Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment

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.

Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary.

METHODS

Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences.

RESULTS

In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from "wears off 2 weeks before next dose" to "does not wear off before the next dose" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from "cranial injections" to "intravenous infusions" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.

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.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed.

METHODS

ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population.

FUNDING

Allergan (now AbbVie).

Bioequivalence of rimegepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, administered as an oral tablet, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, and a supralingual orally disintegrating tablet: two phase 1 randomized studies in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Rimegepant is an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

Two single-center, phase 1, open-label, randomized bioequivalence studies were conducted in healthy adult non-smokers, aged 18-55 years. One study compared the rate and extent of absorption of the marketed formulation of rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) administered sublingually with rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet, an earlier development formulation; the second compared the rate and extent of absorption of 75 mg rimegepant ODT administered supralingually with rimegepant oral tablet.

RESULTS

The ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last available concentration time point (time t) (AUC0-t), AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf), and maximum observed concentration (Cmax) of sublingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 97, 97, and 105%, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were all within the predefined range (80-125%) for bioequivalence. The ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of supralingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 98%, the 90% CIs were within the predefined range (80-125%), and the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was 103% with the 95% upper confidence bound for the scaled average bioequivalence criterion of -0.0575 (within-participant coefficient of variation for the reference for Cmax > 30%) for bioequivalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant 75 mg ODT, administered sublingually or supralingually, and rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet were bioequivalent.

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.

Numbers needed to treat or harm and likelihood of being helped versus harmed for fremanezumab in patients who had prior inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications: A post hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b FOCUS trial.

BACKGROUND

Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety in adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), with documented previous inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications.

METHODS

In the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. NNT was based on responder analysis, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly average number of migraine days at 12 weeks. NNH was based on discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Among patients with CM (n = 509), response rates and discontinuation rates were 27% (45/169) and 0 for quarterly fremanezumab, 29% (50/173) and 2% (3/173) for monthly fremanezumab, and 8% (13/167) and <1% (1/167) for placebo, respectively. These results translated to NNTs of 5.3 and 4.7, NNHs of 1000 and 88, and LHHs of 188 and 19 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Among patients with EM (n = 328), response rates were 47% (50/107) for quarterly fremanezumab, 43% (47/110) for monthly fremanezumab, and 10% (11/111) for placebo. Discontinuation rates were <1% (n = 1) in all three groups. These results translated to NNTs of 2.7 and 3.0, NNHs of 1000 and 1000, and LHHs of 368 and 328 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The NNT, NNH, and LHH for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compare favorably with those for traditional oral preventive medications, including topiramate, valproate, and propranolol.

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.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

METHODS

We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137).

FINDINGS

Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]).

INTERPRETATION

Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant.

FUNDING

Allergan (now AbbVie).

Temporal analysis of remote electric neuromodulation for the prevention of migraine

Aim: To evaluate the onset, magnitude and persistence of efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) compared with placebo for the preventive treatment of migraine. Materials & methods: Analysis was conducted on data from a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy of REN for the prevention of migraine. The number of monthly migraine days (MMD) per group was calculated in 2-week intervals and compared between the groups. Results: Differences between the active (N = 95) and placebo (N = 84) groups reached significance at 2 weeks: therapeutic gain 0.84 MMD; p = 0.036. 4 weeks gain 1.59 MMD; p = 0.025, 6 weeks gain 2.27 MMD; p < 0.001, 8 weeks gain 2.68 MMD; p < 0.001. Conclusion: REN provides rapid and consistent efficacy in preventive treatment of migraine.

Patient preferences for attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine medications: Findings from a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To assess preferences among adults with migraine for differentiating attributes of injected or infused preventive treatment options and evaluate their importance in determining a treatment choice.

BACKGROUND

Adults with migraine and health-care providers consider many factors when making treatment decisions. Injected or infused preventive migraine treatment options differ in several attributes, including mode of administration and dosing frequency, which may be preferentially selected or avoided by patients. Understanding a patient's preference is important for clinicians as they advise on various treatment options.

METHODS

A total of 604 US adults diagnosed with migraine participated in an online survey that captured information on demographics, migraine history, and treatment preferences. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to evaluate participants' preferences for specific attributes of injected/infused preventive migraine therapies. The DCE data were utilized to estimate attribute importance (expressed as a percentage) and identify subgroups that had different distributions of preferences.

