Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience

Pituitary cyclase-activating polypeptide targeted treatments for the treatment of primary headache disorders

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a complex and disabling neurological disorder. Recent years have witnessed the development and emergence of novel treatments for the condition, namely those targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). However, there remains a substantial need for further treatments for those unresponsive to current therapies. Targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) as a possible therapeutic strategy in the primary headache disorders has gained interest over recent years.

METHODS

This review will summarize what we know about PACAP to date: its expression, receptors, roles in migraine and cluster headache biology, insights gained from preclinical and clinical models of migraine, and therapeutic scope.

RESULTS

PACAP shares homology with vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and is one of several vasoactive neuropeptides along with CGRP and VIP, which has been implicated in migraine neurobiology. PACAP is widely expressed in areas of interest in migraine pathophysiology, such as the thalamus, trigeminal nucleus caudalis, and sphenopalatine ganglion. Preclinical evidence suggests a role for PACAP in trigeminovascular sensitization, while clinical evidence shows ictal release of PACAP in migraine and intravenous infusion of PACAP triggering attacks in susceptible individuals. PACAP leads to dural vasodilatation and secondary central phenomena via its binding to different G-protein-coupled receptors, and intracellular downstream effects through cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and phosphokinase C (PKC). Targeting PACAP as a therapeutic strategy in headache has been explored using monoclonal antibodies developed against PACAP and against the PAC1 receptor, with initial positive results.

INTERPRETATION

Future clinical trials hold considerable promise for a new therapeutic approach using PACAP-targeted therapies in both migraine and cluster headache.

[Migraine and psychosomatic comorbidity]

As a common neurological disorder (10-15% of the population), migraine is associated with numerous comorbidities, particularly other pain syndromes, mental illnesses and functional disorders. These 'psychosomatic' comorbidities increase with migraine severity. Severely affected, comorbid patients also often have a poorer response to specific migraine therapy. Interestingly, migraine and the comorbidities mentioned have a number of common aetiological or facilitating factors, e.g. genetic factors, and show a higher incidence in women and in people with previous traumatic experiences, as well as (in the case of pain syndromes) signs of central sensitization. Another common feature is the association with current or chronic stress. We propose an extended diathesis-stress model that takes into account interrelated but individually different vulnerabilities and, depending on the stress experience, can depict both the occurrence of individual disorders (e.g. an isolated migraine) and the joint occurrence of migraine with other pain syndromes and other psychosomatic comorbidities. In summary, psychosomatic comorbidities should always be kept in mind in migraine therapy and, if necessary, treated early and multimodally.

Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies - insights from the German NeuroTransData registry

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice.

METHODS

This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches.

RESULTS

Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group.

CONCLUSION

Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup.

Induction of cGMP-mediated migraine attacks is independent of CGRP receptor activation

BACKGROUND

The cAMP and cGMP pathways are implicated in the initiation of migraine attacks, but their interactions remain unclear. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) triggers migraine attacks via cAMP, whereas the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil induces migraine attacks via cGMP. Our objective was to investigate whether sildenafil could induce migraine attacks in individuals with migraine pre-treated with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, adults with migraine without aura received a single subcutaneous injection of 140 mg erenumab on day 1. They were then randomized to receive sildenafil 100 mg or placebo on two experimental days, each separated by at least one week, between days 8 and 21. The primary endpoint was the difference in the incidence of migraine attacks between sildenafil and placebo during the 12-h observation period after administration.

RESULTS

In total, 16 participants completed the study. Ten participants (63%) experienced a migraine attack within 12 h after sildenafil administration compared to three (19%) after placebo (p = 0.016). The median headache intensity was higher after sildenafil than after placebo (area under the curve (AUC) for the 12-h observation period, p = 0.026). Furthermore, sildenafil induced a significant decrease in mean arterial blood pressure (AUC, p = 0.026) and a simultaneous increase in heart rate (AUC, p < 0.001) during the first hour after administration compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence that migraine induction via the cGMP pathway can occur even under CGRP receptor blockade.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT05889455.

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.

The transition of medication overuse status by acute medication categories in episodic or chronic migraine patients to non-overuse status after receiving anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), who were treated with anti-CGRP antibodies, showed a reversal from medication overuse (MO) or medication overuse headache (MOH) status at their baseline to non-overuse status. Furthermore, this study aimed to establish which acute headache medication (AHM) categories responded more effectively to anti-CGRP antibodies.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database for relevant studies from January 2013 to September 2023. We included phase three randomized controlled trials to examine the role of anti-CGRP antibodies in patients with EM or CM and their MO status. A meta-analysis was conducted to find the association between anti-CGRP antibodies and the number of EM and CM patients with MO or MOH at baseline that reverted to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded a total of 345 studies. After removing duplicates and screening with inclusion criteria, 5 studies fulfilled our conditions. Each study reviewed the response to changes in the MO status of patients after receiving anti-CGRP antibodies, including eptinezumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, compared to placebo. Our study analyzed three AHM categories: triptans, simple analgesics, and multiple drugs. The overall relative risk (RR) was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.31 to 1.59; p < 0.001). The RRs for triptans, simple analgesics, and multi-drug groups were 1.71 (95% CI, 1.53 to 1.91; p < 0.001), 1.10 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.47; p = 0.5), and 1.29 (95%CI 1.14 to 1.46; p < 0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis has shown that anti-CGRP antibodies were statistically significant in transitioning from MO or MOH status to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold (RR = 1.44) for all included studies and all AHM categories except for simple analgesics. Patients from the triptan group had the highest RR of 1.71 with a p-value < 0.001, while the simple analgesics group had an RR of 1.10, however, with a p-value > 0.05. Interestingly, this analysis can be interpreted as that anti-CGRP antibodies might not be effective in reducing simple analgesics use in EM or CM patients. Further studies are needed to investigate these matters.

