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

Long-Term Outcome After Discontinuation of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting agents are potential candidates for disease-modifying migraine drugs. However, most studies on CGRP-targeting agents have assessed efficacy outcomes rather than long-term effects after discontinuation. This review aimed to synthesize and scrutinize the latest clinical data on the outcomes after the discontinuation of CGRP-targeting therapy in patients with episodic and chronic migraine, with a particular focus on chronic migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Real-world studies involving patients with migraine have reported consistent findings of worsened headache frequency and quality of life after the discontinuation of CGRP monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). Although many patients maintain improvements for up to 4 months after discontinuation compared to baseline (before starting CGRP mAbs), no studies have evaluated the effects of stopping treatment for > 5 months, which is the five-half-life of CGRP mAbs. Several studies have suggested that patients treated with CGRP receptor mAbs experience more rapid deterioration than those treated with CGRP ligand mAbs after discontinuing CGRP mAbs. The results of real-world studies suggest that for many patients with migraine, the benefits of CGRP mAbs diminish months after discontinuation. Therefore, anti-CGRP therapies may not be considered disease-modifying. However, the comprehensive assessment of the disease-modifying potential of these drugs requires studies with extended treatment and cessation durations.

Developments in targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapy has revolutionized migraine treatment since its first approval in 2018. CGRP-targeted therapy includes monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants, which modulate trigeminal nociceptive and inflammatory responses, alleviating pain sensitization involved in migraine pathogenesis. CGRP-targeted therapy is effective not only for migraine but also for other chronic headache disorders that share the CGRP pathway.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the latest developments and evidence for CGRP-targeted therapy for episodic migraine and chronic migraine. In addition, the authors discuss the emerging evidence on response prediction, menstrual migraine, vestibular migraine, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-traumatic headache, and the relationship between selected migraine comorbidities and CGRP.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the launch of CGRP-targeted therapy, many practical issues have been raised. Generally, it's safe to combine CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants; this is an excellent option for patients with partial response. When considering stopping CGRP-targeted therapy, although a disease-modifying effect is likely, the optimal time for discontinuation remains unknown. Finally, beyond migraine, CGRP-targeted therapy may be used for other chronic pain disorders and psychological comorbidities.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Impact of multiple treatment cycles with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine course: focus on discontinuation periods. Insights from the multicenter, prospective, I-GRAINE study

OBJECTIVES

While a single 12-month treatment cycle (TrC) with anti-CGRP mAbs is not disease-modifying for most patients, there is limited understanding of the effects of multiple TrCs on migraine course. We evaluated whether a second TrC might modify the migraine course by comparing the occurrence of migraine relapse after discontinuation of the second TrC to that following the cessation of the first TrC.

METHODS

In a real-life, multicenter, prospective study we considered all consecutive patients diagnosed with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) with > 3 treatment failures and treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 2 consecutive 12-month TrCs who were responders at week 12. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) for HFEM or monthly headache days (MHD) for CM at the first month of treatment discontinuation after the second TrC (D2) compared to the first TrC (D1). Secondary endpoints included variations in monthly analgesic medications (MAM), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates, and relapse from episodic migraine to CM and from no-medication overuse (MO) to MO at D2 vs. D1.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seventy-eight patients completed two 12-month TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs. At D2, patients experienced a significant reduction in MMD (- 0.6, p = 0.028), MHD (- 2.6, p < 0.001), monthly analgesic medications (- 2.0, p < 0.001), and HIT-6 score (- 2.2, p < 0.001) compared to D1, indicating improved effectiveness. The ≥ 50% response rate at weeks 45-48 during the first TrC was 95.5%, while at weeks 45-48 of the second TrC was 99.4%. Corresponding rates at D1 was 20.2% whereas at D2 was 51.6% (p < 0.0001). No statistical difference emerged in ≥ 75% and 100% responders. The relapse rate from episodic migraine to CM at D2 was lower than at D1 (12.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.0002) Fewer patients experienced relapse from no-MO to MO at D2 compared to D1 (29.5% vs 68.7%; p = 0.00001).

DISCUSSION

A second TrC with anti-CGRP mAbs demonstrated clinical improvements compared to the first one, as indicated by a milder migraine relapse at D2 compared to D1. Multiple TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs could progressively modify migraine evolution by reducing CGRP-dependent neuroinflammatory nociceptive inputs to the brain.

Treatment patterns of galcanezumab versus standard of care preventive migraine medications over 24 months: a US retrospective claims study

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016).

CONCLUSION

Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Long-Term Effectiveness of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Migraine: An Italian Retrospective Analysis (REALITY)

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is approved in the European Union (EU) as migraine prophylaxis in adults with at least four migraine days per month. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of galcanezumab on migraine-related burdens and its impact on the use of healthcare resources for migraine prophylaxis in an Italian setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab for migraine prevention between September 2019 and December 2020. Patient data for monthly migraine days (MMDs) and MMDs with acute medication intake were obtained by medical chart reviews. Information on patient-reported outcomes (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire and Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6] questionnaire) and on the use of healthcare resources were also collected. The time points of interest were 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months after the initiation of galcanezumab, and the most recent time point available during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were enrolled in the study. Starting from month 3 after treatment initiation, more than half of the patients presented at least a 50% reduction in MMDs, and approximately one-third of non-responders at month 3 became responders at month 6. From month 3 to month 12, MMDs decreased on average by 10 days. Headache impact and disability, as well as migraine-associated health resource utilization decreased significantly during the treatment period. A positive significant association among the three dimensions of clinical burden (MMDs, MIDAS and days of acute medication intake) was also observed.

CONCLUSION

The results of this Italian real-world study confirmed that galcanezumab has a rapid onset of effect and provides a long-term response among patients over different migraine-related burdens. The use of healthcare resources was also remarkably reduced.

Modeling the Effects of Formulary Exclusions: How Many Patients Could Be Affected by a Specific Exclusion?

Background: Medication formularies, initially designed to promote the use of cost-effective generic drugs, are now designed to maximize financial benefits for the pharmacy benefit management companies that negotiate purchase prices. In the second-largest pharmacy benefit management formulary that is publicly available, 55% of mandated substitutions are not for generic or biosimilar versions of the same active ingredient and/or formulation and may not be medically or financially beneficial to patients. Methods: We modeled the effect of excluding novel agents for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, migraine prevention, and psoriasis, which all would require substitution with a different active ingredient. Using population data, market share of the 2 largest US formularies, and 2021 prescription data, we calculated how many people could be affected by such exclusions. Using data from the published literature, we calculated how many of those individuals are likely to discontinue treatment and/or have adverse events due to a formulary exclusion. Results: The number of people likely to have adverse events due to the exclusion could be as high as 1 million for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 900 000 for migraine prevention, and 500 000 for psoriasis. The numbers likely to discontinue treatment for their condition are as high as 924 000 for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 646 000 for migraine, and 138 000 for psoriasis. Conclusion: Substitution with a nonequivalent treatment is common in formularies currently in use and is not without substantial consequences for hundreds of thousands of patients. Forced medication substitution results in costly increases in morbidity and mortality and should be part of the cost-benefit analysis of any formulary exclusion.

Atogepant: Mechanism of action, clinical and translational science

Since the discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in 1982, its integral role in migraine pathophysiology, specifically migraine pain, has been demonstrated through cumulative scientific discoveries that have led to the development and approval of migraine-specific therapeutics. Today, eight drugs, including monoclonal antibodies and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have received approval for acute or preventive treatment of migraine. The primary mechanism of these drugs is to block CGRP signaling, thus preventing CGRP-mediated nociception and neurogenic inflammation. Here, we focus on atogepant, a highly potent and selective gepant and the first and only oral medication approved for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine in adults. In this article, we summarize the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology and the mechanism of action of atogepant. In addition, we provide an overview of atogepant's pharmacology and the key clinical trials and outcomes that have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of atogepant.

The effect of erenumab on brain network function in episodic migraine patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RESET BRAIN)

BACKGROUND

We aimed to explore whether erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, could exert a central effect on brain network function in migraine, and investigate the persistence of such an effect following treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial with a crossover design performed in adult episodic migraine patients with previous treatment failure. Patients were randomized (1:1) to 12 weeks of erenumab 140 mg or placebo, followed by a 12-week crossover. Resting state (RS) functional connectivity (FC) changes of brain networks involved in migraine were investigated using a seed-based correlation approach.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were randomized to treatment. In each treatment sequence, 27 patients completed the visit at week 12. Forty-four enrolled patients, 22 in each treatment sequence, completed the study procedures with no major protocol violations. We observed a carry-over effect of erenumab during the placebo treatment and therefore data analysis was performed as a parallel comparison of erenumab vs placebo of the first 12 weeks of treatment. From baseline to week 12, compared to placebo, patients receiving erenumab showed RS FC changes within the cerebellar, thalamic and periaqueductal gray matter networks, significantly associated with clinical improvement. Compared to non-responders, patients achieving a 50% reduction in migraine days had distinct patterns of thalamic and visual network RS FC. Brain RS FC changes reversed when erenumab was stopped. A lower baseline RS FC of the pontine network identified patients responding to erenumab.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab modulates RS FC of networks involved in migraine pathophysiology. In line with clinical response, erenumab-induced brain RS FC changes tend to reverse when treatment is stopped.

Retreating migraine patients in the second year with monoclonal antibodies anti-CGRP pathway: the multicenter prospective cohort RE-DO study

BACKGROUND

The outcome of migraine patients retreated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRPr) is not completely known.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective observational cohort study assessed monthly migraine days (MMDs), migraine acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 at baseline, after 90-112 days (Rev-1), after 84-90 days since Rev-1 (Rev-2) and 30 days after the last injection of anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs (Year-end), in the first and the second year after a discontinuation period.

RESULTS

We enrolled 226 patients (79.6% with chronic migraine; 55.3% on erenumab and 44.7% on galcanezumab or fremanezumab). MMDs, MAMI, and HIT-6-did not differ at the respective first and second-year evaluations in the entire cohort, and comparing anti-CGRP with anti-CGRPr Abs. MMDs (18.1 ± 7.8 vs. 3.4 ± 7.8), MAMI (26.7 ± 28.3 vs.17.7 ± 17.2), and HIT-6 scores (63.1 ± 5.9 vs. 67.1 ± 10.3) were lower in the second year than in the pre-treatment baseline (consistently, p < 0.0001). Second-year baseline MMDs were lower in patients on anti-CGRP mAbs (p = 0.001) and with lower pre-treatment baseline MMDs (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs are effective in the second as in the first year. The use of anti-CGRP or CGRPr mAbs influenced the second-year baseline MMDs, but their effectiveness did not differ during the two treatment years.

Galcanezumab in the Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Real-World Studies

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have established the efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand, in the preventive treatment of migraine. The objective was to summarize real-world data evaluating galcanezumab in the preventive treatment of migraine, to complement RCT results with evidence observed in clinical practice.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify real-world studies evaluating galcanezumab in the treatment for patients with migraine.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were identified; some only evaluated galcanezumab, and others used pooled data from multiple anti-CGRP antibodies. The studies recruited diverse patient populations, including patients who had failed multiple prior preventive therapies. Treatment was associated with significant reductions from baseline in monthly migraine days and monthly headache days by 4.3 to 12.9 and 3.1 to 13.9, respectively. These values were numerically greater than those reported in most galcanezumab RCTs. Significant decreases from baseline were evident within the first month of treatment, and efficacy was maintained throughout the follow-up periods, ranging from 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was also associated with improvements in other efficacy end points, including decreased headache pain intensity, reduction in analgesic use, and improvements in daily functioning and quality of life. Functionality scores, as assessed by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale questionnaire, decreased by 27 to 75 points from baseline at 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was associated with a low discontinuation rate and higher rates of persistence compared with standard migraine preventive treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide complementary data that galcanezumab is effective across the diverse patient populations observed in routine clinical practice.