RESULTS

In the overall migraine population, mode of administration (28.8%), durability of effectiveness (27.0%), and speed of onset (25.5%) had the highest relative importance, whereas administration setting (9.9%) and dosing frequency (8.8%) had the lowest. Four distinct subgroups were identified: Group 1 (n = 128) preferred self-injection administration and durability of effectiveness; Group 2 (n = 189) expressed aversion to cranial injections; Group 3 (n = 158) prioritized rapid speed of onset; and Group 4 (n = 129) favored health-care provider administration and durability of effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Speed of onset, durability of effectiveness, and mode of administration are key moderators of treatment preference among US adults with migraine. Certain segments of the migraine population prioritize specific treatment attributes over others, with intravenous infusion not considered a barrier in three of four identified segments. Clinicians can best help their patients find the right medication if they understand which medication attributes are most and least important to them.

Results of a Web-Based Survey on 2105 Greek Migraine Patients-Second Part: Efficacy of Acute and Prophylactic Migraine Treatments and Corresponding Patients' Reported Satisfaction

Background and Objectives: The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients conducted, in 2020, its second online survey, titled "Migraine in Greece-2020", after publication of the first similar online survey conducted in 2018. To compare the current findings with the corresponding data obtained in 2018, we herein release the second part of results obtained from the 2020 survey on the efficacy of preventive and symptomatic anti-migraine medications and the patients' reported satisfaction with these treatments. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 2105 migraine patients from all over Greece with the use of a 151-questions specific migraine-focused questionnaire in Greek language, which was distributed through the online research software "SurveyMonkey". Results: Triptans were mostly used with efficacy for the symptomatic relief of migraine attacks. About 2 of 3 surveyed patients had received various prophylactic oral medications and the majority of them discontinued these prophylactic medications as a result of inefficacy/safety issues. BoNTA was reported to be effective only when administration was commenced by a trained neurologist/headache specialist, while our current findings are generally comparable to those obtained in our 2018 pre-COVID-19 survey and the pandemic has not imposed any significant attitudes on migraine therapies and corresponding patients' satisfaction. Conclusion: Although a market change is anticipated with the evolving widespread use of anti-CGRPs monoclonal antibodies or gepants in the symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine, it is of great interest to review published results of larger longitudinal population-based studies to further ascertain the satisfaction of patients to migraine therapies.

Exploratory investigation of a patient-informed low-dose psilocybin pulse regimen in the suppression of cluster headache: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Using a patient-informed regimen, we conducted an exploratory randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to systematically investigate the effects of psilocybin in cluster headache.

BACKGROUND

Sustained reductions in cluster headache burden after limited quantities of psilocybin-containing mushrooms are anecdotally reported, although to date there are no controlled studies investigating these effects.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive psilocybin (0.143 mg/kg) or placebo (microcrystalline cellulose) in a pulse of three doses, each ~5 days apart. Participants maintained headache diaries starting 2 weeks before and continuing through 8 weeks after the first drug session. A total of 16 participants were randomized to receive experimental drug and 14 were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

In the 3 weeks after the start of the pulse regimen, the change in cluster attack frequency was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6 to 2.6) attacks/week with placebo (baseline 8.9 [95% CI 3.8 to 14.0]) and -3.2 (95% CI -8.3 to 1.9) attacks/week with psilocybin (baseline 9.6 [95% CI 5.6 to 13.6]; p = 0.251). Group difference in change from baseline had a moderate effect size (d = 0.69). The effect size was small in episodic participants (d = 0.35) but large in chronic participants (d = 1.25), which remained over the entire 8-week period measured (d = 0.81). Changes in cluster attack frequency were not correlated with the intensity of acute psychotropic effects during psilocybin administration. Psilocybin was well-tolerated without any unexpected or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this initial, exploratory study provide valuable information for the development of larger, more definitive studies. Efficacy outcomes were negative, owing in part to the small number of participants. The separation of acute psychotropic effects and lasting therapeutic effects underscores the need for further investigation into the mechanism(s) of action of psilocybin in headache disorders.

A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore patient preference for attributes of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors for the preventive treatment of migraine and to describe differences in treatment preferences between patients.

BACKGROUND

CGRP inhibitors are a novel class of migraine drugs specifically developed for the preventive treatment of migraine. Clinicians should understand patient preferences for CGRP inhibitors to inform and support prescribing choices.

METHODS

Patients with migraine in the US and Germany were recruited to participate in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, which presented hypothetical treatment choices using five attributes: mode of administration, side effects, migraine frequency, migraine severity, and consistency of treatment effectiveness. Attribute selection was informed by a literature review and semi-structured patient interviews (n = 35), and evaluated using patient cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 5).

RESULTS

Of 680 who consented to participate, 506 participants completed the survey and were included in the study (US = 257; Germany = 249). Overall, participants placed highest importance (preference weight, beta = 1.65, p < 0.001) on the treatment's ability to reduce the severity of migraine (mild vs. unchanged severity), followed by consistent treatment effectiveness (beta = 1.13, p < 0.001), and higher chance of reduced migraine frequency (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001). Participants preferred an oral tablet every other day (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001) over quarterly infusion, quarterly injections (p = 0.019), or monthly injection (p < 0.001). Preference for all treatment attributes were heterogeneous, and the subgroup analyses found that participants naïve to CGRP monoclonal antibody treatments had a stronger preference for oral therapy compared to those with such experience (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

In this DCE assessing CGRP inhibitors attributes, the main driver of patient choice was treatment effectiveness, specifically reduced migraine severity, and consistent treatment effectiveness. Further, patients exhibited an overall preference for an oral tablet every other day over injectables. Patients' experience with previous treatments informs the value they place on treatment characteristics.

Long-term adherence, safety, and efficacy of repeated onabotulinumtoxinA over five years in chronic migraine prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) demonstrated a positive benefit-risk in chronic migraine (CM) patients in PREEMPT I and II phase III trials and many subsequent real-world studies. We herein aimed at evaluating the adherence to repeated BoNTA over a period of five years, while secondary objectives included the assessment of its long-term safety/efficacy and patients' satisfaction to treatment.

METHODS

We studied 56 CM patients who had successfully received consequent cycles of BoNTA over five years. Adherence was calculated as the percentage of patients actively choosing to follow with repeated BoNTA treatment, as instructed. Safety and efficacy data were collected throughout the study period. The overall patients' belief in and satisfaction by the efficacy of treatment was assessed at last follow-up, using the self-report 7-point measure patient global impression of change (PGIC).

RESULTS

A total of 36 (64.3%) out of 56 patients remained adherent to BoNTA over five years. Long-term BoNTA exposure was safe and well-tolerated, without severe side-effects justifying treatment discontinuation. The mean monthly headache days and associated clinical efficacy outcomes remained consistent and quite low at last follow-up with evidence of continuous improvements in headache monthly frequency between year three and over five years of therapy. All patients who were able to maintain treatment over five years (n = 36), remained very satisfied and scored at least 5 in PGIC.

CONCLUSION

Considerably high adherence, considerable satisfaction and sustained safety/efficacy were observed in patients followed up for five years, supporting a favorable benefit/risk profile for consistently delivering long-term BoNTA in CM.

Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the literature that explored the use of central and peripheral neuromodulation techniques for chronic daily headache (CDH) treatment.

Recent Findings

Although the more invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in chronic cluster headache (CCH), it should be reserved for extremely difficult-to-treat patients. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation has shown similar efficacy to DBS and is less risky in both CCH and chronic migraine (CM). Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is a promising add-on treatment for CCH but not for CM. Transcutaneous external trigeminal nerve stimulation may be effective in treating CM; however, it has not yet been tested for cluster headache. Transcranial magnetic and electric stimulations have promising preventive effects against CM and CCH.

Summary

Although the precise mode of action of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques remains largely unknown and there is a paucity of controlled trials, they should be preferred to more invasive techniques for treating CDH.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and nocebo-prone associated hesitancy in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study

Objective

To describe the rate and type of adverse effects (AEs) and the frequency of disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination and to assess the reasons for vaccination hesitancy (non-vaccination) in SRD patients.

Methods

Telephone interviews were conducted of SRD patients consecutively enrolled (15/06/2021–1/7/2021). Participants were asked about the type of AEs and disease flare after vaccination. Reasons for vaccination hesitancy were recorded. Univariate and mutivariable analyses examined associations of demographic, clinical and other features, with occurrence of AEs, disease flare and non-vaccination. For the latter, association with negative vaccination behaviour (not influenza vaccinated for the last 2 years) and nocebo-prone behaviour (denoting AEs attributed to negative expectations [Q-No questionnaire]) was also tested.

Results

561 out of 580 contacted patients were included in the study. 441/561 (78.6%) patients were vaccinated [90% (Pfizer, Moderna), 10% (Astra-Zeneca)]. AEs were reported by 148/441 (33.6%), with rates being comparable between the three vaccines. AEs were more common in females and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 95% CI; females: 2.23 (1.30–3.83); COPD: 3.31 (1.24–8.83)]. Disease flare was reported in 9/441 (2%) patients. For those unvaccinated, fear that the vaccine would be harmful (53.3%), could cause disease flare (24.2%) and/or could cause thrombosis (21.7%) were the main reasons to do so. Multivariable analysis identified as independent variables for non-vaccination: nocebo-prone behaviour (OR; 95% CI, 3.88; 1.76–8.55), negative vaccination behaviour (6.56; 3.21–13.42) and previous COVID-19 infection (2.83; 1.13–7.05). Higher educational status was protective (0.49; 0.26–0.92).

Conclusion

No new safety signals for COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Vaccination campaign should target SRD patients with nocebo-prone and negative influenza vaccination behaviour.

Nocebo-Prone Behavior Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people.

Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial

Background

Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Methods

In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4–14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week.

Results

We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1–4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.1 to −3.9 across atogepant doses vs −1.6 for placebo (p < 0.0001). For weeks 5–8 and 9–12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.7 to −4.2 for atogepant vs −2.9 for placebo (p ≤ 0.012) and −4.2 to −4.4 for atogepant vs −3.0 for placebo (p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from −0.77 to −1.03 for atogepant vs −0.29 with placebo (p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo (p ≤ 0.0071).

Conclusion

Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059

Percutaneous Interventional Strategies for Migraine Prevention: A Systematic Review and Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of percutaneous interventional treatments for prevention of migraine through a qualitative and (when possible) quantitative analysis.

METHODS

An expert panel was asked to develop recommendations for the multidisciplinary preventive treatment of migraine, including interventional strategies. The committee conducted a systematic review and (when evidence was sufficient) a meta-analytic review using GRADE criteria and the modified Cochrane risk of bias analysis available in the Covidence data management program. Clinical questions addressed adults with migraine who should be offered prevention. Examined outcomes included headache days, acute medication use, and functional impairment. Acute management of migraine was outside the scope of this guideline.

RESULTS

The committee screened 1195 studies and assessed 352 by full text, yielding 16 randomized controlled trials that met inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

As informed by evidence related to the preselected outcomes, adverse event profile, cost, and values and preferences of patients, onabotulinumtoxinA received a strong recommendation for chronic migraine prevention and a weak recommendation against use for episodic migraine prevention. Greater occipital nerve blocks received a weak recommendation for chronic migraine prevention. For greater occipital nerve block, steroid received a weak recommendation against use vs local anesthetic alone. Occipital nerve with supraorbital nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks, cervical spine percutaneous interventions, and implantable stimulation all received weak recommendations for chronic migraine prevention. The committee found insufficient evidence to assess trigger point injections in migraine prevention and highly discouraged use of intrathecal medication.

European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. Part II - Decompression sickness, migraine, arterial deoxygenation syndromes and select high-risk clinical conditions

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions but to date only one official position paper related to left circulation thromboembolism has been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with the involvement of eight European scientific societies, reviews the available evidence and proposes a rationale for decision making for other PFO-related clinical conditions. In order to guarantee a strict evidence-based process, we used a modified grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based on limited and observational or low-certainty randomised data, a number of position statements were made to frame PFO management in different clinical settings, along with suggestions for new research avenues. This interdisciplinary position paper, recognising the low or very low certainty of existing evidence, provides the first approach to several PFO-related clinical scenarios beyond left circulation thromboembolism and strongly stresses the need for fresh high-quality evidence on these topics.

