Early clinical experience with eptinezumab: results of a retrospective observational study of patient response in the United States

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for preventive migraine treatment in adults have been demonstrated in multiple, large-scale clinical trials. This non-interventional, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted to examine patient response to eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg every 12 weeks for 6 months in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Eight headache specialists who reported early clinical experience with eptinezumab enrolled the first adults (1-6 adults per clinician; age ≥ 18 years) who met predefined selection criteria (including ≥ 12-month history of migraine, ≥ 4 migraine days/month prior to eptinezumab initiation, receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive eptinezumab doses, and ≥ 12-week follow-up period), and provided detailed patient, disease, treatment, and outcome information via SurveyMonkey and standardized case-report forms.

RESULTS

Charts from 31 adults (median age, 49 years) with migraine (93.6% chronic) who received eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine were reviewed. Most patients (26/31 [83.9%]) were initiated at 100 mg. Eptinezumab reduced mean headache frequency (24.3 monthly headache days [MHDs] at baseline; 17.1 MHDs at Month 6); mean migraine frequency (17.3 monthly migraine days [MMDs] at baseline; 9.1 MMDs at Month 6); attack severity (17/31 [54.8%] patients); acute headache medication use (12.5 acute medication days at baseline; 7.4 at Month 6); and patient-reported disability (11/22 [50.0%] severe at baseline; 7/19 [36.8%] at Month 6). More than three-quarters of patients (24/31 [77.4%]) perceived improved disability/function and most (30/31 [96.8%]) perceived eptinezumab to be well tolerated after 6 months. Most of the headache specialists reported that eptinezumab was well tolerated by patients (30/31 [96.8%]) and that the intravenous infusion experience was not challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with migraine who received 6 months of preventive treatment with eptinezumab experienced reductions in migraine and headache frequency, disability, and acute medication use during the course of treatment.

Migraine Outcome Should Not Be Used to Determine Diagnosis, Severity, and Therapy: Moving Towards a Multiparametric Definition of Chronicity

Chronic migraine (CM) diagnosis is nowadays based on the threshold of 15 headache days/month for three consecutive months, of which at least eight have migraine headache features. In recent years, proposals for reducing the threshold to 8 days/month have been proposed. The sole frequency parameter, however, is partial considering the variability in frequency, pain severity, associated symptoms, such as nausea, osmophobia, and photophobia, and presence of aura, but also the variable response to treatment and the association with several comorbidities. Therefore, in our opinion, a multiparameter perspective has to be taken into account that considers the underlying pathophysiology, in particular the presence of tension-type-like pain, cutaneous allodynia, and reduced pain threshold. A paradigm change in the definition of chronic migraine moves far beyond the mere 8 vs. 15 days/month, but has ethical and practical implications for treatment: should patients be treated with the most effective prophylactic drugs, i.e., monoclonal antibodies (MABs), if they enter into a new definition of CM? How should clinicians deal with treatment escalation towards MABs? What is the role of associated conditions, response to treatments, lifestyle issues, and psychological factors? And, finally, which endpoint should we use to define effectiveness? Is improvement in headache frequency enough, or should we move towards disability, quality of life, or workplace productivity?

Crosstalk between skeletal and neural tissues is critical for skeletal health

Emerging evidence in the literature describes a physical and functional association between the neural and skeletal systems that forms a neuro-osteogenic network. This communication between bone cells and neural tissues within the skeleton is important in facilitating bone skeletal growth, homeostasis and repair. The growth and repair of the skeleton is dependent on correct neural innervation for correct skeletal developmental growth and fracture repair, while pathological conditions such as osteoporosis are accelerated by disruptions to sympathetic innervation. To date, different molecular mechanisms have been reported to mediate communication between bone and neural populations. This review highlights the important role of various cell surface receptors, cytokines and associated ligands as potential regulators of skeletal development, homeostasis, and repair, by mediating interactions between the skeletal and nervous systems. Specifically, this review describes how Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs), Eph/ephrin, Chemokine CXCL12, Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide (CGRP), Netrins, Neurotrophins (NTs), Slit/Robo and the Semaphorins (Semas) contribute to the cross talk between bone cells and peripheral nerves, and the importance of these interactions in maintaining skeletal health.