Real-world evidence on the economic implications of CGRP-mAbs as preventive treatment of migraine

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the global population. As traditional pharmacological approaches often fall short in alleviating symptoms, the development of innovative therapies has garnered significant interest. This text aims to summarize the current pharmacological options for managing migraine and to explore the potential impact of novel therapies.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional treatments, emerging therapies, and novel compounds in clinical development, including therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic therapies, and other options. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

Several novel treatment options for migraine have become available in recent years. Emerging pharmacological therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic interventions, and other emerging treatment modalities, may prove to be valuable for the treatment of migraine. Further research, clinical trials, and substantiated evidence are necessary to validate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of these therapeutic options.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update

OBJECTIVE

To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches.

METHODS

Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare.

CONCLUSION

The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Targeting the PACAP-38 pathway is an emerging therapeutic strategy for migraine prevention

INTRODUCTION

The pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) has emerged as a key mediator of migraine pathogenesis. PACAP-38 and its receptors are predominantly distributed in arteries, sensory and parasympathetic neurons of the trigeminovascular system. Phase 2 trials have tested human monoclonal antibodies designed to bind and inhibit PACAP-38 and the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide type I (PAC1) receptor for migraine prevention.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the significance of the PACAP-38 pathway as a target in migraine prevention. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

A PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody was not effective for preventing migraine in a proof-of-concept trial, paving the way for alternative strategies to be considered. Lu AG09222 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PACAP-38 that was effective in preventing physiological responses of PACAP38 and reducing monthly migraine days in individuals with migraine. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the clinical utility, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting the PACAP pathway.

Real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies compared to OnabotulinumtoxinA (RAMO) in chronic migraine: a retrospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling condition with high prevalence in the general population. Until the recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (Anti-CGRP mAbs), OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was the only treatment specifically approved for CM prophylaxis. Direct comparisons between the two treatments are not available so far.

METHODS

We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study in Italy to compare the real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A. Patients with CM who had received either treatment according to Italian prescribing regulations were extracted from available clinical databases. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in monthly headache days (MHD), MIgraine Disability ASsessment test (MIDAS), and monthly acute medications (MAM) evaluated at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was MHD change from baseline at 12 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAE) and treatment discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted models were used for the analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen potentially eligible patients were screened; 183 (86 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 97 BoNT-A) were included. One hundred seventy-one (80 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 91 BoNT-A) and 154 (69 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 85 BoNT-A) patients were included in the efficacy analysis at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A both resulted in a mean MHD reduction at 6 (-11.5 and -7.2 days, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.3; 95%CI -6.6 to -2.0; p = 0.0003) and 12 months (-11.9 and -7.6, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.4; 95%CI -6.8 to -2.0; p = 0.0002) of follow-up. Similar results were observed after adjusting for baseline confounders. Anti-CGRP mAbs showed a significant MIDAS (-31.7 and -19.2 points, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0296, respectively) and MAM reduction (-5.1 and -3.1 administrations, p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0574, respectively) compared to BoNT-A at 6 and 12 months. No SAEs were reported. One patient receiving fremanezumab discontinued treatment due to arthralgia. Treatment discontinuations, mainly for inefficacy, were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Both Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A were effective in CM patients with Anti-CGRP mAbs presenting higher effect magnitude, with comparable safety. Still, BoNT-A remains a valuable option for CM patients with contraindications to Anti-CGRP mAbs or for frail categories who are candidates to local therapy with limited risk of systemic administration.

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.

Impact of a reimbursement policy change on treatment with erenumab in migraine - a real-world experience from Germany

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment.

RESULTS

We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention.