Preventive treatment in migraine and the new US guidelines

Open label experience of repeated OnabotulinumtoxinA injections towards the sphenopalatine ganglion in patients with chronic cluster headache and chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

A novel technique for injection of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BTA) towards the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has shown promise in refractory chronic migraine (CM) and chronic cluster headache (CCH). Open label safety and efficacy data are presented here.

METHODS

Patients with refractory CM or CCH who had received at least one injection and completed headache diaries were included. Efficacy was defined as ≥50% reduction in moderate-to-severe headache days for CM, or ≥50% reduction in attack frequency for CCH, at weeks five to eight.

RESULTS

Over 261 injections, there were 123 adverse events (AE), of which one was serious. Most (93%) AEs were mild and all were transient. The 50% response to one injection was 81% for CM and 69% for CCH. The response gradually reduced over subsequent months for CM but stayed between 55% and 67% for CCH. Repeated injections were beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Injections resulted in improvement for both groups and was maintained with repeated injections. Repeat injection after three months may be beneficial in CM. Adverse events were not uncommon, but universally transient, presumably as a result of the mechanism of action of BTA. Repeated BTA injection towards the SPG could be an effective treatment for refractory CM and CCH. Larger, randomised, placebo-controlled trials are required.

Management of Pain and Headache After Traumatic Brain Injury

This article will identify common causes of pain following traumatic brain injury (TBI), discuss current treatment strategies for these complaints, and help tailor treatments for both acute and chronic settings. We will also briefly discuss primary and secondary headache disorders, followed by common secondary pain disorders that may be related to trauma.

Real-world effectiveness of erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine

Background

Real-world evidence of erenumab effectiveness in migraine patients in Asia with various comorbidities and multiple previous medication failures is still limited.

Methods

A 6-month single-center cohort study of 45 patients with episodic or chronic migraine (CM) treated with erenumab was conducted. In the cohort, 60.0% were switching from other calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs), and 66.7% had ≥4 prophylaxis failures. The change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline and percentages of responders after treatment were calculated. Weekly migraine days (WMDs) were obtained at baseline and at months 1, 2 and 3 and were compared between weeks 2 and 4.

Results

In total, 36%, 47%, and 63% of patients had a ≥30% response at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The cumulative percentage of patients achieving a ≥30% response over 6 months was 85%. Early responders (average ≥ 30% response at 1-3 months) accounted for 37.8%, 55.6%, and 25.9% of the total, CGRP mAb-naïve, and CGRP mAb-switching groups, respectively. Late responders (average < 30% response at 1-3 months and average ≥ 30% response at 4-6 months) accounted for 46.4%, 37.5%, and 58.8% of nonearly responders in the total, CGRP mAb-naïve, and CGRP mAb-switching groups, respectively. Mild adverse reactions were observed in 5 patients (11.1%). Wearing-off, defined as an increase in the number of WMDs ≥2 between week 2 and week 4, was observed in 2.4-12.5% at months 1-3.

Conclusion

Erenumab was effective in migraine patients. At least 4-6 months may be preferable for efficacy evaluation in patients switching to erenumab from other CGRP mAbs.

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.

Oxybutynin for Primary Palmer Hyperhidrosis Attenuates Migraine Attacks and Burdens

Migraine is a neurological disorder with recurrent headaches accompanied by burdens in social life. Primary palmar hyperhidrosis is a chronic condition with excessive sweating of the palms that can significantly impair quality of life. Primary hyperhidrosis can cause anxiety, and stress, including anxiety, is the most common inducer of migraine headaches. Recently, oxybutynin has been used for primary palmar hyperhidrosis. We herein describe a 26-year-old female migraine patient with primary palmar hyperhidrosis whose migraine attacks and burdens were attenuated after the prescription of an oxybutynin lotion formula. The patient's monthly headache days (MHD) and monthly acute medication intake days (AMD) at the first visit were 10 and 9. Headache Impact Score 6 (HIT-6) at the initial visit was 63. After the prescription of Japanese herbal kampo medicine Goreisan (TJ-17), Goshuyuto (TJ-31), and 200 mg of valproic acid, MHD, AMD, and HIT-6 decreased gradually. However, these parameters could not improve sufficiently at nine months: MHD 4, AMD 4, and HIT-6 52. We first prescribed a lotion formulation of 20% oxybutynin hydrochloride at nine months. After this, migraine was further attenuated, and stress related to primary palmar hyperhidrosis was reduced; at 12 months, the patient had achieved MHD 2, AMD 2, and HIT-6 48. She will continue receiving primary palmar hyperhidrosis treatment while tapering off migraine prophylaxis. While the exact mechanisms connecting migraine and primary hyperhidrosis remain uncertain, this case raises important questions about the potential interplay between stress, sweating, and migraine triggers.

Outcomes and Factors Associated with Insufficient Effectiveness of Acute Treatments of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness associated with acute migraine treatments in Japan is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and treatment effectiveness in three acute treatment groups from OVERCOME (Japan): over-the-counter (OTC) only, prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/acetaminophen (Rx-NSAIDs/ACE) only, and triptans.

METHODS

OVERCOME (Japan) was an observational, cross-sectional, population-based web survey of people with migraine (July-September 2020). PROs, including the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Migraine (WPAI-M), were compared pairwise between treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to examine treatment effectiveness.

RESULTS

The analysis included 9075 survey respondents (OTC only: n = 5791; Rx-NSAIDs/ACE only: n = 751; triptans: n = 2533). Triptan users reported the lowest MSQ scores, most severe disability (MIDAS: 20.7% versus 6.3% and 11.6%) and severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: 50.1% versus 21.2% and 19.8%), and greatest work impairment (WPAI-M: 50.4% versus 32.2% and 30.8%) compared with the OTC and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was very poor-to-poor for 60.9%, 43.1%, and 47.6% of the triptan, OTC, and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Severe interictal burden was significantly associated with insufficient treatment effectiveness (odds ratios, severe versus no burden: 0.47 [95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.54], 0.56 [0.35-0.89], and 0.41 [0.32-0.52], for the OTC, Rx-NSAIDs/ACE, and triptan groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

People with high migraine burden used triptans for acute treatment, but many reported poor treatment effectiveness. Education may be required to promote better treatments, including earlier introduction of migraine-specific acute and preventive medications.

Migrainous infarction: A serious complication of a common condition

ABSTRACT

Migrainous infarction is a rare neurologic condition that stems from an ordinary migraine with aura, and can cause ischemic stroke in young women. The pathophysiology of migrainous infarction is not entirely understood. An aura that is similar to previous auras but lasts longer than 60 minutes, along with evidence of acute ischemia on MRI, are diagnostic of migrainous infarction. Treatment aimed at minimizing migraine with aura is the most important preventive measure clinicians can take to help patients avoid this complication of migraine.

Burden of migraine with acute medication overuse or psychiatric comorbidities and treatment with CGRP pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies: A review

Migraine is a complex and often debilitating neurological disease that affects more than 1 billion people worldwide. It is characterized by moderate-to-intense, throbbing headache attacks that are worsened by activity and is associated with nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound. Migraine, ranked the second leading cause of years lived with disability by the World Health Organization, can diminish patients' quality of life and bring significant personal and economic burden. Furthermore, migraine patients with a history of acute medication overuse (AMO) or psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression or anxiety, may experience even greater impairment and burden, and their migraine may be more difficult-to-treat. Appropriate treatment of migraine is essential to reduce this burden and improve patient outcomes, especially for those with AMO or psychiatric comorbidities. There are several available preventive treatment options for migraine, though many of these are not migraine-specific and may have limited efficacy and/or poor tolerability. The calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, and monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed as specific preventive treatments for migraine. Four of these monoclonal antibodies have been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine after demonstrating favorable safety and efficacy profiles. These treatments offer substantial benefits for migraine patients, including those with AMO or common psychiatric comorbidities, by reducing monthly headache days and migraine days, days of acute medication use, and disability measures, as well as improving quality of life.

Value of Combination Therapy With Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) for Migraine to Prevent Ischemic Stroke in Young Women

The aim of this study was to systematically assess the efficacy of a combination of levetiracetam and sumatriptan as a preventive treatment for migraine and stroke in young women.

This was a retrospective study with 342 female patients, who experienced migraines. All patients were divided into three groups: Group A (124 patients (36.2%) with triptan (sumatriptan) monotherapy), Group B (111 patients (32.4%) with a combined triptan and antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with levetiracetam (LEV)), and Group C (107 (31.2%) patients with placebo treatment), in a 1.4:1.1:1 ratio respectively.

Significant differences were found in Group B when compared with Groups A and C with respect to the use of combination hormonal contraception, smoking, a family history of migraine, and seizures.

The results of this study suggested that combination treatment with levetiracetam and sumatriptan was more effective in preventing migraines and reducing the risk of stroke in young women than sumatriptan monotherapy.

Decreased plasma levels and dietary intake of minerals in women with migraine

It has been suggested that an imbalance in mineral levels is involved in the pathophysiology of migraine. However, only a few studies have investigated the circulating levels of mineral in patients with migraine during the pain-free period (i.e. interictal). This study aimed to investigate whether the interictal plasma levels of minerals of women with migraine differ from those of women without migraine (controls). This is a cross-sectional study involving 67 women, of which 38 were diagnosed with migraine and 29 were controls. The groups were similar in age and body mass index. Plasma levels of magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), and selenium (Se) were measured. Dietary intake was assessed using a 24-hour food recall, and migraine impact was evaluated using the Headache Impact Test, version 6 (HIT-6). The association between migraine disability, and plasma levels and dietary intake of minerals was assessed through correlation and logistic regression analyses. Women with migraine had significantly lower plasma levels of Mg, Ca, Cu, and Zn than controls. In parallel, dietary intake of Mg, Cu, and Fe was significantly lower in patients with migraine. Migraine impact was not associated with plasma levels or dietary intake of minerals. The results suggest that patients with migraine have lower plasma levels of minerals, and dietary intervention to ensure adequate mineral intake should be considered as a therapeutic strategy for migraine.

Changes in acute headache medication use and health care resource utilization: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating galcanezumab in adults with treatment-resistant migraine (CONQUER)

BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine, particularly with multiple prior preventive treatment failures, often have high rates of acute headache medication use and are at risk for overuse (acute or symptomatic headache medication use between 10 and 15 days per month [depending on the medication] for > 3 months). Furthermore, these patients have greater health care resource utilization (HCRU). OBJECTIVE: To examine acute headache medication use and HCRU with galcanezumab compared with placebo in a population with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures. METHODS: In the 3-month double-blind phase, patients with episodic or chronic migraine and treatment failures to 2 to 4 standard-of-care migraine preventive categories (lack of effectiveness or safety/tolerability) received galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following a 240-mg loading dose) or placebo; an optional 3 month open-label phase followed. Acute headache medication use (monthly days with acute headache medication utilization) was self-reported daily. The change from baseline in monthly days with acute headache medication used a mixed-model repeated measures analysis. HCRU was reported at baseline (for the previous 6 months) and at monthly visits. Migraine-related HCRU rates were evaluated in the total population per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: Of the 462 patients (galcanezumab n=232, placebo n=230), baseline mean days/month of acute headache medication was 12.3; 44.8% had acute headache medication overuse. Across months 1-3, least squares (LS) mean reductions in acute headache medication use were greater for the galcanezumab group (4.2) compared with placebo (0.9); the LS mean difference was 3.4 (95% CI = 2.7-4.1; P < 0.0001). Greater reductions in the galcanezumab group were observed as early as month 1; statistical separation continued at months 2 and 3 (all P < 0.0001). During the open-label phase, reductions from baseline ranged from 4.7 to 5.3 days and were similar in patients who transitioned from placebo to patients continuing galcanezumab. Reductions from baseline of migraine-specific health care visits (double-blind phase) were numerically greater with galcanezumab than placebo (215.5 vs 155.3). Patients switching to galcanezumab had reductions (212.9 days) similar to patients continuing galcanezumab (222.6 days). Migraine-specific emergency department visits decreased by two-thirds at month 3 in the galcanezumab group compared with nearly no reduction in the placebo group that experienced a similar reduction during the open-label phase. For both groups, migraine-specific hospitalizations were less than 2 per 100 patient-years. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that galcanezumab has the potential to reduce acute headache medication use and overuse and HCRU in patients with prior migraine preventive treatment failures. DISCLOSURES: Data were presented in part as a poster presentation at the 14th European Headache Congress (European Headache Federation), Virtual Meeting, July 3-5, 2020. Dr Ambrosini is on the advisory board for Eli Lilly and Company and received honorarium from Teva, Novartis, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Estemalik is on the advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, and Allergan and the speakers' bureau for Teva, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Company, Allergan, and Biohaven. He received consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Teva, Lundbeck, and Allergan and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly and Company, Allergan, Biohaven, Teva, and Lundbeck. Dr Pascual received research support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Economy, Spain. He was also on advisory boards for Allergan, Amgen-Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, and Stendhal and received consulting fees or honoraria from Allegan, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis-Amgen, and Teva. Dr Rettiganti is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. She is also a minor stock and restricted stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Mr. Stroud and Ms. Day are employees of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. Dr Ford is an employee of and holds stock of Eli Lilly and Company and/or one of its subsidiaries, Indianapolis, IN. She also received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly and Company.

Direct cost and healthcare resource utilization of patients with migraine before treatment initiation with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies by the number of prior preventive migraine medication classes

OBJECTIVE

This study compared all-cause direct cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among preventive migraine medication (PMM)-naïve patients and patients with up to 3 PMM category switches before initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the IBM Marketscan database. Patients who initiated injectable CGRP mAbs between May 2018 and December 2019 (index period) were included in 4 groups based on the number of prior non-CGRP PMM classes used during the 24-month pre-index period: P0 = none; P1 = one; P2 = two; P3 ≥ three. All-cause direct cost and HCRU for groups were compared without adjustment and after generalized propensity score (GPS) matching.

RESULTS

Of the 23,288 patients included (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 45.4 ± 12.0 years), 85.6% were females, and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0.69 ± 1.2. P3 group had the highest average annual unadjusted total healthcare costs per patient ($50,274±$76,629); the highest costs attributed to procedure/imaging-related expenses ($20,105±$36,401) and pharmacy ($11,633±$29,763). P0 group had the lowest cost ($25,288±$41,427). Pairwise comparison of GPS matched costs showed significantly greater average annual direct costs per patient in the P3 group vs. P0 (p = .003), P1 (p = .014), and P2 (p = .021) groups. GPS matched HCRU also increased with the number of prior PMM classes used. Anti-epileptics (48.9%) were the most commonly used PMM class, with triptans (75.2%) being the most common acute medication class.

CONCLUSIONS

Total direct healthcare cost and HCRU increased significantly with increasing use of PMM classes with the greatest cost difference existing between the P0 and the P3 groups.

Reductions in acute medication use and healthcare resource utilization in patients with chronic migraine: a secondary analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab with open-label extension (REGAIN)

AIMS

To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide.

METHODS

Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years.

RESULTS

At baseline, 63-64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (-4.2 and -4.9) than in placebo (-2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of -6.8 and -7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%.

LIMITATIONS

Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus oral preventive medications among migraine patients: A US claims database study

Background:

Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, was developed specifically for preventive treatment of migraine.

Objective:

To compare the real-world effectiveness of erenumab and non-specific oral migraine preventive medication (OMPM) on acute medication usage and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among migraine patients.

Methods:

This retrospective US claims analysis included patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab (May 01, 2018 and September 30, 2019) or OMPM (May 01, 2016 and October 31, 2017). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method with stratification. Acute medication usage, HCRU, and a composite endpoint of 1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, 2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or 3) emergency room visit with a primary migraine diagnosis were assessed 6 months post-treatment initiation.

Results:

Following PS matching, both cohorts included 2,343 patients. At 6 months, erenumab was associated with significantly less acute medication usage versus OMPM, including number of types of acute medications used, number of claims per person, and proportion of patients using acute medication. HCRU and number of composite events were also significantly lower among erenumab users.

Conclusion:

Erenumab is more effective than OMPM at reducing acute medication usage and HCRU among migraine patients.

Trial registration:

N/A.

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine prevention: A protocol for a systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Migraine may lead to a negative impact on the patients' quality of life with a subsequent substantial burden to society. Therapy options for treatment and prevention of migraine have progressed over the years and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is one of the promising non-pharmacological options. It induces and alters electric current in the brain via repetitive non-invasive brain stimulation in high frequency. In migraine patients, two common stimulation sites are the M1 cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The mechanism on how rTMS exerts therapeutic effects on migraine is not fully established, but the main postulation is that the neuromodulation via high-frequency rTMS (hf-rTMS) might inhibit pain perception. However, evidence from studies has been conflicting, thus the usefulness of hf-rTMS as migraine preventive treatment is still uncertain at this moment.

METHODS

This is a systematic review protocol describing essential reporting items based on the PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) (Registration number: CRD42020220636). We aim to review the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of hf-rTMS at DLPFC in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as migraine prophylactic treatment. We will search Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Biomed Central for relevant articles from randomised controlled clinical trials that used hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for the treatment of migraine. The risk of bias will be assessed using the version 2 "Risk of bias" tool from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. We will investigate the evidence on efficacy, tolerability and safety and we will compare the outcomes between the hf-rTMS intervention and sham groups.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will further determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for migraine prophylaxis. It will provide additional data for health practitioners and policymakers about the usefulness of hf-rTMS for migraine preventive treatment.

Effectiveness of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization as migraine prevention in the United States

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that can have a substantial impact on patients' lives and on society. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was specifically developed for migraine prevention. The efficacy of erenumab has been established in several clinical trials; however, the real-world comparative effectiveness of erenumab has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective US claims analysis (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) evaluated patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab or onabotulinumtoxinA between May 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (index date: first erenumab/onabotulinumtoxinA claim). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method (greedy match with caliper = 0.1). Stratification was performed based on gender, chronic migraine without aura diagnosis, onabotulinumtoxinA use, and acute/preventive drug use. The impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and HCRU was assessed in the 6-month post-index period. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on a composite endpoint of: (1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, (2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or (3) emergency department visit with a primary migraine diagnosis. PS-matched data were used for comparative analyses; logistic regression with covariate adjustment was used for dichotomous variables, and a negative binomial model was used for count variables, with odds ratios or rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs calculated. RESULTS: Following stratified PS matching, 1,338 patients were included in both cohorts. At 6 months, the adjusted average number of claims per person for any acute medication was significantly lower in the erenumab cohort (1.13 vs 1.29 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.80-0.96; P = 0.0069), although the difference in the number of claims for triptans and barbiturates was statistically nonsignificant. The adjusted average number of all-cause and migraine-specific visits per person to health care providers was generally lower in the erenumab cohort compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort. Patients in the erenumab cohort had a significantly lower number of composite events (0.44 vs 0.69 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of patients with any of the 3 composite events was lower in the erenumab cohort (31.7% vs 44.3% in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.49-0.70; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective claims analysis study, erenumab significantly reduced acute medication usage (opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; any acute medication when analyzed together) and HCRU to a greater extent than onabotulinumtoxinA. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis employees contributed to the study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Fang, Abdrabboh, Glassberg, Vo, and Ferraris are employed by Novartis. Zhou and Shen are employed by KMK Consulting, Inc., which received funding from Novartis to conduct the study. Tepper reports grants from Allergan, Amgen, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Neurolief, Novartis, Satsuma, and Zosano, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, American Headache Society, Thomas Jefferson University, Aeon, Align Strategies, Allergan/AbbVie, Alphasights, Amgen, Aperture Venture Partners, Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada, Axsome Therapeutics, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, ClearView Healthcare Partners, CoolTech, CRG, Currax, Decision Resources, DeepBench, DRG, Eli Lilly, Equinox, ExpertConnect, GLG, Guidepoint Global Healthcare Consultancy Group, Health Science Communications, HMP Communications, Impel, InteractiveForums, M3 Global Research, Magellan Rx Management, Medicxi, Navigant Consulting, Neurorelief, Nordic BioTech, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Reckner Healthcare, Relevale, SAI MedPartners, Satsuma, Slingshot Insights, Spherix Global Insights, Sudler and Hennessey, Synapse Medical Communications, System Analytic, Teva, Theranica, Thought Leader Select, Trinity Partners, XOC, Zosano, Krog and Partners, and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work; and CME honoraria from American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Diamond Headache Clinic, Elsevier, Forefront Collaborative, Hamilton General Hospital, Ontario, Canada, Headache Cooperative of New England, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Inova, Medical Learning Institute PeerView, Medical Education Speakers Network, Miller Medical Communications, North American Center for CME, Physicians' Education Resource, Rockpointe, ScientiaCME, WebMD/Medscape. The abstract and poster of these results were presented at The Migraine Trust Virtual Symposium (MTIS), October 3-9, 2020.

The Efficacy of Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure on Migraine: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Objectives

Whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is effective on migraine is controversial. This article was aimed at assessing the efficacy of PFO closure on migraine based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to October 2020 evaluating PFO closure versus control in patients with migraine, then conducted a meta-analysis of all RCTs and observational studies, respectively. The main outcomes were (1) respond rate: complete cessation of migraine; (2) reduction in the frequency of migraine attacks per month; and (3) reduction in migraine days per month.

Results

Seven studies (3 RCTs and 4 observational studies), containing 887 migraine patients, were identified. (1) The respond rate of PFO closure on migraine was significantly higher than control group both in RCT subgroup and observational studies subgroup (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.35-11.04, P = 0.01 in RCTs; OR 8.28, 95% CI 2.31-29.67, P = 0.001 in observational studies). (2) Reduction in frequency of migraine attacks was higher in PFO closure group compared with control group in the RCT subgroup analysis (mean difference (MD) = 0.57, 95% CI 0.23-0.90, P = 0.0009). (3) Reduction in migraine days was also higher in PFO closure group compared with control group in the RCT subgroup analysis (MD = 1.33, 95% CI 0.35-2.31, P = 0.008).

