Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2)

Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting remission of migraine patients with patent foramen ovale after closure

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to construct and validate a nomogram model that predicts the remission of migraine attacks by screening factors that affect the prognosis of migraine patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) after closure.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis was conducted in migraine patients with PFO who underwent PFO closure in the Department of Cardiology of Jiangsu Province Hospital from September 2020 to April 2023. Based on the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores from the 1-year follow-up after PFO closure, all patients who met the inclusion criteria were categorized into a remission group and a non-remission group. The primary efficacy endpoint was remission of migraine headache. After collecting clinical data, transcranial doppler sonography (TCD) results and MIDAS scores, LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to filter variables predictive to migraine remission and construct the nomogram model. The Nomogram's accuracy and consistency were respectively assessed through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves. Additionally, an analysis of decision curves (DCA) was conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of this newly developed model.

RESULT

A total of 241 consecutive patients were included in the study. The remission group included 21 males and 93 females, with a median age of 39 (30.25,50) years. The non-remission group included 26 males and 101 females, with a median age of 35 (25.5,47.5) years. All Patients were randomly divided into a training cohort and a validation cohort. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that 5 independent predictors, including MIDAS before closure (p = 0.0002), mitigating factors (p = 0.0057), number of attacks/month (p = 0.0058), TCD (p = 0.0093) and Platelet Crit (PCT) (p = 0.0351), played a significant role in the prediction of remission of migraine patients with PFO after closure. Based on these independent predictors, the predictive nomogram model of migraine remission in PFO patients was constructed. The application of the nomogram in the training cohort exhibited good discrimination (area under the ROC curve was 0.7763[95% CI 0.7108-0.8418]), which was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUC was 0.704[95% CI 0.5533-0.8547]). The calibration curve showed that the nomogram model demonstrated good calibration performance. Additionally, the decision curve analysis indicated the clinical utility of the nomogram model.

CONCLUSION

The construction of the nomogram model had a considerable predictive accuracy for migraine remission in patients after PFO closure, which may provide constructive guidance for clinical decision making.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine.

METHODS

In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months.

RESULTS

Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Systemic allergic reaction to galcanezumab (emgality): a case report

BACKGROUND

A previously unreported systemic reaction to Galcanezumab (Emgality) is described. Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody designed to bind to calcitonin gene-related peptide, a neuropeptide associated with neurogenic inflammation during migraine attacks. Although clinical trials showed that Galcanezumab had few adverse reactions (injection site related erythema, pruritus, and swelling), no systemic drug reactions have been noted.

CASE REPORT

A 50-year-old female with chronic migraine, mast cell disorder, Hashimoto's disease, positive antinuclear antibody and positive anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody not on immune modulators received the initial dose of galcanezumab 240 mg after failing multiple migraine treatments. The following day, she developed injection site reaction, malar erythema and flu-like symptoms. Symptoms progressed the second day after injection, and she developed swelling in her lips and throat. Intravenous steroid and antihistamines improved airway symptoms, and the remaining symptoms improved after a course of oral steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed system allergic reaction to Galcanezumab requiring emergency intervention may occur. A history of autoimmune disorder may be a predisposing factor.

Headache Education by E-Learning Through Social Networking Services (Social Media)

Introduction

Headache is a common public health problem, but its burden could be avoided by raising headache awareness and the appropriate use of acute medication and prophylactic medication. Few reports on raising headache awareness in the general public have been reported, and there are no reports on headache awareness campaigns through social networking services (SNS), or social media, in Japan. We prospectively performed a headache awareness campaign from March 2022 through 2 SNS, targeting nurse and wind instrumental musicians, because they are with high headache prevalence.

Methods

Through the 2 SNS, the article and video were distributed, respectively. The article and video described the 6 important topics for the general public about headaches, which were described in the Clinical Practice Guideline for Headache Disorders 2021. Just after reading or watching them as e-learning, we performed online questionnaire sheets to investigate the awareness of the 6 topics through the 2 SNS. The awareness of the 6 topics before and after the campaign was evaluated.