Patients and general practitioners assessment of the main outcomes employed in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a cross sectional study

Background

We aim to describe and compare patients and general practitioners’ opinions about the different variables related to acute and preventive treatment for migraine.

Patients and methods

An observational descriptive study was performed. Patients with episodic migraine and general practitioners, from our healthcare area, were invited to answer a survey about the different variables related to migraine treatment. They were asked for their opinions on the different variables, and to consider the desired efficacy in percentage terms and the desired action times of treatment.

Results

Fifty-five patients and fifty-five general practitioners were selected. Effectiveness was considered the most important variable for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Cost was considered the least important variable. Patients desired percentage of efficacy was 84.0% (±16.7%) for symptomatic treatment and 79.9% (±17.1%) for preventive treatment. General practitioners desired percentage of efficacy was 75.0% (±14.0) for symptomatic treatment and 70.4% (±14.3) for preventive treatment. For symptomatic treatment the desired action time for pain cessation was selected as 27.5 min (±13.8) for patients and 24.0 min (±18.3) for GPs. For preventive treatment the desired action time for effect was 7.1 days (±4.5) for patients and 13.9 days (±8.9) for general practitioners.

Conclusion

The most important endpoints were, for acute: effectiveness, a short action time and a persistent effect. For prophylactic: effectiveness, sustained effect and tolerability. Both patients and general practitioners agreed on the most and least preferred endpoints. Desired percentage of efficacy was above 75% for both symptomatic and preventive treatment; and the desired action time was below 30 min for acute treatment and 2 weeks for preventive treatment.

Berotralstat (BCX7353) is a novel oral prophylactic treatment for hereditary angioedema: Review of phase II and III studies

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by unpredictable and potentially life-threatening episodes of swelling in various parts of the body. These attacks can be painful and debilitating, and affect a patient's quality of life. Every patient who experiences an attack should be treated with on-demand medication to mitigate attack severity and duration. Many patients with HAE also receive long-term prophylaxis to reduce the frequency and severity of edema episodes. Although long-term prophylaxis reduces the disease burden for patients with HAE, available intravenous and subcutaneous treatments are accompanied by a significant treatment burden because of the logistical, emotional, and physical challenges posed by their long-term parenteral nature. Androgens are an effective oral prophylactic treatment; however, they are associated with significant adverse events and are not suitable for all patients. Thus, the HAE community has expressed interest in the development of alternative oral prophylactic therapies for preventing HAE attacks. Objective: Here, we review the phase II and III clinical data of berotralstat (BCX7353), which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December 2020. Results: Berotralstat is an oral, second-generation, synthetic, small-molecule plasma kallikrein inhibitor taken once daily for the prevention of HAE attacks in patients ages ≥ 12 years. Results from the APeX studies (APeX-1 NCT02870972, APeX-2 NCT03485911, APeX-S NCT03472040, APex-J NCT03873116) demonstrated the efficacy of berotralstat as long-term prophylaxis for patients with HAE, which showed a reduction in the attack rate and on-demand medication usage. Berotralstat was well tolerated, and gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild and self-limited. Conclusion: Oral berotralstat is an effective and safe long-term prophylactic treatment for patients with HAE that will provide patients unable to tolerate parenteral therapies with the option of disease control. Berotralstat may be associated with reduced treatment burden compared with injectable therapies, highlighting the importance of patient preference with regard to the administration route of their HAE prophylactic treatment.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab.

METHODS

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS

When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Investigating Patients' Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine

There is limited evidence on the scope and overall benefit of patient-centred drug development decisions. The present study assessed patients’ preferences for the characteristics of an ideal migraine treatment through a discrete choice experiment in order to inform decision-making and drug development processes. We investigated the preferences according to five treatment attributes identified from a systematic literature review and two focus group elicitations. The heterogeneity of preferences was also investigated. Overall, the respondents considered the presence of adverse events, duration of treatment effect, reduction of symptom intensity, speed of effect and cost born by the patient as the most relevant treatment features. As expected, the patients preferred treatments with lower levels of adverse events and costs and treatments with greater speed, duration of treatment effect and effectiveness in reducing symptom intensity. There was significant preference heterogeneity only for the presence of adverse events. Compared to men, women had significantly higher preferences for quicker treatment effect and limited adverse events and reported higher preferences for costly treatments. The results of our survey help address research and development strategies in the pharmaceutical industry and public policy regarding treatments that are clinically effective and responsive to the needs expressed by patients.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis.

METHODS

The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB_50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTH_D-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values - which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB - were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials.

RESULTS

All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine.

CONCLUSION

This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

A population-based survey for disabling headaches in Greece: Prevalence, burden and treatment preferences

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence, burden and current treatment of disabling primary headaches in a large sample of the Greek population aged 18-70 years old.

METHODS

This is an observational descriptive study, with cross-sectional design performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a validated 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence, burden, and current treatment of primary headaches (ICHD-3) were recorded along with participants' treatment preferences.

RESULTS

Out of 10,008 interviewed participants, 1197 (12.0%) reported headaches affecting performance. The annual prevalence of migraine was 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 7.6-8.7, corresponding to 0.6 million Greeks), of chronic migraine 1.0% (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.2, corresponding to 0.1 million), and of tension-type headache 3.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.4-4.2, corresponding to 0.3 million). The participants with headaches reported 0.5 headache-induced lost workdays per month (corresponding to 5.8 million lost workdays annually) and reductions in performance on 2.8 workdays per month (corresponding to 30.9 million workdays annually). In all, 43.4% of headache participants felt bad/ashamed because of headaches and 21.9% sought professional treatment, most often from a private neurologist. 83.8% of headache participants had never taken pharmacological prophylaxis, and only 5.5% were currently under preventative treatment. For both prophylactic and acute treatment, headache participants prefer oral medication to injection or stimulation devices.

CONCLUSION

More than 10% of the Greek adult population up to 70 years old experience disabling headaches, causing a dramatic work loss. More than 80% of these have never taken pharmacological prophylaxis. Thus, enriching the quality of life of people with headaches relies crucially on expanding awareness about headaches and their treatment.

Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rimegepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that has shown efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine. We aimed to compare the efficacy of rimegepant with placebo for preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 92 sites in the USA. Adults with at least a 1-year history of migraine were recruited. After a 4-week observation period, eligible participants were randomised using an interactive web response system to oral rimegepant 75 mg or matching placebo every other day for 12 weeks (double-blind treatment phase). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from the 4-week observation period in the mean number of migraine days per month in the last 4 weeks of the double-blind treatment phase (weeks 9-12). Participants who received at least one dose of their assigned study medication and who had 14 days or more of data in the observation period and 14 days or more of data for at least one 4-week interval during the double-blind treatment phase were analysed for efficacy. Those who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732638.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 14, 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, 1591 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, of whom 747 were randomly allocated either rimegepant (n=373) or placebo (n=374). 695 participants were included in the analysis for efficacy, of whom 348 were assigned rimegepant and 347 were allocated placebo. Rimegepant was superior to placebo on the primary endpoint of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12. The change from the observation period in mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 was -4·3 days (95% CI -4·8 to -3·9) with rimegepant and -3·5 days (-4·0 to -3·0) with placebo (least squares mean difference -0·8 days, 95% CI -1·46 to -0·20; p=0·0099). 741 participants received study medication and were included in the safety analysis. 133 (36%) of 370 patients who received rimegepant reported an adverse event, compared with 133 (36%) of 371 who received placebo. Seven (2%) participants who received rimegepant and four (1%) who received placebo discontinued the study due to an adverse event; no patients died.

INTERPRETATION

Taken every other day, rimegepant was effective for preventive treatment of migraine. Tolerability was similar to that of placebo, and no unexpected or serious safety issues were noted.

FUNDING

Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Open Label Prospective Experience of Supplementation with a Fixed Combination of Magnesium, Vitamin B2, Feverfew, Andrographis Paniculata and Coenzyme Q10 for Episodic Migraine Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of supplementation with a fixed combination of magnesium, vitamin B2, feverfew, andrographis paniculata and coenzyme Q10 in episodic migraine (EM) prevention.

