Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Drug effects on neuropeptides and their receptors: Big hopes but moderate success in the treatment of chronic pain

Neuropeptides, including tachykinins, CGRP, and somatostatin, are localized in a peptidergic subgroup of nociceptive primary afferent neurons. Tachykinins and CGRP are pronociceptive, somatostatin is an antinociceptive mediator. Intensive drug research has been performed to develop tachykinin and CGRP antagonists, and somatostatin agonists as analgesics. CGRP receptor antagonists are efficacious and well-tolerated drugs in migraine. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor are used for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists failed as analgesics but are used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. New, orally active somatostatin 4 receptor agonists are promising drug candidates for treating various pain conditions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

MicroRNA profiling in women with migraine: effects of CGRP-targeting treatment

BACKGROUND

Migraine lacks biomarkers that can trace the biological pathways of the disease and predict the effectiveness of treatments. Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway - including erenumab - offer the opportunity of investigating potential migraine biomarkers due to their specific mechanism of action in preventing both episodic (EM) and chronic (CM) migraine. Our study aims at evaluating the expression levels of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) according to migraine type, before and after treatment with erenumab and based on treatment response, in order to identify miRNAs with potential role as epigenetic biomarkers.

METHODS

The study included women aged 25-50 years with EM or CM treated with erenumab according to clinical indications. MiRNAs expression levels were assessed before (baseline) and after a 16-week treatment with erenumab, 140 mg every four weeks (post-treatment). An extensive miRNAs profiling was performed by qRT-PCR in small, pooled groups of ≤ 8 women each, classified according to migraine frequency (EM and CM) and the degree of response to erenumab. The expression levels of selected miRNAs were also validated using single miRNA assays in each woman with EM and CM.

RESULTS

During the study, 36 women with migraine (19 with EM and 17 with CM) out of 40 who were initially screened, performed the assessment of miRNA expression at baseline and post-treatment, Erenumab treatment significantly improved migraine burden in both EM and CM. MiRNA profiling revealed differential expression levels of a wide set of miRNAs (hsa-let-7d-3p, hsa-miR-106b-3p, hsa-miR-122-5p, hsa-miR-143-3p, hsa-miR-144-3p, hsa-miR-16-5p, hsa-miR-181a-5p, hsa-miR-221-3p, hsa-miR-25-3p, hsa-miR-29b-2-5p, hsa-miR-326, miR-363-3p, hsa-miR-424-5p, hsa-miR-485-3p, hsa-miR-532-5p, hsa-miR-543, hsa-miR-629-5p, hsa-miR-660-5p, hsa-miR-92a-3p) depending on treatment response. Among them, single miRNA assays confirmed the progressive decrease of hsa-miR-143-3p expression levels in relation to increasing response to erenumab in women with EM (7 with low, 6 with medium, and 6 with high response; p = 0.02). Additionally, single assays showed higher hsa-miR-34a-5p and hsa-miR-382-5p expression levels at baseline in women with CM compared with those with EM (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0007, respectively), as well as their expression level decrease in women with CM from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that targeting the CGRP pathway in migraine changes the expression levels of certain miRNAs. These miRNA levels are linked to the levels of response to CGRP receptor blockage. Future research challenges include assigning specific functions to the modulated miRNAs to unravel pathways modulated by the disease and the treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov with code NCT04659226 and in the Novartis database with code CAMG334AIT05T.

Case reports: Could sexual dysfunction in women with migraine be a side effect of CGRP inhibition?

BACKGROUND

The development and approval of antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor mark a revolutionary era for preventive migraine treatment. Real-world evidence sheds light on rare, stigmatized or overlooked side effects of these drugs. One of these potential side effects is sexual dysfunction.

CASE REPORTS

We present two cases of one 42-year-old and one 45-year-old female patient with chronic migraine who both reported sexual dysfunction as a possible side effect of treatment with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide.

DISCUSSION

As calcitonin gene-related peptide is involved in vaginal lubrication as well as genital sensation and swelling, inhibiting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway may lead to sexual dysfunction as a potential side effect.

