Prophylactic treatment of migraine by GPs: a qualitative study

Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study

OBJECTIVE

HER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication.

METHODS

Post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50-100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p < 0.001). In the last 3 months, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving erenumab (60.3%) achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (43.3%; p < 0.001). Patients receiving erenumab demonstrated significantly greater reductions in MMD during the last 3 months from baseline versus those receiving topiramate (- 6.13 vs - 4.90; 95% CI: - 1.87 to - 0.61; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated significantly superior efficacy of erenumab versus topiramate in achieving a ≥50% reduction in MMD with an early onset of efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539 .

The headache registry of the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG): baseline data of the first 1,351 patients

Background

Although good treatment options exist for many headache disorders, not all patients benefit and disability continues to be large. To design strategies for improving headache care, real-world data observing standard care is necessary. Therefore, the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) has established the DMKG Headache Registry. Here we present methods and baseline data.

Methods

Accredited German headache centers (clinic-based or private practice) can offer participation to their patients. Patients provide headache history, current headache load (including a mobile headache diary), medication and comorbidities and answer validated questionnaires, prior to their physician appointment. Physicians use these data as the base of their history taking, and add, change or confirm some central information. Before the next visit, patients are asked to update their data. Patients will continuously be included over the next years.

Results

The present analysis is based on the first 1,351 patients (1110 females, 39.6 ± 12.9 years) with a completed first visit. Most participants had a migraine diagnosis. Participants had 14.4 ± 8.5 headache days and 7.7 ± 6.1 acute medication days per month and 63.9% had a migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) grade 4 (severe disability). 93.6% used at least one acute headache medication, most frequently a triptan (60.0%) or non-opioid analgesic (58.3%). 45.0% used at least one headache preventive medication, most frequently an antidepressant (11.4%, mostly amitriptyline 8.4%) or a CGRP(receptor) antibody (9.8%). Most common causes for discontinuation of preventive medication were lack of effect (54.2%) and side effects (43.3%).

Conclusion

The DMKG Headache Registry allows to continuously monitor headache care at German headache centers in both a cross-sectional and a longitudinal approach.

Trial registration

The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Diagnosis and treatment of migraine: Russian experts' recommendations

Migraine is one of the most common types of headache, which can lead to a significant decrease in quality of life. Researchers identify migraine with aura, migraine without aura, and chronic migraine that substantially reduces the ability of patients to work and is frequently concurrent with mental disorders and drug-induced headache. The complications of migraine include status migrainosus, persistent aura without infarction, migrainous infarction (stroke), and a migraine aura-induced seizure. The diagnosis of migraine is based on complaints, past medical history, objective examination data, and the diagnostic criteria as laid down in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 rd edition. Add-on trials are recommended only in the presence of red flags, such as the symptoms warning about the secondary nature of headache. Migraine treatment is aimed at reducing the frequency and intensity of attacks and the amount of analgesics taken. It includes three main approaches: behavioral therapy, seizure relief therapy, and preventive therapy. Behavioral therapy focuses on lifestyle modification. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, simple and combined analgesics, triptans, and antiemetic drugs for severe nausea or vomiting are recommended for seizure relief. Preventive therapy which includes antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, botulinum toxin type A-hemagglutinin complex and monoclonal antibodies to calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptors, is indicated for frequent or severe migraine attacks and for chronic migraine. Pharmacotherapy is recommended to be combined with non-drug methods that involves cognitive behavioral therapy; progressive muscle relaxation; mindfulness; biofeedback; post-isometric relaxation; acupuncture; therapeutic exercises; greater occipital nerve block; non-invasive high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; external stimulation of first trigeminal branch; and electrical stimulation of the occipital nerves (neurostimulation).

Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a debilitating neurologic disease. People who experience migraine can have substantial disability, impaired functioning and a decreased quality of life (QoL). Expert recommendations suggest that people with frequent migraine attacks or severe impairment related to attacks may benefit from preventive treatment. Despite these recommendations and the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the use of preventive medication, many people who are candidates for preventive therapies do not receive them. Thus, there is still a substantial unmet need for preventive migraine treatment. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Galcanezumab-gnlm (galcanezumab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents binding to its receptor. It is administered as a once-monthly subcutaneous injection. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive overview of the existing short- and long-term efficacy and safety data for galcanezumab in patients with migraine. Data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2 and REGAIN studies show that galcanezumab treatment for 3 or 6 months results in overall reduction in mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with episodic (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) and chronic (REGAIN) migraine. Greater proportions of patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab versus placebo demonstrated a ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response to therapy and reported a lower level of disability and an improvement in functioning and QoL. Similarly, when compared with placebo, greater proportions of patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab demonstrated a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% response and reported improved functioning. A 12-month open-label study demonstrated the continued efficacy of galcanezumab for up to 12 months. In all studies galcanezumab was well tolerated. In conclusion, data from pivotal studies show that galcanezumab may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of patients with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Migraine is a significant contributor to the global burden of disease. Migraine symptoms can lead to substantial disability and can significantly impact an individual’s ability to perform everyday tasks and their overall quality of life. While individuals with infrequent migraine attacks might have success with acute treatments alone, those with more frequent attacks or who have severe migraine-related impairment may require preventive treatment. Although recommendations on the use of preventive treatment exist, only about one-third of individuals who qualify for preventive therapy actually receive it, resulting in a substantial unmet need. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in migraine. Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents receptor binding. In clinical trials of patients with ≥ 4 migraine headache days per month, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with a reduction in the average number of migraine headache days per month. The majority of galcanezumab groups had greater responder rates compared with the placebo groups, and levels of disability and daily functioning were generally improved. Galcanezumab was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being injection site reactions. The results from the clinical trials of galcanezumab suggest that this drug may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of individuals with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Real-world treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes in episodic and chronic migraine in Japan: analysis of data from the Adelphi migraine disease specific programme

Background

In Japan, detailed information on the characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns of people living with migraine is limited. The aim of this study was to compare clinical characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns in people with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) using real-world data from clinical practice in Japan.