Results

In the SNS nurse-senka, we obtained 1191 responses. Women comprised 94.4%, and the median (range) age was 45 (20 to 71) years old. Headache sufferers were 63.8%, but only 35.1% had consulted doctors. In the SNS Creatone, we got the response from 134 professional musicians, with 77.3% of women. The largest number of respondents were in their 20s (range 18-60 years old). Headache sufferers were 87.9%. Of them, 36.4% had consulted doctors, 24.2% were medication-overuse headache. The ratios of individuals who were aware of the 6 topics significantly increased from 15.2%-47.0% to 80.4-98.7% after the online questionnaire in both SNS (p < 0.001, all).

Conclusion

E-learning and online survey via SNS can improve headache awareness.

The prevalence and impact of tension-type headache in school-aged children in Iran

Background

Tension-Type Headache (TTH) is regarded as the third most prevalent disorder worldwide, prompting children to seek medical attention. Our objective is to investigate the prevalence of TTH among students aged 6 to 18 years in various geographical regions of Iran, while also assessing the impact of headaches on their quality of life.

Methods

Employing a cross-sectional survey, we have carefully distributed self-completed structured questionnaires to students in 121 meticulously selected schools throughout the country, ensuring the representation of its diverse population.

Results

Among the 2,958 potential participants, we have included a total of 2031 individuals in our study. This comprises 57.3% children and 42.7% adolescents, with 50.02% being males and 49.97% females. Specifically, we have examined 950 subjects with TTH and 1,081 individuals without any form of headache. TTH was diagnosed in 32.1% of the participants. Notably, we have observed a significant difference in the average age between the TTH subjects and those without headaches. Participants without headaches were more likely to be enrolled in primary schools, while those diagnosed with TTH predominantly attended high schools. We found no significant relationship between urban-rural areas or different geographic regions and the prevalence of TTH or its subtypes. Phonophobia was commonly associated with TTHs. Lastly, the mean quality-of-life score was highest for individuals without headaches, followed by those with low frequency episodic TTH, high frequency episodic TTH, and chronic TTHs. There was also a significant relation between headache severity and quality of life scores.

Conclusion

The significant prevalence of TTH in children and adolescents and its adverse impact on the daily activities of individuals underscore the utmost importance of accurate diagnosis and efficient management.

Pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia identifies responders to prophylactic treatment of chronic and episodic migraine patients with galcanezumab: A prospective quantitative sensory testing study (NCT04271202)

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder involving generalized abnormalities in processing sensory information. Adopting evidence that central sensitization imposes major hurdles in the treatment of migraine, we hypothesized that it is the non-ictal (rather than ictal) allodynia that may determine the outcome of migraine prevention with peripherally-acting drugs.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis, we used Quantitative Sensory Testing to determine whether it is possible to identify a patient's response to prophylactic treatment with galcanezumab based on presence/absence of cephalic and/or extracephalic allodynia during the pre-treatment non-ictal phase of migraine.

RESULTS

Using strict criteria for allodynia (heat 32-40°C, cold 32-20°C, mechanical <60 g), we report that (a) the incidence of pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia was 21% in the 24 responders (>50% decrease in monthly migraine days) and 85% in the 19 non-responders; (b) the incidence of non-ictal extracephalic allodynia distinguishes responders from non-responders less accurately; and that (c) the incidence of non-ictal cephalic allodynia was similar in the chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically, the findings suggest that presence/absence of non-ictal allodynia can be used to identify galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy and galcanezumab non-responders with nearly 85% accuracy. Mechanistically, the presence of non-ictal allodynia (reflecting a state of activity-independent central sensitization) in both chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine patients raises the possibility that the state of non-ictal allodynia may be attributed to physiological properties of central trigeminovascular neurons that are due to the genetic load of the individual patient rather than their migraine frequency.

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

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

Migraine and Current Pharmacologic Management

In light of the multiple pharmacologic alternatives for migraine management, the adverse effects associated with different treatment regimens, and their varying efficacy, it is vital to undertake ongoing evaluations and seek a tailored therapeutic strategy. This case report describes two patients who presented with classic migraine headaches, with the first responding to both abortive and prophylactic migraine medications and the second, with status migrainosus-like presentation, responding to the newer antimigraine agents. We also examined current pharmacological therapeutic options and existing recommendations, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses. This case review exemplifies how treatment in the last 10 years and success in medications used for abortive and prophylactic therapy are evolving from the older agents to newer agents like the recently approved calcitonin gene receptor protein monoclonal antibody inhibitors.

