Failure of preventive treatments in migraine: an observational retrospective study in a tertiary headache center

Sex Differences in the Expression of Central Sensitization Symptoms in Migraine: An Observational Study

Background: Migraine is the fourth most common cause of disability in women and the eighth most common cause in men. Central sensitization phenomena predispose to chronic migraine and are generally more pronounced in women. Objective: The aim of this retrospective observational study was to look for sex differences in a population of migraine subjects attending a tertiary headache center, focusing on symptoms of central sensitization such as allodynia and pericranial tenderness. Methods: This study is based on data collected at a tertiary headache center between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022. The clinical interview included the main features of migraine, allodynia, a disability questionnaire, the pericranial tenderness score, and anxiety and depression scales. Results: We selected a total of 1,087 migraine subjects (233 men). Osmophobia predominated in women, as did nausea. Disability scores, headache intensity, allodynia, anxiety, and depression predominated in women, without menopausal age playing a role. The frequency of symptomatic medication use was similar in both sexes. Allodynia score was the largest discriminating factor between women and men. Conclusions: Women with migraine are more likely than men to report acute allodynia, nausea, and osmophobia and are also more likely to be anxious, depressed, and disabled. These features appear to be independent of fertile age and are probably related to sex-specific genetic characteristics. These symptoms represent a tendency toward sensory hypersensitivity and central sensitization that should be carefully assessed in both women and men with migraine with a view to possibly predicting chronic development.

The effectiveness and predictors influencing the outcome of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: understanding from diverse patient profiles in a single session

Objective

This real-world study aimed to investigate how onabotulinumtoxinA affects the outcome of migraine, along with accompanying anxiety, depression, and bruxism among a group of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and define predictors of good response.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with CM who received onabotulinumtoxinA were included in this single-center, real-world retrospective cohort study. Monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), headache intensity (numeric rating scale-NRS) and headache characteristics were evaluated at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores, 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Response to onabotulinumtoxinA (% reduction in MHDs) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were also evaluated. OnabotulinumA was applied to the masseter muscles in patients complaining of bruxism.

Results

A total of 72 patients (mean ± SD age: 36.3 ± 8.5 years; 91.7% were female) diagnosed with CM were included. OnabotulinumtoxinA revealed significant decrease in median (IQR) MHDs [from 20(15-25) at baseline to 6(4-10), p < 0.001], MMDs [from 9(6-12) to 3(1-6), p < 0.001] and NRS [from 9(8-10) to 7(6-8), p < 0.001], and the MIDAS [from 54(30-81) to 16(7-24), p < 0.001], HIT-6 [from 67(65-69) to 58(54-64), p < 0.001], ASC-12 [from 6(1.5-9) to 2(0-9), p = 0.002], BAI [from 12(6.5-19) to 9(3-17), p < 0.001] and BDI [from 11(6.5-17) to 3(2-7) p < 0.001] scores at 12 weeks post-treatment. Patients complaining of bruxism received onabotulinumtoxinA injections in the first n = 27 (37.5%) and 12. week post-treatment n = 19 (70.4%) periods. Overall, 70.8% of patients responded (≥50% reduction in MHDs), while 29.2% did not (<50% reduction). Both groups showed similar characteristics in demographics, migraine history, baseline PROMs scores, comorbidities, and prior treatments.

Conclusion

OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective treatment option that rapidly improves migraine outcomes, disability, and impact while also alleviating comorbid depression and/or anxiety. This study's noteworthy finding is that onabotulinumtoxinA is effective in a majority of CM patients, irrespective of their prior treatment history, migraine characteristics, or concurrent comorbidities. Furthermore, we identified no specific predictors for a favorable response to onabotulinumtoxinA. Applying onabotulinumtoxinA to the masseter muscles can relieve discomfort associated with concurrent bruxism; however, it does not impact migraine outcomes.

