Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society

Headache diagnosis and treatment: A pilot knowledge and needs assessment among physical therapists

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this pilot study was to assess physical therapists' (PTs) knowledge and needs regarding headache diagnosis and management.

BACKGROUND

While there is significant research on physical therapy and cervicogenic headache, studies suggest that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed, and inadequately treated across society despite its high prevalence and burden. Because migraine commonly includes concurrent neck pain and/or vestibular symptoms, patients with migraine may present to PTs for treatment. Very little is known about PTs' headache and migraine education, knowledge, and clinical practices.

METHODS

A team of headache specialists and PTs adapted a previously used headache knowledge and needs assessment survey to help ascertain PTs' knowledge and needs regarding headache treatment. The cross-sectional survey was distributed online via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to PTs within a large healthcare system in Connecticut.

RESULTS

An estimated 50.5% (101/200) of PTs invited to complete the survey did so. Only 37.6% (38/101) of respondents reported receiving any formal headache or migraine education in their professional training, leading to knowledge gaps in differentiating and responding to headache subtypes. Only 45.5% (46/101) were able to identify that migraine is characterized by greater pain intensity than tension-type headache, and 22.8% (23/101) reported not knowing the duration of untreated migraine. When asked about the aspects of care they believe their patients with headache would like to see improved, PTs reported education around prevention and appropriate medication use (61/100 [61.0%]), provider awareness of the degree of disability associated with migraine (51/100 [51.0%]), and diagnostics (47/100 [47.0%]).

CONCLUSION

This sample of PTs from one healthcare system demonstrates knowledge gaps and variations in clinical practice for managing their patients with headache. Future research on integrating additional opportunities for headache education for physical therapists, including evidence-based behavioral therapies, is needed to ascertain whether it is likely to improve patient care.

Transient hemiplegia in a patient with migraine: A case of sporadic hemiplegic migraine

Hemiplegic migraine is a rare form of migraine characterized by aura with unilateral paralysis; however, studies on its treatment are limited. A 39-year-old man with migraine headaches and myofascial pain syndrome was referred to our hospital with transient right hemiplegia, after presenting to an outside emergency department with headache and right hemiplegia 2 days prior. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood test results revealed no abnormalities. The symptoms resolved spontaneously; he was referred to our hospital. Based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition criteria, he was diagnosed with sporadic hemiplegic migraine. Propranolol was added to his regular regimen as prophylactic treatment, which resulted in reduction in his migraine frequency. Over the next 2 years, no recurrent paralysis occurred. Hemiplegic migraines should be considered in patients with migraine exhibiting transient hemiplegia without obvious intracranial abnormalities. Prophylactic treatment with propranolol could be effective in treatment of hemiplegic migraine.

Treatment patterns of patients with migraine eligible for anti-CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies

Introduction

Migraine is a debilitating neurological disorder, with a wide range of symptoms and disease burden, underscoring the heterogeneity of patients' disease characteristics and treatment needs. To characterize the profile of migraine patients in the US who may be eligible for preventive treatment with an anti-CGRP pathway mAb and to better understand treatment patterns and real-world use of acute and preventive medications for migraine, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients.

Methods

These patients were identified as having migraine using diagnosis codes or migraine-specific medication use (first = index) in the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database. Patients were required to have ≥ 12 months of continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits prior to index (baseline) and after index (follow-up). Patients were stratified into chronic migraine (CM) and non-chronic migraine (non-CM) by diagnosis codes. Based on acute migraine-specific medication dispensing data in the follow-up period, non-CM patients were divided into 3 cohorts: highest, middle, and lowest tertile of total units of dispensed acute migraine-specific medication (gepants, ditans, ergot derivatives, and triptans). Migraine medication use was captured in the baseline and follow-up periods.

Results

A total of 22,584 CM and 216,807 non-CM patients (72,269 patients in each tertile) were identified and included in the study. Over the follow-up, CM patients had a mean of 70 units of acute migraine-specific medications dispensed, while the highest, middle, and lowest tertile of non-CM patients had a mean of 92, 29, and 10 units, respectively. Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway mAbs were dispensed for 28.9% of CM patients, and for 6.9%, 4.1%, and 2.9% of non-CM patients in the highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, respectively.

Conclusion

A lower proportion of non-CM patients had use of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway mAbs compared to CM patients, confirming the unmet need with appropriate preventive medication. There appears to be a persistent gap in management of patients without a diagnosis of CM who are dispensed high quantities of acute migraine-specific medications.

Zavegepant Intranasal Spray for Migraines

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal zavegepant in the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, Embase database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: Zavzpret, Zavegepant, BHV-3500, and migraine.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English from January 2013 to September 2023 related to pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical trials were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In a phase 2/3 trial, zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on primary endpoints of freedom of pain (22.5%, 23.1%, and 15.5%, respectively), and freedom from most bothersome symptoms (MBSs) (41.9%, 47.9%, and 33.7%, respectively) 2 hours after treatment. The incidence of adverse effects for both doses was similar to placebo. In a phase 3 trial, zavegepant 10 mg was compared with placebo. Two hours after treatment, more patients in the zavegepant group achieved pain freedom (24% vs 15%) and relief from MBSs (40% vs 31%) compared with placebo. Common adverse events included dysgeusia (21% zavegepant vs 5% placebo) and nasal discomfort (5% zavegepant vs 1% placebo).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DRUGS

Zavegepant is indicated for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. Zavegepant method of administration and prompt relief of migraine symptoms may be an attractive alternative to triptans for those in need of relief.

CONCLUSION

Zavegepant may be a convenient and useful acute treatment option for migraines with and without aura.

Real-world experiences of migraine patients on Erenumab: a Kuwait single center cohort

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent headache disorder with a significant impact on the quality of life. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab, mAb targeting the CGRP receptor, in treating chronic (CM) and episodic (EM) migraine in clinical practice Kuwait, providing region-specific insights to treatment options.

METHOD

This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with EM or CM treated with erenumab. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in monthly mean migraine days, and several changes including the mean number of monthly migraine days, the frequency of analgesic use, attack severity, AEs, and QoL.

RESULTS

The study included 151 patients with a mean age of 44.0±11.4 years, and 81.9% female. The primary outcome was achieved in 74.2% of patients, with a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in headache frequency, pain severity, analgesic use, and improvement in QoL. Age and duration of migraine were significant predictors of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency after therapy (OR = 0.955; p = 0.009) and (OR = 0.965; p = 0.025), respectively. Treatment compliance was observed in 76.2% of patients, and 24.5% discontinued treatment. Constipation was the most commonly reported AEs (6.0%), and conservative management was the most common approach to managing AEs.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab was effective in reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks and improving QoL, and safe with manageable AEs in a real-world setting in Kuwait. Further research is needed to better understand erenumab's effectiveness and safety in different populations and settings, as well as to compare it with other migraine prophylactic treatments.

Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine versus nortriptyline for the preventive treatment of migraine: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Migraine, as a primary headache disorder, stands as one of the primary causes of disability worldwide. Consequently, prophylactic treatments are highly recommended for individuals experiencing recurrent migraine episodes. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of venlafaxine and nortriptyline in the prophylactic management of migraine.

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 210 migraine patients were allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. One group received venlafaxine (37.5 mg, orally twice daily), while the other group administered nortriptyline (25 mg, orally once daily). A neurologist documented (1) headache intensity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 6-point Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS-6), (2) headache frequency (per month), and (3) headache duration (in hours) of participants on days 0, 45, and 90 of the intervention.

RESULTS

Following the 90-day intervention, a significant decrease was observed in VAS, BRS-6, frequency, and duration of headaches within both groups (all with p-values <0.001). No difference in VAS, BRS-6, or headache durations was observed between the two groups after 45 and 90 days of treatment (all p-values > 0.05). Although the headache frequency exhibited no difference between the groups after 45 days (p-value = 0.097), a significantly lower frequency in the venlafaxine group was observed at day 90 of the intervention (p-value = 0.011). The reductions in attack parameters in the 0-45- and 0-90-day intervals did not meet statistical significance between the two groups (p-values > 0.05). 77.0 % of the participants in the venlafaxine group and 79.2 % in the nortriptyline group experienced a minimum of 50 % improvement in all attack parameters. Venlafaxine demonstrated a statistically significant lower incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to nortriptyline (p-value = 0.005). A total of 33 adverse drug reactions were documented in the venlafaxine group and 53 in the nortriptyline group, with insomnia observed in the former and xerostomia in the latter as the most prevalent side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Venlafaxine and nortriptyline demonstrate clinically significant and comparable therapeutic efficacy for migraine patients in reducing the intensity, frequency, and duration of headache attacks. Venlafaxine may be preferred to nortriptyline in the context of migraine preventive treatment under comparable conditions due to its lower incidence of adverse effects.

The migraine epidemic among medical students: a call for action

Migraine is characterized by recurrent headaches of moderate-to-severe intensity and poses a significant challenge for medical students. This is a narrative literature review using PubMed and Scopus databases. This study examines how common migraine is in this group and suggests working together to address how it affects students' well-being and chances of succeeding as a medical professional in the future. Early diagnosis by licensed medical specialists is essential for effective management of migraine. To address this, the authors propose a multifaceted strategy. By including direct education on migraines in medical school curricula, future doctors will be better prepared to treat patients with comparable problems and manage their own migraines. Students with migraines can also benefit greatly from creating a supportive learning environment through staff training, accommodating academic policies, and providing easily available healthcare resources. In addition, this technology may be helpful. Apps for relaxation and migraine tracking can help students better manage their condition. Long-term success requires cooperation among all parties. By promoting cooperation among medical schools, student associations, healthcare practitioners, and governmental organizations, the authors can raise public awareness of migraine, make pertinent resources easier to access, and create evidence-based solutions specially designed to meet the needs of medical students who experience migraine. In the end, putting student well-being first and working together to put these solutions into practice can enable aspiring doctors to succeed at both personal and professional levels.

Patterns of migraine medication use in Norway: A nationwide registry-based observational study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe and discuss patterns of migraine medication use in the entire Norwegian population.

METHODS

In this nationwide, observational study, all individuals with a migraine-related prescription between 2010 and 2020 were identified using the Norwegian Prescription Database. The outcomes of interest were the incidence and 1-year prevalence of migraine medication users, as well as individuals with triptan overuse. Patterns of medication use were statistically compared between women and men adjusted for age, year of treatment start, comorbidities and county of residence calculating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 327,904 migraine medication users. The incidence ranged from 0.39% to 0.46%, and the 1-year prevalence increased from 1.99% to 2.99%. Preventive use increased >50% during the study period. Preventives were significantly more often prescribed to women than to men (39.72% vs. 33.75%; aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.44). Triptan overuse was significantly more common among women, but women with overuse were more often using preventives, as compared to men (56.64% vs 52.69%; aOR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.49).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of medically treated migraine is low. Overuse of triptans is frequent, especially among women. Clinicians should be encouraged to try out different triptans, recognize triptan overuse, and prescribe preventives when indicated.

Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States

BACKGROUND

Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up.

METHODS

This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

The influence of factors associated with past reproductive histories on migraines in middle-aged premenopausal women: a nationwide population-based study in Republic of Korea

Introduction

Women can experience various reproductive events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and contraception, which cause long-term changes in female hormones. In middle-aged women, the prevalence of migraine is high, and a clear gender difference is evident. This study investigated the effects of factors associated with past reproductive events on the risk of new migraine in middle-aged premenopausal women.

Methods

The influence of reproductive factors on migraine in middle-aged women was investigated using the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) and Korean Health Examination (KHE) databases. The reproductive factors of interest were parity, breastfeeding, and oral contraceptive (OC) use. The study included 949,704 middle-aged premenopausal women 40-60 years of age. The study population was divided into two groups based on new diagnosis of migraine during the follow-up period (2009-2018).

Results

The risk of new migraine tended to increase in the primiparous (hazard ratio, HR: 1.179; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.137-1.221) and multiparous groups (HR: 1.181; 95% CI: 1.142-1.221) compared with the nulliparous group. The breastfeeding ≥12 months group (HR: 1.071; 95% CI: 1.052-1.091) showed a significantly increased risk of new migraine compared with the non-breastfeeding group. All women in the OC groups (< 1 year, HR: 1.048; 95% CI: 1.028-1.069 and ≥ 1 year, HR: 1.100; 95% CI: 1.067-1.134) showed a higher risk of new migraine than those in the non-OC group.

Conclusion

The results of the current study indicate that childbirth, longer breastfeeding, and OC use may be associated with a higher risk of new migraine in middle-aged premenopausal women.

The Headache Psychologists' Role in Pediatric and Adult Headache Care: A Qualitative Study of Expert Practitioners

OBJECTIVE

We examined the perspectives of expert headache psychologists to inform best practices for integrating headache psychologists into the care of children and adults with headache disorders within medical settings.

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are prevalent, chronic, and disabling neurological conditions. As clinical providers trained in evidence-based behavior change interventions with expertise in headache disorders, headache psychologists are uniquely positioned to provide behavioral headache treatment.

METHODS

In 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of expert headache psychologists working across the United States. Open-ended questions focused on their roles, clinical flow, and treatment content. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis method.

RESULTS

We interviewed seven expert headache psychologists who have worked for an average of 18 years in outpatient settings with pediatric (n = 4) and adult (n = 3) patients with headache. The themes that emerged across the clinical workflow related to key components of behavioral headache treatment, effective behavioral treatment referral practices, and barriers to patient engagement. The expert headache psychologists offered evidence-based behavioral headache interventions such as biofeedback, relaxation training, and cognitive behavioral therapy emphasizing lifestyle modification as standalone options or concurrently with pharmacological treatment and were of brief duration. Participants reported many of their patients appeared reluctant to seek behavioral treatment for headache. Participants believed referrals were most effective when the referring provider explained to the patient the rationale for behavioral treatment, treatment content, and positive impact on headache activity, functioning, and quality of life. Barriers cited by participants to integrating headache psychology into headache care included the paucity of psychologists with specialized headache training, lack of insurance reimbursement, limited patient time to seek behavioral treatment, and inadequate patient knowledge of what behavioral treatment entails.

CONCLUSION

Headache psychologists are often core members of multidisciplinary headache teams offering short-term, evidence-based behavioral interventions, both as a standalone treatment or in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. However, barriers to care persist. Enhancing referring providers' familiarity with psychologists' role in headache care may aid successful referrals for behavioral interventions for headache.

Acupuncture plus topiramate placebo versus topiramate plus sham acupuncture for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A single-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been used for the treatment of chronic migraine, but high-quality evidence is scarce. We aimed to evaluate acupuncture's efficacy and safety compared to topiramate for chronic migraine.

METHODS

This double-dummy randomized controlled trial included participants aged 18-65 years diagnosed with chronic migraine. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive acupuncture (three sessions/week) plus topiramate placebo (acupuncture group) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus sham acupuncture (topiramate group) over 12 weeks, with the primary outcome being the mean change in monthly migraine days during weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

Of 123 screened patients, 60 (mean age 45.8, 81.7% female) were randomly assigned to acupuncture or topiramate groups. Acupuncture demonstrated significantly greater reductions in monthly migraine days than topiramate (weeks 1-12: -2.79 [95% CI: -4.65 to -0.94, p = 0.004]; weeks 13-24: -3.25 [95% CI: -5.57 to -0.92, p = 0.007]). No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture may be safe and effective for treating chronic migraine. The efficacy of 12 weeks of acupuncture was sustained for 24 weeks and superior to that of topiramate. Acupuncture can be used as an optional preventive therapy for chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.org Identifier 13563102.

Multidisciplinary Management Strategies for Long COVID: A Narrative Review

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused millions of infections to date and has led to a worldwide pandemic. Most patients had a complete recovery from the acute infection, however, a large number of the affected individuals experienced symptoms that persisted more than 3 months after diagnosis. These symptoms most commonly include fatigue, memory difficulties, brain fog, dyspnea, cough, and other less common ones such as headache, chest pain, paresthesias, mood changes, muscle pain, and weakness, skin rashes, and cardiac, endocrine, renal and hepatic manifestations. The treatment of this syndrome remains challenging. A multidisciplinary approach to address combinations of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems has been widely adopted. This narrative review aims to bridge the gap surrounding the broad treatment approaches by providing an overview of multidisciplinary management strategies for the most common long COVID conditions.

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.

Treatment patterns of galcanezumab versus standard of care preventive migraine medications over 24 months: a US retrospective claims study

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016).

CONCLUSION

Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Oral CGRP Antagonists, Atogepant and Rimegepant, for the Preventative Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from a US Societal Perspective Model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, atogepant and rimegepant, were approved in 2021 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM), yet no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atogepant 60 mg and rimegepant 75 mg compared with placebo.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed over a 1-year time horizon from a US societal perspective. Patient cohorts were simulated using baseline and change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) reported in the trials to incorporate responder rates and within patient response into the model. Due to heterogeneity between the trial populations, each medication was compared with its respective trial's placebo group. Direct healthcare resource costs, productivity costs, acute medication costs, and quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The atogepant cohort experienced an incremental increase in healthcare plus productivity costs of $11,978 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $450,000/QALY. The rimegepant cohort experienced an incremental increase of $21,692 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.024 QALYs. This yields an ICER of more than $890,000/QALY when comparing rimegepant with placebo. Cost savings between atogepant and atogepant placebo were greatest with respect to acute medication costs at $735 of savings over 1 year, followed by savings of $135 for healthcare resource utilization and $34 for productivity costs. A similar relationship was seen between rimegepant and rimegepant placebo. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis found that monthly acquisition costs of atogepant and rimegepant had the largest impact on the ICER, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant and rimegepant were both unable to meet generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds < 150,0000/QALY. Additional studies are needed to better guide decision making regarding oral CGRPs' place in therapy.

Pharmacotherapies for Migraine and Translating Evidence From Bench to Bedside

Migraine is a ubiquitous neurologic disorder that afflicts more than 1 billion people worldwide. Recommended therapeutic strategies include the use of acute and, if needed, preventive medications. During the past 2 decades, tremendous progress has been made in better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying migraine pathogenesis, which in turn has resulted in the advent of novel medications targeting signaling molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Here, we provide an update on the rational use of pharmacotherapies for migraine to facilitate more informed clinical decision-making. We then discuss the scientific discoveries that led to the advent of new medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide signaling. Last, we conclude with recent advances that are being made to identify novel drug targets for migraine.

Effect of galcanezumab in women with episodic migraine meeting criteria for menstrually related migraine: A post hoc analysis of EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2

BACKGROUND

We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM).

METHODS

Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed.

RESULTS

Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.

High Dosage Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Existing Pharmacological Options for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurologic disorder with prevalence rates ranging from 9% to 18% worldwide. Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have limited efficacy and acceptability, with relatively low response rates of 40% to 50% and limited safety profiles. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are considered promising therapeutic agents for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various dosages of EPA/DHA and other current Food and Drug Administration-approved or guideline-recommended prophylactic pharmacologic interventions for migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled participants with a diagnosis of either episodic or chronic migraine. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcomes assessed were 1) changes in migraine frequency and 2) acceptability (i.e., dropout for any reason). Secondary outcomes included response rates, changes in migraine severity, changes in the frequency of using rescue medications, and frequency of any adverse events. Forty RCTs were included (N = 6616; mean age = 35.0 y; 78.9% women). Our analysis showed that supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA yields the highest decrease in migraine frequency [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.32, -0.39 compared with placebo] and the largest decrease in migraine severity (SMD: -2.23; 95% CI: -3.17, -1.30 compared with placebo) in all studied interventions. Furthermore, supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA showed the most favorable acceptability rates (odds ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06, 17.41 compared with placebo) of all examined prophylactic treatments. This study provides compelling evidence that high dosage EPA/DHA supplementation can be considered a first-choice treatment of migraine prophylaxis because this treatment displayed the highest efficacy and highest acceptability of all studied treatments. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42022319577.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice.

METHODS

An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles.

CONCLUSION

In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for Migraine Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

OBJECTIVES

Rimegepant may have some potential in treating migraine, and this meta-analysis aims to study the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for migraine patients.

