Drug safety in acute migraine treatment

Erenumab efficacy in migraine headache prophylaxis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to show the efficiency of Erenumab in the preventive therapy of episodic and chronic migraine, which is still under research.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic neurovascular disorder that causes disability and a social burden. There are various medications used for migraine prevention regimens, most of which have unwanted side effects and aren't often quite effective. Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide receptors and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for migraine prevention.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we searched through Scopus and PubMed databases using "Erenumab" or "AMG 334" and "migraine" as keywords, and all the studies from 2016 to March 18, 2022, were included. Original English articles assessing any outcomes referring to the efficacy of Erenumab in migraine headache treatment were included in this study.

RESULTS

We found 53 out of 605 papers eligible to be investigated. Erenumab in both dosages of 70 mg and 140 mg could decrease the mean of monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Erenumab also has a higher rate of ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, and 100 % reduction in monthly migraine days from the baseline in different regions. The efficacy of Erenumab was initiated in the first week of administration and sustained throughout and after treatment. Erenumab was also potent in the treatment of migraine with allodynia, aura, prior preventive therapy failure, medication overuse headache, and menstrual migraine. Erenumab also had favorable outcomes in combination therapy with other preventive drugs like Onabotulinumtoxin-A.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab had remarkable efficacy in the short and long-term treatment of episodic and chronic migraine, notably the patients with difficult-to-treat migraine headaches.

Real-World Analysis of Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Insufficient Responders and Responders to Prescribed Acute Migraine Treatment in China

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder characterized by attacks of severe pain, sometimes accompanied by symptoms including nausea and photo-/phono-phobia. Real-world data of patients with migraine who sufficiently (responders) and insufficiently (insufficient responders) respond to acute treatment (AT) are limited in China. This analysis explored whether responders to AT differ from insufficient responders in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes in China.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of internists/neurologists and their consulting patients with migraine, conducted in a real-world setting in China, January-June 2014. Responders and insufficient responders to prescribed AT were patients who typically achieved headache pain freedom within 2 h of AT in ≥ 4 and ≤ 3 of five migraine attacks, respectively. Responders were compared with insufficient responders; logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with insufficient response.

RESULTS

Of 777 patients currently receiving AT, 44.0% were insufficient responders. Significantly fewer responders than insufficient responders had migraine with aura (13.1 vs. 23.8%; p = 0.0001). Responders reported a significantly lower mean Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) total score (5.5 vs. 6.6; p = 0.0325). Responders reported a lower mean impairment while working (50.0 vs. 63.9%; p < 0.0001), overall work impairment (52.6 vs. 66.0%; p < 0.0001), and activity impairment (48.9 vs. 59.0%; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant factors associated with insufficient response to AT included diabetes, unilateral pain, vomiting, sensitivity to smell, visual aura/sight disturbance, and an increase in MIDAS total score. However, there were no statistically significant differences in ATs received by responders and insufficient responders at any regimen of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with migraine in China are insufficient responders to AT, experiencing worse symptoms that lead to overall poorer quality of life than responders. This unmet need suggests that new effective treatment options are required for migraine.

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study

Background

Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2.

Methods

PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1–24).

Results

A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1–24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1–24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153.

Graphical abstract

Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the prophylactic treatment of resistant and refractory migraine

INTRODUCTION

Refractory migraine is associated with low quality of life and great socioeconomic burden. Despite high need for effective, tolerable preventive therapies, there has been little research on potential therapeutic options. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) are the first preventive therapeutic approach for migraine based on the underlying pathophysiology.

AREAS COVERED

Following a brief introduction into the term 'refractory migraine,' the authors reviewavailable treatment options, focusing on current phase III trials of substances acting on the CGRP pathway.

EXPERT OPINION

No uniform definition for refractory migraine is available. The vast majority of proposals recommend treatment failure of 2-4 drug classes as a key diagnostic criterion. Phase III studies on CGRP-(receptor) mAbs demonstrated excellent efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic and episodic migraine including subjects with multiple unsuccessful conventional therapy attempts. However, more comparator trials showing superiority of mAbs versus oral preventatives, such as the HER-MEs study are needed. In summary, with the CGRP antibodies, a group of drugs has entered the market which will most likely not only significantly improve the quality of life of many individual migraine patients but could also reduce indirect health-care costs associated with migraine by reducing recurrent medical consultations.

The importance of an early onset of migraine preventive disease control: A roundtable discussion

Background:

Newly approved migraine preventive therapies have allowed for rapid control of migraine activity, offering potential to minimize the burden of migraine. This report summarizes a roundtable discussion convened to analyze evidence for early onset of prevention, ascertain its clinical relevance, and provide guidance for healthcare professionals in crafting goals and treatment expectations for patients with migraine initiating preventive therapy.

Methods:

A virtual roundtable meeting of migraine clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates convened in October 2020. Participants reviewed and discussed data summarizing patient and healthcare professional perceptions of migraine prevention and evidence from the peer-reviewed and gray literature to develop corresponding recommendations.

Summary:

Evidence from clinical studies of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) and the chemodenervation agent onabotulinumtoxinA indicate that patients may experience reduction of migraine activity within 7 days of drug administration and early attainment of disease control is associated with improvements in clinically important outcomes. The roundtable of experts proposes that early onset be defined as demonstration of preventive benefits within 1 week of treatment initiation. We recommend focusing discussion with patients around “disease control” and potential benefits of early onset of prevention, so patients can set realistic preventive therapy goals and expectations.

CGRP and CGRP-receptor as targets of migraine therapy: Brain Prize-2021

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent primary headache with an unclear pathomechanism. During the last 40 years numerous hypotheses have arisen, among them the theory of the trigeminovascular system is the primary one. It serves as a skeleton in successful preclinical studies and in the development of effective therapeutic options for migraine headache.

OBJECTIVE

The Brain Prize (awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation) is the most prestigious tribute in neuroscience. The winners in 2021 were Lars Edvinsson, Peter Goadsby, Michael Moskowitz and Jes Olesen. They are the fathers of the migraine pathomechanism which led to revolutionary new treatments. This review summarizes their landmark findings.

METHODS

Data related to this topic were reviewed from PubMed records published between 1979 and May 2021. Searches were based on preclinical and clinical studies in the covered field. The findings were listed in chronological order. From a therapeutic perspective, only randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis were discussed.

RESULTS

The calcitonin gene-related peptide-related pathogenesis of migraine is based on the activation of the trigeminovascular system. The therapeutic triad for migraine is triptans, gepants and calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSION

In the past 40 years, the systematic work of leading headache scientists has resulted in robust theoretical and therapeutic knowledge in the preclinical and clinical study of migraine.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Novel Therapies in Acute Migraine Management: Small-Molecule Calcitonin Gene-Receptor Antagonists and Serotonin 1F Receptor Agonist

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents-ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant-representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura.

DATA SOURCES

The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative.

DATA SYNTHESIS

CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan's adverse effect profile may limit its use.

Long-Term Safety Evaluation of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Phase 3, Randomized, 52-Week Extension Trial

Objective

To evaluate the long‐term safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

Background

Ubrogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene–related receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy of ubrogepant was demonstrated in 2 phase 3 trials in which a significant improvement was observed in migraine headache pain, migraine‐associated symptoms, and ability to function.

Methods

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open‐label, 52‐week extension trial. Adults with migraine with or without aura entered the trial after completing one of 2 phase 3 lead‐in trials and were re‐randomized 1:1:1 to usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg. Randomization to ubrogepant dose was blinded. Those randomized to usual care continued to treat migraine attacks with their own medication. The usual care arm was included in this trial to capture background rates of hepatic laboratory parameters and contextualize hepatic safety assessments. Safety and tolerability were the primary outcome measures. The safety population for the ubrogepant arms included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. All cases of alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were adjudicated by an independent panel of liver experts who were blinded to dose.

Results

The safety population included 1230 participants (404 in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group, 409 in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group, and 417 in the usual care group). Participants were on average 42 years of age, 90% (1106/1230) female and 85% (1043/1230) white, with an average BMI of 30 kg/m². Throughout the trial, 21,454 migraine attacks were treated with 31,968 doses of ubrogepant. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 268/404 (66%) participants receiving ubrogepant 50 mg and 297/409 (73%) receiving ubrogepant 100 mg. The most commonly reported TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection (<12%); findings were similar across dose groups. Treatment‐related TEAEs were reported by 42/404 (10%) participants in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group and 43/409 (11%) in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 9/404 (2%) participants in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group and 12/409 (3%) participants in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group. Twenty cases of ALT/AST levels of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were reported and reviewed by an independent clinical adjudication committee of liver experts. There were no cases of Hy’s Law.

Conclusions

Long‐term intermittent use of ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg given as 1 or 2 doses per attack for the acute treatment of migraine was safe and well tolerated, as indicated by a low incidence of treatment‐related TEAEs and SAEs and discontinuations due to adverse events in this 1‐year trial.

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Recruitment, retention, and adherence in a randomized feasibility trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction for patients with migraine

OBJECTIVES

Increasing evidence demonstrates effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for pain-related and functional disorders. In order to conduct successful and efficient trials of MBSR, evidence regarding the relative performance of strategies to improve recruitment, retention, and adherence is required, but few studies have examined these issues specifically.

DESIGN

In preparation for a fully powered trial, we conducted a 2-arm, parallel comparison randomized controlled feasibility trial of MBSR vs. usual-care for 60 patients with migraine headache.

SETTING

Two large U.S. health systems in Northern California.

INTERVENTION

MBSR is an 8-week classroom-based intervention that combines mindfulness meditation and yoga, with didactic presentations about stress psychology and group process/experiential education. Participants received the intervention at their choice of one of several existing, vetted community-based classes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful recruitment was defined a priori as 18 participants within any 9-week period or 60 participants enrolled within a 36-week period. We considered participants adherent to the intervention if they attended at least 5 of the 8 weekly classes and the day-long retreat.

RESULTS

We successfully enrolled 18 participants within a 7-week period, however, we did not attain our second goal of recruiting 60 participants within a 36-week period. Sixty-eight percent of our participants were adherent to the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that close monitoring of recruitment activities, flexibility in protocol modifications, and integration within the delivery system were crucial factors for successful participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in mindfulness research.

Triptanophobia in migraine: A case-control study on the causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine patients

Background: Triptanophobia is the excessive and inadequately justified concern about potential risks of triptans. We evaluated causes and consequences of nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine (CM) Methods: Case-control study. We included CM patients firstly referred to aheadache unit. Patients were cases or controls depending on whether they were triptan naïve, or not. We analyzed if nonuse of triptans was justified by formal contraindications or adverse events. We assessed if triptan naïve patients had higher frequency of vascular risk factors (VRF), contraceptive drugs or older age. Results: We included 941 patients, 247 (26.2%) triptan users. Triptans had been discontinued due to tolerability in 116 patients (12.3%), being 578 patients (61.4%) triptan naïve. Formal contraindications were found in 23 patients (2.4%). Frequency of VRF, contraceptive drugs or age did not differ between the groups (p > 0.1). Triptan users consumed symptomatic medications fewer days/month (13.9 vs 17.1, p < 0.001), were under prophylactic treatment more frequently (79.4% vs 34.8%, p < 0.001) and had medication overuse headache less frequently (55.1% vs. 63.0%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Triptans were not used by three-quartersof CM patients. Nonuse of triptans was not justified by tolerability, frequency of contraindications, or frequency of VRF. Expert opinion: In the present study, we evaluated causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in CM sufferers. We analyzed frequency of triptan use in CM patients. We compared, between triptan users and triptan naïve patients, the presence of contraindications, frequency of vascular risk factors, and differences in management prior to the referral to a headache unit.

Migraine and Ischemic Stroke: Deciphering the Bidirectional Pathway

Migraine and stroke are common, disabling neurological conditions with several theories being proposed to explain this bidirectional relationship. Migraine is considered as a benign neurological disorder, but research has revealed a connection between migraine and stroke, predominantly those having migraine with aura (MA). Among migraineurs, females with MA are more susceptible to ischemic stroke and may have a migrainous infarction. Migrainous infarction mostly occurs in the posterior circulation of young women. Although there are several theories about the potential relationship between MA and stroke, the precise pathological process of migrainous infarction is not clear. It is assumed that cortical spreading depression (CSD) might be one of the essential factors for migrainous infarction. Other factors that may contribute to migrainous infarction may be genetic, hormonal fluctuation, hypercoagulation, and right to left cardiac shunts. Antimigraine drugs, such as ergot alkaloids and triptans, are widely used in migraine care. Still, they have been found to cause severe vasoconstriction, which may result in the development of ischemia. It is reported that patients with stroke develop migraines during the recovery phase. Both experimental and clinical data suggest that cerebral microembolism can act as a potential trigger for MA. Further studies are warranted for the treatment of migraine, which may lead to a decline in migraine-related stroke. In this present article, we have outlined various potential pathways that link migraine and stroke.

Unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent and chronic disease associated with high rates of disability and significant financial and socioeconomic burden. Current acute treatments for migraine attacks include both migraine-specific (e.g., triptans, ergotamines) and nonspecific (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) medications; however, significant unmet treatment needs remain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to characterize the nature and drivers of unmet treatment needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and describe emerging migraine-specific treatments, that is, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were conducted using search terms for studies of unmet migraine treatment needs and CGRP receptor antagonists. Additionally, studies presented at recent headache-focused congresses were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of people with migraine report at least 1 unmet treatment need. Many people are unable to use migraine-specific or nonspecific agents because of contraindications, precautions, and tolerability issues. Disease burden (disability, headache severity/frequency) remains high even in those receiving migraine-specific medications. The oral CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and disability, with a low adverse event profile, similar to placebo.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The availability and use of CGRP receptor antagonists may help reduce the extent of unmet needs in the treatment of migraine attacks, resulting in more patients receiving treatment and better outcomes for people with migraine. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to increase rates of migraine diagnosis/treatment (another key unmet need), using consensus guidelines to guide their approach.

Chronic migraine long-term regular treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA: a retrospective real-life observational study up to 4 years of therapy

Introduction

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was proved effective and safe in chronic migraine (CM) prevention by the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis (PREEMPT) and Phase IV Chronic migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open-Label (COMPEL) trials over 1 and 2 years of treatment, respectively. Real-life studies highlighted BoNT-A sustained benefits up to 3 years of administration. Aim of this retrospective real-life study was observing within a 4-year timeframe the progress of a consecutive series of CM patients treated with BoNT-A and evaluating whether long-term quarterly treatment (up to 16 cycles) confirms the outcomes of previous studies over shorter periods of therapy.

Methods

One hundred nine chronic migraineurs were quarterly treated with BoNT-A according to the PREEMPT paradigm. Headache days and hours, analgesics intake and latency time together with disability were analysed at baseline, thereafter bi-annually up to 48 months. Patient responsiveness (improvement in monthly headache days and hours versus baseline) was computed at each study timepoint.

Results

A significant overall decrease from baseline to the 48-month assessment (p < 0.001) was evidenced for the mean number of monthly headache days and hours, analgesics intake and latency time. Severe disability cases significantly decreased at 6 months (p < 0.001), and a progressive shift towards lower degrees of disability was observed at each subsequent timepoint. A gradual percentage increase of responsive cases was observed as treatment was repeated over time. Transitory neck pain was reported in 6 cases.

Conclusions

This study appears to reconfirm the benefits of long-lasting CM prevention with BoNT-A, thus supporting quarterly treatment with BoNT-A over several year.

The Therapeutic Impact of New Migraine Discoveries

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the most disabling neurological conditions and associated with high socio-economic costs. Though certain aspects of the pathomechanism of migraine are still incompletely understood, the leading hypothesis implicates the role of the activation of the trigeminovascular system. Triptans are considered to be the current gold standard therapy for migraine attacks; however, their use in clinical practice is limited. Prophylactic treatment includes non-specific approaches for migraine prevention. All these support the need for future studies in order to develop innovative anti-migraine drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The present study is a review of the current literature regarding new therapeutic lines in migraine research.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in the database of PUBMED was conducted concerning therapeutic strategies in a migraine published until July 2017.

RESULTS

Ongoing clinical trials with 5-HT1F receptor agonists and glutamate receptor antagonists offer promising new aspects for acute migraine treatment. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and the CGRP receptor are revolutionary in preventive treatment; however, further long-term studies are needed to test their tolerability. Preclinical studies show positive results with PACAP- and kynurenic acid-related treatments. Other promising therapeutic strategies (such as those targeting TRPV1, substance P, NOS, or orexin) have failed to show efficacy in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Due to their side-effects, current therapeutic approaches are not suitable for all migraine patients. Especially frequent episodic and chronic migraine represents a therapeutic challenge for researchers. Clinical and preclinical studies are needed to untangle the pathophysiology of migraine in order to develop new and migraine-specific therapies.

Interim results of a prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study of the long-term safety and efficacy of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine (the GLADIATOR study)

OBJECTIVES

To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit.

RESULTS

As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186.

Discontinuation of Acute Prescription Medication for Migraine: Results From the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study

Objective

This analysis assessed migraine‐related burden and treatment decisions in Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study survey respondents who stopped taking acute prescription medications for migraine.

Background

Migraine is a common yet underdiagnosed and undertreated neurological disease often associated with significant disability. Acute prescription medications are underused, in part because patients discontinue treatment. Rates and reasons for discontinuing acute prescription medications require exploration.

Methods

The CaMEO Study is a longitudinal, Internet‐based survey that identified and followed people who met modified ICHD‐3 migraine criteria. For this analysis, eligible respondents had used acute prescription medication for migraine in the past but no longer used or kept these treatments on hand (discontinued users). Respondents who reported discontinuing acute prescription treatment answered questions about length of time since last use and reasons for stopping. Reasons for discontinuing were thematically summarized. Monthly headache day frequency, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Patient Health Questionnaire 9‐item depression screener, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item screener, and the 12‐item Allodynia Symptom Checklist were also assessed.

Results

Of 13,624 respondents with migraine, 4840 (35.5%) had ever used acute prescription medications and 1719 (35.5%) of those were discontinued users. Discontinued users had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (14) years, and 1348/1719 (78.4%) were female. Monthly headache frequency of 0‐4 days was reported by 1073/1719 (62.4%) of respondents, 5‐9 days by 322/1719 (18.7%), 10‐14 days by 135/1719 (7.9%), and ≥15 days by 189/1719 (11.0%). Two‐thirds (1160/1719 [67.5%]) of discontinued users reported a receiving migraine (or chronic migraine) diagnosis from a doctor or other health professional in the past. Although all had spoken to a doctor about their headaches, 1504/1719 (87.5%) had stopped having their headaches managed or treated by a doctor for at least 12 months. Only 1 in 5 discontinued users reported being able to work or function normally with a headache, and 717/1719 (41.7%) had moderate to severe disability (MIDAS). Among the most commonly reported reasons for prescription medication discontinuation were switching to non‐prescription pain medication (782/1719 [45.5%]), as well as concerns about prescription medication efficacy (484/1719 [28.2%]) and tolerability (428/1719 [24.9%]). Nearly half of respondents who reported either efficacy or tolerability concerns had moderate to severe disability.

Conclusions

People with migraine who discontinue acute prescription medication have a high level of unmet treatment need. The majority cannot work or function normally with headaches, with 646/1719 (37.6%) of discontinued users reporting 5 or more headache days per month.