Neuroimmunological effects of omega-3 fatty acids on migraine: a review

Migraine is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, imposing enormous clinical and economic burdens on individuals and societies. Current treatments exhibit limited efficacy and acceptability, highlighting the need for more effective and safety prophylactic approaches, including the use of nutraceuticals for migraine treatment. Migraine involves interactions within the central and peripheral nervous systems, with significant activation and sensitization of the trigeminovascular system (TVS) in pain generation and transmission. The condition is influenced by genetic predispositions and environmental factors, leading to altered sensory processing. The neuroinflammatory response is increasingly recognized as a key event underpinning the pathophysiology of migraine, involving a complex neuro-glio-vascular interplay. This interplay is partially mediated by neuropeptides such as calcitonin gene receptor peptide (CGRP), pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP) and/or cortical spreading depression (CSD) and involves oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor family pyrin domain containing-3 (NLRP3) inflammasome formation, activated microglia, and reactive astrocytes. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), crucial for the nervous system, mediate various physiological functions. Omega-3 PUFAs offer cardiovascular, neurological, and psychiatric benefits due to their potent anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive, antioxidant, and neuromodulatory properties, which modulate neuroinflammation, neurogenic inflammation, pain transmission, enhance mitochondrial stability, and mood regulation. Moreover, specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs), a class of PUFA-derived lipid mediators, regulate pro-inflammatory and resolution pathways, playing significant anti-inflammatory and neurological roles, which in turn may be beneficial in alleviating the symptomatology of migraine. Omega-3 PUFAs impact various neurobiological pathways and have demonstrated a lack of major adverse events, underscoring their multifaceted approach and safety in migraine management. Although not all omega-3 PUFAs trials have shown beneficial in reducing the symptomatology of migraine, further research is needed to fully establish their clinical efficacy and understand the precise molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of omega-3 PUFAs and PUFA-derived lipid mediators, SPMs on migraine pathophysiology and progression. This review highlights their potential in modulating brain functions, such as neuroimmunological effects, and suggests their promise as candidates for effective migraine prophylaxis.

New drugs targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide for the management of migraines

INTRODUCTION

Significant advances in migraine research have contributed to the development of new drugs for the treatment of migraine. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) or its receptor and CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) have been associated with a good safety profile and resulted in an overall efficacy in reducing the number of monthly migraine days both in episodic and chronic forms of migraine.

AREAS COVERED

The results from main investigation studies (phase 2 or 3) of CGRP-targeting drugs (both anti-CGRP mAbs and gepants) are reported in this expert-opinion review.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of new drugs targeting CGRP is a significant breakthrough in the migraine field, and represents a new generation of therapeutic agents that are available to manage migraine. The evaluation of efficacy and safety in the long-term follow-up and the development of trials comparing the available drugs could improve the current knowledge. The economic sustainability of these drugs remains to be clarified, and a cost-cutting campaign should be promoted based on the high burden of migraine.

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.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Targeting Glutamate Neurotoxicity through Dietary Manipulation: Potential Treatment for Migraine

Glutamate, the main excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system, is implicated in both the initiation of migraine as well as central sensitization, which increases the frequency of migraine attacks. Excessive levels of glutamate can lead to excitotoxicity in the nervous system which can disrupt normal neurotransmission and contribute to neuronal injury or death. Glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity also leads to neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, blood-brain barrier permeability, and cerebral vasodilation, all of which are associated with migraine pathophysiology. Experimental evidence has shown the protective effects of several nutrients against excitotoxicity. The current review focuses on the mechanisms behind glutamate's involvement in migraines as well as a discussion on how specific nutrients are able to work towards restoring glutamate homeostasis. Understanding glutamate's role in migraine is of vital importance for understanding why migraine is commonly comorbid with widespread pain conditions and for informing future research directions.

Temporal analysis of remote electric neuromodulation for the prevention of migraine

Aim: To evaluate the onset, magnitude and persistence of efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) compared with placebo for the preventive treatment of migraine. Materials & methods: Analysis was conducted on data from a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy of REN for the prevention of migraine. The number of monthly migraine days (MMD) per group was calculated in 2-week intervals and compared between the groups. Results: Differences between the active (N = 95) and placebo (N = 84) groups reached significance at 2 weeks: therapeutic gain 0.84 MMD; p = 0.036. 4 weeks gain 1.59 MMD; p = 0.025, 6 weeks gain 2.27 MMD; p < 0.001, 8 weeks gain 2.68 MMD; p < 0.001. Conclusion: REN provides rapid and consistent efficacy in preventive treatment of migraine.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant.

BACKGROUND

Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks.

METHODS

A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination.

CONCLUSION

The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Matching adjusted indirect comparison of acupuncture versus fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

Acupuncture and fremanezumab are second-line treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We aimed to compare acupuncture with fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine by using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis (MAIC).

METHODS

We acquired participant-level data from an acupuncture trial recruiting 302 participants and summary-level data from a fremanezumab trial recruiting 875 participants (290 participants received monthly fremanezumab [MF] and 291 received single-dose fremanezumab [SF]). The primary outcome was the mean reduction in monthly headache days. The secondary outcomes were the mean reduction in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days, days with acute medication, and the adverse events rate.

RESULTS

Before matching, the acupuncture arm had significantly lower BMI, fewer headache days with at least moderate severity, and fewer days with acute medication. After matching, the baseline variables were comparable between groups. The three arms had no difference in the change of monthly migraine days (MF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.3, 95%CI -0.5 to 1.1, p-value = 0.473; SF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.5, 95%CI -0.3 to 1.3, p-value = 0.214). The results were similar in the analyses of secondary outcomes sensitivity analyses. Thirty-six (25%) participants in the acupuncture arm reported adverse events, versus 192(66%) participants in the MF arm and 193 (66%) in the SF arm.

CONCLUSION

The preventive treatment effect of acupuncture is equivalent to fremanezumab, and it presented with a lower adverse event rate, which indicates that acupuncture can be an alternative to fremanezumab.

Central Sensitization in Migraine: A Narrative Review

Central sensitization (CS) is an increase in the responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to their normal afferent input. As a result, even minor irritation can induce severe pain, leading to the chronicity and severity of various diseases, such as neurological disorders. CS is associated with migraine, which is a major neurological disorder that inflicts a high disability in daily life. Specifically, CS is thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of cutaneous allodynia as well as chronification of migraine. In this article, we reviewed the association between CS and migraine, including pathophysiological aspects and evidence from clinical studies. We suggest that appropriate screening and management of CS in migraine could further improve the quality of life of migraine patients.

The disease burden of migraine patients receiving prophylactic treatments in Korea: a population-based claims database analysis

Background

Despite guideline recommendations, the limited benefits and failure of prophylactic treatment in patients with migraine have been reported. This study aimed to estimate the incremental burden (i.e., healthcare resource use and cost) of disease in patients who received at least one prophylactic treatment compared to those who did not.

Methods

This study analyzed the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, which covers the entire population of Korea from December 2014 to November 2019. We included adult patients with migraine (≥18 years) who had ≥1 claim with migraine diagnosis (G43) or received ≥1 prescription of triptan or ergotamine between December 2015 and November 2018. We defined two groups: (1) migraine patients who received at least one prophylactic treatment (prophylaxis group) and (2) migraine patients who never received prophylactic treatments (non-prophylaxis group). We performed propensity score matching to balance the baseline covariates between the two groups. In a matched cohort, we estimated healthcare resource use and costs in terms of outpatient visits, outpatient visits to neurologists, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations.

Results

After matching, 633,709 and 633,709 patients were identified in the prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups, respectively. The healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher in the prophylaxis group than in the non-prophylaxis group in terms of the number of outpatient visits (2.34 vs 1.70), outpatient visits to neurologists (2.23 vs 1.61), ED visits (1.07 vs 1.05), and hospitalizations (1.12 vs 1.09) (all P <  0.05). The estimated annual costs per patient were significantly higher in the prophylaxis group than in the non-prophylaxis group for outpatient (102.37 USD vs. 62.46 USD), neurology outpatient (141.80 USD vs. 120.30 USD), and ED visits (550.51 USD vs. 234.14 USD) and hospitalization (817.01 USD vs. 645.97 USD) (all P <  0.001).