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction in female migraine patients might be a rare and overlooked side effect of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway. Considering the discomfort and stigma surrounding both migraine and sexual dysfunction, we advocate for an open attitude and awareness among clinicians toward such side effects.

Ultra-late response (> 24 weeks) to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

Nearly 60% of migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway experience a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) at 12 weeks compared to baseline (responders). However, approximately half of the patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 12 weeks do respond ≤ 24 weeks (late responders). We assessed frequency and characteristics of patients responding to anti-CGRP mAbs only > 24 weeks (ultra-late responders).

METHODS

In this multicenter (n = 16), prospective, observational, real-life study, we enrolled all consecutive adults affected by high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM: ≥ 8 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM), with ≥ 3 prior therapeutic failures, treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 48 weeks. We defined responders patients with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 12 weeks, late responders those with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 24 weeks, and ultra-late responders those achieving a ≥ 50% response only > 24 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 572 migraine patients completed ≥ 48 weeks of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment. Responders accounted for 60.5% (346/572), late responders for 15% (86/572), and ultra-late responders for 15.7% (90/572). Among ultra-late responders, 7.3% (42/572) maintained the ≥ 50% response rate across all subsequent time intervals (weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, and 48) and were considered persistent ultra-late responders, while 8.4% (48/572) missed the ≥ 50% response rate at ≥ 1 subsequent time interval and were classified as fluctuating ultra-late responders. Fifty patients (8.7%) did not respond at any time interval ≤ 48 weeks. Ultra-late responders differed from responders for higher BMI (p = 0.033), longer duration of medication overuse (p < 0.001), lower NRS (p = 0.017) and HIT-6 scores (p = 0.002), higher frequency of dopaminergic symptoms (p = 0.002), less common unilateral pain-either alone (p = 0.010) or in combination with UAS (p = 0.023), allodynia (p = 0.043), or UAS and allodynia (p = 0.012)-a higher number of comorbidities (p = 0.012), psychiatric comorbidities (p = 0.010) and a higher proportion of patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 24 weeks do respond later, while non-responders ≤ 48 weeks are quite rare (8.7%). These findings suggest to rethink the duration of migraine prophylaxis and the definition of resistant and refractory migraine, currently based on the response after 2-3 months of treatment.

Switching CGRP(r) MoAbs in migraine: what evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of patients that receive a CGRP(r) MoAb for the preventative treatment of migraine are expected to discontinue therapy. For patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy, few clinical options are available. One potential option is to switch CGRP(r) MoAbs, however, data concerning the efficacy of this intervention is scarce.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript aims to summarize all available data concerning the potential efficacy of switching CGRP(r) MoAbs following previous medication discontinuation. Data was sourced by completing a database search for the terms: 'CGRP monoclonal antibody switch OR CGRP monoclonal antibody switching.'

EXPERT OPINION

While data considering the potential efficacy of CGRP(r) switching continues to grow, our expert opinion supports the most recent European Headache Federation statement regarding CGRP(r) MoAb prescribing practices, concluding that there remains insufficient data to determine the efficacy of this intervention. As this topic is of significant clinical importance, we recommend a call-to-action to expand on current data considering the therapeutic options for patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy.

Safety considerations in the treatment with anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine

Background

Anti-CGRP-(receptor-)monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP(R)-mAbs) represent a novel class of drugs for migraine treatment, but their long-term cerebrovascular and cardiovascular (CV) safety warrants further examination.

Methods

In this observational cohort study we assessed the CV safety for erenumab and fremanezumab in a real-world setting during a follow-up period of at least 1 year. Patients with hypertension or CV history were excluded. We conducted ECGs and collected clinical data at treatment initiation and thereafter every 3 months, including liver and kidney function, lipid-, electrolyte-and glucose levels.

Results

Among patients receiving erenumab (n = 101) or fremanezumab (n = 92), 3.1% (6/193) developed abnormal ECGs or CV adverse events. Of these, three (1.6%) experienced moderate to severe CV adverse events (cerebellar stroke, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and pericarditis) and discontinued treatment. The remaining three (1.6%) developed non-threatening ECG abnormalities without physical complaints. No significant changes were observed in liver and kidney function, lipid-, electrolyte-, or glucose levels.

