Chronic migraine: a therapeutic challenge for clinicians

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Onabotulinumtoxin-A in Chronic Migraine: Should Timing and Definition of Non-Responder Status Be Revised? Suggestions From a Real-Life Italian Multicenter Experience

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether the clinical response after the first 2 cycles with Onabotulinumtoxin A can accurately predict the long-term response.

BACKGROUND

Onabotulinumtoxin-A (OBT-A) is an approved preventive treatment option for chronic migraine (CM). Nowadays, it remains to be clarified if the treatment has to be prolonged for at least an entire year (4 injections every 3 months - ie, quarterly, as proposed in the PREEMPT trials) or it can be halted after the second or third injection if not clinically effective.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter observational cohort study based on real-life data on the usage of OBT-A in CM patients from 2 Italian headache centers, Roma Campus Bio-Medico and Milano Besta, adopting the whole 4-injections protocol. We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of consecutive patients treated in the 2 centers. The main statistical analysis aimed to evaluate longitudinal measures related to headache (monthly headache frequency, monthly number of analgesic drugs, MIDAS). We hypothesized from our clinical practice with OBT-A that only 2 cycles of treatment were not enough to actually define the non-responder status to botulinum toxin A and that probably a longer time of treatment is needed to get the condition of long-term (delayed) responder.

RESULTS

We considered 115 patients from the 2 centers: 53 in Roma and 62 in Milano. Regarding the main analysis, a clear improvement in each measure was obtained at the 6 months assessment and maintained up to 12 months. Comparing patients with <30% and ≥30% reduction in headache frequency between T0 and T2 or T4 (respectively, "Non-Responders" and "Responders"), we found that the agreement between the classification Responders/Non-Responders at T2 and T4 was not very high (79/104 = 76.0%, with a "moderate" Cohen's Kappa of 0.51), suggesting that the status at T4 is not fully predictable by the status at T2 (λ = 0.47). Responders for headache frequency at T4 were 54.8%. Among Responders at T2, Responders at T4 were 47/62 = 75.8% (95% CI: 64.5%, 85.5%), while among Non-Responders at T2, Responders at T4 were 10/42 = 23.8% (95% CI: 11.9%, 38.1%). Similarly, even when considering the 50% reduction in painkillers consumption or in MIDAS total score between T0 and T2 as possible prognostic factors, the changes occurring at T4 are not strongly predictable by those at T2.

CONCLUSIONS

A ≥30% reduction in headache frequency at T2 cut-off is not adequate in predicting a late response to treatment: more than a quarter of excluded patients would miss a clinical improvement with an ongoing treatment, while in a similar percentage of Responders the treatment would lose efficacy. Results from our real-life study suggest that we possibly have to postpone the definition of Responder/Non-Responder to OBT-A at least after 1 year of treatment (4 cycles).

CGRP monoclonal antibody for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: An update of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) is a promising preventive treatment for episodic migraine and has been approved by US FDA recently. But the treatments for chronic migraine are rare. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of CGRP mAbs in preventing chronic migraine.

METHODS

Database including Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which are about CGRP mAb in preventing treatment of chronic migraine. Evaluating the bias and quality of RCTs was carried out according to the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. The data analysis was carried out by reviewer manager 5.2.

RESULTS

Totally, 6 articles enrolled in the present meta-analysis, including 4 independent clinical trials and 3,166 patients. After pooled analysis, it indicated that CGRP mAb improved 50% responder rate (OR = 2.42, 95% CI = [2.04, 2.87], I²  = 0%, p < 0.00001) and 75% responder rate (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = [1.30, 2.91], I²  = 0%, p = 0.001), as compared with placebo. And there was no difference in incidence of adverse events between CGRP mAb group and placebo group except incidence of injection site discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

CGRP mAb is an effective and safety preventive treatment for chronic migraine.

Onabotulinumtoxin A for the management of chronic migraine in current clinical practice: results of a survey of sixty-three Italian headache centers

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a complex clinical condition often undertreated. Onabotulinumtoxin A (OBT-A) was approved in Italy in 2013 for symptom relief in patients with chronic migraine who have failed, or do not tolerate, oral prophylactic treatments. However, the impact of OBT-A in clinical practice remains to be defined.

METHODS

To investigate the current management of chronic migraine with OBT-A in clinical practice, a web-based survey was conducted among clinicians working in third-level headache centers across Italy. A 26-item questionnaire was designed and developed by a group of 10 Italian headache specialists to address the following issues: treatment paradigm and OBT-A injection intervals, frequency of treatment and retreatment, definition of responders/non-responders, satisfaction with treatment potential impact of early treatment with OBT-A. Ninety-six headache centers were selected and contacted via e-mail. The online survey was anonymous and carried out using a secure website.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 of the 96 centers (66.7%) completed the questionnaire. Most centers (98.4%) had been using OBT-A for >1 year. OBT-A was administered according to the PREEMPT paradigm in most centers (88.9%). While during the first year of prophylaxis with OBT-A most clinicians (93.6%) repeated OBT-A treatment every 3 months, as recommended, in the following years interval duration was variable. Response to OBT-A was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the headache days by 58.7% of the clinicians, and as a ≥ 30% reduction by 25.4% of them. Almost 60% of the clinicians considered OBT-A as a long-lasting therapy, while for one-third of them treatment could be discontinued in patients showing a benefit for ≥6 months. According to 80% of the clinicians, early administration of OBT-A after the onset of chronic migraine was associated with better outcomes, and 47.6% felt that OBT-A should be recommended as a first-line option.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that in third-level headache centers in Italy OBT-A is used in good compliance with current recommendations. There is agreement about the definition of response as a reduction in headache days by 30% to 50%. Additional effort is required to define response to OBT-A and to establish optimal treatment duration.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the prophylactic treatment of migraine based on interictal visual cortex excitability abnormalities: A pilot randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aims of this paper are (i) to compare the excitability of visual cortex in migraine patients with healthy volunteers; and (ii) if an abnormal excitability has been found, to modulate cortical excitability in migraine patients with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and observe their clinical and neurophysiological effects.

METHODS

The study was divided into two steps. A cross-sectional study (step 1) was conducted to compare the cortical excitability of 23 migraineurs (11 with and 12 without aura) on 11 healthy individuals. On step 2, a randomized, double blinded, controlled pilot trial was carried on with 19 migraineurs, randomly divided into: experimental and control group. During 12 sessions, experimental and group received active tDCS to visual cortex and control group received sham tDCS. The headache diary was applied for a total of 90days (before, during and after tDCS sessions). Phosphene threshold (PT) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation was recorded to measure the excitability of the visual cortex before and after each session.

RESULTS

Step 1 showed higher level of cortical excitability between migraineurs when compared to healthy volunteers; therefore, cathodal tDCS was applied over visual cortex in step 2. After tDCS application, a significant decrease was observed in a number of migraine attacks, painkiller intake and duration of each attack just in experimental group. The analysis of PT indicated no difference in cortical excitability after tDCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of the study suggested that inhibitory tDCS on visual cortex might be an alternative and non-pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis. However the clinical improvements of patients after tDCS treatment are not correlated with changes in cortical excitability.