Conclusions

PFO closure might be suitable for migraine patients, especially for migraine with aura, by cessation of migraine headaches or reducing migraine attacks and migraine days.

The role of left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation in episodic migraine prophylaxis

Objective

The aim of the study was to examine the prophylactic role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the frequency, and severity of migraine attacks in episodic migraineurs who failed medical treatment.

Methods

A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled study was designed to assess the effect of 5 Hz rTMS applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC ) in 33 migraineurs. Patients were followed up for 1 month before receiving rTMS, and for another month after the sessions by a headache diary. The primary outcome measure was the achievement of 50% reduction in the number of migraine attacks. Secondary outcome measures included migraine days, assessment of migraine attack severity, disability by HIT-6, and side-effects to the procedure.

Results

The study revealed that 69.2% of the active treatment group achieved 50% or more reduction in the number of migraine attacks versus 25% of cases in the control group (p = 0.02). The absolute number of migraine attacks was reduced by 3.1 vs 1.5 in the active and control group, respectively. The number of cases with severe HIT-6 scores was reduced by 46.2% in active treatment group versus a 7.1% reduction in the control group (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

High-frequency rTMS applied to LDLPFC can reduce the number of migraine attacks by 50% or more in almost 70% of a sample of episodic migraineurs with a concomitant decrease in functional disability.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04031781. Registered 23 July 2019—retrospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04031781?term=Migraine+Prophylaxis&recrs=ce&type=Intr&cond=Migraine&rank=9

Migraine Headache Day Response Rates and the Implications to Patient Functioning: An Evaluation of 3 Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Galcanezumab in Patients With Migraine

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories.

BACKGROUND

Migraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients.

METHODS

Analyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Because migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.

A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AMG 301, a pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of AMG 301, an inhibitor of the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP)-1 (PAC1) receptor, for prevention of migraine.

Methods

In a double-blind trial, patients were randomized 4:3:3 to placebo, AMG 301 210 mg every 4 weeks, or AMG 301 420 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Effect on monthly migraine days and other secondary measures were assessed over weeks 9–12. Safety and tolerability were assessed.

Results

Of 343 randomized patients (mean age, 41.8–42.5 years), the majority were women (85.4–90.4%), white (94.1–96.2%), and had episodic migraine (62.5–67.9%). A total of 305 patients completed treatment (placebo, n = 124; AMG 301 210 mg, n = 94; AMG 301 420 mg, n = 87). Least squares mean reduction at week 12 in monthly migraine days from baseline was −2.5 (0.4) days for placebo and −2.2 (0.5) days for both AMG 301 treatment groups. No difference between AMG 301 and placebo on any measure of efficacy was observed; mean (95% confidence interval) treatment difference versus placebo for monthly migraine days for AMG 301 210 mg, 0.3 (−0.9 to 1.4); AMG 301 420 mg, 0.3 (−0.9 to 1.4). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups.

Conclusion

AMG 301 offered no benefit over placebo for migraine prevention; further studies may be necessary to fully understand the role of PACAP isoforms and its receptors in migraine pathophysiology.

Study Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03238781

Fremanezumab: a disease-specific option for the preventive treatment of migraine, including difficult-to-treat migraine

Fremanezumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a key neuropeptide involved in the pathophysiology of migraine. Fremanezumab is approved for quarterly and monthly subcutaneous dosing for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The phase 3 clinical development program for fremanezumab aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this preventive treatment across different patient populations, including those with difficult-to-treat migraine. Two pivotal 12-week, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies investigated quarterly and monthly dosing of fremanezumab in participants with chronic migraine (HALO CM) and episodic migraine (HALO EM). The efficacy of fremanezumab was further explored in individuals with difficult-to-treat chronic or episodic migraine in the 12-week FOCUS study, which enrolled participants who had previously experienced an inadequate response to 2-4 pharmacological classes of migraine preventive medications. The long-term efficacy of fremanezumab was assessed in a 12-month long-term study (HALO LTS), which enrolled participants completing the 12-week HALO studies and new participants. Across these studies, treatment with fremanezumab dosed quarterly or monthly provided significant reductions in the frequency of migraine days, headache days of at least moderate severity, and migraine- and headache-related disability compared with placebo. Sustained improvements were seen with long-term fremanezumab treatment. Subgroup analyses of participants with difficult-to-treat migraine (those with comorbid depression, overuse of acute headache medications, and concomitant use of other migraine preventive medications) demonstrated the effectiveness of quarterly or monthly fremanezumab in these populations. Ongoing studies are further exploring the potential benefits of fremanezumab in difficult-to-treat migraine and other headache and pain disorders.

OnabotulinumtoxinA injection in the treatment of chronic migraine

The earliest descriptions of botulism were in the early 19th century, and was reported by the German physician Justinus Kerner. The term "botulism" was derived from the Latin word botulus, indicating its original association with sausages. It took another 150 years or so to come into clinical use. The first clinical application was strabismus, and was developed by the American ophthalmologist Alan B. Scott, whose effort led to the pharmaceutical product known as onabotulinumtoxinA today. The therapeutic benefit in migraine was an incidental finding in a report by the American plastic surgeon William J. Binder, which inspired a series of clinical studies in headache disorders. The doses and injection techniques in the earlier reports were variable, so were the results. It was until the Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) 1 and 2 studies when its efficacy and safety, as well as the indication, i.e., chronic migraine (CM), were ascertained. Even though there were criticisms regarding the heterogeneities in the results between the PREEMPT 1 and 2 studies, the data on efficacy endpoints and safety were generally consistent, which were subsequently confirmed by the open-label extension of the PREEMPT 1 and 2 studies, and three open-label studies, namely the Chronic Migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open Label (COMPEL), the REal-life use of botulinum toxin for the symptomatic treatment of adults with chronic migraine, measuring healthcare resource utilization, and Patient-reported OutcomeS observed in practice (REPOSE) studies, and the CM Post-Authorization Safety Study (CM PASS) studies. On the other hand, the results were challenged by the Chronification and Reversibility of Migraine (CHARM) study, which involved CM patients with medication overuse. It was concluded that the clinical improvement was attributed to early withdrawal of the overused acute medications, rather than onabotulinumtoxinA injections. However, fundamental differences in the patient profile and methodology between the CHARM and PREEMPT studies existed, and cautious should be exercised when interpreting and comparing the results. According to the practical guidelines and reimbursement regulations in many countries, its use is limited to CM patients, and is reserved for those who fail at least 2-3 preventive medications, due to either lack of efficacy or intolerability. Cessation of treatment is recommended in patients who do not respond to 2-3 injection cycles, or in patients whose headache frequency has dropped to <10-15 days a month. Even in the era of calcitonin-gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, onabotulinumtoxinA injection remains a treatment option of reasonable cost-effectiveness in carefully selected patients.

A Brief Look at Urgent Care Visits for Migraine: The Care Received and Ideas to Guide Migraine Care in this Proliferating Medical Setting

OBJECTIVE

There has been a rise in urgent care centers throughout the country over the past 10 years, leading to an increase in patients accessing medical care in these locations. These centers advertise an alternative to the Emergency Department (ED) for the evaluation and treatment of urgent medical conditions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the use of urgent care visits for migraine within 2 urgent care centers within a large academic medical system in New York City. We examined the trends in management and treatment of migraine in these urgent care settings, as well as prescriptions and instructions given to this patient population upon discharge. We paid particular attention to whether the medications administered and prescribed on discharge were those recommended by American Headache Society migraine management guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with migraine diagnoses at 2 different urgent care locations within 1 large urban medical center. We determined baseline patient demographics, previous migraine characteristics, frequencies of reasons for urgent care visits as well as various medications administered, medications prescribed on discharge, and characteristics of patient outcomes post-discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients who visited urgent care with a migraine diagnosis, 20 (25.6%) had a known primary care provider within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. More than three-fourths of all patients (78.2%) had a self-reported history of either recurrent headache or migraine prior to the urgent care visit. Of those with a documented frequency of prior headaches, 94.1% (32/34) had episodic migraine and 79.4% (27/34) experienced at most 1-2 headache days per month. Of those presenting to the urgent care during an episode of migraine, 12.3% (9/73) were given intravenous metoclopramide and none were given subcutaneous sumatriptan or intravenous prochlorperazine. Of those with reported nausea or vomiting with their migraine, 46.2% (18/39) received an anti-emetic at the visit and 33.3% (13/39) were given an anti-emetic prescription. Only 11.1% (6/54) of patients who did not have a record of previous triptan use were given a triptan prescription at the urgent care visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients in our study who sought medical treatment for migraine in these 2 urgent care centers were not established patients within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. While 93.6% (73/78) of patients were experiencing current pain upon presentation to the urgent care centers, only 12.3% (9/73) received administration of the medications with the highest level of evidence by the American Headache Society (Level B) for acute migraine treatment in an ED. In addition, the majority of patients with a migraine history presenting to the urgent care setting were not given triptans or anti-emetic prescriptions upon discharge from their urgent care visit. Having these migraine-specific prescriptions may improve self-treatment at home should a migraine attack recur.

Economic burden of migraine in Singapore

Objective:

Despite the high prevalence and disabling nature of migraine, studies evaluating its economic burden in Singapore remain scant. This study aims to quantify the per capita and aggregate economic cost of episodic migraine (EM; ≤14 monthly headache days) without aura among full-time employees in Singapore.

Methods:

We administered a cross-sectional online survey to full-time employees in Singapore who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders (third edition, 2018) criteria for EM without aura. Eligible participants were classified by the frequency of monthly migraine days (MMDs): lower end episodic migraine (LEM; ≤3 MMDs) and upper end episodic migraine (UEM; 4–14 MMDs). The survey captured per capita healthcare resource utilization and lost work productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism) for each subgroup. Healthcare costs were obtained by multiplying unit costs by healthcare utilization. Finally, per capita (patient) costs of each subgroup were then imputed and multiplied by prevalence data to quantify the aggregate burden of migraine in Singapore.

Results:

Of the 606 participants who completed the survey, 81% experienced ≤3 MMDs. Total annual per capita costs were SGD4925 (USD 3620; 95% confidence interval (CI): SGD 4438–5411) and SGD14,476 (USD 10,639; 95% CI: SGD 11,908–17,045) for the LEM and UEM subgroup, respectively. Healthcare costs on average accounted for 17.6% of per capita costs, of which was driven primarily by diagnostic tests (33.6%), followed by consultations (17.1%), medications (16.7%), alternative medications (16.6%) and hospitalizations (14.8%). Lost productivity accounted for 82.4% of costs, chiefly attributable to absenteeism in the LEM group (38.2%), followed by presenteeism in the UEM group (26.0%), absenteeism in the UEM group (18.8%) and presenteeism in the LEM group (17.1%). The total cost to Singapore for EM in 2018 was approximately SGD 1 billion (USD 0.75 billion; SGD 1.00 = USD 0.74).

Conclusion:

Overall, EM imposes a substantial economic burden on society in Singapore. Total migraine cost per capita is greater in the UEM (4–14 MMDs) as compared to the LEM subgroup. Majority of the overall costs result from missed workdays and lost work productivity. Future research should determine the extent to which optimized migraine treatments could improve productivity, and by extension, mitigate the staggering costs of this disorder.

Erenumab: A novel calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist developed specifically for migraine prevention

Headaches and migraines continue to be a leading cause of suffering and disability. As per the Global Burden of Disease Survey conducted in 2010, the exact magnitude of the disease still is underestimated. Migraine alone continues to rank seventh as a cause of disability. Various therapeutic modalities exist and newer classes of medications are currently being trialed to provide effective treatment to this population of patients. Erenumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor inhibitor, is a recent addition to this armamentarium and has been approved by the FDA for use in 2018. It has shown modestly improved outcomes according to the current trials. However, long-term outcomes and adverse effects still are under research. The following article elaborates on the current literature and evidence on this novel drug.

Migraine treatment: the doors for the future are open, but with caution and prudence

Migraine is a burdensome disorder. Current treatments are far from ideal. Recent knowledge has been indicating targets whose antagonism may improve efficacy. It is particularly true with the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and the monoclonal antibodies anti-CGRP can interfere with this pathway and decrease the frequency of migraine attacks. Erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have recently been approved and eptinezumab is likely to be, soon. Although efficacy figures were not spectacular, tolerability and potential higher adherence were noteworthy. However, caution must be exercised. The time frame after the studies was limited to three years and dose administration was restricted to three-monthly doses. The CGRP is present throughout the human body and migraine is a life-long disease, often requiring treatment for decades. It is not known whether this favorable profile can be maintained or will be safe in pregnant women or adolescents. In addition, there were deaths during the studies, which may have happened without a clear relationship. New treatments are welcome, but caution is warranted.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Antagonists and Their Use in Migraines

Migraine is highly prevalent and associated with a large socio-economic burden in the United States. Current preventive medications have variable efficacy and their use is often limited by intolerable side effects. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as an integral part of migraine pathophysiology. There are currently seven CGRP antagonists under investigation, all of which are undergoing or have completed phase 3 clinical trials. Three of the investigated CGRP antagonists are approved for use within and outside of the United States. The trials have resulted in positive efficacy and safety data. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the seven CGRP antagonists and their future place in therapy.

Effects of fremanezumab on the use of acute headache medication and associated symptoms of migraine in patients with episodic migraine

BACKGROUND

Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of fremanezumab treatment on acute headache medication use and migraine-associated symptoms in patients with episodic migraine.

METHODS

In the Phase 3 HALO trial, patients with episodic migraine were randomized to receive subcutaneous fremanezumab monthly (225 mg at baseline, weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline, placebo at weeks 4 and 8), or placebo over a 12-week period. The secondary endpoint was change from baseline in the monthly number of days with use of any acute headache mediation or migraine-specific acute headache medication; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline in the monthly number of days with nausea or vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia.

RESULTS

Of 875 patients randomized, 865 were included in the analysis (monthly, n = 287; quarterly, n = 288; placebo, n = 290). Baseline mean ± standard deviation days with: Any acute headache medication use (monthly: 7.7 ± 3.4; quarterly: 7.8 ± 3.7; placebo: 7.7 ± 3.6), migraine-specific acute headache medication use (6.1 ± 3.1; 6.6 ± 3.1; 7.1 ± 3.0), nausea or vomiting (4.5 ± 3.6; 4.9 ± 3.7; 4.5 ± 3.3) and photophobia and phonophobia (5.5 ± 4.1; 6.3 ± 4.1; 6.0 ± 3.9) were similar among treatment arms. Fremanezumab reduced the number of days of acute headache medication use ([least-squares mean change vs. placebo] monthly: -1.4 [95% confidence interval: -1.84, -0.89], p < 0.001; quarterly: -1.3 [-1.76, -0.82], p < 0.001) and migraine-specific acute headache medication use (monthly: -2.2 [-2.80, -1.56], p < 0.001; quarterly: -2.2 [-2.81, -1.58], p < 0.001) compared with placebo. Fremanezumab also reduced nausea or vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Fremanezumab reduced the need for acute headache medications, including migraine-specific medications, while treating migraine-associated symptoms in patients with episodic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02629861.

Practice Current: How do you diagnose and treat post-concussive headache?

A common complaint after concussion is the development of new or worsening headaches which can make it difficult or even impossible for patients to work or function in their day-to-day lives. Uncertainties associated with the complaints and a wide variety of approaches exist regarding the appropriate work-up and management of these patients. Areas of ongoing debate include the need for neuroimaging; optimal, acute, and preventative treatment; and proper counseling and expectation management. Given the wide variety of potential approaches and the lack of consensus, we sought expert opinion from around the globe on how to evaluate and manage patients with headache following concussion. Similar questions were posed to the rest of our readership in an online survey (links.lww.com/CPJ/A96), the results of which are also presented.

Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab: Effects on patient functioning and disability

Objective

To evaluate changes from baseline in patient-reported outcomes for measures of functioning and disability among patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab or placebo.

Methods

Patients with episodic migraine (4–14 monthly migraine headache days) were treated with either galcanezumab (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine [EVOLVE]–1: 120 mg n = 210, 240 mg n = 208; EVOLVE-2: 120 mg n = 226, 240 mg n = 220) or placebo (EVOLVE-1 n = 425; EVOLVE-2 n = 450) during 6 months of treatment. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the effect of migraine on patient functioning (physical and emotional) in 3 domains, and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability associated with missed or reduced productivity at work or home and social events. Both were collected at baseline and during the treatment period (MSQv2.1 = monthly; MIDAS = months 3 and 6 only).

Results

Differences in MSQv2.1 total score least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (month 4–6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) were superior to placebo (EVOLVE-1 = 7.3 and 6.7 [both p < 0.001]; EVOLVE-2 = 8.5 and 7.3 [both p < 0.001]). Differences were similar for all domain scores (p < 0.001 for both galcanezumab doses compared with placebo), were observed as early as month 1, and were sustained for 6 months for most domains. Differences of MIDAS LS mean change from baseline (month 6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) compared with placebo were: EVOLVE-1 = −6.3 (p < 0.001) and −5.2 (p = 0.002); EVOLVE-2 = −9.2 and −8.2 (both p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning and decreased disability compared with patients who received placebo.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) given once monthly improved functioning and reduced disability.

Fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine

Introduction: The recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway introduced the first preventive treatments for migraine that were specifically designed to target the underlying pathophysiology of the disease. Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) administered via subcutaneous injection, is the first approved monoclonal antibody that targets the CGRP ligand and offers both quarterly (once every 3 months) and monthly dosing. Areas covered: An introduction to migraine, overview of the migraine preventive treatments that target CGRP or its receptor, background on CGRP, and details on the fremanezumab clinical development program in both chronic and episodic migraine. Focus is on the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies, as well as the recently completed long-term Phase 3 study. Expert opinion: The approval of the first disease-specific preventive treatments for migraine heralds a new era in the treatment of migraine. Fremanezumab has a favorable efficacy and safety profile, which is maintained over the long term. Data from patient subgroups with more-complex disease are promising, and an ongoing study in treatment-refractory patients is evaluating the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients who have failed on multiple prior therapies.

A real-world study on unmet medical needs in triptan-treated migraine: prevalence, preventive therapies and triptan use modification from a large Italian population along two years

Background

Although migraine is a disabling neurological condition that causes important disability, it remains an area of underdiagnosis and undertreatment worldwide. The aim of this study was to depict the burden of the unmet medical needs in migraine treated with triptans in a large Italian population.

Methods

A 2-year longitudinal analysis of migraineurs with unmet medical needs on treatment with triptans was performed. The studied cohort consisted of subjects with ≥4 triptan dose units per month, selected from the general population These patients were stratified into: possible Low-Frequency Episodic Migraine (pLF-EM: 4–9 triptan dose units per month), possible High-Frequency Episodic Migraine (pHF-EM: 10–14 triptan dose units per month) and possible Chronic Migraine (pCM:> 14 triptan dose units per month). The first follow-up year was analysed to describe the use of preventive therapies, the second year to describe the ≥50% reduction in triptan use.

Results

Of 10,270,683 adults, 8.0 per 1000 were triptan users and, of these, 38.2% were migraineurs with unmet medical needs, corresponding to 3.1 per 1000 adults. By stratifying for the number of triptan dose units per month, 72.3% were affected by pLF-EM, 17.4% by pHF-EM, and 10.3% by pCM. In this cohort, 19.1% of individuals used oral preventive drugs and 0.1% botulinum toxin. Triptan use reduction was found in 22.3% individuals of the cohort, decreasing with the intensification of need levels (25.8% pLF-EM, 13.6% pHF-EM, 12.0% pCM).

Conclusions

This real-life analysis underlined that the unmet medical needs concern a large part of patients treated with triptans and there is an undertreatment with preventive therapies whose benefit is insufficient, which may be due to the lack of effective preventive strategies, probably still reserved to severe patients. This study allows forecasting the actual impact of newest therapeutic strategies aimed to fill this gap.

Early onset of effect of onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine treatment: Analysis of PREEMPT data

BACKGROUND

The Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials demonstrated efficacy/tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine. This post hoc analysis assessed time of onset of onabotulinumtoxinA after the first treatment in total and responder populations and consistency weekly through five treatment cycles.

METHODS

In the 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase of PREEMPT, individuals were randomized 1:1 to onabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) or placebo every 12 weeks for two cycles. The primary pooled efficacy variable was change in headache days per 28 days at week 24. We assessed change in headache and migraine/probable migraine (hereafter migraine) days/week compared with baseline week 4.

RESULTS

Baseline mean (SD) headache days/week (week 4 of baseline) for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 688) and placebo (n = 696) were similar (4.8 [1.6] vs. 4.8 [1.6] days/week, respectively), as were migraine days/week (4.6 [1.7] vs. 4.6 [1.7] days/week). The effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on change in headache and migraine days/week was significantly greater than placebo at week 1, persisting from week 3 after the first treatment (-1.6 [2.2] vs. -1.1 [2.2] headache days/week [ p < 0.001] and -1.6 [2.2] vs. -1.1 [2.2] migraine days/week [ p < 0.001]). Headache and migraine days decreased in onabotulinumtoxinA responders beginning 1 week after treatment 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with significant reductions in headache and migraine days/week at week 1, persisting after week 3, compared with placebo. Combined with earlier reports showing onabotulinumtoxinA treatment results in a persistent and progressive reduction in headache days over 56 weeks, it is suggested peak benefit may require multiple treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00156910 and NCT00168428.

The Efficacy of Shinbaro for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic potential and efficacy of Shinbaro, an herbal medication for inflammatory diseases and bone disorders, as a preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

In this prospective, interventional, single-arm, pre-post study, 37 migraine patients took 600mg bid of Shinbaro for 12 weeks. At 4-week intervals, the migraine frequency and the rescue medications frequency were measured from each patient's headache diary. The modified Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaires to assess migraine associated disabilities were also completed at each visit. The serum calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) concentrations before and after 12 weeks of Shinbaro administration were compared.