Treatment of migraine with monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

: In the few last years, a new family of drugs, anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), has been developed for migraine therapy. Anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective, but the current limited experience with their use and their high-cost warrant establishing certain rules of use.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides an overview of the management of migraine patients, especially those who are undergoing treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to new research focused on the pathophysiology of migraine, and the discovery that CGRP plays a key role in its etiopathogenesis, new drugs targeting CGRP have been developed. These drugs have led to a paradigm shift, anticipating new and stimulating possibilities in migraine treatment. While physicians and patients are full of expectation about the advantages of this new family of drugs, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to make the best use of them. It is essential to form multidisciplinary teams that can identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, conducting cost-effective treatments. The follow-up of these therapies in the coming years is paramount due to the lack of experience in the management of these drugs and the peculiarity of disease evolution in migraine patients.

Measuring dose-related efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention: post hoc analysis of PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2

Background

Eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint in both PROMISE clinical trials, significantly reducing frequency of monthly migraine days over Weeks 1‒12. The objective of this analysis was to assess the clinical response to eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg within the pivotal phase 3 PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 studies to potentially identify subsets of patients with meaningful differences between doses.

Methods

Patients from PROMISE-1 (NCT02559895) and PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) trials were divided into subgroups based on demographic and migraine characteristics, and baseline questionnaire responses. For each subgroup, the overall likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% migraine responder rate (MRR) over Weeks 1–12 and Weeks 13–24 with either eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg was calculated using odds ratios (with associated confidence intervals) and compared.

Results

In PROMISE-1 (episodic migraine) and PROMISE-2 (chronic migraine), the likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 1–12 and Weeks 13–24 was roughly equivalent for patients receiving either dose level of eptinezumab. Given the number of comparisons performed, sporadic apparent differences were seen but no replicated patterns between studies emerged. In PROMISE-1, no differences were observed in any subgroup over Weeks 1–12. In PROMISE-2, patients reporting < 15 monthly migraine days at baseline, any problems with mobility per the EQ-5D-5L, or a social functioning score > 45.0 per the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), appeared more likely to achieve ≥ 50% MRR with 300 mg over Weeks 1–12, with none of these being apparent in PROMISE-1.

Conclusions

Overall, these data suggest that across PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, there were no meaningful differences in the likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% MRR between the eptinezumab dose levels in the majority of patient subgroups. In the few subgroups that displayed small, but potentially meaningful differences, patients were more likely to achieve ≥ 50% MRR with eptinezumab 300 mg; however, minimal consistency across both studies and time periods was noted.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov.

PROMISE-1: NCT02559895.

PROMISE-2: NCT02974153.

Does “wearing off” of efficacy occur in galcanezumab‐treated patients at the end of the monthly treatment cycle? Post hoc analyses of four phase III randomized trials

Objective

The purpose of this study was to propose a definition of “wearing off” at the individual patient‐level and determine the percentage of patients with migraine who experience “wearing off” of efficacy of galcanezumab at the end of a treatment cycle using this predefined threshold.

Background

Anecdotal reports suggest that some patients may experience “wearing off” of efficacy during the last week of their calcitonin gene‐related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment cycle. A previous post hoc analysis of galcanezumab demonstrated consistent efficacy at each week throughout all monthly dosing intervals at the population‐level, but “wearing off” has not been assessed at the individual patient‐level.

Methods

Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data from four galcanezumab phase III, randomized, placebo‐controlled studies in a total of 2680 patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine (EVOLVE‐1, EVOLVE‐2, and CONQUER studies) or chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN and CONQUER studies) were conducted. “Wearing off” was defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 2 weekly migraine headache days in the last week of the treatment cycle compared to the second week for at least 2 months. The analyses were conducted (1) in all patients and (2) in patients with a clinically meaningful response to treatment.

Results

The percentage of patients meeting the threshold of “wearing off” was not statistically significantly different among the placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups, both in the total population and in patients with a clinically meaningful response (all ≤9.0%). Although the frequency of “wearing off” in patients with CM and prior preventive failures was numerically greater in the galcanezumab groups (8/89 or 9.0%) compared to placebo (3/95 or 3.2%), these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Consistent with previous analyses at the population‐level that showed no evidence of decreased efficacy at the end of a treatment cycle, rates of individual patients meeting the threshold of “wearing off” in this analysis were low and similar among placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups.