The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide healthcare professionals with updated guidance in the use of novel preventive and acute treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The principles of preventive and acute pharmacotherapy for patients with migraine have been outlined previously, but the emergence of new technologies and treatments, as well as new formulations of previously established treatments, has created a need for an updated guidance on the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This statement is based on a review of existing guidelines and principles for preventive and acute treatment of migraine, as well as the results of recent clinical trials of drugs and devices for these indications. Input was sought from health insurance providers, employers, pharmacy benefit service companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, patients, and patient advocates. Expert clinicians and researchers in the field of headache medicine from across North America and the European Union provided input and feedback.

RESULTS

The principles of pharmacologic preventive treatment of migraine with oral treatments have been as follows: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; start with a low dose and titrate slowly; reach a therapeutic dose if possible; allow for an adequate treatment trial duration; establish expectations of therapeutic response and adverse events; and maximize adherence. Newer injectable treatments may work faster and may not need titration. The principles of acute treatment include: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; treat early after the onset of a migraine attack; choose a nonoral route of administration for selected patients; account for tolerability and safety issues; consider self-administered rescue treatments; and avoid overuse of acute medications. Neuromodulation and biobehavioral therapy may be appropriate for preventive and acute treatment, depending on the needs of individual patients. Neuromodulation may be useful for patients who prefer nondrug therapies or who respond poorly, cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement updates prior recommendations and outlines the indications for initiating, continuing, combining, and switching preventive and acute treatments of migraine.

Treating status migrainosus in the emergency setting: what is the best strategy?

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder with unknown exact pathomechanism. Status migrainosus (SM) is a complication of migraine (with or without aura), representing an attack that lasts for more than 72 h. There is a paucity of data published with regard to its pathomechanism and therapeutic options.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the literature on SM from PubMed published between 1999 and January 2018. The authors specifically look at the therapeutic possibilities of SM in the emergency department in patients that have or have not already been treated with serotonergic agents. Additional discussion is given to the rare complications of migraine.

EXPERT OPINION

SM is a devastating condition; therefore, the primary goal is to prevent its development with proper acute and prophylactic migraine medication. If this treatment fails, the patient should be treated in the emergency setting. Due to the severity of the condition, parenteral pharmacotherapy is recommended. However, high-quality randomized trials are lacking. The currently available data suggest the use of intravenous fluids, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, anticonvulsive drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, and serotonergic agents for the treatment of SM. Still, there is a need for personalized and causal therapy for migraine sufferers.

Side effects associated with current and prospective antimigraine pharmacotherapies

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder. Current acute specific antimigraine pharmacotherapies target trigeminovascular 5-HT1B/1D, 5-HT1F and CGRP receptors but, unfortunately, they induce some cardiovascular and central side effects that lead to poor treatment adherence/compliance. Therefore, new antimigraine drugs are being explored. Areas covered: This review considers the adverse (or potential) side effects produced by current and prospective antimigraine drugs, including medication overuse headache (MOH) produced by ergots and triptans, the side effects observed in clinical trials for the new gepants and CGRP antibodies, and a section discussing the potential effects resulting from disruption of the cardiovascular CGRPergic neurotransmission. Expert opinion: The last decades have witnessed remarkable developments in antimigraine therapy, which includes acute (e.g. triptans) and prophylactic (e.g. β-adrenoceptor blockers) antimigraine drugs. Indeed, the triptans represent a considerable advance, but their side effects (including nausea, dizziness and coronary vasoconstriction) preclude some patients from using triptans. This has led to the development of the ditans (5-HT1F receptor agonists), the gepants (CGRP receptor antagonists) and the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor. The latter drugs represent a new hope in the antimigraine armamentarium, but as CGRP plays a role in cardiovascular homeostasis, the potential for adverse cardiovascular side effects remains latent.