METHODS

We have searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases and selected the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of rimegepant versus placebo for migraine patients. This meta-analysis was conducted using the random- or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo in migraine patients, rimegepant treatment was associated with substantially improved freedom from pain at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-2.59; P < 0.00001), pain relief at 2 hours (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.65 to 2.25; P < 0.00001), freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35-1.91; P < 0.00001), ability to function normally at 2 hours (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.42-2.01; P < 0.00001), sustained freedom from pain at 24 hours (OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.74-4.78; P < 0.0001), sustained pain relief at 24 hours (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.96-2.72; P < 0.00001), and no rescue medication (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 2.02-2.90; P < 0.00001) but showed no obvious impact on adverse events (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant may be effective and safe for the treatment of migraine patients.

Mechanisms and treatments of chronic pain after traumatic brain injury

While pain after trauma generally resolves, some trauma patients experience pain for months to years after injury. An example, relevant to both combat and civilian settings, is chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Headache as well as pain in the back and extremities are common locations for TBI-related chronic pain to be experienced. TBI-related pain can exist alone or can exacerbate pain from other injuries long after healing has occurred. Consequences of chronic pain in these settings include increased suffering, higher levels of disability, serious emotional problems, and worsened cognitive deficits. The current review will examine recent evidence regarding dysfunction of endogenous pain modulatory mechanisms, neuroplastic changes in the trigeminal circuitry and alterations in spinal nociceptive processing as contributors to TBI-related chronic pain. Key pain modulatory centers including the locus coeruleus, periaqueductal grey matter, and rostroventromedial medulla are vulnerable to TBI. Both the rationales and existing evidence for the use of monoamine reuptake inhibitors, CGRP antagonists, CXCR2 chemokine receptor antagonists, and interventional therapies will be presented. While consensus guidelines for the management of chronic post-traumatic TBI-related pain are lacking, several approaches to this clinically challenging situation deserve focused evaluation and may prove to be viable therapeutic options.

Evaluation and treatment approaches for neurological post-acute sequelae of COVID-19: A consensus statement and scoping review from the global COVID-19 neuro research coalition

Post-acute neurological sequelae of COVID-19 affect millions of people worldwide, yet little data is available to guide treatment strategies for the most common symptoms. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed/Medline from 1/1/2020-4/1/2023 to identify studies addressing diagnosis and treatment of the most common post-acute neurological sequelae of COVID-19 including: cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, headache, dizziness/lightheadedness, fatigue, weakness, numbness/pain, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Utilizing the available literature and international disease-specific society guidelines, we constructed symptom-based differential diagnoses, evaluation and management paradigms. This pragmatic, evidence-based consensus document may serve as a guide for a holistic approach to post-COVID neurological care and will complement future clinical trials by outlining best practices in the evaluation and treatment of post-acute neurological signs/symptoms.

The association of serum vitamin D concentrations in paediatric migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a neurologic condition characterized by hypersensitivity to auditory, olfactory, visual, and cutaneous stimuli; vomiting and nausea; and severe headache. It is the most frequent headache syndrome in children and can be categorized in chronic and/or episodic. Multiple dietary supplements have been inaugurated for the management of migraine, the most prevalent of which is vitamin D.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, vitamin D deficiency has been a global public health problem, with 30-80% of the worldwide population having vitamin D deficiency. The significant role of vitamin D in neurological disorders is underlined by its key role in the brain function of the central nervous system (CNS). Current approaches in paediatric neurology include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for the treatment of paediatric migraine, among others. Vitamin D is one of the dietary factors that has been linked to migraine, however, this association has mostly been examined in the adult population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the association between serum vitamin D and paediatric migraine by conducting a review of existing literature. The main question is described with the PICO format (population, intervention, control, and outcomes), while the assessment of the present research is under the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

A systematic review of the literature reveals a remarkable association between vitamin D and migraine presentation in the paediatric population, affecting the frequency and duration of the episodes. That being the case, vitamin D supplementation could potentially improve the quality of life of paediatric patients suffering from migraine headaches.

The Gut-brain Connection and Episodic Migraine: an Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Historical evidence suggests a shared underlying etiology for migraine and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders that involves the gut-brain axis. Here we provide narrative review of recent literature on the gut-brain connection and migraine to emphasize the importance of tailoring treatment plans for patients with episodic migraine who experience GI comorbidities and symptoms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent population-based studies report the prevalence of migraine and GI disorders as comorbidities as well as overlapping symptomology. American Headache Society (AHS) guidelines have integrated GI symptoms as part of migraine diagnostic criteria and recommend nonoral therapies for patients with GI symptoms or conditions. Nasal delivery is a recommended nonoral alternative; however, it is important to understand potential adverse events that may cause or worsen GI symptoms in some patients due to the site of drug deposition within the nasal cavity with some nasal therapies. Lastly, clinical perspectives emphasize the importance of identifying GI symptoms and comorbidities in patients with episodic migraine to best individualize migraine management. Support for an association between the gut-brain axis and migraine continues to prevail in recent literature; however, the relationship remains complex and not well elucidated. The presence of GI comorbidities and symptoms must be carefully considered when making treatment decisions for patients with episodic migraine.

Feasibility and Usability of a Mobile App-Based Interactive Care Plan for Migraine in a Community Neurology Practice: Development and Pilot Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common and major cause of disability, poor quality of life, and high health care use. Access to evidence-based migraine care is limited and projected to worsen. Novel mobile health app-based tools may effectively deliver migraine patient education to support self-management, facilitate remote monitoring and treatment, and improve access to care. The risk that such an intervention may increase the care team workload is a potential implementation barrier.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe a novel electronic health record-integrated mobile app-based Migraine Interactive Care Plan (MICP) and evaluate its feasibility, usability, and impact on care teams in a community neurology practice.

METHODS

Consecutive enrollees between September 1, 2020, and February 16, 2022, were assessed in a single-arm observational study of usability, defined by 74.3% (127/171) completing ≥1 assigned task. Task response rates, rate and type of care team escalations, and patient-reported outcomes were summarized. Patients were prospectively recruited and randomly assigned to routine care with or without the MICP from September 1, 2020, to September 1, 2021. Feasibility was defined by equal to or fewer downstream face-to-face visits, telephone contacts, and electronic messages in the MICP cohort. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare continuous variables, and the chi-square test was used for categorical variables for those with at least 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were enrolled, and of these, 127 (74.3%) patients completed ≥1 MICP-assigned task. Mean escalations per patient per month was 0.9 (SD 0.37; range 0-1.7). Patient-confirmed understanding of the educational materials ranged from 26.6% (45/169) to 56.2% (95/169). Initial mean headache days per week was 4.54 (SD 2.06) days and declined to 2.86 (SD 1.87) days at week 26. The percentage of patients reporting favorable satisfaction increased from a baseline of 35% (20/57) to 83% (15/18; response rate of 42/136, 30.9% to 28/68, 41%) over the first 6 months. A total of 121 patients with MICP were compared with 62 patients in the control group. No differences were observed in the rate of telephone contacts or electronic messages. Fewer face-to-face visits were observed in the MICP cohort (13/121, 10.7%) compared with controls (26/62, 42%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the successful implementation of an electronic health record-integrated mobile app-based care plan for migraine in a community neurology practice. We observed fewer downstream face-to-face visits without increasing telephone calls, medication refills, or electronic messages. Our findings suggest that the MICP has the potential to improve patient access without increasing care team workload and the need for patient input from diverse populations to improve and sustain patient engagement. Additional studies are needed to assess its impact in primary care.

Association between clinician specialty and prescription of preventive medication for young adults with migraine: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the prescribing patterns of preventive medications between pediatric and adult neurologists for young adults with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Although preventive medications are effective for adults with migraine, studies in children have failed to demonstrate similar efficacy. As a result, lifestyle modifications and non-pharmacological interventions are often emphasized in children. It is not known whether young adults are prescribed preventive medications at different rates according to whether they are cared for by an adult or pediatric neurologist.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of patients with migraine aged 18-25 years who were seen by a pediatric or adult neurologist at Mass General Brigham Hospital between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was whether the patient received a prescription for any preventive medication during the study period.

RESULTS

Among the 767 included patients, 290 (37.8%) were seen by a pediatric neurologist. Preventive medications were prescribed for 131/290 (45.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.5%, 51.0%) patients seen by a pediatric neurologist and 206/477 (43.2%; 95% CI: 39.0%, 47.7%) patients seen by an adult neurologist (p = 0.591). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, clinician specialty was not associated with preventive medication use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.20, 95% CI: 0.62, 2.31). Female sex (AOR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.66) and number of visits during the study period (AOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.80) were associated with receiving preventive medication.

CONCLUSION

Approximately two fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this proportion did not differ according to clinician specialty. Although these findings suggest that pediatric and adult neurologists provide comparable care, both specialties may be underusing preventive medications in this patient population.

The Renin Angiotensin System as a Therapeutic Target in Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem, with limited pharmacological options available beyond symptomatic relief. The renin angiotensin system (RAS) is primarily known as a systemic endocrine regulatory system, with major roles controlling blood pressure and fluid homeostasis. Drugs that target the RAS are used to treat hypertension, heart failure and kidney disorders. They have now been used chronically by millions of people and have a favorable safety profile. In addition to the systemic RAS, it is now appreciated that many different organ systems, including the brain, have their own local RAS. The major ligand of the classic RAS, Angiotensin II (Ang II) acts predominantly through the Ang II Type 1 receptor (AT1R), leading to vasoconstriction, inflammation, and heightened oxidative stress. These processes can exacerbate brain injuries. Ang II receptor blockers (ARBs) are AT1R antagonists. They have been shown in several preclinical studies to enhance recovery from TBI in rodents through improvements in molecular, cellular and behavioral correlates of injury. ARBs are now under consideration for clinical trials in TBI. Several different RAS peptides that signal through receptors distinct from the AT1R, are also potential therapeutic targets for TBI. The counter regulatory RAS pathway has actions that oppose those stimulated by AT1R signaling. This alternative pathway has many beneficial effects on cells in the central nervous system, bringing about vasodilation, and having anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative stress actions. Stimulation of this pathway also has potential therapeutic value for the treatment of TBI. This comprehensive review will provide an overview of the various components of the RAS, with a focus on their direct relevance to TBI pathology. It will explore different therapeutic agents that modulate this system and assess their potential efficacy in treating TBI patients.

Non-CGRP Antagonist/Non-Triptan Options for Migraine Disease Treatment: Clinical Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the association between CGRP and migraine disease is well-known and studied, therapies can target other pathways to minimize migraine symptoms. It is important to understand the role of these medications as options for migraine treatment and the varied mechanisms by which symptoms can be addressed. In the present investigation, the role of non-CGRP antagonist/non-triptan options for migraine disease therapy is reviewed, including NSAIDs, ß-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics. Pharmacologic therapies for both acute symptoms and prophylaxis are evaluated, and their adverse effects are compared.

RECENT FINDINGS

At present, the Food and Drug Association has approved the beta-blockers propranolol and timolol and the anti-epileptic drugs topiramate and divalproex sodium for migraine prevention. Clinicians have other options for evidence-based treatment of episodic migraine attacks. Treatment decisions should consider contraindications, the effectiveness of alternatives, and potential side effects. NSAIDs are effective for the acute treatment of migraine exacerbations with caution for adverse effects such as gastrointestinal upset and renal symptoms. Beta-blockers are effective for migraine attack prophylaxis but are associated with dizziness and fatigue and are contraindicated in patients with certain co-morbidities, including asthma, congestive heart failure, and abnormal cardiac rhythms. Calcium channel blockers do not show enough evidence to be recommended as migraine attack prophylactic therapy. The anti-epileptic drugs topiramate and divalproex sodium and antidepressants venlafaxine and amitriptyline are effective for migraine exacerbation prophylaxis but have associated side effects. The decision for pharmacologic management should ultimately be made following consideration of risk vs. benefit and discussion between patient and physician.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Coadministered Atogepant and Topiramate in Healthy Participants: A Phase 1, Open-Label, Drug-Drug Interaction Study

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, and topiramate, a commonly used oral antiepileptic, are approved as preventive migraine treatments. Given the distinct mechanisms of action of these treatments, it is possible that they may be coprescribed for migraine. This open-label, single-center, 2-cohort, phase 1 trial evaluated the potential pharmacokinetic (PK) 2-way drug-drug interactions (DDIs), safety, and tolerability of atogepant and topiramate in healthy adults. Participants received atogepant 60 mg once daily and topiramate 100 mg twice daily. Cohort 1 (N = 28) evaluated the effect of topiramate on the PK of atogepant; cohort 2 (N = 25) evaluated the effect of atogepant on the PK of topiramate. Potential DDIs were assessed using geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals calculated for maximum plasma drug concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at steady state (AUC0-tau,ss ). Additional PK parameters were assessed. Atogepant AUC0-tau,ss and Cmax,ss decreased by 25% and 24%, respectively, with topiramate coadministration. Topiramate AUC0-tau,ss and Cmax,ss decreased by 5% and 6%, respectively, with atogepant coadministration. The 25% reduction in atogepant exposure when coadministered with topiramate is not considered to be clinically relevant and would not require dose adjustments.