Conclusions

Migraine patients who received ≥1 prophylactic treatment had a higher burden of disease than migraine patients who received no prophylaxis. This indicates that despite migraine prophylaxis, the migraine-related disease burden remains high, and more efficient migraine prophylaxis strategies are needed.

Cutaneous Allodynia in Migraine: A Narrative Review

Objective

In the present work, we conduct a narrative review of the most relevant literature on cutaneous allodynia (CA) in migraine.

Background

CA is regarded as the perception of pain in response to non-noxious skin stimulation. The number of research studies relating to CA and migraine has increased strikingly over the last few decades. Therefore, the clinician treating migraine patients must recognize this common symptom and have up-to-date knowledge of its importance from the pathophysiological, diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic point of view.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive narrative review to analyze existing literature regarding CA in migraine, with a special focus on epidemiology, pathophysiology, assessment methods, risk for chronification, diagnosis and management. PubMed and the Cochrane databases were used for the literature search.

Results

The prevalence of CA in patients with migraine is approximately 60%. The mechanisms underlying CA in migraine are not completely clarified but include a sensitization phenomenon at different levels of the trigemino-talamo-cortical nociceptive pathway and dysfunction of brainstem and cortical areas that modulate thalamocortical inputs. The gold standard for the assessment of CA is quantitative sensory testing (QST), but the validated Allodynia 12-item questionnaire is preferred in clinical setting. The presence of CA is associated with an increased risk of migraine chronification and has therapeutic implications.

Conclusions

CA is a marker of central sensitization in patients with migraine that has been associated with an increased risk of chronification and may influence therapeutic decisions.

Osmophobia in primary headache patients: associated symptoms and response to preventive treatments

BACKGROUND

Osmophobia, is common among primary headaches, with prevalence of migraine. The study aimed to evaluate prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with osmophobia in a cohort of primary headache patients selected at a tertiary headache center. The second aim was to verify the possible predicting role of osmophobia in preventive treatment response in a sub cohort of migraine patients.

METHODS

This was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in a tertiary headache center. We selected patients aged 18-65 years, diagnosed as migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA) or Chronic Migraine (CM), Tension-Type Headache (TTH); and Cluster Headache (CH). We also selected a sub-cohort of migraine patients who were prescribed preventive treatment, according to Italian Guidelines, visited after 3 months follow up. Patients were considered osmophobic, if reported this symptom in at least the 20% of headache episodes. Other considered variables were: headache frequeny, the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Allodynia Symptom Checklist, Self-rating Depression scale, Self-rating Anxiety scale, Pain intensity evaluated by Numerical Rating Scale-NRS- form 0 to 10.

RESULTS

The 37,9% of patients reported osmophobia (444 patients with osmophobia, 726 without osmophobia). Osmophobia prevailed in patients with the different migraine subtypes, and was absent in patients with episodic tension type headache and cluster headache (chi square 68.7 DF 7 p < 0.0001). Headache patients with osmophobia, presented with longer hedache duration (F 4.91 p 0.027; more severe anxiety (F 7.56 0.007), depression (F 5.3 p 0.019), allodynia (F 6 p 0.014), headache intensity (F 8.67 p 0.003). Tension type headache patients with osmophobia (n° 21), presented with more frequent headache and anxiety. A total of 711 migraine patients was visited after 3 months treatment. The change of main migraine features was similar between patients with and without osmophobia.

CONCLUSIONS

While the present study confirmed prevalence of osmophobia in migraine patients, it also indicated its presence among chronic tension type headache cases, marking those with chronic headache and anxiety. Osmophobia was associated to symptoms of central sensitization, as allodynia. It was not relevant to predict migraine evolution after first line preventive approach.

Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial

Background

Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Methods

In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4–14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week.

Results

We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1–4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.1 to −3.9 across atogepant doses vs −1.6 for placebo (p < 0.0001). For weeks 5–8 and 9–12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.7 to −4.2 for atogepant vs −2.9 for placebo (p ≤ 0.012) and −4.2 to −4.4 for atogepant vs −3.0 for placebo (p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from −0.77 to −1.03 for atogepant vs −0.29 with placebo (p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo (p ≤ 0.0071).