Long-term Treatment Benefits and Prolonged Efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Patients Affected by Chronic Migraine and Medication Overuse Headache over 3 Years of Therapy

Background

Chronic migraine (CM) affects about the 2% of the general population and it has been recognized as one of the most-disabling conditions worldwide by the World Health Organization. CM is often associated with the overuse of abortive medication, which determines the worsening of headache itself and the development of a secondary headache called medication overuse headache. The management of these associated conditions is difficult, but a growing amount of evidence is pointing out the effectiveness and the good safety profile of OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA). Despite this, data on OnabotA effects and safety in long-term use lack. The purpose of the present article is to retrospectively assess the efficacy and safety of OnabotA in a cohort of chronic migraineurs with drug overuse from the 18th month of treatment until the third year.

Materials and methods

90 chronic migraineurs with medication overuse were enrolled between January 2013 and February 2017. All patients were treated with OnabotA according to PREEMPT dictates. Before every injection session the headache index, the analgesic consumption, the visual analog scale for pain score, the 36-items short form health survey questionnaire score, the 6-items headache impact test (HIT-6) score and the Zung self-rating anxiety and depression scale scores were collected. Adverse events were carefully registered. A simple linear regression was performed to explore the mean changes in the abovementioned parameters for a single injection session and mean comparison tests were performed using the one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey–Kramer post-hoc test.

Results

A significantly improvement for a single injection was registered for all the above-mentioned parameters. Headache index, analgesic consumption, visual analog pain scale, and 6-items HIT-6 scores were significantly lower than baseline from the 18th month of treatment onwards. The 36-items short form health survey questionnaire scores were significantly higher than baseline at every injections session from the 18th months onwards. Zung scales did not change. No serious adverse events were assessed and no adverse events-related drop-outs were seen.

Conclusion

OnabotA effectiveness and safety last until 3 years of therapy, raising the possibility of the use of this therapy even for many years in CM prevention.

Lasmiditan for the treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is one of the most common diseases in the world, with high economical and subjective burden. Migraine acute therapy is nowadays based on specific and non-specific drugs but up to 40% of episodic migraineurs still have unmet treatment needs and over 35% do not benefit from triptans administration. Serotonin-1F receptors have been identified in trigeminal system and became an ideal target for anti-migraine drug development as potential trigeminal neural inhibitors. Lasmiditan, a novel serotonin1F receptor agonist, showed specific affinity in vitro for the receptor without any vasoconstrictive action and inhibited markers associated with electrical stimulation of trigeminal ganglion in migraine animal models. Areas covered: This article reviews both preclinical and clinical studies on lasmiditan as a potential acute therapy for migraine, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features. It also summarizes safety and tolerability data gathered in the various human studies. Expert opinion: The absence of vasoconstrictive effects makes lasmiditan a promising novel migraine acute therapy. Although preclinical and Phase I and II studies established a significant efficacy, the limited knowledge about pharmacokinetics and metabolism, the high rate of non-serious central nervous system side effects and the lack of larger studies remain still a matter of concern that should be addressed in future studies.

Acute and chronic triptan exposure neither alters rodent cerebral blood flow nor worsens ischemic brain injury

Although it is still debated whether vasoconstriction underlies migraine resolution by triptans, they are not recommended in patients at cardiovascular risk. However, relationship between stroke incidence and triptan use is unclear, and it is unknown whether acute or chronic use of these drugs worsens ischemic brain injury. To address this issue, we investigated the effect of clinically-relevant doses of the potent cerebral artery vasoconstrictor eletriptan on cerebral blood flow (CBF) and brain infarct volumes, as well as on expression of genes involved in cerebrovascular regulation. We report that acute treatment of rats or mice with eletriptan did not reduce basal CBF, which promptly dropped upon treatment with prazosin or dihydroergotamine. Acute of chronic (1month) eletriptan also did not affect CBF changes and infarct volumes in mice undergoing brain ischemia/reperfusion. Finally, chronic eletriptan reduced brain mRNAs for PACAP and VIP, leaving unaffected those for 5HT1_B/DR and CGRP. No significant transcript changes were found in dura mater. Data suggest that the impact of triptans on cerebral hemodynamic should be re-evaluated, as well as their propensity to increase stroke risk in migraineurs.