Methods

This was an analysis of data collected in 2014 by the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their consulting adult patients in Japan, using physician and patient questionnaires. We report patient demographics, prescribed treatment, work productivity, and quality-of-life data for people with CM (≥15 headache days/month) or EM (not fulfilling CM criteria). In descriptive analyses, continuous and categorical measures were assessed using t-tests and Chi-squared tests, respectively.

Results

Physicians provided data for 977 patients (mean age 44.5 years; 77.2% female; 94.5% with EM, 5.5% with CM). A total of 634/977 (64.9%) invited patients (600 with EM; 34 with CM) also provided data. Acute therapy was currently being prescribed in 93.7% and 100% of patients with EM and CM, respectively (p = 0.069); corresponding percentages for current preventive therapy prescriptions were 40.5% and 68.5% (p < 0.001). According to physicians who provided data, preventive therapy was used at least once by significantly fewer patients with EM than with CM (42.3% vs. 68.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Among patients who provided physicians with information on issues with their current therapy (acute therapy: n = 668 with EM, n = 38 with CM; preventive therapy: n = 295 with EM, n = 21 with CM), lack of efficacy was the most frequently identified problem (acute therapy: EM 35.3%, CM 39.5% [p = 0.833]; preventive therapy: EM 35.3%, CM 52.4% [p = 0.131]). Moderate-to-severe headache-related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment total score ≥ 11) was reported by significantly fewer patients with EM than with CM (21.0% vs. 60.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) among patients who provided data.

Conclusions

Preventive treatment patterns in people with EM versus CM differ in Japan, with both types of migraine posing notable disease burdens. Our findings demonstrate that more effective migraine therapies are required to reduce the burden of the disease.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-019-1012-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Migraine-preventive prescription patterns by physician specialty in ambulatory care settings in the United States

Many adults with migraine who require preventive therapy are often not prescribed the proper medications. The most likely reason is that primary care physicians are unacquainted with preventive medications for migraine. The present study assessed the migraine-preventive prescription patterns in office visits using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2006 to 2009 in the United States. Patients who were 18 years or older and diagnosed with migraine were included in the analysis. In accordance with the recommendations of the headache guidelines, we included beta-blockers, antidepressants, triptans for short-term prevention of menstrual migraine, and other triptans for acute treatment. Weighted visits of adults with migraine prescribed with preventive medication ranged from 32.8% in 2006 to 38.6% in 2009. Visits to primary care physicians accounted for 72.6% of the analyzed adult migraine visits. Anticonvulsants (odds ratio [OR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14–0.57, p < 0.001) and triptans for menstrual migraine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28–0.91, p = 0.025) were less frequently prescribed by primary care physicians compared with specialty care physicians, such as neurologists and psychiatrists. There were no significant differences in the prescription patterns of antidepressants and beta-blockers between primary and specialty care physicians. Beta-blockers were prescribed to patients with comorbidity of hypertension, and antidepressants were used by patients with comorbidity of depression. There are differences in the prescription patterns of certain type of preventive medications between primary care physicians and specialty care physicians.

•

Anticonvulsants were less used by primary care physicians than specialty care physicians.

•

Triptans for prevention were also less used by primary care physicians.

•

No differences were found in patterns of antidepressants and beta-blockers.

•

Beta-blockers were used for patients with comorbidity of hypertension.

•

Antidepressants were used for patients with comorbidity of depression.

Acceptance of preventive treatment in migraine patients: results of a survey

BACKGROUND

The number of migraine patients eligible for preventive treatment is considerably higher than the number of patients actually using it. This study explores reasons for this discrepancy.

METHODS

An explorative survey among patients and their general practitioners (GPs) participating in a trial on preventive medication. Migraine patients who were eligible for preventive treatment (n = 75) attended an evaluation consultation with their GP to optimize migraine treatment. GPs and patients who did not start preventive treatment were asked if they had discussed the possibility of preventive treatment and, if so, why they decided not to start it.

RESULTS

Of the 32 GPs, 8 (25%) did not discuss the possibility of preventive treatment with their patients; in 4 because of perceived lack of effectiveness. Patients who did not start preventive treatment (n = 43) used less triptans and had less psychological distress compared to those who did start (n = 32). Main reasons for patients not starting were negative attitudes towards medication in general, fear of medication side-effects, previous unsuccessful attempts, attacks not being severe enough, and impact of migraine on daily life acceptable.

CONCLUSION

The decision of the individual patient and their GP to start preventive treatment is not only determined by attack frequency, but also depends on the impact of the headache attacks on their daily life and their negative attitude towards medication.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study

Background

Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy.

Methods

A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis.

Results

For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine.

Conclusion

In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine.