In search of a gold standard patient-reported outcome measure to use in the evaluation and treatment-decision making in migraine prevention. A real-world evidence study

Review on the Burden of Episodic Migraine and Utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine affects a large portion of the world's population. Migraine encompasses a broad range of symptoms, with broad reaching ramifications in the form of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) factors. In our review we sought to understand the aspects encompassing the burden of disease on both an individual and population level. Furthermore, we reviewed the development and incorporation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), questionnaires that assess HRQoL in real time, in how they have been incorporated in clinical research up to now and how they can be utilized in clinical practice moving forward.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has been shown that there is much heterogeneity within the field in PROM development processes as well as their utilization in episodic migraine (EM) clinical trials. Furthermore, they are inconsistently used in clinical practice. Among the most commonly used PROMs, the MSQv2.1 is among the most valid and reliable. Beyond that, it also shows promise to help in guidance of clinical management of migraine.

Effectiveness of galcanezumab on sleep quality, migraine outcome, and multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures: a real-world experience in Turkish patients with episodic and chronic migraine

Introduction

This real-world study aimed to investigate the impact of galcanezumab on sleep quality, migraine outcome and multidimensional patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).

Methods

Fifty-four patients with episodic migraine (n = 24) or chronic migraine (n = 30) received a 3-month series of galcanezumab injections and were evaluated for sleep quality, measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), as well as migraine outcomes such as monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), and headache severity. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), SF-36 Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were additionally included in the assessment.

Results

The percentage of patients with poor sleep quality (total PSQI scores ≥ 5) was 72.7% at baseline, decreasing to 57.5% and 56.2% at the 1st and 2nd months, respectively. By the 3rd month of galcanezumab injections, significant improvement was observed in the sleep disturbances domain in the overall study population (p = 0.016), and in subgroups of patients with low anxiety levels (p = 0.016) and none/minimal depression (p = 0.035) at baseline. Patients with sleep disorder at baseline exhibited marked improvements in total PSQI scores (p = 0.027) and in the subjective sleep quality (p = 0.034) and daytime dysfunction (p = 0.013) domains, by the 3rd month. Over the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd months, there were significant improvements in MHDs (p < 0.001), MMDs (p < 0.001), HIT-6 scores (p < 0.001 for each), BAI scores (p < 0.001 for each), BDI scores (p ranged from 0.048 to <0.001), and HRQoL scores (p ranged from 0.012 to <0.001).

Conclusion

Galcanezumab demonstrates notable benefits in improving sleep quality, along with a comorbidity-based and domain-specific effect on sleep parameters, which involved sleep disturbances domain in patients without depression or anxiety at baseline but the total PSQI scores, subjective sleep quality and daytime dysfunction in those with sleep disorder at baseline. The treatment also facilitates rapid-onset enhancements in migraine outcomes as well as various PROMs.

The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs.

SUMMARY

The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.

Objective

To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

Results

A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

Impact of monthly headache days on migraine-related quality of life: Results from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the direct impact of monthly headache days (MHDs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with migraine and the potential mediating effects of anxiety, depression, and allodynia.

BACKGROUND

Although the general relationship between increased migraine frequency (i.e., MHDs) and reduced HRQoL is well established, the degree to which reduced HRQoL is due to a direct effect of increased MHDs or attributable to mediating factors remains uncertain.

METHODS

Cross-sectional baseline data from participants with migraine who completed the Core and Comorbidities/Endophenotypes modules in the 2012-2013 US Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a longitudinal web-based survey study, were analyzed. The potential contribution of depression, anxiety, and/or allodynia to the observed effects of MHDs on HRQoL as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 12,715 respondents were included in the analyses. The MSQ domain scores demonstrated progressive declines with increasing MHD categories (B = -1.23 to -0.60; p < 0.001). The observed HRQoL decrements associated with increasing MHDs were partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. The MHD values predicted 24.0%-32.4% of the observed variation in the MSQ domains. Depression mediated 15.2%-24.3%, allodynia mediated 9.6%-16.1%, and anxiety mediated 2.3%-6.0% of the observed MHD effects on the MSQ.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased MHD values were associated with lower MSQ scores; the impact of MHDs on the MSQ domain scores was partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. MHDs remain the predominant driver of the MSQ variation; moreover, most of the variation in the MSQ remains unexplained by the variables we analyzed. Future longitudinal analyses and studies may help clarify the contribution of MHDs, comorbidities, and other factors to changes in HRQoL.

Improved quality of life with fremanezumab in Japanese and Korean patients with episodic and chronic migraine: Results of two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate quality of life (QoL) endpoints from two 12-week trials investigating fremanezumab efficacy and safety in Japanese/Korean patients with chronic (CM) or episodic (EM) migraine.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a leading cause of disability and affects QoL considerably, interfering with work and daily activities, social and family life, and emotional wellbeing.

METHODS

This planned exploratory analysis used data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which Migraine-Specific QoL (MSQoL; Role Function-Restrictive [RR], Role Function-Preventive [RP], and Emotional Function [EF] domains) scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores were pre-specified QoL outcomes in individuals receiving monthly or quarterly fremanezumab or placebo. In both trials, MSQoL was assessed at baseline, and MSQoL and PGIC at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. PGIC responders had a score of ≥5 points, indicating significant improvement.

RESULTS

Mean baseline MSQoL scores were similar across groups in both CM (N = 565; RR, 60.3-61.5; RP, 78.5-80.0; EF, 69.0-71.4) and EM (N = 353; RR, 68.6-71.1; RP, 83.1-85.7; EF, 76.7-81.9) trials. In the CM trial, all three MSQoL domains improved in both fremanezumab groups at 12 weeks compared with placebo: least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) change from baseline, p versus placebo (quarterly; monthly; placebo): RR 14.9 (1.3), p = 0.030; 15.1 (1.4), p = 0.020; 11.6 (1.3); RP 8.9 (1.1), p = 0.007; 8.6 (1.1), p = 0.013; 5.4 (1.1); EF 13.3 (1.5), p < 0.001; 12.5 (1.5), p = 0.003; 7.5 (1.5). In the EM trial, RR/EF domains improved in both fremanezumab groups compared with placebo: LSM change from baseline, p versus placebo (quarterly; monthly; placebo): RR 16.3 (1.4), p = 0.003; 16.4 (1.3), p = 0.002; 11.6 (1.4); EF 13.0 (1.3), p < 0.001; 11.5 (1.2), p = 0.004; 7.4 (1.3); RP improved in the quarterly group RP 8.6 (1.1), p = 0.010; 7.6 (1.1), p = 0.066; 5.4 (1.1). The proportion of PGIC responders at Week 12 was greater in the monthly and quarterly fremanezumab groups compared with the placebo group in the CM (96/182 [52.7%] and 98/180 [54.4%] vs. 68/179 [38.0%]; p < 0.05) and EM trial (81/118 [68.6%] and 86/113 [76.1%] vs. 38/111 [34.2%]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with EM/CM receiving monthly or quarterly fremanezumab, for a duration of 12 weeks, showed significant improvements in their QoL.

Improving to Four or Fewer Monthly Headache Days Per Month Provides a Clinically Meaningful Therapeutic Target for Patients with Chronic Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Treatment target goals for patients receiving preventive migraine treatment are complicated to assess and not achieved by most patients. A headache "number" could establish an understandable treatment target goal for patients with chronic migraine (CM). This study investigates the clinical impact of reduced headache frequency to ≤ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) as a treatment-related migraine prevention target goal.

METHODS

All treatment arms were pooled for analysis from the PROMISE-2 trial evaluating eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of CM. Patients (N = 1072) received eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo. Data for the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and acute medication use days were combined for all post-baseline assessments and analyzed by MHD frequency (≤ 4, 5-9, 10-15, > 15) in the 4 weeks preceding assessment.

RESULTS

Based on pooled data, the percentage of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs associated with "very much improved" PGIC was 40.9% (515/1258) versus 22.9% (324/1415), 10.4% (158/1517), and 3.2% (62/1936) of patient-months with 5-9, 10-15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively. Rates of patient-months with ≥ 10 days of acute medication use were 1.9% (21/1111, ≤ 4 MHDs), 4.9% (63/1267, 5-9 MHDs), 49.5% (670/1351, 10-15 MHDs), and 74.1% (1232/1662, > 15 MHDs). Of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs, 37.1% (308/830) were associated with "little to none" HIT-6 impairment versus 19.9% (187/940), 10.1% (101/999), and 3.7% (49/1311) of patient-months with 5-9, 10-15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Participants improving to ≤ 4 MHDs reported less acute medication use and improved patient-reported outcomes, suggesting that 4 MHDs may be a useful patient-centric treatment target when treating CM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02974153) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02974153 ).

Effectiveness of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in the Prevention of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by episodes of moderate-to-severe headache. The emergence of drugs derived from monoclonal antibodies specific for the calcitonin gene has brought forth a therapeutic option for patients in whom the traditional treatments have failed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies in the prevention of migraine through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.

METHODS

A literature search for evidence was performed in electronic databases for observational studies that evaluated adult patients with migraine receiving calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (e.g. erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab) and reported effectiveness outcomes (mean reduction in monthly migraine/headache days, and proportion of patients with 50% or greater reduction in migraine/headache days).

RESULTS

During the screening process, 47 records were included for data extraction and qualitative and quantitative analyses. The overall rate of patients with a reduction of at least 50% of mean monthly migraine days was 54% (95% CI 49-59%), and overall mean monthly migraine reduction was about 7.7 days (95% CI 8.4-7.0 days). Regarding the outcome ≥ 50% reduction in mean monthly headache reduction, the overall rate of patients with a reduction of at least 50% was 57% (95% CI 48-64%), and the overall mean monthly headache reduction was approximately 8.8 days (95% CI 10.1-7.5 days). Subgroup analyses considering the drug treatment used and type of migraine were consistent with previous results.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies in real-world studies to prevent migraine demonstrates promising effectiveness outcomes, in agreement with those reported in previously published randomized clinical trial reports.

Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine accompanying symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of basal accompanying symptoms on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies treatment response and their evolution after six months of treatment in migraine patients.

METHODS

Patients with migraine diagnosis seen in the Headache Clinic and treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab were prospectively recruited. They completed a daily eDiary which provided data on headache frequency and the following accompanying symptoms of each day: photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on 50% or greater reduction in headache days per month at month 6 (≥50% response rate). Accompanying symptoms ratios based on headache days per month were assessed per patient at baseline and after three and six months. Comparisons for basal characteristics, basal accompanying symptoms ratios and their evolution after six months between responders and non-responders were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included, 44% (69/158) showed ≥50% response rate after six months. A significant reduction in headache days per month in both groups was found at month 6 (-9.4 days/month in ≥50% response rate group; p < 0.001, -2.2 days/month in <50% response rate group; p = 0.004). Additionally, significant decreases in photophobia (-19.5%, p < 0.001), phonophobia (-12.1%, p = 0.010) and aura ratios (-25.1%, p = 0.008) were found in ≥50% response rate group. No statistically significant reductions were found in nausea and dizziness in any group since their reduction was correlated with the decrease in headache days per month. Higher photophobia ratios at baseline were predictive of an increased response between months 3 and 6 (Incidence Risk Ratio = 0.928, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

The days per month with photophobia, phonophobia and aura decreased at a higher rate than headache days per month after six months in the ≥50% response group. Higher photophobia ratios were associated with higher response rates between three and six months. It could indicate an involvement of peripheral CGRP in photophobia as well as a central modulation of migraine through these treatments which mainly act on the periphery.

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.

The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.

CONCLUSION

Placebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.

The use of clinical scales and PROMs in headache disorders and migraine, summarizing their dissemination and operationalization

Measurements are an essential aspect of scientific research. This review will present clinical scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for headache disorders and migraine that have been endorsed by the International Headache Society (IHS) and are intended for use by both physicians and researchers. A clinical scale is a tool to assess a patient's condition or symptoms in a standardized and quantifiable way. Clinical scales are often used in research settings and can be used to track a patient's progress over time, monitor the effectiveness of treatment, and make decisions. They can be self-administered or completed by a healthcare professional. PROMs are tools used to evaluate a patient's health status, symptoms, and quality of life. These measures are completed by the patient and provide valuable information about the patient's perspective and experience of their condition. PROMs are increasingly used in clinical practice and research to improve patient-centered care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. This review also briefly covers the creation process, testing for reliability and validity, and interpreting the results of the use of clinical scales and PROMs in clinical and research settings in headache disorders. The first step in creating a clinical scale or PROM is to define the purpose of the scale and the population it is intended to assess. The next step is to identify the domains or areas that the scale will assess. Then, the items or questions that will be included in the scale need to be developed. These items should be relevant to the defined purpose and population of the scale and should be worded clearly and concisely. After the items have been developed, the scale or PROM can be administered to a sample of individuals in the target population. This allows researchers to assess the reliability and validity of the scale or PROM, as well as to make any necessary revisions.

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.

Effect of switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand antibody treatment in migraine: A real-world cohort study

Background

Therapeutic options for migraine prevention in non-responders to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and its receptor are often limited. Real-world data have shown that non-responders to the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab may benefit from switching to a CGRP ligand mAb. However, it remains unclear whether, vice versa, erenumab is effective in non-responders to CGRP ligand mAbs. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of erenumab in patients who have previously failed a CGRP ligand mAb.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective cohort study included patients with episodic or chronic migraine in whom a non-response (< 30% reduction of monthly headache days during month 3 of treatment compared to baseline) to the CGRP ligand mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab led to a switch to erenumab, and who had received at least 3 administrations of erenumab. Monthly headache days were retrieved from headache diaries to assess the ≥30% responder rates and the absolute reduction of monthly headache days at 3 and 6 months of treatment with erenumab in this cohort.

Results

From May 2019 to July 2022, we identified 20 patients who completed 3 months of treatment with erenumab after non-response to a CGRP ligand mAb. Fourteen patients continued treatment for ≥6 months. The ≥30% responder rate was 35% at 3 months, and 45% at 6 months of treatment with erenumab, respectively. Monthly headache days were reduced from 18.6 ± 5.9 during baseline by 4.1 ± 3.1 days during month 3, and by 7.0 ± 4.8 days during month 6 compared to the month before treatment with erenumab (p < 0.001, respectively). Responders and non-responders to erenumab did not differ with respect to demographic or headache characteristics.

Conclusion

Switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand mAb might be beneficial in a subgroup of resistant patients, with increasing responder rates after 6 months of treatment. Larger prospective studies should aim to predict which subgroup of patients benefit from a switch.

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.

Patient characteristics and treatment utilization among patients with migraine initiating self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody and novel acute medication

OBJECTIVE

This study describes patient characteristics and utilization of recently approved novel acute medication and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study utilized the IBM MarketScan Research Database and Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart from May 2017 through December 2020 (index period). Adult patients initiating self-injectable CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) and novel acute migraine medications (lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant) with: (a) ≥3 months overlap between the index medication and second medication initiated along with it; (b) ≥1 claim for migraine diagnosis; and (c) continuous medical and pharmacy benefits 12 months pre- and 3 months post-index were included. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 2840 patients from the MarketScan database and 657 patients from the Optum database were included. Identified patients' (MarketScan/Optum) mean age was 44.7/51.2 years; they were mostly women (88.8%/87.7%); a majority had a chronic migraine diagnosis (64.4%/71.4%) and were prescribed both preventive and acute treatments for migraine in the pre-index period. Most patients received a combination of both preventive and acute medications binding CGRP receptors (43.6%/59.0%) or preventive medication binding CGRP ligands and acute medication binding CGRP receptors (51.9%/34.9%). Mean (SD) number of days of concomitant use of CGRP and novel acute medications were: MarketScan, 29.1 (18.7); Optum, 31.8 (20.4). Prescribing patterns were similar across healthcare provider types within each database.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding patient characteristics and treatment utilization patterns among patients prescribed both a CGRP mAb and novel acute medication may provide valuable insight regarding migraine treatment selection for healthcare decision makers.

Atogepant for Migraine Prevention: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Atogepant is the latest calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist approved exclusively for prophylaxis of episodic migraine and is administered orally in doses of 10-60 mg/day. This article aims to provide a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of atogepant in migraine prevention.

METHODS

The literature was searched in different databases, i.e., the National Institute of Health clinical trials registry, PubMed, and the Cochrane library between 2018 to October 2021 using the keywords atogepant, MK-8031, and migraine. Conference abstracts listed in the Cochrane database (includes Embase) and drug information provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label were also reviewed. Only English-language clinical trials were included. The authors retrieved 58 articles. Eventually, two randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials involving 1,727 participants and one open-label trial were analyzed.

RESULTS

The FDA approved atogepant for migraine prevention in September 2021 based on two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Atogepant approved for migraine prevention acts as a CGRP receptor antagonist and is administered orally. Based on the 12-week clinical trials, atogepant was efficacious in prevention of migraine and it was well tolerated. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, constipation, and upper respiratory infection.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Atogepant had a statistically significant change from baseline in monthly migraine days, monthly headache days, and acute medication use days.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant seems to be beneficial for migraine prevention, and it may be of more benefit in individuals who do not wish to take the drug as an injection or do not require a prolonged duration of drug effect. However, head-to-head trials with other CGRP antagonists are required to ascertain its place in migraine prevention.