The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

These were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated.

RESULTS

In ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8-81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3-61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8-41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4.

CONCLUSION

Over 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

Evaluation of the concomitant use of prophylactic treatments in patients with migraine under anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide therapies: The PREVENAC study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies are recent preventive therapies approved for both episodic and chronic migraine. One of the measures of effectiveness is the withdrawal of other preventive treatments. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of anti-CGRP drugs in concomitant preventive treatment in patients with migraine.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter cohort study with patients from nine national headache units. Patients with migraine undergoing treatment for at least 6 months with anti-CGRP antibodies, who were initially associated with some preventive treatment (oral and/or onabotulinumtoxinA) were included. Demographic and clinical variables were collected, as well as variables related to headache. Differences according to withdrawal or nonwithdrawal were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were included, 86.52% women, 48.79 (SD = 1.46) years old. Preventive treatment was withdrawn in 43.87% (179/408), 20.83% partially and 23.04% totally. In 27.45% (112/408), it was maintained exclusively due to comorbidity and in 28.6% (117/408) due to partial efficacy. The most frequent time of withdrawal was between 3 and 5 months after the start of treatment. The baseline characteristics associated with nonwithdrawal were comorbidities: insomnia, hypertension and obesity, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. In the multivariate analysis, the absence of high blood pressure, a greater number of preventive treatments at the start, and a lower number of migraine days/month after anti-CGRP treatment were independently associated with withdrawal of the treatment (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP antibodies allow the withdrawal of associated preventive treatment in a significant percentage of patients, which supports its effectiveness in real-life conditions.

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.

RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

According to the latest European guidelines, discontinuation of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAb) may be considered after 12-18 months of treatment. However, some patients may worsen after discontinuation. In this study, we assessed the response following treatment resumption.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted in 14 Headache Units in Spain. We included patients with response to anti-CGRP MAb with clinical worsening after withdrawal and resumption of treatment. Numbers of monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly headache days (MHD) were obtained at four time points: before starting anti-CGRP MAb (T-baseline); last month of first treatment period (T-suspension); month of restart due to worsening (T-worsening); and 3 months after resumption (T-reintroduction). The response rate to resumption was calculated. Possible differences among periods were analysed according to MMD and MHD.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients, 82% women, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at migraine onset of 18 (12) years. The median (IQR) MHD at T-baseline was 20 (13) and MMD was 5 (6); at T-suspension, the median (IQR) MHD was 5 (6) and MMD was 4 (5); at T-worsening, the median (IQR) MHD was 16 (13) and MMD was 12 (6); and at T-reintroduction, the median (IQR) MHD was 8 (8) and MHD was 5 (5). In the second period of treatment, a 50% response rate was achieved by 57.4% of patients in MHD and 65.8% in MMD. Multivariate models showed significant differences in MHD between the third month after reintroduction and last month before suspension of first treatment period (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that anti-CGRP MAb therapy is effective after reintroduction. However, 3 months after resumption, one third of the sample reached the same improvement as after the first treatment period.

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.

Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis

Background

Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature.

Methodology

We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references.

Results

By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions.

Conclusion

Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine.

The effectiveness of agomelatine on headache severity and frequency in episodic migraine without aura; a parallel randomized controlled trial study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a headache disorder that affects public health and reduces the patient's quality of life. Preventive medication is necessary to prevent acute attacks and medication overuse headaches (MOH). Agomelatine is a melatonin antagonist.

AIMS

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of agomelatine on the severity and frequency of migraine attacks.

METHODS

The study is a parallel randomized controlled trial with two groups of intervention and control. 400 patients were evaluated. Eligible individuals, including those with episodic migraine headaches without aura between the ages of 18 and 60 years who did not receive preventive treatment beforehand, were enrolled. Also, patients did not receive any specific medications for other diseases. Among these, 100 people met the inclusion criteria and entered the study. These subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group received 25 mg of agomelatine daily and the control group received B1. In this study, the effect of agomelatine on the frequency and severity of attacks, mean monthly migraine days (MMD), and migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), were assessed. The study was triple-blind and after three months, a post-test was performed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were randomly assigned to either intervention or control groups. The prescriber physician and the data collector did not know about the allocation of patients to groups. Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the headache frequency per month (t=-0.182, df = 98, p = 0.85), mean MMD (p = 0.17), headache severity (p = 0.076), and MIDAS (p = 0.091). After the study, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the headache frequency per month (p = 0.009), and mean of MMD (p = 0.025). There was also a significant difference between pretest and posttest in two groups in the headache severity (p < 0.001) and MIDAS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Agomelatine can be used as a preventive medication for migraine without aura. It is suggested that agomelatine be studied in comparison with other preventive drugs for patients with migraine.

TRIAL RETROSPECTIVELY REGISTRATION

Trial Retrospectively registration= IRCT20230303057599N1. Date: 2023-5-24 The present study is a residency thesis approved by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

What to do with non-responders to CGRP(r) monoclonal antibodies: switch to another or move to gepants?

In this editorial we aim to provide potential therapeutic options in patients who do not benefit from treatment with CGRP(r) monoclonal antibodies. Based on current real-life studies and analysis of practical and economic aspects, we will analyze the potential benefits of changing CGRP-targeted treatment.

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.

Predictors of Response to Fremanezumab in Migraine Patients with at Least Three Previous Preventive Failures: Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Greek Registry

OBJECTIVE

To define, in a real-world population of patients with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM), the predictive role of socio-demographic or phenotypic profiling of responders to fremanezumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two-hundred and four adult fremanezumab-treated patients with either HFEM or CM, who failed to at least three preventive treatments, provided data at baseline on several individual socio-demographic and phenotypic variables. These variables were analyzed for their ability to independently predict the response (50-74% response rates) or super-response (≥ 75% response rates) to fremanezumab. Patients were followed from 3-18 months of fremanezumab exposure.

RESULTS

The main finding to emerge from univariate analyses was that three baseline socio-demographic/clinical variables, i.e., age group 41-70 years (p = 0.02); female gender (p = 0.03); patients with HFEM (p = 0.001), and three clinical phenotypic variables, i.e., strict unilateral pain (p = 0.05); pain in the ophthalmic trigeminal branch (p = 0.04); and the "imploding" quality of pain (p = 0.05), were significantly related to fremanezumab response. However, in multivariate analysis, only HFEM (p = 0.02), the presence of strict unilateral (p = 0.03), and pain location in the ophthalmic trigeminal branch (p = 0.036) were independently associated with good fremanezumab response. Allodynia (p = 0.04) was the only clinical predictive variable of super-responsiveness to fremanezumab.

CONCLUSIONS

A precise phenotypic profiling with identification of pain characteristics consistent with peripheral and/or central sensitization might reliably predict the responsiveness to fremanezumab in migraine prophylaxis.