Discussion

We observed CV events in 1.6% of patients with 1.5-year follow-up of anti-CGRP(R)-mAbs treatment. We advise awareness regarding CV events in patients with migraine undergoing CGRP-targeted treatment, not as a confirmation of increased risk but as a proactive measure to address potential multifactorial influences.

Reducing the Impact of Headache and Allodynia Score in Chronic Migraine: An Exploratory Analysis from the Real-World Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling and hard-to-treat condition, associated with high disability and high cost. Among the preventive treatments, botulinum toxin A (BoNT-a) and monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related protein (anti-CGRP mAbs) are the only disease-specific ones. The assessment of the disease burden is complex, and among others, tools such as the allodynia symptoms checklist (ASC-12) and headache impact test (HIT-6) are very useful. This exploratory study analysed the impact of these two therapies on migraine burden.

METHODS

The RAMO study was a multicentre, observational, retrospective investigation conducted in two headache centres: the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (Milan) and the Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico (Rome). This study involved patients with chronic migraine treated with mAbs or BoNT-A. We conducted a subgroup exploratory analysis on HIT-6 and ASC-12 scores in the two groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were performed.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients, 36 on mAbs and 90 on BoNT-A had at least one available follow-up. mAbs resulted in a mean reduction of -11.1 and -11.4 points, respectively, in the HIT-6 at 6 and 12 months, while BoNT-A was reduced -3.2 and -3.6 points, respectively; the mAbs arm resulted in mean reductions in ASC-12 at 6 and 12 months of follow-up of -5.2 and -6.0 points, respectively, while BoNT-A showed lesser mean changes of -0.5 and -0.9 points, respectively. The adjusted analysis confirmed our results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory analysis, anti-CGRP mAbs showed superior effectiveness for HIT-6 and ASC12 compared to BoNT-A. Reductions in terms of month headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and migraine acute medications (MAM) were clinically relevant for both treatments.

CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Preventive Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

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

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

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

ESSENTIAL POINTS

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

Reporting Quality and Risk of Bias Analysis of Published RCTs Assessing Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Objective: Phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are vulnerable to many types of bias beyond randomization. Insights into the reporting quality of RCTs involving migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide system (anti-CGRP MAbs) are currently lacking. Our aim was to analyze the reporting quality of phase II/III RCTs involving migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the PubMed and EMBASE databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, for relevant RCTs in either episodic or chronic migraine prevention. Additionally, an adapted version of the 2010 CONSORT statement checklist was utilized. The ROBvis online tool was used to document the risk of bias. Results: From the initially identified 179 articles, we finally found 31 RCTs that were eligible for evaluation. The average CONSORT compliance was 88.7% (69.7-100%), while 93.5% (N = 29) of the articles had a compliance greater than 75%. Twenty-eight CONSORT items were reported in more than 75% of the articles. The average compliance of the analyzed RCTs was 93.9% for Galcanezumab, 91.3% for Fremanezumab, followed by 85.4% for Erenumab and Eptinezumab studies. Implementation of the ROB2 tool showed some concerning "missing information" arising from the inadequate reporting. Specifically, 50% of the studies (N = 16) were categorized as having inadequate information regarding the randomization process. Conclusions: Adequate reporting quality was disclosed in the evaluated RCTs with anti-CGRP MAbs in migraine prevention. However, some methodological issues need to be highlighted to be addressed in future studies assessing the efficacy of new molecules targeting CGRP or other candidate pathways implicated in migraine pathophysiology.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171843.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Prevention of Chronic Migraine: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Due to the unmet needs in the management of migraine, a primary headache, and disabling disorder, the past decade has focused on developing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) as migraine prophylactic agents. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various anti-CGRP mAbs in the prevention of chronic migraine. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using the Bayesian framework to estimate the efficacy and safety of mAbs after performing a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). The outcomes calculated were in terms of mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% credible interval (95%CrI). Network graphs were constructed and node-split analysis was done to analyze the inconsistency. The NMA included a total of 10 clinical trials. Galacanezumab (120 mg) (MD: -2.7; 95%CrI: -4.8 to -0.83) was found to be better than other mAbs in terms of the difference in mean migraine days (MMD). Fremanezumab quarterly dose administration showed the best response (OR: 2.9; 95%CrI: 1.9 to 4.6) in terms of responder rate. Eptinezumab was found to be safer (OR: 0.88; 95%CrI: 0.61-1.3) as compared to other mAbs in terms of the rate of adverse events. Fremanezumab (quarterly) ranked better in terms of response rate, and eptinezumab was found to be the safest in the prophylactic management of migraine. Galacenequmab was better at reducing MMD. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term safety, efficacy, and use of mAbs in migraine patients.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice.

