonance imaging, with patients and outcome assessors blinded. A total of 60 patients with migraine will be randomly allocated to receive 12 sessions of either TA or SA treatments (three sessions per week for 4 weeks), and 30 healthy participants will be recruited as the healthy control (HC) group. Outcome assessment and neuroimaging will be conducted before and after the entire intervention. A headache diary and questionnaires of life quality and psychological properties will be used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Multimodal magnetic resonance imagining data analysis will be used to investigate the central mechanism of TA or SA in treating migraine. Pearson's correlation analysis will be used to reveal the relationship between the brain response and clinical improvements.

Conclusion

The results of this study will reveal the brain response to TA and SA in patients with migraine and contribute to further expanding the knowledge of their central mechanism.

Study Registration

This trial has been approved by the ethics committee of Dongzhimen Hospital affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (DZMEC-KY-2020-38) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number ChiCTR2000033995).

Bridging the gap between preclinical scientists, clinical researchers, and clinicians: From animal research to clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Collaborations amongst researchers and clinicians with complementary areas of expertise enhance knowledge for everyone and can lead to new discoveries. To facilitate these interactions, shared language and a general understanding of how colleagues in different subfields of headache and headache research approach their work are needed.

METHODS

This narrative review focuses on research methods applied in animal studies, human studies including clinical trials, and provides an overview of clinical practice.

RESULTS

For animal studies, we describe concepts needed to evaluate the quality and relevance of preclinical studies. For human research, fundamental concepts of neuroimaging, quantitative sensory testing, genetic and epidemiological research methods, and clinical research methodology that are commonly used in headache research are summarized. In addition, we provide an understanding of what guides headache clinicians, and summarize the practical approach to migraine management in adults and children.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that this review facilitates further dialogue between clinicians and researchers that will help guide future research efforts and implementation of research findings into clinical practice.

Global Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Current Therapeutic Novelties in Migraine Therapy and their Prevention: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The current article reviews the latest information on epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, recent advancements in clinical management, current therapeutic novelties, and the prevention of migraines. In a narrative review, all studies as per developed MeSH terms published until February 2023, excluding those irrelevant, were identified through a PubMed literature search.

METHODS

Overall, migraine affects more than a billion people annually and is one of the most common neurological illnesses. A wide range of comorbidities is associated with migraines, including stress and sleep disturbances. To lower the worldwide burden of migraine, comprehensive efforts are required to develop and enhance migraine treatment, which is supported by informed healthcare policy. Numerous migraine therapies have been successful, but not all patients benefit from them.

RESULTS

CGRP pathway-targeted therapy demonstrates the importance of translating mechanistic understanding into effective treatment. In this review, we discuss clinical features, diagnosis, and recently approved drugs, as well as a number of potential therapeutic targets, including pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), adenosine, opioid receptors, potassium channels, transient receptor potential ion channels (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC).

CONCLUSION

In addition to providing more treatment options for improved clinical care, a better understanding of these mechanisms facilitates the discovery of novel therapeutic targets.

Polymorphisms of the Proinflammatory Cytokine Genes Modulate the Response to NSAIDs but Not to Triptans in Migraine Attacks

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of headache and associated neurological symptoms. At present, a significant portion of patients do not obtain a satisfactory response to acute pain-relieving therapies, including NSAIDs and triptans. In this context, pharmacogenetics plays a key role in the understanding of such a diverse response. In order to investigate whether functional polymorphisms in proinflammatory cytokine genes (IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-1RN; IL-6 and TNF-α) may influence the response to acute treatment, 313 consecutive patients with episodic migraine without aura were enrolled. Pain relief by administration of NSAIDs or triptans for three consecutive migraine attacks was evaluated. We found a significant association between A allele of the TNF-α promoter (−308 A/G) and a lack of efficacy after NSAID administration (p < 0.01, OR 2.51, 95% CI: 1.33 < OR < 4.75 compared to the G allele). Remaining polymorphisms had no significant effect on pain relief. Our study showed that a functional polymorphism in the TNF-α gene significantly modulates the clinical response to NSAID administration in acute attacks. Patients with higher production of the active cytokine during stress showed a significantly lower anti-migraine effect. Our results further support a role for TNF-α in the pathophysiological mechanisms of migraine attack.

Monoclonal Antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review of Real-World Data

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of real-world outcomes for anti-CGRP-mAbs.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed for real-world data of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or eptinezumab in patients with migraines.