Discontinuing monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP pathway after one-year treatment: an observational longitudinal cohort study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (mAbs anti-CGRP) pathway are effective and safe on migraine prevention. However, some drug agencies limited these treatments to one year due to their high costs. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of discontinuing mAbs anti-CGRP on monthly migraine days (MMDs) and disability in high-frequency episodic (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients.

Methods

This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted at 10 Italian headache centres. Consecutive adult patients were followed-up for three months (F-UP1–3) after discontinuation of a one-year erenumab/galcanezumab treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in F-UP MMDs. Secondary endpoints included variation in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), monthly acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 scores. We also assessed from F-UP1 to 3 the ≥50% response rate, relapse rate to CM, and recurrence of Medication Overuse (MO).

Results

We enrolled 154 patients (72.1% female, 48.2 ± 11.1 years, 107 CM, 47 HFEM); 91 were treated with erenumab, 63 with galcanezumab. From F-UP1 to F-UP3, MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 progressively increased but were still lower at F-UP3 than baseline (Friedman’s analysis of rank, p < .001). In the F-UP1–3 visits, ≥50% response rate frequency did not differ significantly between CM and HFEM patients. However, the median reduction in response rate at F-UP3 was higher in HFEM (− 47.7% [25th, − 79.5; 75th,-17.0]) than in CM patients (− 25.5% [25th, − 47.1; 75th, − 3.3]; Mann-Whitney U test; p = .032). Of the 84 baseline CM patients who had reverted to episodic migraine, 28 (33.3%) relapsed to CM at F-UP1, 35 (41.7%) at F-UP2, 39 (46.4%) at F-UP3. Of the 64 baseline patients suffering of medication overuse headache ceasing MO, 15 (18.3%) relapsed to MO at F-UP1, 26 (31.6%) at F-UP2, and 30 (42.3%, 11 missing data) at F-UP3. Lower MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 and higher response rate in the last month of therapy characterized patients with ≥50% response rate at F-UP1 and F-UP3 (Mann-Whitney U test; consistently p < .01).

Conclusion

Migraine frequency and disability gradually increased after mAbs anti-CGRP interruption. Most patients did not relapse to MO or CM despite the increase in MMDs. Our data suggest to reconsider mAbs anti-CGRP discontinuation.

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

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

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Galcanezumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Episodic and Chronic Migraine Using the Metrics of Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM.

METHODS

Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs.

RESULTS

During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM).

CONCLUSION

Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Disability, burden, and symptoms related to sensitization in migraine patients associate with headache frequency

OBJECTIVES

This observational study aimed to assess the difference in disability, burden, and sensitization between migraine patients with low-frequency headache attack (1-8 headache days/month), high-frequency headache attack (9-14 headache days/months), and patients with chronic migraine (>14 headache days/months).

METHODS

Migraine patients with or without aura were divided into three groups according to headache frequency (low-frequency episodic migraine; high-frequency episodic migraine; chronic migraine). Questionnaires were used to assess the burden of headache, quality of life, phycological burden, and symptoms related to sensitization (estimated by the Central Sensitization Inventory). Differences among migraine groups were assessed using Chi-Quadro test, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis as appropriate.

RESULTS

136 patients were included (68 low-frequency episodic migraine, 45 high-frequency episodic migraine, 23 chronic migraine). Patients with high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine differed from patients with low frequency episodic migraine showing a worse burden of headache (p=0.002; p=0.002), worse level of physical (p=0.001; p<0.001) and mental (p=0.002; p=0.001) quality of life, worse level of depression (p=0.008; p=0.003), and increase presence of symptoms related to sensitization (p<0.001; p=0.003). No differences were found in any variables between patients with high-frequency episodic migraine and patients with chronic migraine (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high-frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine could be considered in the same segment of the migraine population, with similar degrees of disability and sensitization related symptoms.

Impact of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Episodic Cluster Headache

Purpose

In a phase 3 study, galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of episodic cluster headache attacks across weeks 1–3 (primary endpoint) compared with placebo. However, multiple pain dimensions may contribute to the total burden of episodic cluster headache pain. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of galcanezumab on the total pain burden of episodic cluster headache using a composite measure.