Discovery of the mechanisms of acupuncture in the treatment of migraine based on functional magnetic resonance imaging and omics

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurological disease, but the current pharmacotherapies show limited efficacy and often accompanied by adverse effects. Acupuncture is a promising complementary therapy, but further clinical evidence is needed. The influence of acupuncture on migraine is not an immediate effect, and its mechanism remains unclear. This study aims to provide further clinical evidence for the anti-migraine effects of acupuncture and explore the mechanism involved. A randomized controlled trial was performed among 10 normal controls and 38 migraineurs. The migraineurs were divided into blank control, sham acupuncture, and acupuncture groups. Patients were subjected to two courses of treatment, and each treatment lasted for 5 days, with an interval of 1 day between the two courses. The effectiveness of treatment was evaluated using pain questionnaire. The functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were analyzed for investigating brain changes induced by treatments. Blood plasma was collected for metabolomics and proteomics studies. Correlation and mediation analyses were performed to investigate the interaction between clinical, fMRI and omics changes. Results showed that acupuncture effectively relieved migraine symptoms in a way different from sham acupuncture in terms of curative effect, affected brain regions, and signaling pathways. The anti-migraine mechanism involves a complex network related to the regulation of the response to hypoxic stress, reversal of brain energy imbalance, and regulation of inflammation. The brain regions of migraineurs affected by acupuncture include the lingual gyrus, default mode network, and cerebellum. The effect of acupuncture on patients' metabolites/proteins may precede that of the brain.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Five Anti-calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Agents for Migraine Prevention: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) agents are some of the newest preventive medications for migraine. There is limited literature comparing the efficacy of the most recent CGRP antagonist, atogepant, to CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention. In this network meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety of migraine treatments including different doses of atogepant and CGRP monoclonal antibodies were evaluated to provide a reference for future clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified all randomized controlled trials published through May 2022 and including patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine and treated with erenumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, galcanezumab, atogepant, or placebo. The primary outcomes were the reduction of monthly migraine days, 50% response rate, and the number of adverse events (AEs). The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

In this study, 24 articles were considered for analysis. Regarding efficacy, all interventions were superior to placebo with a statistically significant difference. The most effective intervention was monthly fremanezumab 225 mg in change from baseline of migraine days (standard mean difference = -0.49, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.37) and 50% response rate (risk ratio = 2.98, 95% CI: 2.16,4.10), while the optimal choice for reducing acute medication days was monthly erenumab 140 mg (standard mean difference = -0.68, 95% CI: -0.79, -0.58). In terms of AEs, all therapies and placebo did not achieve statistical significance except for monthly galcanezumab 240 mg and quarterly fremanezumab 675 mg. There was no significant difference in discontinuation due to AEs between interventions and placebo.

DISCUSSION

All anti-CGRP agents were more effective than placebo in migraine prevention. Overall, monthly fremanezumab 225 mg, monthly erenumab 140 mg, and daily atogepant 60 mg were effective interventions with fewer side effects.

The utility of ChatGPT in the assessment of literature on the prevention of migraine: an observational, qualitative study

Background

It is not known how large language models, such as ChatGPT, can be applied toward the assessment of the efficacy of medications, including in the prevention of migraine, and how it might support those claims with existing medical evidence.

Methods

We queried ChatGPT-3.5 on the efficacy of 47 medications for the prevention of migraine and then asked it to give citations in support of its assessment. ChatGPT's evaluations were then compared to their FDA approval status for this indication as well as the American Academy of Neurology 2012 evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of migraine. The citations ChatGPT generated for these evaluations were then assessed to see if they were real papers and if they were relevant to the query.

Results

ChatGPT affirmed that the 14 medications that have either received FDA approval for prevention of migraine or AAN Grade A/B evidence were effective for migraine. Its assessments of the other 33 medications were unreliable including suggesting possible efficacy for four medications that have never been used for the prevention of migraine. Critically, only 33/115 (29%) of the papers ChatGPT cited were real, while 76/115 (66%) were "hallucinated" not real papers and 6/115 (5%) shared the names of real papers but had not real citations.

Conclusion

While ChatGPT produced tailored answers on the efficacy of the queried medications, the results were unreliable and inaccurate because of the overwhelming volume of "hallucinated" articles it generated and cited.

Migraine and cardiovascular disease: what cardiologists should know

Migraine is a chronic neurovascular disease with a complex, not fully understood pathophysiology with multiple causes. People with migraine suffer from recurrent moderate to severe headache attacks varying from 4 to 72 h. The prevalence of migraine is two to three times higher in women compared with men. Importantly, it is the most disabling disease in women <50 years of age due to a high number of years lived with disability, resulting in a very high global socioeconomic burden. Robust evidence exists on the association between migraine with aura and increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), in particular ischaemic stroke. People with migraine with aura have an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death compared with those without migraine. Ongoing studies investigate the relation between migraine and angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries and migraine patients with patent foramen ovale. Medication for the treatment of migraine can be preventative medication, such as beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants, some of the long-acting calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, or monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor, or acute medication, such as triptans and calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists. However, these medications might raise concerns when migraine patients also have CVD due to possible (coronary) side effects. Specifically, knowledge gaps remain for the contraindication to newer treatments for migraine. All cardiologists will encounter patients with CVD and migraine. This state-of-the-art review will outline the basic pathophysiology of migraine and the associations between migraine and CVD, discuss current therapies, and propose future directions for research.

Hypertension: sex-related differences in drug treatment, prevalence and blood pressure control in primary care

Antihypertensive treatment is equally beneficial for reducing cardiovascular risk in both men and women. Despite this, the drug treatment, prevalence and control of hypertension differ between men and women. Men and women respond differently, particularly with respect to the risk of adverse events, to many antihypertensive drugs. Certain antihypertensive drugs may also be especially beneficial in the setting of certain comorbidities - of both cardiovascular and extracardiac nature - which also differ between men and women. Furthermore, hypertension in pregnancy can pose a considerable therapeutic challenge for women and their physicians in primary care. In addition, data from population-based studies and from real-world data are inconsistent regarding whether men or women attain hypertension-related goals to a higher degree. In population-based studies, women with hypertension have higher rates of treatment and controlled blood pressure than men, whereas real-world, primary-care data instead show better blood pressure control in men. Men and women are also treated with different antihypertensive drugs: women use more thiazide diuretics and men use more angiotensin-enzyme inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers. This narrative review explores these sex-related differences with guidance from current literature. It also features original data from a large, Swedish primary-care register, which showed that blood pressure control was better in women than men until they reached their late sixties, after which the situation was reversed. This age-related decrease in blood pressure control in women was not, however, accompanied by a proportional increase in use of antihypertensive drugs and female sex was a significant predictor of less intensive antihypertensive treatment.

Global Research Trends and Hotspots Analysis of the Scientific Production of Amitriptyline: A Bibliometric Approach

Amitriptyline was first introduced as a medication to treat depression. Over time, this substance has been used to treat other conditions, such as gastrointestinal disorders, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and analgesia, among others. However, there are no published studies that provide a broad view of the possible motivations that have led to changes in the use of amitriptyline. In this study, we have identified the landscape of use for amitriptyline based on knowledge mapping of the 100 most-cited articles about this drug. We searched Web of Science Core Collection without time and language restrictions. We obtained 14,446 results, but we only used the 100 most-cited articles that had amitriptyline as the object of study. We collected the following information from each article: authors, country of the corresponding authors, year of publication, citation count, citation density (number of citations per year), and keywords. In addition, we seek to map in the chosen articles study design and research findings. We found that since 1980, the use of amitriptyline has expanded beyond depression, moving to off-label use to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including post-herpetic neuralgia, neuropathic pain, primary fibrosis, fibromyalgia, and migraine, can be considered a drug with more clinical applicability than its original clinical indication.