METHODS

An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles.

CONCLUSION

In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

CGRP Antagonism and Ketogenic Diet in the Treatment of Migraine

The study of migraine is based on the complexity of the pathology, both at the pathophysiological and epidemiological levels. Although it affects more than a billion people worldwide, it is often underestimated and underreported by patients. Migraine must not be confused with a simple headache; it is a serious and disabling disease that causes considerable limitations in the daily life of afflicted people, including social, work, and emotional effects. Therefore, it causes a daily state of suffering and discomfort. It is important to point out that this pathology not only has a decisive impact on the quality of life of those who suffer from it but also on their families and, more generally, on society as a whole. The clinical picture of migraine is complex, with debilitating unilateral or bilateral head pain, and is often associated with characteristic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. Hormonal, environmental, psychological, dietary, or other factors can trigger it. The present review focuses on the analysis of the physiopathological and pharmacological aspects of migraine, up to the correct dietary approach, with specific nutritional interventions aimed at modulating the symptoms. Based on the symptoms that the patient experiences, targeted and specific therapy is chosen to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks. Specifically, the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the pathogenesis of migraine is analyzed, along with the drugs that effectively target the corresponding receptor. Particularly, CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are very effective drugs in the treatment of migraine, given their high diffusion in the brain. Moreover, following a ketogenic diet for only one or two months has been demonstrated to reduce migraine attacks. In this review, we highlight the diverse facets of migraine, from its physiopathological and pharmacological aspects to prevention and therapy.

Adverse event profile of CGRP monoclonal antibodies: findings from the FDA adverse event reporting database

BACKGROUND

Four CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) have been approved for migraine prophylaxis by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2018. However, there are concerns about the safety of these four drugs for real-world use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the adverse event profiles of four CGRP-mAbs with FAERS data.

METHODS

The study was based on records from the FAERS database. Only reports containing one of the active ingredients with CGRP-mAbs were included in this study. Disproportionality analyses including but not limited to reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information components (IC) were conducted to identify drug-AE associations.

RESULTS

In total, 58110 reports were identified for CGRP-mAbs. 80 overlapping signals were disproportionately reported. They affected a range of organs and systems, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems, skin, and hair. Additionally, the rare cardiovascular adverse events were significantly different among the four CGRP-mAbs.

CONCLUSION

We identified numerous shared underlying signals (overlapping signals) for CGRP-mAbs as suspected drugs in multiple systems and organs. The unlabeled common signals may indicate potential safety issues. In addition, the underlying safety signals varied among the four CGRP-mAbs, particularly in the cardiovascular system, and further studies are needed to confirm these associations and the potential clinical implications.

In Search of More Leaps to Realize the Precision Medicine of Migraine

Migraine, clinically characterized by recurrent headache attacks of moderate-to-severe intensity, is the second most disabling disease in terms of years lived with disability [...].

Consensus-Based Recommendations on the Use of CGRP-Based Therapies for Migraine Prevention in the UAE

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common debilitating neurological disorder affecting a large proportion of the general population. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37-amino acid neuropeptide, plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, and the development of therapies targeting the anti-CGRP pathway has revolutionized the field of migraine treatment.

METHODS

An expert task force of neurologists in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) developed and critically assessed recommendations on the use of CGRP-based therapies in migraine treatment and management in the UAE, based on available published literature. A consensus was reached for each statement by means of an open-voting process, based on a predefined agreement level of at least 60%.

RESULTS

The consensus recommendations advocate the need for guidelines for the appropriate use of CGRP-based therapies by defining patient cohorts and appropriate monitoring of therapeutic response as well as standardizing the initiation, assessment, and cessation of treatment. The consensus recommendations were primarily formulated on the basis of international studies, because of the limited availability of regional and local data. As such, they may also act as guidelines for global healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the UAE that address the use of CGRP-based therapies in the treatment and management of migraine, integrating both clinical evidence and medical expertise to enhance clinical judgment and decision-making.

Metabolic and toxicological considerations regarding CGRP mAbs and CGRP antagonists to treat migraine in COVID-19 patients: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Migraine pharmacological therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), including monoclonal antibodies and gepants, have shown clinical effect and optimal tolerability. Interactions between treatments of COVID-19 and CGRP-related drugs have not been reviewed.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of CGRP, a description of the characteristics of each CGRP-related drug and its response predictors, COVID-19 and its treatment, the interactions between CGRP-related drugs and COVID-19 treatment, COVID-19 and vaccination-induced headache, and the neurological consequences of Covid-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinicians should be careful about using gepants for COVID-19 patients, due to the potential drug interactions with drugs metabolized via CYP3A4 cytochrome. In particular, COVID-19 treatment (especially nirmatrelvir packaged with ritonavir, as Paxlovid) should be considered cautiously. It is advisable to stop or adjust the dose (10 mg atogepant when used for episodic migraine) of gepants when using Paxlovid (except for zavegepant). CGRP moncolconal antibodies (CGRP-mAbs) do not have drug - drug interactions, but a few days' interval between a COVID-19 vaccination and the use of CGRP mAbs is recommended to allow the accurate identification of the possible adverse effects, such as injection site reaction. Covid-19- and vaccination-related headache are known to occur. Whether CGRP-related drugs would be of benefit in these circumstances is not yet known.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy and safety of erenumab. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in a real-world setting in French patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs.

METHODS

This is a one year-prospective real-word study with enrolment of all consecutive adult patients included in the FHU InovPain registry who participated in a compassionate erenumab use program.

RESULTS

Of 144 patients included, 140 patients (82.1% female / mean age of 50.9 ± 11.4) received at least one dose of erenumab and were concerned by effectiveness and safety assessment. All patients had failed 11 oral preventive treatments. Most of them suffered from chronic migraine (88.6%) and presented a medication overuse (90.7%) at baseline. Thirty-eight (27.1%) discontinued treatment during the 12-month follow-up, with 22 (15.7%), 11 (7.9%) and 5 (3.6%) patients before 3, 6 or 9 months of treatment. The proportion of ≥ 50% responders at M3, M6, M9 and M12 was 74/140 (52.9%), 69/118 (58.5%), 61/107 (57.0%) and 60/102 (58.8%) respectively. At M3, the rate of reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine was 57.3% and the rate of transition from medication overuse to non-overuse was 46.5%. For monthly migraine days, the median (IQR) was 18.0 (13.0-26.0), 9.0 (5.0-17.0), 7.5 (5.0-14.0), 8.0 (5.0-12.5) and 8.0 (5.0-12.0) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. For HIT-6 score, the median (IQR) was 68.0 (63.8-73.3), 60.0 (54.0-65.0), 60.0 (50.3-53.0), 59.0 (50.0-63.0) and 58.0 (50.0-62.9) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. Fifty-three (37.9%) patients reported at least one of the following adverse events: cutaneous erythema and/or pain at the injection site for 42 (30%) patients, constipation for 22 (15.7%) patients, muscle spasm for 2 (1.4%) patients, alopecia for one (0.7%) patient and blood pressure increase in one (0.7%) patient. There was no serious adverse event. One female patient became pregnant after 5 months of exposure to erenumab with a safe evolution after treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

This first French real-world study related to migraine prevention with CGRP-mAbs confirms effectiveness and safety of erenumab in patients with extreme unmet needs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP in migraine prevention. GRADE tables elaborated by the ad hoc working group of the International Headache Society

OBJECTIVES

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tables were created using a standardized and independent assessment of the efficacy and side effects of treatments with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or the CGRP receptor for the prevention of migraine. We hope to provide support for author groups writing national or regional treatment or management guidelines for migraine prevention.

METHODS

We formulated patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) questions for the efficacy and safety of mAb against CGRP or the CGRP-receptor for the prevention of migraine attacks. We performed a systematic literature research for randomized studies with eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab and a pooled analysis was done, using RevMan 5.4 software. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratio, and for continuous outcomes we used the mean difference to compare and summarize the evidence between groups. The evidence across studies, for each outcome, except serious adverse events, was assessed using GRADE evidence tables. Additionally, we report the serious adverse effects in the tables of the characteristics of the studies.

RESULTS

All mAb are superior to placebo for the reduction in monthly migraine days (days in which a headache consistent with migraine occurred) in participants with episodic and chronic migraine. There are no major differences between the mAb.

CONCLUSIONS

The GRADE evidence summary tables provided will support author groups to write treatment guidelines for the prevention of migraine with mAb.

Modeling Monthly Migraine-Day Distributions Using Longitudinal Regression Models and Linking Quality of Life to Inform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case Study of Fremanezumab in Japanese-Korean Migraine Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As regression approaches have been used more recently to model the effectiveness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of novel migraine treatments, an example is provided for fremanezumab. The objective is to estimate the distribution of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) as a continuous variable and corresponding migraine-specific utility values as a function of the MMD, to inform health states in a cost-effectiveness model (CEM).

METHODS

Three longitudinal regression models (zero-adjusted gamma [ZAGA], zero-inflated beta-binomial [ZIBB], and zero-inflated negative binomial [ZINBI]) were fitted to Japanese-Korean clinical trial data of episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients treated with fremanezumab or placebo, to estimate MMD over a period of 12 months. The EQ-5D-5L and the migraine-specific quality-of-life (MSQ), mapped to the EQ-5D-3L, questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL. Migraine-specific utility values were estimated as a function of MMD using a linear mixed effects model.

RESULTS

The ZIBB models fitted the data best in estimating the distribution of mean MMD over time. MSQ-derived values were more sensitive than the EQ-5D-5L values for the effect of the number of MMD on HRQOL, with higher values for less MMD and more time on treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using longitudinal regression models to estimate MMD distributions and linking utility values as a function is an appropriate method to inform CEMs and capture inter-patient heterogeneity. The observed distribution shifts demonstrated fremanezumab's effect at reducing MMD for both EM and CM patients, while treatment effect on HRQOL was captured by MMD and time on treatment.

Mode and site of action of therapies targeting CGRP signaling

Targeting CGRP has proved to be efficacious, tolerable, and safe to treat migraine; however, many patients with migraine do not benefit from drugs that antagonize the CGRPergic system. Therefore, this review focuses on summarizing the general pharmacology of the different types of treatments currently available, which target directly or indirectly the CGRP receptor or its ligand. Moreover, the latest evidence regarding the selectivity and site of action of CGRP small molecule antagonists (gepants) and monoclonal antibodies is critically discussed. Finally, the reasons behind non-responders to anti-CGRP drugs and rationale for combining and/or switching between these therapies are addressed.

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

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

Real-world experience with monthly and quarterly dosing of fremanezumab for the treatment of patients with migraine in Japan

Background

The effectiveness of fremanezumab in treating migraine has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. However, real-world study results are still limited.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, observational study that included patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) who received fremanezumab monthly or quarterly over 6-month periods. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) and responder achievement after treatment with fremanezumab. The secondary aim was to characterize the predictors of responder at 6 months. We also evaluated the effectiveness of fremanezumab in the patients who switched from other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, and compared the effectiveness of fremanezumab between the monthly and quarterly dosing groups. One hundred twenty-seven patients with migraine (age, 45.2 ± 12.6 years; 96 women) who received at least one dose of fremanezumab with ≥3 months of follow-up were included. The number of MMD was assessed by headache diary.