METHODS

A pilot, single-arm, open-label study was conducted. After a one-month baseline period, the above-described supplementation was introduced in 113 EM Greek patients, who were prospectively followed-up for three months. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days between baseline period (BSL) and the third month of supplementation (T3). Secondary endpoints included changes in mean intensity of migraine and in days with use of acute migraine medications. Changes in scores of Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Migraine Therapy Assessment questionnaire (MTAQ), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-life questionnaire (MSQ-QOL), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were also evaluated. Those with ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at T3, compared to BSL were considered supplementation-responders.

RESULTS

The mean number of migraine days was significantly decreased between BSL and T3 (9.4 ± 3.7 vs. 6.1 ± 3.5; p < 0.001). Likewise, days with peak headache intensity of >4/10 (5.7 ± 3.4 vs. 4.9 ± 3.1; p < 0.001) as well as days using acute headache medications per month (8.9 ± 3.6 vs. 5.7 ± 3.4; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced. At T3, 64 patients (56.6%) were classified as responders. The beneficial effect of supplementation was also associated with significant changes in HIT-6, MIDAS, MTAQ and MSQ-QOL scores. There were no safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The supplementation we have tested appears to be an effective and well-tolerated preventive approach against EM. A randomized, placebo-controlled study is needed to confirm our results.

Matching actual treatment with patient administration-route-preference improves analgesic response among acute low back pain patients-a randomized prospective trial

Background

Accommodating a patient’s treatment preference has been reported to promote greater responsiveness and better clinical outcomes. The effect of administration route preference (ARP) on the individual analgesic response has not been extensively examined to date. This study aimed to investigate whether ARP-matched treatment, i.e., individualized intramuscular (IM) or oral (PO) analgesic administration according to patient choice, would increase the analgesic effect.

Methods

In this prospective randomized study, we collected 38 patients with acute low back pain (aLBP) presenting at the emergency room of the Galilee Medical Center (Naharia, Israel) and asked them to report their ARP for analgesics. Regardless of their reported preference, they received either PO or IM diclofenac according to the treating physician’s preference. Pain intensity was self-reported using the numeric pain score (NPS) before and during the first hour after drug administration.

Results

Both groups receiving PO or IM administration reported similar initial pain on admission, (NPS 8.63 ± 1.5 and 8.74 ± 1.6, respectively) and the same magnitude of pain reduction. However, patients who received the drug in their desired route (oral or injection) had a significantly greater reduction in pain levels (4.05 ± 2.8) as compared with patients who received the undesired route (2.08 ± 1.8), p < 0.05.

Conclusions

These findings support the hypothesis that individualized ARP-matched treatment in aLBP improves therapeutic outcomes, although further studies with larger cohorts are needed.

Consensus of the Hellenic Headache Society on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine

More than 0.6 million people suffer from disabling migraines in Greece causing a dramatic work loss, but only a small proportion of migraineurs attend headache centres, most of them being treated by non-experts. On behalf of the Hellenic Headache Society, we report here a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of adult migraine that is based on the recent guidelines of the European Headache Federation, on the principles of Good Clinical Practice and on the Greek regulatory affairs. The purposes are three-fold: (1) to increase awareness for migraine in Greece; (2) to support Greek practitioners who are treating migraineurs; and (3) to help Greek migraineurs to get the most appropriate treatment. For mild migraine, symptomatic treatment with high dose simple analgesics is suggested, while for moderate to severe migraines triptans or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both, should be administered following an individually tailored therapeutic strategy. A rescue acute treatment option should always be advised. For episodic migraine prevention, metoprolol (50–200 mg/d), propranolol (40–240 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), topiramate (25–100 mg/d) and candesartan (16–32 mg/d) are the drugs of first choice. For chronic migraine prevention topiramate (100-200 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d) and venlafaxine (150 mg/d) may be used, but the evidence is very limited. Botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are recommended for patients suffering from chronic migraine (with or without medication overuse) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. Anti-CGRP mAbs are also suggested for patients suffering from high frequency episodic migraine (≥8 migraine days per month and less than 14) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: The multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled PREMIUM trial

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) has the potential to prevent migraine days in patients with migraine on the basis of mechanistic rationale and pilot clinical data.

