The effect of migraine prophylaxis on migraine-related resource use and productivity

The Role of Step Therapy in the Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines recent evidence and applies bioethical principles to evaluate the benefits and risks of using step therapy in the treatment of migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the CGRP mAbs, gepants, and lasmiditan now on the market for up to 5 years, new research, including network meta-analyses and long-term use studies, can evaluate the comparative efficacy, tolerability, and adherence of these medications relative to older acute and preventive medications for the treatment of migraine. Deciding how medications are chosen for patients requires accounting for many factors including sustainability, efficacy, tolerability, and preference. Newer research can help give clarity on the appropriateness of gating certain treatment options behind others.

Clinical benefits and economic cost-savings of Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for migraine prevention

AIMS

Assess the clinical benefits and associated direct and indirect cost-savings from Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for migraine prevention.

METHODS

REN, a prescribed, wearable, FDA-cleared neuromodulation-device for the acute and/or treatment of migraine, recently demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention when used every-other-day, in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study. Following baseline (4-weeks), subjects underwent treatment with REN (or placebo; 8-weeks), and electronically reported migraine symptoms and acute treatments daily. Therapeutic-gain was the between-groups difference (REN minus placebo) in change from baseline to the second month of intervention. Health-economics impact was derived as cost-savings associated with REN's clinical benefits.

RESULTS

Out of 248 subjects randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), 179 (95:84) qualified for modifiedintention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Significant therapeutic gains favoring REN vs placebo were found (Tepper et al., 2023), including mean (±SD) reduction in number of acute medication days (3.4 ± 0.4 vs 1.2 ± 0.5; gain = 2.2; p = 0.001) and presenteeism days (2.7 ± 0.3 vs 1.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.001). Mean changes of provider visits (reduction of 0.09 ± 0.1 vs increase of 0.08 ± 0.2; p = 0.297), and reduction of absenteeism days (0.07 ± 0.1 vs 0.07 ± 0.2; p = 0.997) were not significant. Mean annual cost-saving for one patient using REN for migraine prevention estimated $10,000 (±$1,777) from reductions in these four clinical outcomes relative to baseline without REN treatment. Extrapolated to a hypothetical US commercial health-plan of one-million covered lives, assuming the national prevalence of migraine patients on preventive treatment, annual mean (±SE) cost-saving from using REN migraine prevention estimated $560.0 million (±$99.5 million) from reduction in direct and indirect metrics measured.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical and cost-savings benefits presented are conservative, assessed only from endpoints measured in the clinical trial. Moreover, some of the endpoints had only scarce or no occurrences during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated significant and meaningful clinical, and cost-savings benefits for patients, health insurance systems, and employers, from utilizing REN for migraine prevention.

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.

Evaluating and managing severe headache in the emergency department

Introduction: Headache is the fifth most common reason to visit an emergency department (ED). In most of the cases, headache is benign and has a primary origin, with migraine as the most common diagnosis. Inappropriate use of ED for non-emergency conditions causes overcrowding, unnecessary testing, and increased medical costs.Areas covered: All stages of headache management in ED, from the reasons to go there, the diagnosis that is made and the investigations necessary to make it, to get to the therapies administered and those prescribed at discharge, if there were any. Finally, the authors evaluated the habit of recommending medical follow-up and how often the headache is still present at discharge or returns within 24 hours.Expert Opinion: Primary headaches are underdiagnosed, misdiagnosed, and the majority do not receive drug therapy either in ED or on discharge, and in cases where the therapy is prescribed is not specific. Increase the number of primary care medical services, spread the 'headaches culture' among GPs and ED doctors, the adoption of ICHD in the diagnostic protocols used in EDs and a fast referral to a headache center could decrease the inappropriate use of ED and improve the headache management in the emergency units.

Rapid referral for headache management from emergency department to headache centre: four years data

BACKGROUND

Headache is one of the most common reason for medical consultation to emergency department (ED). The inappropriate use of ED for non-emergency conditions is a problem in terms of overcrowding of emergency facilities, unnecessary testing and treatment, increased medical costs, burden on medical service providers and weaker relationships between patient and primary care provider. The aim of this study was to analyze the different stages of ED management of headache to identify those deficiencies that can be overcome by a fast referral to a headache clinic.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective analysis of the electronic medical records of patients discharged from an academic ED between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 and referred to the tertiary level headache centre of the same hospital. We analyzed all aspects related to the permanence in ED and also assessed whether there was a match between the diagnosis made in ED and ours.