Medication "underuse" headache

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification.

METHODS

Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication.

RESULTS

The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

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.

Real-world experience with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted antibodies for migraine prevention: a retrospective observational cohort study at two Japanese headache centers

BACKGROUND

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention.

Migraine Comorbidities

Novel knowledge about the interrelationships and reciprocal effects of migraine and epilepsy, migraine and mood disorders, or migraine and irritable bowel syndrome has emerged in recent decades. Over time, comorbid pathologies associated with migraine that share common physiopathological mechanisms were studied. Among these studied pathologies is epilepsy, a disorder with common ion channel dysfunctions as well as dysfunctions in glutamatergic transmission. A high degree of neuronal excitement and ion channel abnormalities are associated with epilepsy and migraine and antiepileptic drugs are useful in treating both disorders. The coexistence of epilepsy and migraine may occur independently in the same individual or the two may be causally connected. The relationship between cortical spreading depression (CSD) and epileptic foci has been suggested by basic and clinical neuroscience research. The most relevant psychiatric comorbidities associated with migraine are anxiety and mood disorders, which influence its clinical course, treatment response, and clinical outcome. The association between migraine and major depressive disorder can be explained by a robust molecular genetic background. In addition to its role as a potent vasodilator, CGRP is also involved in the transmission of nociception, a phenomenon inevitably linked with the stress and anxiety caused by frequent migraine attacks. Another aspect is the role of gut microbiome in migraine's pathology and the gut-brain axis involvement. Irritable bowel syndrome patients are more likely to suffer migraines, according to other studies. There is no precise explanation for how the gut microbiota contributes to neurological disorders in general and migraines in particular. This study aims to show that migraines and comorbid conditions, such as epilepsy, microbiota, or mood disorders, can be connected from the bench to the bedside. It is likely that these comorbid migraine conditions with common pathophysiological mechanisms will have a significant impact on best treatment choices and may provide clues for future treatment options.

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.

Metabolic and toxicological considerations regarding CGRP mAbs and CGRP antagonists to treat migraine in COVID-19 patients: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Migraine pharmacological therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), including monoclonal antibodies and gepants, have shown clinical effect and optimal tolerability. Interactions between treatments of COVID-19 and CGRP-related drugs have not been reviewed.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of CGRP, a description of the characteristics of each CGRP-related drug and its response predictors, COVID-19 and its treatment, the interactions between CGRP-related drugs and COVID-19 treatment, COVID-19 and vaccination-induced headache, and the neurological consequences of Covid-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinicians should be careful about using gepants for COVID-19 patients, due to the potential drug interactions with drugs metabolized via CYP3A4 cytochrome. In particular, COVID-19 treatment (especially nirmatrelvir packaged with ritonavir, as Paxlovid) should be considered cautiously. It is advisable to stop or adjust the dose (10 mg atogepant when used for episodic migraine) of gepants when using Paxlovid (except for zavegepant). CGRP moncolconal antibodies (CGRP-mAbs) do not have drug - drug interactions, but a few days' interval between a COVID-19 vaccination and the use of CGRP mAbs is recommended to allow the accurate identification of the possible adverse effects, such as injection site reaction. Covid-19- and vaccination-related headache are known to occur. Whether CGRP-related drugs would be of benefit in these circumstances is not yet known.

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

A total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

Breaking the cycle: unraveling the diagnostic, pathophysiological and treatment challenges of refractory migraine

Background

Refractory migraine is a poorly described complication of migraine in which migraine has chronified and become resistant to standard treatments. The true prevalence is unknown, but medication resistance is common in headache clinic patient populations. Given the lack of response to treatment, this patient population is extremely difficult to treat with limited guidance in the literature.

Objective

To review the diagnostic, pathophysiological, and management challenges in the refractory migraine population.

Discussion

There are no accepted, or even ICHD-3 appendix, diagnostic criteria for refractory migraine though several proposed criteria exist. Current proposed criteria often have low bars for refractoriness while also not meeting the needs of pediatrics, lower socioeconomic status, and developing nations. Pathophysiology is unknown but can be hypothesized as a persistent "on" state as a progression from chronic migraine with increasing central sensitization, but there may be heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology. No guidelines exist for treatment of refractory migraine; once all guideline-based treatments are tried, treatment consists of n-of-1 treatment trials paired with non-pharmacologic management.

Conclusion

Refractory migraine is poorly described diagnostically, its pathophysiology can only be guessed at by extension of chronic migraine, and treatment is more the art than science of medicine. Navigating care of this refractory population will require multidisciplinary care models and an emphasis on future research to answer these unknowns.

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.

Emerging experimental drugs in clinical trials for migraine: observations and key talking points

INTRODUCTION

There have been significant advances in the treatment of migraine. In response to the clinical success of monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, there is interest in the clinical trial outcomes of alternative emerging drugs that act on novel targets associated with migraine pathophysiology. As approximately 50% of patients do not respond to CGRP therapies, there is significant value in future drug innovation. Emerging drugs in clinical trials for the treatment of migraine aim to fill this need.

AREAS COVERED

The emerging drugs that will be discussed in this review include zavegepant, lasmiditan, delta opioid receptor agonists, neuronal nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) and its receptor, dual orexin receptor antagonists, metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonists, and inducers of ketosis.

EXPERT OPINION

When considering the preclinical and clinical research related to the emerging drug classes discussed in this review, most therapies are derived from highly supported targets of migraine pathogenesis. Although the individual drugs discussed in this review may be of dubious clinical value, the importance of the therapeutic targets on which they act cannot be understated. Future research is necessary to appropriately target the pathways elucidated by preclinical studies.

A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies: Predicting Response

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are increasingly being used as preventive treatments for migraine. Their effectiveness and safety were established through numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials and real-world studies, yet a significant proportion of patients do not respond to this treatment, and currently, there is a lack of accepted predictors of response to guide expectations, as data from studies so far are lacking and inconsistent. We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies reporting on predictors of response to CGRP and/or CGRP-receptor (CGRP-R) mAbs, defined as a 30% or 50% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at varying durations of follow-up. Quantitative synthesis was performed where applicable. We found 38 real-world studies that investigated the association between various predictors and response rates. Based on these studies, good response to triptans and unilateral pain with or without unilateral autonomic symptoms are predictors of a good response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Conversely, obesity, interictal allodynia, the presence of daily headaches, a higher number of non-successful previous prophylactic medications, and psychiatric comorbidities including depression are predictive of a poor response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Future studies should confirm these results and help to generate more tailored treatment strategies in patients with migraine.

Migraine and treatment-resistant depression

Migraine and major depressive disorders (MDD) or treatment resistant depression (TRD) represent a significant global burden and are often comorbid, further complicating diagnosis and treatment. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a bidirectional relationship between migraine and MDD/TRD, with patients suffering from one disorder exhibiting a heightened risk of developing the other. This association is believed to result from shared genetic factors, neurotransmitter dysregulation, inflammation, hormonal alteration, and other conditions comorbid with both disorders. Emerging evidence suggests that therapeutics targeting common pathways in both disorders may be beneficial for comorbid patients. Novel therapeutics for migraine or MDD/TRD, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting therapy, onabotulinumtoxinA, ketamine/esketamine, vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation, may be helpful in selected patients with comorbid migraine-MDD/TRD. Nevertheless, continued efforts are needed to improve early detection and intervention, to better understand the complex interplay between genetic, environmental, and psychosocial factors contributing to this comorbidity, to identify novel therapeutic targets, and ultimately, to alleviate the disease burden caused by this comorbidity.

Neurological and psychiatric comorbidities of migraine: Concepts and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

This narrative review aims to discuss several common neurological and psychiatric disorders that show comorbidity with migraine. Not only can we gain pathophysiological insights by studying these disorders, comorbidities also have important implications for treating migraine patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

A literature search on PubMed and Embase was conducted with the keywords "comorbidity", "migraine disorders", "migraine with aura", "migraine without aura", "depression", "depressive disorders", "epilepsy", "stroke", "patent foramen ovale", "sleep wake disorders", "restless legs syndrome", "genetics", "therapeutics".

RESULTS

Several common neurological and psychiatric disorders show comorbidity with migraine. Major depression and migraine show bidirectional causality and have shared genetic factors. Dysregulation of both hypothalamic and thalamic pathways have been implicated as a possibly cause. The increased risk of ischaemic stroke in migraine likely involves spreading depolarizations. Epilepsy is not only bidirectionally related to migraine, but is also co-occurring in monogenic migraine syndromes. Neuronal hyperexcitability is an important overlapping mechanism between these conditions. Hypothalamic dysfunction is suggested as the underlying mechanism for comorbidity between sleep disorders and migraine and might explain altered circadian timing in migraine.

CONCLUSION

These comorbid conditions in migraine with distinct pathophysiological mechanisms have important implications for best treatment choices and may provide clues for future approaches.