Conclusion

Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059

Pathophysiological Bases of Comorbidity in Migraine

Despite that it is commonly accepted that migraine is a disorder of the nervous system with a prominent genetic basis, it is comorbid with a plethora of medical conditions. Several studies have found bidirectional comorbidity between migraine and different disorders including neurological, psychiatric, cardio- and cerebrovascular, gastrointestinal, metaboloendocrine, and immunological conditions. Each of these has its own genetic load and shares some common characteristics with migraine. The bidirectional mechanisms that are likely to underlie this extensive comorbidity between migraine and other diseases are manifold. Comorbid pathologies can induce and promote thalamocortical network dysexcitability, multi-organ transient or persistent pro-inflammatory state, and disproportionate energetic needs in a variable combination, which in turn may be causative mechanisms of the activation of an ample defensive system with includes the trigeminovascular system in conjunction with the neuroendocrine hypothalamic system. This strategy is designed to maintain brain homeostasis by regulating homeostatic needs, such as normal subcortico-cortical excitability, energy balance, osmoregulation, and emotional response. In this light, the treatment of migraine should always involves a multidisciplinary approach, aimed at identifying and, if necessary, eliminating possible risk and comorbidity factors.

Migraine during COVID-19: Data from Second Wave Pandemic in an Italian Cohort

Objectives: The study aims to assess the impact of the second COVID-19 pandemic wave on migraine characteristics. Methods: This is an observational cross-sectional study conducted on migraine patients previously interviewed during the first Italian pandemic outbreak. A second structured telephone interview was conducted between 20 November 2020 and 18 January 2021. We compared migraine characteristics among T0 (before pandemic), T1 (during the first pandemic phase), and T2 (during the second pandemic phase). Results: Among the 433 patients interviewed during the first pandemic phase, 304 cases were finally considered. One hundred forty-eight patients had a control visit between March 2020 and December 2020, 120 had an in-person visit, 14 by phone, the remainder used telemedicine software provided by the hospital. Frequency of headache, number of symptomatic drugs and headache intensity worsened during T2, compared to T0 and T1, especially in episodic migraine. Headache intensity increased relating to the negative emotional impact of the pandemic. Migraine management during the pandemic did not influence the clinical outcome. Conclusion: The prolongation of the pandemic seems to have a negative impact on migraine evolution. The arousal and negative psychological behavior toward the COVID-19 outbreak seem to worsen migraine.

Real-world migraine-related healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine: a panel-based chart review in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine.

METHODS

This was a follow-up to a retrospective, panel-based chart review conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain among a panel of physicians (neurologists, headache specialists, and pain specialists) who agreed to participate in patient studies and had treated ≥10 migraine patients in 2017. Eligible physicians extracted data for up to five adults with ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) who initiated a preventive treatment on or after 1 January 2013 and received physician care for ≥6 months after the date of the most recent preventive treatment initiation (index date). Based on the trajectory of migraine severity from the 1-month pre-index period to the 6-month post-index period, cohorts were classified as improved (converting from chronic to episodic or from chronic/episodic to <4 MMDs) or stable/worsened (remaining chronic/episodic or transforming from episodic to chronic) migraine. Migraine-related HRU and costs (2017 €) during the 6-month post-index period were compared between patients with improved vs. stable/worsened migraine.

RESULTS

Overall, 470 patient charts were analyzed, with 339 classified as improved migraine and 131 classified as stable/worsened migraine. After adjusting for within-physician correlation, country, sex, and presence of comorbidities before the index date, the improved migraine cohort had significantly fewer migraine-related physician office visits (-0.81; p < .001), emergency room/accident & emergency (ER/A&E) visits (-0.67; p < .001), and hospitalizations (-0.12; p < .001) in the 6-month post-index period vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. Consistent with HRU patterns, the adjusted migraine-related costs for physician office visits (-€42.23; p < .05), hospitalizations (-€215.56; p < .05), and total costs (-€396.81; p < .01) in the 6-month post-index period were significantly reduced for the improved migraine cohort vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a 6-month period following initiation of preventive migraine treatment, patients with improved migraine had significantly lower migraine-related HRU and costs than those with stable/worsened migraine.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.