Impact of duration of chronic migraine on long-term effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-A real-world study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway changes according to the duration of chronic migraine (CM) over 12 months.

BACKGROUND

In most patients, CM is a progressive disease starting with episodic migraine. Longer CM duration might be associated with more difficult treatment, probably because the mechanisms underlying chronicization are strengthened. Therefore, early treatment of CM could lead to better outcomes compared with later treatment.

METHODS

This cohort study included individuals with CM treated with anti-CGRP mAbs in two tertiary headache centers from April 2019 to May 2023. The primary outcome included a change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to the third trimester of treatment, 10-12 months. Secondary outcomes established whether response to anti-CGRP mAbs has a more rapid onset in individuals with shorter CM duration compared with longer duration; they included change in MMDs, monthly headache days (MHDs), and days and number of intakes of acute medication during each trimester compared to baseline. Additional outcomes included persisting MMDs, MHDs, and days and number of intakes of acute medication during each trimester of treatment. Patients were compared across tertiles of the overall CM duration.

RESULTS

The study included 335 individuals with CM, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 48 (39-57) years; 270 (80.6%) were women. Patients in the highest tertile of CM duration (aged 18-60 years) were older than patients in the lower duration tertiles (0-7 years and 8-18 years, respectively), with a median (IQR) age of 56 (48-64) years compared with 42 (31-50) years, and 48 (39-56)years, respectively (p = 0.025); however, this difference was likely due to a correlation between age and disease duration. The change in MMDs from baseline to the last trimester of treatment (10-12 months) was comparable across tertiles of CM duration (median [IQR] -12 [-18 to -5] days, -12 [-17 to -6] days, and -12 [-18 to -4] days; p = 0.946). No difference emerged in secondary outcomes, suggesting a similar time to onset of anti-CGRP mAbs effect across all tertiles of CM duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that anti-CGRP mAbs are effective and have a rapid onset of action in CM regardless of disease duration.

A 12-week randomized double-blind clinical trial of eicosapentaenoic acid intervention in episodic migraine

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may benefit migraine improvement, though prior studies are inconclusive. This study evaluated the effect of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on episodic migraine (EM) prevention. Seventy individuals with EM participated in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from March 2020 and May 2022. They were randomly assigned to either the EPA (N = 35, 2 g fish oil with 1.8 g of EPA as a stand-alone treatment daily), or the placebo group (N = 35, 2 g soybean oil daily). Migraine frequency and headache severity were assessed using the monthly migraine days, visual analog scale (VAS), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in comparison to baseline measurements. The EPA group significantly outperformed the placebo in reducing monthly migraine days (-4.4 ± 5.1 days vs. - 0.6 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.001), days using acute headache medication (-1.3 ± 3.0 days vs. 0.1 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.035), improving scores for headache severity (ΔVAS score: -1.3 ± 2.4 vs. 0.0 ± 2.2, p = 0.030), disability (ΔMIDAS score: -13.1 ± 16.2 vs. 2.6 ± 20.2, p = 0.001), anxiety and depression (ΔHADS score: -3.9 ± 9.4 vs. 1.1 ± 9.1, p = 0.025), and quality of life (ΔMSQ score: -11.4 ± 19.0 vs. 3.1 ± 24.6, p = 0.007). Notably, female particularly benefited from EPA, underscoring its potential in migraine management. In conclusion, high-dose EPA has significantly reduced migraine frequency and severity, improved psychological symptoms and quality of life in EM patients, and shown no major adverse events, suggesting its potential as a prophylactic for EM.

Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Monoclonal Antibodies Acting on the CGRP as a Combined Treatment for Migraine (TACTIC): Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial

Background

Migraine is a recurrent headache disorder that has a still unclear pathophysiology, involving several circuits of both the central and peripheral nervous system. Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related (CGRP) pathway (CGRP-MAbs) are the first drugs specifically designed for migraine; those drugs act peripherally on the trigeminal ganglion without entering the blood-brain barrier. Conversely, neuromodulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) act centrally by increasing or decreasing the neuronal firing rate of brain cortical areas. The aim of the study will be to evaluate whether tDCS, in addition to CGRP-MAbs, is an effective add-on treatment in reducing headache frequency, intensity and acute medication use in patients with migraine. To demonstrate the biological effects of tDCS, the electroencephalographic (EEG) power changes after tDCS will be assessed.

Methods

We will include patients with migraine on treatment with CGRP-MAbs and reporting ≥8 monthly migraine days. During a prospective 28-day baseline period, patients will fill in a headache diary and questionnaires to evaluate migraine-related disability, anxiety and depressive symptoms, sleep quality, and health-related quality of life. Subjects will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham tDCS. The stimulation protocol will consist in five daily sessions, the cathodes will be applied bilaterally above the occipital areas, with the reference anode electrodes positioned above the primary motor areas. Before the first, and immediately after the last stimulation session, patients will perform a 10-min resting EEG recording. During a 28-day follow-up period following tDCS, patients will have to fill in a headache diary and questionnaires identical to those of the baseline period.

Discussion

This trial will evaluate the efficacy of an add-on treatment acting on the brain in patients with migraine, who are already treated with peripherally acting drugs, showing how tDCS acts in restoring the dysfunctional brain networks typical of the migraine patient.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT05161871.

Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab.

Methods

ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women.

Results

Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs.

Conclusions

The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01408-w.

The impact of CGRPergic monoclonal antibodies on prophylactic antimigraine therapy and potential adverse events

Migraine is a prevalent medical condition and the second most disabling neurological disorder. Regarding its pathophysiology, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role, and, consequently, specific antimigraine pharmacotherapy has been designed to target this system. Hence, apart from the gepants, the recently developed monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a novel approach to treat this disorder. In this review we consider the current knowledge on the mechanisms of action, specificity, safety, and efficacy of the above mAbs as prophylactic antimigraine agents, and examine the possible adverse events that these agents may trigger. Antimigraine mAbs act as direct scavengers of CGRP (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) or against the CGRP receptor (erenumab). Due to their long half-lives, these molecules have revolutionized the prophylactic treatment of this neurovascular disorder. Moreover, because of their physicochemical properties, these agents are hepato-friendly and do not cross the blood-brain barrier (highlighting the relevance of peripheral mechanisms in migraine). Nevertheless, apart from potential cardiovascular side effects, the interaction with AMY₁ receptors and immunogenicity induced by autoantibodies against mAbs could be a concern for the safety of long-term treatment with these molecules.

Monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP transmission: An update on their added value in migraine prevention

The avenue of effective migraine therapies blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) transmission is the successful outcome of 35 years of translational research. Developed after short-acting, the small antagonists of the CGRP receptor (the "gepants"), the monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP or its receptor (CGRP/rec mAbs) have changed the paradigm in migraine treatment. Contrary to the classical acute medications like triptans or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a transient effect, they act for long durations exclusively in the peripheral portion of the trigeminovascular system and can thus be assimilated to a durable attack treatment, unlike the classical preventives that chiefly act upstream on the central facets of migraine pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have included collectively several thousands of patients, making them the most extensively studied class of preventive migraine treatments. Their results clearly indicate that CGRP/rec mAbs are significantly superior to placebo and have been comprehensively reviewed by Dodick [Cephalalgia 2019;39(3):445-458]. In this review we will briefly summarize the placebo-subtracted outcomes and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of these pivotal RCTs and analyze new and post-hoc studies published afterwards focusing on effect size, effect onset and sustainability, response in subgroups of patients, safety and tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. We will also summarize our limited real-world experience with one of the CGRP/rec mAbs. Although methodological differences and lack of direct comparative trials preclude any reliable comparison, the overall impression is that there are only minor differences in efficacy and tolerability profiles between the four monoclonals: the average placebo-subtracted 50% responder rates for reduction in migraine headaches are 21.4% in episodic migraine (NNTs: 4-5), 17.4% in chronic migraine (NNTs: 4-8). Patients with an improvement exceeding 50% are rare, chronic migraineurs with continuous headache are unlikely to be responders and migraine auras are not improved. The effect starts within the first week after administration and is quasi maximal at one month. It is sustained for long time periods and may last for several months after treatment termination. CGRP/rec mAbs are effective even after prior preventive treatment failures and in patients with medication overuse, but the effect size might be smaller. They significantly reduce disability and health care resource utilization. The adverse effect profile of CGRP/rec mAbs is close to that of placebo with few minor exceptions and despite concerns related to the safeguarding role of CGRP in ischemia, no treatment-related vascular adverse events have been reported to date. Putting the CGRP/rec mAbs in perspective with available preventive migraine drug treatments, their major advantage seems not to be chiefly their superior efficacy but their unprecedented efficacy over adverse event ratio. Regarding cost-effectiveness, preliminary pharmaco-economic analyses of erenumab suggest that it is cost-effective for chronic migraine compared to no treatment or to onabotulinumtoxinA, but likely not for episodic migraine unless attack frequency is high, indirect costs are considered and its price is lowered.