Global, regional, and national time trends in incidence for migraine, from 1990 to 2019: an age-period-cohort analysis for the GBD 2019

BACKGROUND

The majority of epidemiological studies on migraine have been conducted in a specific country or region, and there is a lack of globally comparable data. We aim to report the latest information on global migraine incidence overview trends from 1990 to 2019.

METHODS

In this study, the available data were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease 2019. We present temporal trends in migraine for the world and its 204 countries and territories over the past 30 years. Meanwhile, an age-period-cohort model be used to estimate net drifts (overall annual percentage change), local drifts (annual percentage change in each age group), longitudinal age curves (expected longitudinal age-specific rate), and period (cohort) relative risks.

RESULTS

In 2019, the global incidence of migraine increased to 87.6 million (95% UI: 76.6, 98.7), with an increase of 40.1% compared to 1990. India, China, United States of America, and Indonesia had the highest number of incidences, accounting for 43.6% of incidences globally. Females experienced a higher incidence than males, the highest incidence rate was observed in the 10-14 age group. However, there was a gradual transition in the age distribution of incidence from teenagers to middle-aged populations. The net drift of incidence rate ranged from 3.45% (95% CI: 2.38, 4.54) in high-middle Socio-demographic Index (SDI) regions to -4.02% (95% CI: -4.79, -3.18) in low SDI regions, 9 of 204 countries showed increasing trends (net drifts and its 95% CI were > 0) in incidence rate. The age-period-cohort analysis results showed that the relative risk of incidence rate generally showed unfavorable trends over time and in successively birth cohorts among high-, high-middle-, and middle SDI regions, but low-middle- and low-SDI regions keep stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine is still an important contributor to the global burden of neurological disorders worldwide. Temporal trends in migraine incidence are not commensurate with socioeconomic development and vary widely across countries. Both sexes and all age groups should get healthcare to address the growing migraine population, especially adolescents and females.

A head-to-head observational cohort study on the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide for chronic and episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab for the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine, through real-world data.

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have been tested extensively in several clinical trials for both episodic and chronic migraine, showing high effectiveness, safety, and tolerability; however, there are no prospective real-world studies intending to compare their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study comparing the effectiveness and safety profiles of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab for the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine. We enrolled 140 patients at the Headache Centre of University Federico II of Naples, with a history of multiple failed treatments with validated migraine preventatives. Framenezumab, erenumab, or galcanezumab were administered for 12 months. The mean monthly days with headache, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score, and adverse events were evaluated during the run-in period and every 3 months by reviewing standardized paper patient headache diaries.

RESULTS

We found a mean reduction of migraine monthly days from baseline of -12.0 (-9.8, -14.1) in the galcanezumab group, -12.3 (-10.2, -14.3) in the fremanezumab group, and -10.8 (-8.5, -13.1) in the erenumab group (for all, p < 0.001). We found a mean reduction of MIDAS score of -32.6 (-26.6, -38.5) in the galcanezumab group, -33.4 (-28.0, -38.9) in the fremanezumab group, and -29.2 (-23.0, -35.4) in the erenumab group (for all, p < 0.001). We found no significant differences between mAbs in the reduction of mean monthly days with headache and MIDAS score. We found a more rapid effect of galcanezumab and erenumab compared to fremanezumab in medication overuse headache patients after 3 months of treatment (-10.8 and -11.1 vs. -4.0 days; p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the therapeutic benefits of anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence that suggests that one antibody may be superior to the others in terms of effectiveness, both in chronic and episodic patients.

Migraine Treatment Using Erenumab: Can Lead to a Cognitive and Psychological Qualitative Improvement?

Migraine is one of the most disabling disorders in the world, associated with poor quality of life. Migraine prevention strategies have increasingly evolved since monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor, were identified. CGRP is the ideal target of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In particular, erenumab is the mAb that has shown good therapeutic efficacy in reducing pain intensity and having high tolerability. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of erenumab on both cognitive performance and psychological well-being. This was a pilot study with a retrospective design that included 14 subjects (2 males and 12 females), with a mean age of 52.29 ± 9.62, who attended the Headache and Migraine outpatient clinic of the IRCCS Centro Neurolesi Bonino-Pulejo of Messina. The evaluation consisted of measuring cognitive and psychological functioning. Comparing clinical and psychometric test scores between baseline and follow-up, we found a significant improvement in both cognitive performance and quality of life. We also observed a decrease in migraine disability. Our findings have shown improvements in global cognitive performance and quality of life in migraine patients taking erenumab.

Literature Review: Pericranial Nerve Blocks for Chronic Migraines

Purpose of Review

Headaches, especially migraines, are one of the most pervasive neurological disorders affecting up to 15.9% of the population. Current methods of migraine treatment include lifestyle changes, pharmacologic, and minimally invasive techniques such as peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) and pericranial nerve blocks (PNB).

Recent Findings

PNBs are used to treat and prevent migraines and involves injection of local anesthetics with or without corticosteroids. PNBs include the greater occipital, supraorbital, supratrochlear, lesser occipital, auriculotemporal, sphenopalantine ganglion, and cervical root nerve blocks. Of the PNBs, the most extensively studied is the greater occipital nerve block (GONB) which has been shown to be an efficacious treatment for migraines, trigeminal neuralgia, hemi-crania continua, and post-lumbar puncture, post-concussive, cluster, and cervicogenic headaches but not medication overuse and chronic tension type headaches.

Summary

In this review, we aim to summarize the recent literature on PNBs and their efficacy in the treatment of migraines including a brief discussion of peripheral nerve stimulation.

Emerging drugs for the preventive treatment of migraine: a review of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a leading cause of years lived with disability and preventive strategies represent a mainstay to reduce health-related disability and improve quality of life of migraine patients. Until a few years ago, migraine prevention was based on drugs developed for other clinical indications and relocated in the migraine therapeutic armamentarium, characterized by unfavourable tolerability profiles. The advent of monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists, has been a turning point in migraine prevention owing to advantageous efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles.Nevertheless, while in an ideal scenario a drug characterized by significant greater efficacy and tolerability compared to existing therapeutic strategies should be adopted as a first-line treatment, cost-effectiveness analyses available for monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway tend to limit their administration to more severe migraine phenotypes.

AREAS COVERED

The present narrative review aim to provide a critical appraisal of phase II and III CGRP-mAbs and gepants trials to analyse their use in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway and gepants can be undoubtedly considered top-of-the-range treatments, there are still issues deserving to be addressed in the coming years as the risk of off-target effects as well as their economic sustainability based on the considerable migraine burden.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Response to erenumab assessed by Headache Impact Test-6 is modulated by genetic factors and arterial hypertension: An explorative cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Response predictors to erenumab (ERE) in migraine patients would benefit their clinical management. We investigate associations between patients' clinical characteristics and polymorphisms at calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CALCRL) and receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1) genes and response to ERE treatment measured as clinically meaningful improvement on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated study involves 110 migraine patients starting ERE 70 mg/month. Demographics, medical history, and migraine-related burden measured by HIT-6 score were collected during 3 months before and after ERE start. Selected polymorphic variants of CALCRL and RAMP1 genes were determined using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Logistic regression models identified independent predictors for response to ERE, defined as HIT-6 score improvement ≥ 8 points (HIT-6 responders [HIT-6 RESP] vs. HIT-6 nonresponders).

RESULTS

At Month 3, 58 (52.7%) patients were HIT-6 RESP. Comorbid hypertension predicted a lower probability of being HIT-6 RESP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.160, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.047-0.548, p = 0.003). Compared to major alleles, minor alleles CALCRL rs6710852G and RAMP rs6431564G conferred an increased probability of being HIT-6 RESP (for each G allele: OR = 2.82, 95% CI = 1.03-7.73, p = 0.043; OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.05-4.22, p = 0.037). RAMP1 rs13386048A and RAMP1 rs12465864G decreased this probability (for each rs13386048A, OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.28-0.98, p = 0.042; for each rs12465864G, OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13-0.75, p = 0.009). A genetic risk score based on the presence and number of identified risk alleles was independently associated with HIT-6 RESP (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.33-0.72, p = 0.0003), surviving Bonferroni correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Response to ERE was associated with comorbid hypertension and specific allelic variants in CALCRL and RAMP1 genes. Results require confirmation in future studies.

The pharmacokinetics of single oral dose extended-release topiramate and adverse effects after multi-dose administration in healthy cats

Current treatment options for feline epilepsy are limited to medications that require administration of multiple doses per day or administration of a capsule or large tablet. Expanding the current treatment options could improve patient and owner compliance and optimize seizure control. Topiramate has been used sparingly in veterinary medicine, and limited pharmacokinetic studies have focused on immediate release formulations in dogs. If effective and safe, topiramate extended-release (XR) could broaden the current treatment options for feline epilepsy. The aims of this two-phase study were to establish single-dose pharmacokinetics for topiramate XR in cats, identify a dosing regimen that maintains steady-state plasma drug concentrations within a reference range extrapolated from human medicine (5-20 μg/mL), and evaluate the safety of topiramate XR in cats following multidose administration. Topiramate XR administered orally at 10 mg/kg once daily for 30 days was sufficient to achieve the desired concentrations in all cats. While no clinically apparent adverse effects were observed, four out of eight cats developed subclinical anemia, calling into question the safety of topiramate XR with chronic administration. Further studies are necessary to better understand the potential adverse effects and overall efficacy of topiramate XR for the treatment of feline epilepsy.

Safety of drugs used for the treatment of migraine during pregnancy: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is common in females of childbearing age and negatively impacts quality of life. The majority of those with migraine who become pregnant see an improvement in their condition but not all do. Providing evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological management of migraine in pregnancy is challenging.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an update on the safety of drugs used for migraine in pregnancy. National and international guidelines on the management of episodic migraine in adults were used to select the drugs of relevance to pregnant women. The final list of drugs was chosen by a pain specialist who categorized them according to drug class and use in acute management or prevention. PubMed was searched from inception to 31st July 2022 for evidence on drug safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Obtaining high-quality drug safety data in pregnant migraineurs is difficult not least because exposing a fetus to research-related risks is often considered unethical. There is reliance on observational studies which often group drugs together and lack specificities pertinent to drug prescribing like timing, dosing and duration. Improved statistical tools, study designs and the creation of international collaborative frameworks are ways to advance knowledge on drug safety in pregnancy.

Costs and Utilization of New-to-Market Neurologic Medications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the utilization and costs (total and out-of-pocket) of new-to-market neurologic medications with existing guideline-supported neurologic medications over time.

METHODS

We used a healthcare pharmaceutical claims database (from 2001 to 2019) to identify patients with both a diagnosis of 1 of 11 separate neurologic conditions and either a new-to-market medication or an existing guideline-supported medication for that condition. Neurologic conditions included orthostatic hypotension, spinal muscular atrophy, Duchenne disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Huntington disease, tardive dyskinesia, transthyretin amyloidosis, and migraine. New-to-market medications were defined as all neurologic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2014 and 2018. In each year, we determined the median out-of-pocket and standardized total costs for a 30-day supply of each medication. We also measured the proportion of patients receiving new-to-market medications compared with all medications specific for the relevant condition.

RESULTS

We found that the utilization of most new-to-market medications was small (<20% in all but 1 condition), compared with existing, guideline-supported medications. The out-of-pocket and standardized total costs were substantially larger for new-to-market medications. The median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply in 2019 were largest for edaravone ($712.8 [$59.8-$802.0]) and eculizumab ($91.1 [$3.0-$3,216.4]). For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs was highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications.

DISCUSSION

Despite the increasing number of FDA-approved neurologic medications, utilization of newly approved medications in the privately insured population remains small. Given the high costs and similar efficacy for most of the new medications, limited utilization may be appropriate. However, for new medications with greater efficacy, future studies are needed to determine whether high costs are a barrier to utilization.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

BACKGROUND

The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden.

METHODS

CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement.

RESULTS

The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

DISCUSSION

Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients.

BACKGROUND

The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Global Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Current Therapeutic Novelties in Migraine Therapy and their Prevention: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The current article reviews the latest information on epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, recent advancements in clinical management, current therapeutic novelties, and the prevention of migraines. In a narrative review, all studies as per developed MeSH terms published until February 2023, excluding those irrelevant, were identified through a PubMed literature search.

METHODS

Overall, migraine affects more than a billion people annually and is one of the most common neurological illnesses. A wide range of comorbidities is associated with migraines, including stress and sleep disturbances. To lower the worldwide burden of migraine, comprehensive efforts are required to develop and enhance migraine treatment, which is supported by informed healthcare policy. Numerous migraine therapies have been successful, but not all patients benefit from them.

RESULTS

CGRP pathway-targeted therapy demonstrates the importance of translating mechanistic understanding into effective treatment. In this review, we discuss clinical features, diagnosis, and recently approved drugs, as well as a number of potential therapeutic targets, including pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), adenosine, opioid receptors, potassium channels, transient receptor potential ion channels (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC).

CONCLUSION

In addition to providing more treatment options for improved clinical care, a better understanding of these mechanisms facilitates the discovery of novel therapeutic targets.