RESULTS

Among our sample of 244 patients, 76.2% were admitted as "green tag", 75% underwent a head computed tomography, 19.3% received a neurological consultation, 43% did not receive any pharmacological treatment and 62.7% still had headache at discharge. The length of stay in ED was associated with reporting the first aura ever (p = 0.014) and whether patients received consultations (p < 0.001). The concordance analysis shown a significant moderate agreement only for the diagnosis of migraine and only between triage and headache centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients who went to ED complaining of headache received the same treatment regardless of their diagnosis and in many cases the headache had not yet resolved at the time of discharge. Given the many shortcomings in headache management in ED, rapid referral to the headache centre is of paramount importance to help the patient achieve a definiteve diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Erenumab Versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Patients with Chronic Migraine Attacks in Greece

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, chronic neurovascular brain disorder with non-negligible multifaceted economic costs. Existing preventive treatments involve the selective use of onabotulinumtoxinA, which aims at migraine morbidity reduction for patients who have failed initial preventive treatment with oral agents. Erenumab is a new preventive treatment for migraines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the differences in costs and outcomes of the preventive treatment with erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraines (CM) in Greece to assess the economic value of this treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from both the payer and the societal perspective using a decision-tree analytic model. Outcomes were expressed in migraines avoided and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We obtained model inputs from the existing literature. The decision path adjusted for variation in the probability of adherence and the resulting differential effectiveness between the two treatments. Direct costs included the cost of the two drugs and administration costs, the costs of acute drugs used under usual care, and the costs of hospitalization, physician, and emergency department visits. Indirect costs for the societal perspective analyses included wages lost on workdays. The time-horizon of the analysis was 1 year and all costs were calculated in 2019 euros (€). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to control for parameter uncertainty and to evaluate the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that treatment of CM with erenumab compared to onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €218,870 and €231,554 per QALY gained and €620 and €656 per migraine avoided, from the societal and the payer's perspective, respectively. Using a common cost-effectiveness threshold equal to three times the local gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (€49,000), for the erenumab ICERs to fall below this threshold, the erenumab price would have to be no more than €192 (societal perspective) or €173 (payer perspective).

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic treatment of CM with erenumab in Greece might be cost effective compared to the existing alternative of onabotulinumtoxinA from both the payer and the societal perspective, but only at a highly discounted price. Nevertheless, erenumab could be considered a therapeutic option for patients who fail treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Topiramate in Migraine Prevention: A 2016 Perspective

BACKGROUND

In evidence-based guidelines published in 2000, topiramate was a third-tier migraine preventive with no scientific evidence of efficacy; recommendation for its use reflected consensus opinion and clinical experience. Its neurostabilizing activity, coupled with its favorable weight profile, made topiramate an attractive alternative to other migraine preventives that caused weight gain. When guidelines for migraine prevention in episodic migraine were published in 2012, topiramate was included as a first-line option based on double-blind, randomized controlled trials involving nearly 3000 patients. The scientific and clinical interest in topiramate has generated a large body of data from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, patient registries, cohort studies, and claims data analyses that have more fully characterized its role as a migraine preventive.

AIM

This article will review the profile of topiramate that has emerged out of the past decade of research and clinical use in migraine prophylaxis. It will also address the rationale for extended-release (XR) formulations in optimizing topiramate therapy in migraine.