Patients and Methods

Patients with episodic cluster headache were randomized 1:1 to galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo once monthly for 8 weeks. Mean weekly total pain burden was calculated (daily cluster headache attack frequency × average duration × average pain severity summed over 7 days) using data collected in an electronic patient-reported outcomes diary. Change from baseline in weekly total pain burden across weeks 1–3 was compared between galcanezumab and placebo. To explore construct validity, mean weekly total pain burden scores were stratified by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) responses at the week 4 clinic visit.

Results

The reduction from baseline in mean weekly total pain burden was significantly greater with galcanezumab (N=49) than with placebo (N=57): the least squares mean difference was −11.18 severity-weighted hours (p=0.035). Median weekly total pain burden decreased as PGI-I ratings improved, from 33.6 to 5.0 severity-weighted hours for patients who felt “very much worse” and “very much better,” respectively.

Conclusion

Galcanezumab significantly reduced mean weekly total pain burden compared with placebo in patients with episodic cluster headache. The composite pain measure demonstrated construct validity. Total pain burden may provide a holistic measure of the pain of episodic cluster headache.

Clinical Trials

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397473.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab in the prophylactic treatment of adult migraine.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identity randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the decline in the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs). Secondary outcomes included the reduction of monthly acute migraine‑specific medication days (MSMDs), the number of participants showing a reduction in MMDs from baseline of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100%, the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the number of participants developing anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) to galcanezumab. We calculated the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for these outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the five included trials, galcanezumab given at doses of 120, 150, 240, and 300 mg was superior to placebo for both MMDs and secondary outcomes. The degree of AEs in all group was mild. Notably, no significant differences were found in the occurrence of AEs and ADAs between the galcanezumab and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab is a safe and effective treatment for adult patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

Role of Monoclonal Antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) in Episodic Migraine Prevention: Where Do We Stand Today?

Background

Medications targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway are exciting and novel therapeutic options in the treatment of migraine.

Objective

In this article, we have reviewed the role of these CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with episodic migraine.

Materials and Methods

We did an extensive literature search for all phase 2 and 3 studies involving CGRP monoclonal antibodies in episodic migraine.

Results

Erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab have all undergone phase 3 trials and have been found to be effective for episodic and chronic migraine. They have the advantage of being targeted therapies for migraine with very favorable adverse effect profiles comparable to placebo. Importantly, they are effective in subgroups of patients who have failed previous preventive therapies.

Conclusion

Increasing use of these medications will certainly revolutionize the treatment and outlook for patients with migraine all over the world.

Shift from high-frequency to low-frequency episodic migraine in patients treated with Galcanezumab: results from two global randomized clinical trials

Background

Patients with episodic migraine (EM) with a higher-frequency of migraine headache days (HFEM: 8–14 migraine headache days/month) have a greater disease burden and a higher risk of progressing to chronic migraine (CM) with associated acute treatment overuse versus those with low-frequency EM (LFEM: 4–7 migraine headache days/month). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the proportions of patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM and to very low-frequency EM (VLFEM: 0–3 migraine headache days/month) status following treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo.

Methods

EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 were double-blind, Phase 3 studies in patients with EM. Patients (18–65 years) were randomized (2:1:1) to subcutaneous monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg (240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg, for up to 6 months. Data were pooled and endpoints were change from baseline in number of migraine headache days/month and patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM or VLFEM status. Impact of change in HFEM status on migraine headache days/month, quality of life and disability was also assessed.

Results

A total of 66% (1176/1773) patients from EVOLVE studies had HFEM status at baseline and were included in this analysis; placebo: 592, galcanezumab 120 mg: 294 and galcanezumab 240 mg: 290. At each month, both doses of galcanezumab resulted in a higher proportion of patients who shifted to 0–7 monthly headache days/month (VLFEM or LFEM status). Patients who shifted from HFEM at baseline to VLFEM status at Month 3, a relatively larger proportion of patients on galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo remained at VLFEM status at Months 4–6; Months 4–5 for galcanezumab 240 mg versus placebo. Among the galcanezumab-treated patients who did-not-shift or shifted to LFEM or VLFEM status for ≥3 consecutive months until the end of the study, patients who shifted from HFEM to VLFEM status experienced the largest reduction in migraine headache days/month and the largest clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning (MSQ-RFR) and disability (MIDAS).

Conclusions

In patients with HFEM, treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg and 240 mg) significantly reduced migraine headache days/month, maintained remission status at subsequent months until the end of the study, and improved patients’ quality of life versus placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: EVOLVE-1, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2, NCT02614196.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01222-w.

Treatment Satisfaction of Galcanezumab in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Study

Introduction

This analysis evaluated the treatment satisfaction of Japanese patients receiving galcanezumab (GMB) as a preventive medication for episodic migraine (4–14 monthly migraine headache days).

Methods

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged 18–65 years at 40 centers in Japan. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (PBO, n = 230), GMB 120 mg (n = 115), or GMB 240 mg (n = 114) for 6 months. Patients’ experience with treatment was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified (PSMQ-M) scales. PGI-S was administered at baseline and months 1–6, PGI-I at months 1–6, and PSMQ-M at months 1 and 6. Prespecified analyses were differences between GMB and PBO in PGI-I and the change from baseline in PGI-S, and evaluating positive responses for the PGI-I and PSMQ-M.

Results

Average change ± SE from baseline across months 1–6 was − 0.09 ± 0.05 (PBO), − 0.17 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p = 0.33), and − 0.30 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p = 0.013) for PGI-S. Average PGI-I across months 1–6 was 3.39 ± 0.05 (PBO), 2.55 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p < 0.05), and 2.71 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p < 0.05). Reductions of 2.8–3.0 monthly migraine headache days corresponded to 25–31% higher positive PGI-I response rates with GMB compared with PBO. Positive PSMQ-M response rates for satisfaction and preference were statistically significantly higher for GMB compared with PBO (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], all p < 0.05 vs. PBO): satisfaction GMB 120 mg (3.142 [1.936–5.098]) and GMB 240 mg (3.924 [2.417–6.369]), and preference GMB 120 mg (3.691 [2.265–6.017]) and GMB 240 mg (3.510 [2.180–5.652]).

Conclusion

Japanese patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with GMB are significantly more satisfied than those receiving PBO.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 (registered November 7, 2016).

Graphical Plain Language Summary

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00236-5.

A device review of Relivion®: an external combined occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS) system for self-administered treatment of migraine and major depressive disorder

Introduction: Many patients with migraine are non-responsive or intolerant to pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) offers a potential solution for these patients. This review discusses the external combined occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS) provided by the Relivion®, a multi-channel head-mounted device for self-administered PNS.Areas covered: Challenges and advantages of PNS systems for the treatment of migraine and depression are introduced, followed by an overall review of clinical evidence of the efficacy of the Relivion® system in treating migraine. The supporting smartphone app and cloud-based analytics which enable remote treatment management by the health care provider are also discussed. Recent empirical indications for the potency of this PNS combination for the treatment of depression are also summarized.Expert opinion: Relivion® is an eCOT-NS system, featuring Food and Drug Administration-approved, noninvasive, self-administered, customizable, multi-focal PNS for the treatment of migraine. In accordance with current telehealth trends, the Relivion® also enhances remote disease management and personalization using digital-monitoring, cloud-based technology, and artificial intelligence. As research on this system progresses, it may become the preferred treatment for the management of a number of neurological and psychiatric diseases, with migraine and major depressive disorders as precedents.

Effectiveness of Mindfulness Meditation vs Headache Education for Adults With Migraine: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Most patients with migraine discontinue medications due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) may provide benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if MBSR improves migraine outcomes and affective/cognitive processes compared with headache education.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial of MBSR vs headache education included 89 adults who experienced between 4 and 20 migraine days per month. There was blinding of participants (to active vs comparator group assignments) and principal investigators/data analysts (to group assignment).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants underwent MBSR (standardized training in mindfulness/yoga) or headache education (migraine information) delivered in groups that met for 2 hours each week for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in migraine day frequency (baseline to 12 weeks). Secondary outcomes were changes in disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, depression scores, and experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (baseline to 12, 24, and 36 weeks).

RESULTS

Most participants were female (n = 82, 92%), with a mean (SD) age of 43.9 (13.0) years, and had a mean (SD) of 7.3 (2.7) migraine days per month and high disability (Headache Impact Test-6: 63.5 [5.7]), attended class (median attendance, 7 of 8 classes), and followed up through 36 weeks (33 of 45 [73%] of the MBSR group and 32 of 44 [73%] of the headache education group). Participants in both groups had fewer migraine days at 12 weeks (MBSR: -1.6 migraine days per month; 95% CI, -0.7 to -2.5; headache education: -2.0 migraine days per month; 95% CI, -1.1 to -2.9), without group differences (P = .50). Compared with those who participated in headache education, those who participated in MBSR had improvements from baseline at all follow-up time points (reported in terms of point estimates of effect differences between groups) on measures of disability (5.92; 95% CI, 2.8-9.0; P < .001), quality of life (5.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P = .01), self-efficacy (8.2; 95% CI, 0.3-16.1; P = .04), pain catastrophizing (5.8; 95% CI, 2.9-8.8; P < .001), depression scores (1.6; 95% CI, 0.4-2.7; P = .008), and decreased experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (MBSR group: 36.3% [95% CI, 12.3% to 60.3%] decrease in intensity and 30.4% [95% CI, 9.9% to 49.4%] decrease in unpleasantness; headache education group: 13.5% [95% CI, -9.9% to 36.8%] increase in intensity and an 11.2% [95% CI, -8.9% to 31.2%] increase in unpleasantness; P = .004 for intensity and .005 for unpleasantness, at 36 weeks). One reported adverse event was deemed unrelated to study protocol.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mindfulness-based stress reduction did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education, as both groups had similar decreases; however, MBSR improved disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and depression out to 36 weeks, with decreased experimentally induced pain suggesting a potential shift in pain appraisal. In conclusion, MBSR may help treat total migraine burden, but a larger, more definitive study is needed to further investigate these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02695498.

An Evidence-Based Review of Galcanezumab for the Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This is a comprehensive review of the current literature on the usage of galcanezumab for migraine treatment. It reviews the biology, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and conventional treatment of migraines, then compares the literature available for galcanezumab with historical treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Migraine is a common headache disorder and constitutes a significant source of distress from both a personal and societal perspective. Conventional treatment includes abortive and preventive treatment. Treatment options are limited and may be only partially or minimally effective in some of the population. Recent evidence points to metabolic changes in the brain as possible causes of migraine, via reduced available energy or a spiking need for it, resulting in a relative insufficiency. This leads to trigeminocervical complex (TCC) activation and a headache episode, modulated by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). Galcanezumab (Emgality) is a monoclonal antibody targeting CGRP that is given in a monthly injection for the prevention of migraines. Its safety was previously shown in phase 1 and 2 trials, and recent phase 3 trials showed efficacy, with up to 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and improved functional capacity in migraineurs. Studies show that the drug is well tolerated and safe. Migraine headache is a common neurological syndrome that causes great pain and suffering. Treatment options today are limited. Galcanezumab does not prevent migraines, but it is effective in decreasing their frequency and length. It is also much better tolerated than the currently existing therapies. While it is unlikely to provide monotherapy for migraines, it is a novel therapy that may be added for cases of severe or frequent migraines.

Pharmacotherapy of migraine prevention based on the assessment of headache

Migraine as a recurrent, relapsing, and chronic disease is one of the most disabling disorders globally. Most patients are women in their reproductive age and their migraines are classified as episodic migraine. Although less than half of the episodic and most chronic migraineurs require preventive intervention, early discontinuation rates are high, owing to poor tolerability and insufficient awareness about migraine. This article aims to review the recent update of migraine prevention based on the practice guidelines for the prevention of episodic migraine published by the Korea Headache Society and the position statement of the American Headache Society in 2019. The goal of migraine prevention is to reduce migraine attack frequency by at least 50 %, the number of migraine days, and the attack severity to ultimately improve quality of life. The guidelines recommend considering the initiation of preventive medication when recurring migraines significantly interfere with daily life or when acute treatment is contraindicated or inappropriate. Preventive medications should be determined based on various qualified assessments. Pharmacologic treatments are recommended for migraine prophylaxis include antidepressant (amitriptyline), anti-epileptic drugs (topiramate, divalproex sodium), beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol), calcium channel blocker (flunarizine), and intramuscular injection of onabotulinumtoxin A. Furthermore subcutaneous or intravenous injection of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies was recently approved as a new therapy for migraine prevention. Migraine is a chronic debilitating disorder. The initiation of evidence-based preventive management is necessary and management methods should be individually selected to improve quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of calcitonin-gene-related peptide binding monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders that leads to disabilities. However, the conventional drug therapy for migraine might be unsatisfactory at times. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of calcitonin-gene-related peptide binding monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and provide high-quality clinical evidence for migraine therapy.

METHODS

A systematic electronic database search was conducted to identify the potentially relevant studies. Two independent authors performed data extraction and quality appraisal. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) were pooled for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively. The significance levels, weighted effect sizes and homogeneity of variance were calculated.

RESULTS

Eleven high-quality randomized control trials that collectively included 4402 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo group, CGRP mAb therapy resulted in a reduction of monthly migraine days [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 1.44, 95% CI = (- 1.68,- 1.19)] and acute migraine-specific medication days [WMD = - 1.28, 95% CI = (- 1.66,- 0.90)], with an improvement in 50% responder rate [RR = 1.51, 95% CI = (1.37,1.66)]. In addition, the adverse events (AEs) and treatment withdrawal rates due to AEs were not significantly different between CGRP mAb and placebo groups. Similar efficacy and safety results were obtained for erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The current body of evidence reveals that CGRP mAb is an effective and safe preventive treatment for episodic migraine.

Safety and tolerability of monthly galcanezumab injections in patients with migraine: integrated results from migraine clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated a significant reduction in monthly migraine headache days in phase 2 and 3 trials. In these analyses, we aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of galcanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine.

METHODS

Data were integrated from three double-blind clinical studies for the up to 6-month galcanezumab exposure group (N = 1435), and from five clinical studies for the up to 1-year all-galcanezumab exposure group (N = 2276). Patients received a monthly 120 mg subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab (with a 240 mg loading dose in month 1), 240 mg galcanezumab, or placebo. Outcomes measured were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuation due to AEs (DCAEs). Laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG), suicidal ideation and behavior results were evaluated.

RESULTS

TEAEs that occurred more frequently in galcanezumab-treated patients included injection site pain, injection site reactions excluding pain, constipation, vertigo, and pruritus. The proportion of DCAEs among galcanezumab-treated patients ranged between 1.8 and 3.0%, and differed from placebo group for galcanezumab 240 mg (P < 0.05). Fewer than 2.0% of patients in either galcanezumab dose-group compared with 1.0% of placebo-treated patients reported a SAE. There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab and placebo in laboratory measures, vital signs including blood pressure, ECGs, cardiovascular-related AEs, or suicidal ideation and behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile for up to 1 year of treatment for the prevention of migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials CGAB = NCT02163993, EVOLVE-1 = NCT02614183, EVOLVE-2 = NCT02614196, REGAIN = NCT02614261, and CGAJ = NCT02614287. All were first posted on 25 November 2015, except CGAB posted on 16 June 2014, and before enrolling the first patient.

Correction to: Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2)

After publication of our article [1] we were notified that the data presented in the upper row of Fig. 7 was inadvertently the least square mean change from baseline (standard error) at Month 6 rather than the overall average of Month 3 and Month 6. The figure legend and discussion of the data in the text were and are correct. The error was only in the upper row of Fig. 7. The legend for Fig. 7 did not require revision.

Upregulation of IL-1 Receptor Antagonist in a Mouse Model of Migraine

Migraine is a disorder characterized by attacks of monolateral headaches, often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and photophobia. Around 30% of patients also report aura symptoms. The cause of the aura is believed to be related to the cortical spreading depression (CSD), a wave of neuronal and glial depolarization originating in the occipital cortex, followed by temporary neuronal silencing. During a migraine attack, increased expression of inflammatory mediators, along with a decrease in the expression of anti-inflammatory genes, have been observed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the expression of inflammatory genes, in particular that of IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RN), following CSD in a mouse model of familial hemiplegic migraine type 1 (FHM-1). We show here that the expression of IL-1RN was upregulated after the CSD, suggesting a possible attempt to modulate the inflammatory response. This study allows researchers to better understand the development of the disease and aids in the search for new therapeutic strategies in migraine.