Patterns of anti-CGRP mAbs use and variation of triptan consumption following treatment initiation: A descriptive drug utilization study in the Tuscany region, Italy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) utilization in the Tuscany region, Italy, and the variation of triptan consumption after treatment initiation.

BACKGROUND

Given the recent commercialization of anti-CGRP mAbs as migraine preventive medications, real-world evidence on their patterns of utilization and their impact on migraine abortive medication use is still limited.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study on the real-world utilization of anti-CGRP mAbs was performed using the population-based regional administrative database of Tuscany. Patients with ≥1 anti-CGRP mAb dispensing (namely erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were identified. The first dispensing was the cohort entry (CE). New users (NUs) were patients with no anti-CGRP mAb dispensing before CE. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were plotted to describe the cumulative probability of remaining with the initial anti-CGRP mAb during a 15-month follow-up period as a measure of treatment persistence. Among NUs with ≥2 triptan dispensings during the 6 months before CE (i.e., baseline), the mean monthly number of triptan dosage units dispensed was measured in five consecutive follow-up time windows (months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) and the difference from the baseline was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 624 NUs (erenumab = 295, galcanezumab = 223, fremanezumab = 106) were identified, of whom 188 (78%) were women. Mean age was 49.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12.6). The survival to discontinuation at 6, 12, and 15 months was about 69%, 48%, and 6%, respectively. The survival to switch was about 6% at 15 months. The observed variation of triptan consumption at 3/6/9/12/15 months and the corresponding SD was -4.4 [8.2]/-5.2 [9.0]/-5.5 [9.2]/-5.4 [9.2]/-4.5 [10.0], respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient demographics reflect the place of these medications in therapy. Overall, findings seem to indicate a favorable tolerability and effectiveness profile. Further studies are warranted to better establish the long-term comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs compared to other preventive medications.

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.

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

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

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group".

RESULTS

Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as "good" quality and 13 studies were graded as "fair".

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

Galcanezumab for the treatment of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: Real-world clinical evidence in a severely impaired patient population

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody acting against the calcitonin gene-related peptide approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. The aim of this article is to explore its effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab in chronic migraine (CM) with medication overuse-headache (MOH).

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients were consecutively enrolled at the Modena headache center and followed up for 15 months. Visits were scheduled every 3 months, and the following variables were collected: the number of migraine days per month (MDM); the painkillers taken per month (PM); the number of days per month in which the patient took, at least, one painkiller; the six-item headache impact test; and the migraine disability assessment questionnaire (MIDAS) score. Demographic features of the analyzed sample were collected at the baseline and adverse events (AEs) were collected at every visit.

RESULTS

After 12 months, galcanezumab significantly reduced the MDM, the PM, the number of days on medication, the HIT-6 as well as the MIDAS scores (all p < .0001). The greatest amelioration was obtained in the first trimester of treatment. A higher MDM, a higher NRS score at the baseline, and a higher number of failed preventive treatments negatively predict the CM relief at the year of treatment. No serious AEs were registered and only one drop-out was due to AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab is effective and safe for the treatment of patients affected by CM and MOH. Patients with a higher impairment at the baseline may found less benefits with galcanezumab.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

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

Switching anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in multi-assessed non-responder patients and implications for ineffectiveness criteria: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A pharmacological class effect was initially proposed for monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway. However, preliminary evidence shows that switching patients who were non-responding to one monoclonal antibody to another could provide some benefit. Herein, we assess treatment response to an anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/receptor monoclonal antibody in patients who have failed to respond to anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies and vice versa. In addition, we select non-responders to the first anti- monoclonal antibody by three or five more stringent variables.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including outpatients treated consecutively with two anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies. Ineffectiveness to the first monoclonal antibody was assessed using three (MIDAS score, monthly headache days, and analgesic monthly days) variables or five (monthly headache days, MIDAS score, analgesic monthly days, analgesic monthly number and HIT-6 score) variables in the same cohort of patients. The primary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in monthly headache days, response rate, and persistence in medication overuse at three months of treatment with the second anti-CGRP mAb.

RESULTS

In patients selected by three variables, a sustained reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, MIDAS and HIT-6 scores was observed at month-3 of treatment with the second monoclonal antibody. Ten (45.4%) patients achieved at least a ≥30% response rate. No difference was reported switching anti-CGRP mAb against ligand or receptor. In the patient subgroup selected by five variables, only HIT-6 was reduced from baseline at month-3. However, a trend toward a reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, and MIDAS score was observed at month-3.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies in selected patients might be an option to achieve or improve clinical benefit. More studies are required to establish the effectiveness of switching these treatments.

CGRP physiology, pharmacology, and therapeutic targets: migraine and beyond

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide with diverse physiological functions. Its two isoforms (α and β) are widely expressed throughout the body in sensory neurons as well as in other cell types, such as motor neurons and neuroendocrine cells. CGRP acts via at least two G protein-coupled receptors that form unusual complexes with receptor activity-modifying proteins. These are the CGRP receptor and the AMY1 receptor; in rodents, additional receptors come into play. Although CGRP is known to produce many effects, the precise molecular identity of the receptor(s) that mediates CGRP effects is seldom clear. Despite the many enigmas still in CGRP biology, therapeutics that target the CGRP axis to treat or prevent migraine are a bench-to-bedside success story. This review provides a contextual background on the regulation and sites of CGRP expression and CGRP receptor pharmacology. The physiological actions of CGRP in the nervous system are discussed, along with updates on CGRP actions in the cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, immune, hematopoietic, and reproductive systems and metabolic effects of CGRP in muscle and adipose tissues. We cover how CGRP in these systems is associated with disease states, most notably migraine. In this context, we discuss how CGRP actions in both the peripheral and central nervous systems provide a basis for therapeutic targeting of CGRP in migraine. Finally, we highlight potentially fertile ground for the development of additional therapeutics and combinatorial strategies that could be designed to modulate CGRP signaling for migraine and other diseases.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

DISCUSSION

Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Erenumab in Patients with Migraine: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several studies on use of erenumab for migraine treatment have been published over recent years. However, its long-term safety and effectiveness have not been consistently established in the literature yet. We aimed to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the long-term safety and effectiveness of erenumab for the treatment of migraine headaches.

METHODS

Long-term follow-up was defined as ≥ 1 year. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to 14 June 2022 for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies, comprising 3574 patients, were included. The total follow-up period ranged from 48 to 268 weeks (i.e., 1 year to 5.6 years). Pooled estimate rates for all adverse events (AEs) were 63% (95% CI 46-78); for serious AEs, 3% (95% CI 1-7); and for AEs leading to discontinuation of erenumab, 3% (95% CI 2-5). Reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) was -6.98 (95% CI -8.90 to -5.05) and in migraine-specific medication days (MSMDs) was - 6.09 (95% CI - 9.43 to - 2.75). More than half (57%; 95% CI 51-63) and around one-third (35%; 95% CI 28-42) of patients presented with reductions of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% in MMDs, respectively. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score was decreased by -9.68 points (95% CI - 12.03 to - 7.34). Nine studies were considered of poor methodological quality and five of fair quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab has a favorable safety profile, with a low incidence of serious AEs, and sustained efficacy over ≥1 year of follow-up in the treatment of migraine.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Monoclonal Antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review of Real-World Data

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of real-world outcomes for anti-CGRP-mAbs.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed for real-world data of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or eptinezumab in patients with migraines.

RESULTS

We identified 134 publications (89 retrospective), comprising 10 pharmaco-epidemiologic and 83 clinic-based studies, 38 case reports, and 3 other articles. None of the clinic-based studies provided follow-up data over more than one year in more than 200 patients. Findings suggest that there are reductions in health insurance claims and days with sick-leave as well as better treatment adherence with anti-CGRP-mAbs. Effectiveness, reported in 77 clinic-based studies, was comparable to randomized controlled trials. A treatment pause was associated with an increase in migraine frequency, and switching to another antibody resulted in a better response in some of the patients. Adverse events and safety issues were addressed in 86 papers, including 24 single case reports.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data on anti-CGRP-mAbs are limited by retrospective data collection, small patient numbers, and short follow-up periods. The majority of papers seem to support good effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP-mAbs in the real-world setting. There is an unmet need for large prospective real-world studies providing long-term follow-ups of patients treated with anti-CGRP-mAbs.

Does MIDAS reduction at 3 months predict the outcome of erenumab treatment? A real-world, open-label trial

Background

In Italy, monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are subsidized for the preventive treatment of high frequency and chronic migraine (CM) in patients with a MIgraine Disability ASsessment (MIDAS) score ≥ 11. Eligibility to treatment continuation requires a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at three months (T3). In this study, we evaluate whether a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at T3 is a reliable predictor of response to one-year erenumab treatment.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, real-world study, 77 CM patients were treated with erenumab 70–140 mg s.c. every 28 days for one year (T13). We collected the following variables: monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly headache days (MHDs), days of acute medication intake, MIDAS, HIT-6, anxiety, depression, quality of life and allodynia. Response to erenumab was evaluated as: i) average reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment period; and ii) percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs during the last 4 weeks after the 13th injection (RespondersT13).

Results

Erenumab induced a sustained reduction in MMDs, MHDs and intake of acute medications across the 12-month treatment period, with 64.9% of patients qualifying as RespondersT13. At T3, 55.8% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score (MIDASRes) and 55.4% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs (MMDRes). MIDASRes and MMDRes patients showed a more pronounced reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment as compared to NON-MIDASRes (MIDASRes: T0: 23.5 ± 4.9 vs. T13: 7.7 ± 6.2; NON- MIDASRes: T0: 21.6 ± 5.4 vs. T13: 11.3 ± 8.8, p = 0.045) and NON-MMDRes (MMDRes: T0: 23.0 ± 4.5 vs. T13: 6.6 ± 4.8; NON-MMDRes: T0: 22.3 ± 6.0 vs. T13: 12.7 ± 9.2, p < 0.001) groups. The percentage of RespondersT13 did not differ between MIDASRes (74.4%) and NON-MIDASRes (52.9%) patients (p = 0.058), while the percentage of RespondersT13 was higher in the MMDRes group (83.3%) when compared to NON-MMDRes (42.9%) (p = 0.001). MMDRes predicted the long-term outcome according to a multivariate analysis (Exp(B) = 7.128; p = 0.001), while MIDASRes did not. Treatment discontinuation based on MIDASRes would have early excluded 36.0% of RespondersT13. Discontinuation based on “either MIDASResor MMDRes” would have excluded a lower percentage (16%) of RespondersT13.

Conclusion

MIDASRes only partly reflects the 12-month outcome of erenumab treatment in CM, as it excludes more than one third of responders. A criterion based on the alternative consideration of ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score or MMDs in the first three months of treatment represents a more precise and inclusive option.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05442008).

Graphical Abstract

CGRP: Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide. MIDAS: MIgraine Disability Assessment. MMDs: monthly migraine days. MIDASRes: Patients with a MIDAS score reduction of at least 50% at T3. MMDRes: Patients with a MMDs reduction of at least 50% at T3. ResponderT13: Patients with a MMDs reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the last 4 weeks of observation period (after 13 erenumab administrations). T0: First erenumab administration. T3, T6, T9, T12: Follow-up visits at three, six, nine, and twelve months after first erenumab administration. T13: Last visit of the protocol.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Real-world evidence following a mandatory treatment break after a 1-year prophylactic treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide (pathway) monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

Current German and European guidelines suggest migraine patients undertake a treatment break after 9 to 12 months of treatment with CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

Clinical routine data of highly resistant migraine patients were analyzed before treatment with CGRP monoclonal antibodies (baseline), after 12 months of treatment, and following a treatment break between November 2018 and December 2020 in the West German Headache Centre, University Hospital Essen, Germany. Monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), and days of acute medication intake (AMD) were assessed.

RESULTS

Complete clinical data from 46 migraine patients (14 episodic migraine (EM), 32 chronic migraine (CM) patients) treated with erenumab (n = 40), galcanezumab (n = 4), and fremanezumab (n = 2) were analyzed. The mean number of MMDs among EM and CM patients after 12 months of CGRP antibody treatment increased during the treatment break by 5.18 (SE 0.92, p < .001) and 5.06 (SE 1.22, p = .003) days, respectively. There was an increased intake of acute medications among episodic (4.72, SE 0.87, p = .004) and chronic migraine patients (3.01, SE 1.08, p = .013) during treatment break. Eighty-three percent of patients (n = 38) were dissatisfied with the mandatory treatment break. All patients continued with a CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibody after the mandatory treatment break.

CONCLUSION

A mandatory break in CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibody therapy had a negative short-term impact on migraine patients.

Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine in patients treated with galcanezumab in real life in Italy: the 12-month observational, longitudinal, cohort multicenter GARLIT experience

Objective

To investigate in real-life the conversion from chronic migraine (CM) to episodic migraine (EM), specifically to EM with High-Frequency (HFEM: 8–14 monthly migraine days, MMDs), Medium-Frequency (MFEM, 4–7 MMDs), and Low-Frequency EM (LFEM, 0–3 MMDs), and its persistence during 1 year of treatment with galcanezumab.

Methods

Consecutive CM patients treated with galcanezumab completing 1 year of observation were enrolled. We collected data on MMDs, pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS score), and monthly acute medication intake (MAMI) from baseline (V1) to the 12-month visit (V12).

Results

Of the 155 enrolled patients, 116 (around 75%) reverted to EM at every visit and 81 (52.3%) for the entire 1-year treatment. Patients with older onset age (p = 0.010) and fewer baseline MMDs (p = 0.005) reverted more frequently to EM. At V12, 83 participants (53.5%) presented MFEM or LFEM. Patients reverted to MFEM or LFEM for 7 months (25th 1, 75th 11). The medication overuse discontinuation rate at V12 was 82.8% and occurred for 11 months (25th 8, 75th 12). From baseline to V12, the MAMI decreased by 17 symptomatic drugs (p < 0.000001) while the NRS score reduced by almost 2 points (p < 0.000001). A consistent transition to EM for the entire treatment year was observed in 81 (52.3%) patients.

Discussion

The 1-year GARLIT experience suggests that more than half of CM patients treated with galcanezumab persistently reverted to EM in real life.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04803513.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11226-4.

Treatment of resistant chronic migraine with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Resistant chronic migraine is a highly disabling condition which is very difficult to treat. The majority of the treatments for migraine prophylaxis are nonspecific and present weak safety profiles, leading to low adherence and discontinuation. Currently, monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the trigeminal sensory neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), are available for migraine prophylaxis being the first drugs developed specifically to target migraine pathogenesis. The main objective of the current work is to carry out a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that specifically analyse the effectivity and safety of anti-CGRP mAb, comparatively to placebo, in patients with resistant chronic migraine and possibly fill the literature gap or be a source of information to health professionals. Additionally the current knowledge on migraine, particularly resistant chronic migraine, was revisited and summarised.

METHODS

Literature search was carried out on MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct and ClinicalTrials.gov database, from inception to December 2021. Articles were selected according to prespecified criteria of inclusion and exclusion. Efficacy and safety outcomes included were: change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD); ≥50% reduction of MMD values from baseline; change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MAMD); Migraine-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ); and registered adverse events. Additionally, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in this systematic review, involving 2811 resistant chronic migraine patients, 667 in a study using erenumab, 838 in a study using fremanezumab and 1306 in two studies using galcanezumab. When compared to placebo, all investigated anti-CGRP mAb and respective doses demonstrate effectiveness in decreasing MMD, reducing acute medication use and improving the MSQ scores, including, sometimes, reversion of chronic to episodic migraine (efficacy outcomes). Regarding the safety outcomes, the number and type of adverse events did not differ between anti-CGRP mAb-treated and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP or anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies are a promising preventive migraine therapy which can be particularly useful for resistant chronic migraine patients.

The monoclonal CGRP-receptor blocking antibody erenumab has different effects on brainstem and cortical sensory-evoked responses

Objectives

It is unclear whether the electrophysiological effects of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, occur only at the periphery of the trigeminal system or centrally and at the cortical level.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 20 patients with migraine who had failed at least two preventative treatments. We measured the nociceptive blink reflex and non-noxious somatosensory evoked potentials in all participants. The area under the curve and habituation of the second polysynaptic nociceptive blink reflex component (R2) as well as the amplitude and habituation of somatosensory evoked potentials N20-P25 were measured. Electrophysiological data were collected at baseline (T0), 28 days (T1), and 56 days (T2) before each injection of erenumab (70 mg).

Results

Erenumab reduced the patients’ mean monthly headache days, headache intensity, and acute medication intake considerably at T1 and T2 (all p < 0.05). The nociceptive blink reflex area under the curve was considerably lower at T1 and T2 than at baseline without changing the habituation slope. At T2, there was a significant increase in the delayed somatosensory evoked potentials amplitude reduction (habituation) but not in the initial cortical activation.

Conclusion

Our findings showed that erenumab, in addition to its well-known peripheral effects, can induce central effects earlier in the brainstem and later in the cortex. We cannot rule out whether these results are due to a direct effect of erenumab on the central nervous system or an indirect effect secondary to peripheral drug modulation.

Brazilian descriptive study of 104 consecutive real-world migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling and prevalent neurological disorder. A peptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, was identified as involved in migraine pathophysiology and monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies have been developed.

AIM

To describe the clinical characteristics and therapeutic response of migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies.

METHOD

An observational, prospective, uncontrolled and descriptive study was carried out with a sample of 112 consecutive patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with monoclonal antibodies. Eight patients did not return for the following medical consultation. They were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were described. There was a predominance of episodic migraine. Before treatment, the average frequency of headache was 15.3±8.5 days per month, during the previous three months. Monoclonal antibodies were prescribed at the following frequency: erenumab (49%), galcanezumab (45.2%), and fremanezumab (5.8%). After the third month, the reduction in headache attacks was greater than 50% in 57.7% of patients. Adverse events were referred by 18.3% of patients, in this order of frequency: constipation (7.7%), insomnia (2.9%), vertigo (1.9%), erythema at the injection site (1.9%), arthralgia (1%), nasopharyngitis (1%), facial and hand edema (1%), irritation at the injection site (1%), and paresthesia at the injection site (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This described analysis of migraine patients who used monoclonal antibodies presented one of the first Brazilian experiences with real-world patients. Our results may enlighten clinicians on the outcomes and ways of prescribing anti-CGRP antibodies.

Novel Migraine Therapies May Reduce Public and Personal Disadvantages for People with Migraine

The introduction of new drug classes for migraine, such as monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor and small-molecule antagonists of CGRP, have opened a new scenario in a large population of individuals suffering from migraines. The provision of an effective and safe therapy can help overcome the high social and personal costs together with the burden of this disease by offering social, work and economic recovery to the people affected by migraine. Whether the satisfaction of personal and collective unmet needs will be achieved in the vast majority of migraine sufferers now depends only on the efficiency of the organizational care structures dedicated to this socially impactful disease. This path will offer personal benefits and significant psychosocial relief that will help to reduce the enormous current healthcare expenditure necessary for the management of the huge number of individuals suffering from migraines. The new pharmacological classes for prevention must be applied as an interdiction to the chronic phase to express their full rehabilitation potential.

Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience

Background

Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption.

Methods

Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period.

Results

This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life.

Conclusions

Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.