SUMMARY

Topiramate has activity at multiple molecular targets, which may account for why it is effective in migraine and most other, more specific, anticonvulsants are not. Based on randomized controlled trials, topiramate reduces migraine frequency and acute medication use, improves quality of life, and reduces disability in patients with episodic migraine and in those with chronic migraine with or without medication overuse headache. Its efficacy in chronic migraine is not improved by the addition of propranolol. Topiramate's ability to prevent progression from high-frequency episodic migraine to chronic migraine remains unclear. Consistent with clinicians' perceptions, migraineurs are more sensitive to topiramate-associated side effects than patients with epilepsy. Paresthesia is a common occurrence early in treatment but is rarely cause for terminating topiramate treatment. Cognitive problems occur much less frequently than paresthesia but are more troublesome in terms of treatment discontinuation. Cognitive complaints can often be managed by slowly increasing the topiramate dose in small increments to allow habituation. As with other carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, topiramate has metabolic effects that favor the development of metabolic acidosis and possibly renal stones. Because migraineurs have an increased risk of renal stones independent of topiramate exposure, clinicians should counsel all migraine patients to maintain hydration. Abrupt onset of blurring, other visual disturbances, and/or ocular pain following topiramate's initiation should be evaluated promptly since this may indicate rare but potentially sight-threatening idiosyncratic events. Postmarketing evidence has shown that first-trimester exposure to topiramate monotherapy is associated with increased occurrence of cleft lip with or without cleft palate (Pregnancy Category D). Even though topiramate's long half-life would seemingly support q.d. dosing, randomized controlled migraine trials used b.i.d. administration of immediate-release (IR) topiramate, which has more favorable plasma concentration-time profile (ie, lower peak concentrations and higher trough concentrations) than q.d. IR dosing. Given the sensitivity of migraineurs to topiramate-related adverse events, particularly cognitive effects, pharmacokinetic profiles should be considered when optimizing migraine outcomes. The extended-release (XR) formulations Qudexy^® XR (Upsher-Smith Laboratories) and Trokendi XR^® (Supernus Pharmaceuticals) were specifically designed to achieve the adherence benefits of q.d. dosing but with more favorable (ie, more constant) steady-state plasma concentrations over the 24-hour dosing interval vs IR topiramate b.i.d. Intriguing results from a study in healthy volunteers showed consistently less impairment in neuropsychometric tests of verbal fluency and mental processing speed with an XR topiramate formulation (Trokendi XR) vs IR topiramate b.i.d. These findings suggest a pharmacodynamic effect associated with significantly reducing plasma concentration fluctuation when topiramate absorption is slowed. Results of retrospective studies in migraineurs treated with XR topiramate appear to support a clinically meaningful benefit of XR topiramate vs IR topiramate in terms of significantly fewer cognitive effects, improved adherence, and overall better outcomes of migraine prophylaxis with topiramate.

Canadian Headache Society systematic review and recommendations on the treatment of migraine pain in emergency settings

BACKGROUND

There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line.

METHODS

A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.

Undertreatment in patients with primary headaches attending headache centres

Undertreatment in patients with primary headaches was evaluated in 600 patients attending 7 headache centres in Lombardy by assessing the rates of acute and prophylactic treatments used before the first visit and the rates of prescription of acute and prophylactic treatments after the visit at the headache centre. Our results clearly showed that most headache patients are likely to receive suboptimal treatments, confirming the utility of headache centres as well as the need for promoting education of GPs and the development of appropriate networks to reduce undertreatment rates, in order to highlight the negative impact caused by primary headache on individuals and on the society.

New drugs in migraine treatment and prophylaxis: telcagepant and topiramate

Although the triptan drugs provide effective relief from migraine for many patients, a substantial number of affected individuals are unresponsive to these compounds, and such therapy can also lead to a range of adverse effects. Telcagepant represents a new class of antimigraine drug-the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor blockers. This compound exerts its effects by blocking receptors for the calcitonin-gene-related peptide at several sites in the trigeminal and central nervous systems, resulting in pain relief. Telcagepant does not cause vasoconstriction, a major limitation in the use of triptans. Comparisons with triptans in clinical trials for acute treatment of migraine attacks revealed clinical effects similar to those of triptans but better than those of placebo. Telcagepant might provide hope for those who have a poor response to, or are unable to use, older drugs. In patients who need prophylaxis because of frequent attacks of migraine, topiramate is a first-line drug for migraine prevention in many countries; it is generally safe and reasonably well tolerated. Data suggest that topiramate could aid reversion of chronic migraine to episodic migraine.