Results

The changes in MMD from baseline at 1, 3, and 6 months were -6.1 ± 4.7, -7.7 ± 4.4, and - 8.5 ± 4.5 days in the total cohort, respectively (p < 0.001). The ≥50%, ≥ 75 and 100% responder rates at 6 months were 67.6, 22.5, and 5.4% in the total cohort, 90.4, 36.5, and 9.6% in the EM group, and 52.2, 14.9, and 1.5% in the CM group, respectively. Fremanezumab was also effective in 35 patients who switched from other CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Quarterly and monthly fremanezumab doses were equally effective in MMD reduction in the EM and CM groups. In the CM group, 65.1% experienced remission to EM after 6 months. Adverse reactions were mild and occurred in 9.5% of total patients. An at least ≥50% reduction in MMD from months 1 to 3 better predicted a ≥ 50% reduction in MMD at 6 months with 90.5% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In our real-world study, quarterly and monthly fremanezumab dosing showed both favorable effectiveness and tolerability in patients with migraine.

Effects of Fremanezumab on Psychiatric Comorbidities in Difficult-to-Treat Patients with Chronic Migraine: Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Greek Registry

OBJECTIVE

this post hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fremanezumab in difficult-to-treat chronic migraine (CM) patients with and without psychiatric comorbidities (PCs), mainly anxiety and/or depression.

METHODS

We assessed data from CM patients with and without PCs who failed at least 3 preventives and eventually received at least 3 consecutive monthly doses of fremanezumab 225 mg. Outcomes included the crude response (≥50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHDs)) rates to fremanezumab from the baseline to the last clinical follow-up. The changes in MHDs; MHDs of moderate/greater severity; monthly days with intake of abortive medication; and the proportion of patients' changing status from with PCs to decreased/without PCs were also compared. Disability and quality of life (QOL) outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 107 patients enrolled, 65 (60.7%) had baseline PCs. The percentage of patients with (n = 38/65; 58.5%) and without (n = 28/42; 66.6%) PCs that achieved a ≥50% reduction in MHDs with fremanezumab was comparable (p = 0.41), whereas MHDs were significantly reduced (difference vs. baseline) in both patients with PCs (mean -8.9 (standard error: 6.8); p < 0.001) and without PCs (-9.8 (7.5); p < 0.001). Both groups experienced significant improvements in all other efficacy, disability, and QOL outcomes at comparable rates, including in MHD reduction. A significant proportion of fremanezumab-treated patients with baseline PCs de-escalated in corresponding severities or even reverted to no PCs (28/65; 43.1%) post-fremanezumab.

CONCLUSIONS

fremanezumab appears to be effective as a preventive treatment in difficult-to-treat CM patients with and without PCs while also being beneficial in reducing the severity of comorbid anxiety and/or depression.

Effectiveness and safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients over 65 years: a real-life multicentre analysis of 162 patients

BACKGROUND

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies have shown notable effectiveness and tolerability in migraine patients; however, data on their use in elderly patients is still lacking, as clinical trials have implicit age restrictions and real-world evidence is scarce. In this study, we aimed to describe the safety and effectiveness of erenumab, galcanezumab and fremanezumab in migraine patients over 65 years old in real-life.