METHODS

This multicentre study included a 4-week run-in period, a 12-week double-blind period of randomised treatment with nVNS or sham, and a 24-week open-label period of nVNS. Patients were to administer two 120-second stimulations bilaterally to the neck three times daily (6-8 hours apart).

RESULTS

Of 477 enrolled patients, 332 comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Mean reductions in migraine days per month (primary outcome) were 2.26 for nVNS (n = 165; baseline, 7.9 days) and 1.80 for sham (n = 167; baseline, 8.1 days) (p = 0.15). Results were similar across other outcomes. Upon observation of suboptimal adherence rates, post hoc analysis of patients with ≥ 67% adherence per month demonstrated significant differences between nVNS (n = 138) and sham (n = 140) for outcomes including reduction in migraine days (2.27 vs. 1.53; p = 0.043); therapeutic gains were greater in patients with aura than in those without aura. Most nVNS device-related adverse events were mild and transient, with application site discomfort being the most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive nVNS treatment in episodic migraine was not superior to sham stimulation in the ITT population. The "sham" device inadvertently provided a level of active vagus nerve stimulation. Post hoc analysis showed significant effects of nVNS in treatment-adherent patients. Study identification and registration: PREMIUM; NCT02378844; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378844.

Quality assurance in specialized headache units in Spain: an observational prospective study

Objective

To assess the quality of the therapeutic approach in Specialized Headache Units in Spain.

Methods

An observational (prospective) study was conducted. Anonymized data of 313 consecutive patients during a defined period of time were analyzed and a comparison of performance in 13 consensual quality indicators between Specialized Headache Units and neurology consultations was calculated. Specialized Units and neurology consultations represented the type of provision that Spaniards receive in hospitals.

Results

The consensus benchmark standard was reached for 8/13 (61%) indicators. Specialized Headache Units performed better in the indicators, specifically in relation to accessibility, equity, safety, and patient satisfaction. Patients attended in Specialized Headache Units had more complex conditions.

Conclusion

Although there is variability among Specialized Headache Units, the overall quality was generally better than in traditional neurology consultations in Spain.

Physician and patient preferences for dosing options in migraine prevention

Background

Adherence to a therapy, though a key factor for successful treatment, is low among patients with chronic conditions such as migraine. Dose frequency plays a major role in adherence. This study evaluated the impact of having flexible dosing options on acceptance of and adherence to a new migraine preventive therapy class among adults with migraine.

Methods

In this observational study, two 20-min online surveys were completed: one by physicians currently treating adult patients with migraine and the other by adults with migraine. Both surveys presented the participants with three scenarios: 1) only monthly, 2) only quarterly, and 3) both dosing options of the new medication are available. Physicians estimated the proportion of their migraine patients who would receive the new medication in each scenario. Patients were asked about their dosing preference when either or both options are available. Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of their acceptance of and adherence to the therapy.

Results

400 physicians and 417 US adults with migraine completed the surveys. The availability of both dosing options yielded a significant increase in the proportion of patients expected to receive the new medication. The overall proportion of patients favoring monthly dosing (35%) was similar to the proportion favoring quarterly dosing (40%). Among those who preferred monthly dosing (n = 147), a greater proportion indicated they are more likely to fill the prescription (77% vs 56%, P < 0.05) and remain adherent (80% vs 57%, P < 0.05) when only monthly is available versus when only quarterly is available. Similarly, among those who preferred quarterly dosing (n = 166), a greater proportion indicated they are likely to fill (63% vs 55%, P < 0.05) and remain adherent (62% vs 54%, P < 0.05) when only quarterly is available compared with when only monthly is available.

Conclusions

Physicians anticipated that the proportion of patients to receive the new medication would increase when both dosing options are available. Patients stated that they are more likely to fill the prescription and adhere to the new therapy when their preferred dosing regimen is available.

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

The quality of clinical trials is an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. Scientific and clinical developments in headache medicine led to second and third editions in 2000 and 2012, respectively. The current, fourth edition of the Guidelines retains the structure and much content from previous editions. However, it also incorporates evidence from clinical trials published after the third edition as well as feedback from meetings with regulators, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and patient associations. Its final form reflects the collective expertise and judgement of the Committee. These updated recommendations and commentary are intended to meet the Society's continuing objective of providing a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.