RESULTS

The monthly migraine frequency was significantly reduced from 20.5 days at baseline to 16.4 days at week 12 (P =0.003), and 22% of the participants showed ≥ 50% reduction. The frequency reduction was observed by week 4 (P =0.035) and continuously occurred through week 8 (P =0.001) and week 12 (P =0.003). The rescue medications frequency also decreased significantly from 17.4 days at baseline to 13.2 days at week 12 (P =0.035). Lastly, the serum CGRP concentration dropped from 434.6 pg/mL at baseline to 371.4 pg/mL at week 12, which was statistically significant (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Shinbaro demonstrated prophylactic effects in migraine patients, significantly reducing their mean migraine frequency, rescue medications frequency, and the serum CGRP concentration after 12 weeks of treatment. This study is registered in Clinical Research Information Service, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute (IRB No. 1604-138-758).

Episodic and Chronic Migraine in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To inform migraine care model development by assessing differences between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in the current state of treatment, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality improvement opportunities.

BACKGROUND

Efficient and focused use of scarce resources will be needed to address challenges within large populations of migraine patients.

METHODS

We deployed a cross-sectional survey study of randomly selected migraine patients within a community primary care practice.

RESULTS

There were 516 survey respondents (516/1804 [30%] response rate). CM patients were more likely than EM patients to report care from a neurologist (76/110 [69%] vs 229/406 [56%]; P = .0026), and higher disability according to the Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test - 6 questionnaires (P < .0001). CM patients were less likely than EM patients to report overall satisfaction with care (16/110 [38%] vs 156/406 [66%], P = .0002), satisfaction with access to care (17/110 [33%] vs 176/406 [68%], P < .0001), and advice they needed (16/110 [31%] vs 160/406 [62%], P < .0001). Most patients with migraine had been offered triptan medications 377/516 (78%). Overall, 156/516 (31%) of individuals were currently taking any medication for migraine prevention, and 208/516 (40%) including botulinum toxin injections. CM patients were more likely to be taking preventive medication (39/110 [36%] vs 117/406 [29%], P = .0191) and report familiarity with the diagnosis of medication-overuse headache than patients with EM (80/110 [81%] vs 256/406 [69%], P = .0178).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences between patients with chronic and EM and expected care delivery improvement opportunities for migraine patients in primary care. CM patients report higher levels of disability and less satisfaction with access to perceived needed medical advice and care. These findings support the need to further develop and study novel care models to efficiently and effectively deliver high-quality care and expertise in limited supply to a diverse migraine population.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of migraine

BACKGROUND

The role of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for prevention of migraine is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerised search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through December 2017 for randomised trials evaluating PFO closure versus control in patients with migraine headaches (with or without aura). The main study outcome was the reduction in monthly migraine attacks after PFO closure compared with the control group.

RESULTS

The final analysis included three randomised trials with a total of 484 patients. Reduction in monthly migraine attacks was higher in PFO closure compared with the control group (standardised mean difference-SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06-0.43; p = .01). There was higher reduction of monthly migraine days in PFO closure group compared with control group (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.08-0.53; p = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in complete resolution of migraine attacks (OR: 3.67; 95% CI: 0.66-20.41; p = .14) and in responders' rate (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.76-4.85; p = .17) between PFO closure and control groups. In patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura, there was an observed reduction in migraine attacks in PFO closure compared with control groups (SMD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.07-1.65; p = .03).

CONCLUSION

PFO closure might be beneficial in migraine patients by reducing migraine attacks and migraine days, especially in patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura. However, those benefits were not associated with an improvement in responders' rate or complete resolution of migraine; raising concerns on the magnitude of clinical benefit of PFO closure in migraine prevention.

Invited Commentary on Preventive Anti-Migraine Therapy (PAMT)

Migraine is a chronic paroxysmal neurological disorder characterized by multiphase attacks of head pain and a myriad of neurological symptoms. Chronic migraine causes a great personal and societal burden. Many patients are poorly responsive to, or non-compliant with, conventional migraine preventive therapies. For this reason, physicians are constantly looking for effective migraine prevention strategies. The recent introduction of an innovative pharmacological class useful for migraine prevention, namely monoclonal antibodies towards calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptors, opens a new, immense therapeutic scenario. In this commentary, the development and efficacy of this novel class of preventive anti-migraine therapy have been discussed and compared with the conventional therapies of migraine prevention.

Long-term treatment patterns of prophylactic and acute migraine medications and incidence of opioid-related adverse events in patients with migraine

Objectives

To describe long-term treatment patterns in migraine patients initiating prophylactic therapy and to evaluate acute medication use and adverse events associated with opioids.

Methods

This study used the 2005–2014 IBM MarketScan® databases to evaluate migraine patients initiating prophylactic medication. Outcome measures included persistence with prophylactic migraine medications over 2–5 years. Acute medication use and gastrointestinal-related adverse events and opioid abuse following opioid use were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate predictors of non-persistence and predictors of gastrointestinal-related AEs and opioid abuse associated with long-term opioid use.

Results

In total, 147,832 patients were analyzed. Non-persistence was observed in 90% of patients; 39% switched, 30% restarted, and 31% discontinued treatment. Over the follow-up, 59.9% of patients received triptans, 66.6% non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 77.4% opioids, and 2.6% ergotamines. Among opioid users, 16.6% experienced nausea/vomiting, 12.2% had constipation, and 10.4% had diarrhea. Opioid abuse was reported in <1% of opioid users. Gastrointestinal-related adverse events increased with increasing number of days’ supply of opioids.

Conclusions

Non-persistence to prophylactic treatment was frequent among migraine patients. Opioid use was common in migraine patients and the risk of gastrointestinal-related adverse events and opioid abuse increased with long-term use of opioids. These results suggest a need for more effective prophylactic migraine treatments.

The effect of aerobic exercise on the number of migraine days, duration and pain intensity in migraine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with frequent migraine, prophylactic treatments are used. Patients often request non-pharmacological alternatives. One treatment option can be aerobic exercise. The value of aerobic exercise as prophylactic treatment however needs to be determined.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the result of aerobic exercise on the number of migraine days, duration and pain intensity in patients with migraine. After screening three online databases, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of Science, using predefined in- and exclusion criteria, six studies were retained. Pooling of data was performed when possible.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in the number of migraine days after aerobic exercise treatment were found with a mean reduction of 0.6 ± 0.3 migraine days/month. Other outcomes were too variable to pool due to heterogeneity of outcome measurements. Unpooled data revealed small to moderate reductions in attack duration (20-27%) and pain intensity (20-54%) after aerobic exercise intervention. Various exercise intensities are applied.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality evidence that in patients with migraine aerobic exercise therapy can decrease the number of migraine days. No conclusion for pain intensity or duration of attacks can be drawn. Effect sizes are small due to a lack of uniformity. For future studies, we recommend standardized outcome measures and sufficiently intense training programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42018091178 .

Migraine day frequency in migraine prevention: longitudinal modelling approaches

Background

Health economic models are critical tools to inform reimbursement agencies on health care interventions. Many clinical trials report outcomes using the frequency of an event over a set period of time, for example, the primary efficacy outcome in most clinical trials of migraine prevention is mean change in the frequency of migraine days (MDs) per 28 days (monthly MDs [MMD]) relative to baseline for active treatment versus placebo. Using these cohort-level endpoints in economic models, accounting for variation among patients is challenging. In this analysis, parametric models of change in MMD for migraine preventives were assessed using data from erenumab clinical studies.

Methods

MMD observations from the double-blind phases of two studies of erenumab were used: one in episodic migraine (EM) (NCT02456740) and one in chronic migraine (CM) (NCT02066415). For each trial, two longitudinal regression models were fitted: negative binomial and beta binomial. For a thorough comparison we also present the fitting from the standard multilevel Poisson and the zero inflated negative binomial.

Results

Using the erenumab study data, both the negative binomial and beta-binomial models provided unbiased estimates relative to observed trial data with well-fitting distribution at various time points.

Conclusions

This proposed methodology, which has not been previously applied in migraine, has shown that these models may be suitable for estimating MMD frequency. Modelling MMD using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions can be advantageous because these models can capture intra- and inter-patient variability so that trial observations can be modelled parametrically for the purposes of economic evaluation of migraine prevention. Such models have implications for use in a wide range of disease areas when assessing repeated measured utility values.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0664-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevention of Chronic Migraine Attacks with Acupuncture and Vamana Dhauti (Yogic Therapeutic Self-Induced Emesis) Interventions

Chronic migraine is a prevalent neurological disorder. Conventional treatment has been providing symptomatic relief by reducing the symptoms of pain and vomiting. In addition, there are side effects associated with these medications. A 53-year-old male presented with chronic migraine with aura. He was treated for acute symptoms for 10 days with the following acupuncture points at the EM 6 (Qiuhou), ST 8 (Touwei), GB-8 (Shuaigu), LI 4 (Hegu), and ST 44 (Neiting). In addition, Vamana Dhauti (VD) (self-induced emesis) was taught once followed by VD practice once a week as part of a long-term follow-up for 10 years. Results suggest that acupuncture is beneficial to reduce the acute symptoms of migraine and the possible frequency of migraine attacks. However, VD has shown to be beneficial in reducing the frequency of migraine attacks over a period of time and eventually led to the complete cessation of migraine attacks. In conclusion, randomized controlled trials are required for testing the efficacy in managing migraine.

Analysis of Initial Nonresponders to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine: Results From the EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the likelihood of response with continued galcanezumab treatment in patients with episodic or chronic migraine without initial clinical improvement.

BACKGROUND

A percentage of patients with migraine may require additional time on pharmacotherapy but discontinue treatment prematurely. Additionally, recognizing when continued treatment is unlikely to provide improvement limits unnecessary exposure.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of response after continued galcanezumab treatment was conducted in a subset of patients with episodic (N = 879) and chronic (N = 555) migraine who did not achieve "good" early improvement (episodic, ≥50% reduction in baseline migraine headache days [MHD] and chronic, ≥30% reduction) after 1 month of dosing (NR-1; episodic, n = 450 and chronic, n = 306). This subset was categorized by level of reduction in MHD during 1 month of treatment: "modest" (>30% to <50% fewer MHD for episodic and >10% to <30% fewer MHD for chronic), "limited" (episodic only; >10% to ≤30% fewer MHD), or "minimal/no" early improvement (≤10% fewer MHD to ≤10% more MHD), or "worsening" (>10% more MHD). The percentages of patients having "better" (≥75% fewer MHD for episodic and ≥50% for chronic), "good," or "little-to-no" (≤10% fewer MHD) response during the remaining treatment period were calculated for each category. Similarly, the subset of NR-1 patients who did not achieve "good" early improvement after 2 months of treatment (NR-2; episodic, n = 290 and chronic, n = 240) were categorized by level of their average monthly reduction across 1 and 2 months using similar categories.

RESULTS

Of NR-1 patients with episodic migraine having "modest" early improvement, 62% (96/155) achieved "good" and 20% (31/155) achieved "better" responses with continued treatment. A percentage of patients with "limited" (43%; 46/108) or "minimal/no" (34%; 29/85) early improvement, or "worsening" (20%; 20/102) achieved a "good" response after continued treatment. A percentage of NR-1 patients with chronic migraine having "modest" early improvement achieved "good" (38%; 44/116) and "better" (13%; 15/116) responses with continued treatment. A "good" response was achieved for a percentage of patients with "minimal/no" early improvement (17%; 23/133). Similar patterns were observed for the NR-2 subset, though percentages were lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab-treated patients with episodic or chronic migraine without response following 1 or 2 months of treatment appear to have a reasonable likelihood of continued improvement in months following initial treatment and this opportunity is more likely in patients showing greater early improvements. While a small percentage of patients with episodic or chronic migraine who experienced worsening in the number of MHD following initial treatment responded with continued treatment, most do not show substantial reduction in MHD. Overall benefit of therapy should be determined collaboratively between the patient and physician.

Evaluating Quality of Life in Patients With Meniere’s Disease Treated as Migraine

Objective:

To evaluate the change in quality of life (QOL) of patients with Meniere’s disease (MD) after treatment with migraine prophylaxis therapy.

Methods:

Patients with definite MD were given the Meniere’s Disease Outcomes Questionnaire–Retrospective (MDOQ-R) after migraine prophylactic therapy to assess QOL. Changes in physical, emotional, and social parameters affected by MD were calculated, along with a global pre- and posttreatment QOL scores.

Results:

The MDOQ-R was given to 27 consecutive patients with definite MD. Patients who had at least an 18-month follow-up were included, resulting in 25 questionnaires. The mean change in QOL score was 25 ± 16 (range, –3 to 55), P = .02. Quality of life was improved in 23 (92%) of the respondents in every metric measured, unchanged in 1 (4%), and poorer in 1 (4%) of patients after migraine prophylaxis treatment.

Conclusions:

Majority of MD patients who had all failed diuretic therapy responded positively to medications used for migraine prophylaxis, as indicated by a significant improvement in QOL. This study may further suggest a correlation between the pathophysiologic basis of disease in MD and vestibular migraine. Patients with MD may be successfully managed with medications intended to treat migraine.

Measures of Functioning in Patients With Episodic Migraine: Findings From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Trial With Galcanezumab

Objective - To evaluate 12-week changes from baseline of 2 disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults with migraine treated with galcanezumab, an investigational humanized antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or placebo. Background - Preventing headache-related functional impairment is an important goal of migraine preventive treatment and a measurement target for PROs. Understanding which drugs have the potential to improve patient functioning in addition to preventing migraine headaches is vital to lessening patient burden. Design/Methods - This Phase 2b double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults with episodic migraine. Galcanezumab (120 mg subcutaneous injection; n = 60) or placebo (n = 127) was administered every 28 days for 12 weeks. Post hoc secondary analyses were conducted for those who completed 12 weeks of treatment on 2 PROs: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) v2.1 and the Headache Impact Test™ (HIT-6). Results - Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences in least square mean changes from baseline between galcanezumab and placebo for all MSQ domains including total mean change placebo of 18.63, galcanezumab of 27.36 (95% CI 2.449, 15.008; P-value of .0067); Role Function-Restrictive mean change placebo of 22.40, galcanezumab of 31.92 (95% CI 2.636, 16.518; P-value of .0071); Role Function-Preventive mean change placebo of 13.43, galcanezumab of 19.76 (95% CI 0.476, 12.185; P-value of .0342); and Emotional Function mean change placebo of 16.88, galcanezumab of 26.61 (95% CI 2.789, 16.674; P-value of .0063). At baseline, mean number of migraine headache days (MHDs) did not correlate with MSQ total scores or HIT-6. At 12 weeks post-treatment, MHD correlated with MSQ and HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Change in MHD was associated with change in MSQ domains and change in HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Conclusions - In comparison with placebo, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with significant functional improvements as reflected by changes in MSQ scores. Change in MHD was associated with improvements in MSQ and reductions in HIT-6 scores, indicating the clinical importance of these changes in relation to PROs that measure function.