METHODS

In this observational real-life study, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 18 different headache units in Spain was performed. Migraine patients who started treatment with any anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody after the age of 65 years were included. Primary endpoints were reduction in monthly migraine days after 6 months of treatment and the presence of adverse effects. Secondary endpoints were reductions in headache and medication intake frequencies by months 3 and 6, response rates, changes in patient-reported outcomes and reasons for discontinuation. As a subanalysis, reduction in monthly migraine days and proportion of adverse effects were also compared among the three monoclonal antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were included, median age 68 years (range 65-87), 74.1% women. 42% had dyslipidaemia, 40.3% hypertension, 8% diabetes, and 6.2% previous cardiovascular ischaemic disease. The reduction in monthly migraine days at month 6 was 10.1 ± 7.3 days. A total of 25.3% of patients presented adverse effects, all of them mild, with only two cases of blood pressure increase. Headache and medication intake frequencies were significantly reduced, and patient-reported outcomes were improved. The proportions of responders were 68%, 57%, 33% and 9% for reductions in monthly migraine days ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100%, respectively. A total of 72.8% of patients continued with the treatment after 6 months. The reduction in migraine days was similar for the different anti-CGRP treatments, but fewer adverse effects were detected with fremanezumab (7.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP mAbs are safe and effective treatments in migraine patients over 65 years old in real-life clinical practice.

Imaging the brain and vascular reactions to headache treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neuroimaging studies have made an important contribution to our understanding of headache pathophysiology. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview and critical appraisal of mechanisms of actions of headache treatments and potential biomarkers of treatment response disclosed by imaging studies.

MAIN BODY

We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase databases for imaging studies investigating central and vascular effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used to abort and prevent headache attacks. Sixty-three studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. Of these, 54 investigated migraine patients, 4 cluster headache patients and 5 patients with medication overuse headache. Most studies used functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n = 33) or molecular imaging (n = 14). Eleven studies employed structural MRI and a few used arterial spin labeling (n = 3), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (n = 3) or magnetic resonance angiography (n = 2). Different imaging modalities were combined in eight studies. Despite of the variety of imaging approaches and results, some findings were consistent. This systematic review suggests that triptans may cross the blood-brain barrier to some extent, though perhaps not sufficiently to alter the intracranial cerebral blood flow. Acupuncture in migraine, neuromodulation in migraine and cluster headache patients, and medication withdrawal in patients with medication overuse headache could promote headache improvement by reverting headache-affected pain processing brain areas. Yet, there is currently no clear evidence for where each treatment acts, and no firm imaging predictors of efficacy. This is mainly due to a scarcity of studies and heterogeneous treatment schemes, study designs, subjects, and imaging techniques. In addition, most studies used small sample sizes and inadequate statistical approaches, which precludes generalizable conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Several aspects of headache treatments remain to be elucidated using imaging approaches, such as how pharmacological preventive therapies work, whether treatment-related brain changes may influence therapy effectiveness, and imaging biomarkers of clinical response. In the future, well-designed studies with homogeneous study populations, adequate sample sizes and statistical approaches are needed.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

Predictors of Response to Fremanezumab in Migraine Patients with at Least Three Previous Preventive Failures: Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Greek Registry

OBJECTIVE

To define, in a real-world population of patients with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM), the predictive role of socio-demographic or phenotypic profiling of responders to fremanezumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two-hundred and four adult fremanezumab-treated patients with either HFEM or CM, who failed to at least three preventive treatments, provided data at baseline on several individual socio-demographic and phenotypic variables. These variables were analyzed for their ability to independently predict the response (50-74% response rates) or super-response (≥ 75% response rates) to fremanezumab. Patients were followed from 3-18 months of fremanezumab exposure.

RESULTS

The main finding to emerge from univariate analyses was that three baseline socio-demographic/clinical variables, i.e., age group 41-70 years (p = 0.02); female gender (p = 0.03); patients with HFEM (p = 0.001), and three clinical phenotypic variables, i.e., strict unilateral pain (p = 0.05); pain in the ophthalmic trigeminal branch (p = 0.04); and the "imploding" quality of pain (p = 0.05), were significantly related to fremanezumab response. However, in multivariate analysis, only HFEM (p = 0.02), the presence of strict unilateral (p = 0.03), and pain location in the ophthalmic trigeminal branch (p = 0.036) were independently associated with good fremanezumab response. Allodynia (p = 0.04) was the only clinical predictive variable of super-responsiveness to fremanezumab.

CONCLUSIONS

A precise phenotypic profiling with identification of pain characteristics consistent with peripheral and/or central sensitization might reliably predict the responsiveness to fremanezumab in migraine prophylaxis.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.