RESULTS

We identified 134 publications (89 retrospective), comprising 10 pharmaco-epidemiologic and 83 clinic-based studies, 38 case reports, and 3 other articles. None of the clinic-based studies provided follow-up data over more than one year in more than 200 patients. Findings suggest that there are reductions in health insurance claims and days with sick-leave as well as better treatment adherence with anti-CGRP-mAbs. Effectiveness, reported in 77 clinic-based studies, was comparable to randomized controlled trials. A treatment pause was associated with an increase in migraine frequency, and switching to another antibody resulted in a better response in some of the patients. Adverse events and safety issues were addressed in 86 papers, including 24 single case reports.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data on anti-CGRP-mAbs are limited by retrospective data collection, small patient numbers, and short follow-up periods. The majority of papers seem to support good effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP-mAbs in the real-world setting. There is an unmet need for large prospective real-world studies providing long-term follow-ups of patients treated with anti-CGRP-mAbs.

Lasmiditan for single migraine attack in Japanese patients with cardiovascular risk factors: subgroup analysis of a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Some migraine treatments are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors (CVRFs). We report safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, a new oral acute migraine treatment with no cardiovascular contraindication, in Japanese patients with CVRFs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine (met International Headache Society criteria, Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥11, disabling migraine for ≥1 year). Eligible patients were randomized (7:3:7:6) to placebo or lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg. This prespecified analysis described CVDs, CVRFs, and cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy (proportion pain-free, experienced pain relief, most bothersome symptom-free, or disability-free 2 hours post-dose) was evaluated within CVRF subgroups (≤1, ≥2).

RESULTS

Of 846 randomized patients, 691 were analyzed (CVRF≤1: 375; CVRF≥2: 316). The proportion of lasmiditan-treated patients with ≥1 TEAE was not related to CVRF numbers. Eighteen (3.8%) lasmiditan-treated and three (1.4%) placebo-treated patients reported likely cardiovascular TEAEs. Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo at relieving pain, symptoms, and disability in both CVRF subgroups. There was no consistent relationship between CVRF subgroups and efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective in Japanese patients with migraine and CVRFs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962738.

Debate: Are cluster headache and migraine distinct headache disorders?

Cluster headache and migraine are regarded as distinct primary headaches. While cluster headache and migraine differ in multiple aspects such as gender-related and headache specific features (e.g., attack duration and frequency), both show clinical similarities in trigger factors (e.g., alcohol) and treatment response (e.g., triptans). Here, we review the similarities and differences in anatomy and pathophysiology that underlie cluster headache and migraine, discuss whether cluster headache and migraine should indeed be considered as two distinct primary headaches, and propose recommendations for future studies. Video recording of the debate held at the 1st International Conference on Advances in Migraine Sciences (ICAMS 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark) is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUimmnDVTTE .

Variability in recurrence rates with acute treatments for migraine: why recurrence is not an appropriate outcome measure

BACKGROUND

Headache recurrence is a common feature of acute therapies, whether approved or still in development, and continues to be a significant problem for both the patient and the clinician. Further complicating this issue is lack of standardization in definitions of recurrence used in clinical trials, as well as disparity in patient characteristics, rendering a comparison of different acute medications challenging. Recurrence has serious clinical implications, which can include an increased risk for new-onset chronic migraine and/or development of medication overuse headache. The aim of this review is to illustrate variability of recurrence rates depending on prevailing definitions in the literature for widely used acute treatments for migraine and to emphasize sustained response as a clinically relevant endpoint for measuring prolonged efficacy. BODY: A literature search of PubMed for articles of approved acute therapies for migraine that reported recurrence rates was performed. Study drugs of interest included select triptans, gepants, lasmiditan, and dihydroergotamine mesylate. An unpublished post hoc analysis of an investigational dihydroergotamine mesylate product that evaluated recurrence rates using several different definitions of recurrence common in the literature is also included. Depending on the criteria established by the clinical trial and the definition of recurrence used, rates of recurrence vary considerably across different acute therapies for migraine, making it difficult to compare results of different trials to assess the sustained (i.e., over a single attack) and the prolonged (i.e., over multiple attacks) efficacy of a particular study medication.

CONCLUSION

A standardized definition of recurrence is necessary to help physicians evaluate recurrence rates of different abortive agents for migraine. Sustained pain relief or freedom may be more comprehensive efficacy outcome measures than recurrence. Future efficacy studies should be encouraged to use the recommended definition of sustained pain freedom set by the International Headache Society.

The Virtual "Enfacement Illusion" on Pain Perception in Patients Suffering from Chronic Migraine: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

given the limited efficacy, tolerability, and accessibility of pharmacological treatments for chronic migraine (CM), new complementary strategies have gained increasing attention. Body ownership illusions have been proposed as a non-pharmacological strategy for pain relief. Here, we illustrate the protocol for evaluating the efficacy in decreasing pain perception of the enfacement illusion of a happy face observed through an immersive virtual reality (VR) system in CM.

METHOD

the study is a double-blind randomized controlled trial with two arms, involving 100 female CM patients assigned to the experimental group or the control group. The experimental group will be exposed to the enfacement illusion, whereas the control group will be exposed to a pleasant immersive virtual environment. Both arms of the trial will consist in three VR sessions (20 min each). At the baseline and at the end of the intervention, the patients will fill in questionnaires based on behavioral measures related to their emotional and psychological state and their body satisfaction. Before and after each VR session, the level of pain, the body image perception, and the affective state will be assessed.

DISCUSSION

this study will provide knowledge regarding the relationship between internal body representation and pain perception, supporting the effectiveness of the enfacement illusion as a cognitive behavioral intervention in CM.

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

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

Rimegepant, Ubrogepant, and Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine Examining the Benefit-Risk Profile Using Number Needed to Treat/Harm

OBJECTIVES

To develop and compare benefit-risk profiles for rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published clinical trials.

METHODS

A fixed-effects Bayesian NMA of randomized controlled trials of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine were used to determine risk differences for efficacy and safety outcomes of the 3 treatments compared with pooled placebo. Risk differences were used to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and pain freedom at 2 and 2 to 24 hours and freedom from most bothersome symptoms at 2 hours; and number needed to harm (NNH) for dizziness and nausea, relative to placebo.

RESULTS

Results were based on 5 randomized controlled trials (NCT03461757, NCT02828020, NCT02867709, NCT02439320, and NCT02605174). NNT to achieve sustained pain relief at 2 to 24 hours was lowest for rimegepant 75 mg (5; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 4, 7) and ubrogepant 100 mg (5; 95% Crl: 4, 8) and highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (8; 95% Crl: 5, 16). Rimegepant had the lowest NNT to achieve sustained pain freedom at 2 to 24 hours and lasmiditan 50 mg had the highest (7; 95% Crl: 5, 12 vs. 26; 95% Crl: 13, 95). NNH for dizziness and nausea was highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (28; 95% Crl: 15, 62 and 99; 95% Crl: -2580, 2378, respectively). Lasmiditan 200 mg had the lowest NNH for dizziness and rimegepant 75 mg had the lowest NNH for nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profiles of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant may improve clinical decision-making.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Clinic-Based Headache Registries, 1st edition

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Zavegepant nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine: A Phase 2/3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zavegepant nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting agents are a novel class of therapeutics for migraine, but none are currently available as a nonoral option for acute treatment. Zavegepant, a high-affinity, selective, and structurally unique calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonist in late-stage development, is formulated as a nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, Phase 2/3 trial in adults aged ≥18 years with migraine (NCT03872453) was conducted at US study sites. Participants were randomized by an interactive web response system and treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain intensity with zavegepant nasal spray 5, 10, 20 mg, or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose.

RESULTS

Of the 1673 participants aged 18 to 79 years who were randomized, 1588 were treated with study medication, and 1581 (mean age 40.8 years, 85.5% female) were analyzed for efficacy: zavegepant 5 mg (n = 387), 10 mg (n = 391), 20 mg (n = 402), and placebo (n = 401). Zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on the coprimary endpoints of pain freedom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 15.5% [98.3% confidence interval (CI), 11.1, 19.8]; 10 mg: 22.5% [98.3% CI, 17.5, 27.6; p = 0.0113]; 20 mg: 23.1% [98.3% CI, 18.1, 28.2; p = 0.0055]) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 33.7% [98.3% CI, 28.0, 39.3]; 10 mg: 41.9% [98.3% CI, 36.0, 47.9; p = 0.0155]; 20 mg: 42.5% [98.3% CI, 36.6, 48.4; p = 0.0094]). Findings for the 5 mg dose were not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with zavegepant 10 and 20 mg and placebo were dysgeusia (13.5% to 16.1% vs. 3.5%), nausea (2.7% to 4.1% vs. 0.5%), and nasal discomfort (1.3% to 5.2% vs. 0.2%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. There was no signal of hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

Zavegepant nasal spray, in single doses of 10 or 20 mg, was effective for the acute treatment of migraine, with a favorable safety profile. Additional research is needed to confirm its potential as a nonoral medication for the acute treatment of migraine.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03962738).