Therapeutic Options for Migraines in the Microsurgical Patient: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There exists an increasing array of treatments proposed to prevent, alleviate, and abort symptoms of a migraine; however, for patients who undergo reconstructive microsurgery, caution must be taken to preserve vascular integrity. This study is the first-to-date scoping review of vascular and bleeding risk of current migraine therapies, with the purpose of identifying potential therapeutic agents for postoperative migraine management appropriate for microsurgical patients.

METHODS

Currently available migraine therapeutics were compiled from the UpToDate software system and the American Academy of Family Physicians. A PubMed literature review was performed for each therapeutic's effect on bleeding or vascular involvement. Data were compiled into tables of abortive, symptom-controlling and prophylactic, and nonpharmacologic treatments. Expert microsurgeons reviewed the data to provide recommendations for optimized patient care.

RESULTS

Triptans and other ergot derivatives demonstrated strong evidence of vasoconstriction and were greatly advised against for immediate postmicrosurgical use. Novel pharmaceutical therapies such as lasmiditan and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists have no literature indicating potential for vasoconstriction or hematoma and remain an investigational option for abortive medical treatment. For symptom control, acetaminophen appears the safest option, with clinical judgment and further research needed for use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Alternative treatment techniques may include migraine prophylaxis with botulinum toxin injection or nutraceutical treatment by means of magnesium supplementation or coenzyme Q10 administration, minimizing the need for additional medication in the postoperative setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing reconstructive microsurgery have a unique medical profile limiting the therapeutic options available to treat migraines. This review provides preliminary evidence to be considered as a guide for prescribing therapeutics for migraine in the postoperative setting.

Effects of prophylactic drug therapies and anti-calcitonin peptide-related monoclonal antibodies on subjective sleep quality: An Italian multicenter study

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

sleep alterations strongly influence migraine severity. Prophylactic therapies have a major impact on migraine frequency and associated symptoms. The study purpose was to compare the impact of oral drug therapies or gene-related anti-calcitonin monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) on sleep alterations. We also evaluated which drug therapies are more effective on sleep quality and the different impact on migraine frequency and life quality.

PATIENTS/METHODS

this is a multicenter, prospective study conducted in three specialized headache centers (Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona; University of Palermo, Palermo; Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico, Rome). At baseline, we assigned migraine patients to preventive therapy with first-line drugs or anti-CGRP mAbs. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scales were administered. After three months, we re-evaluated the patients with the same scales.

RESULTS

214 patients were enrolled. Any prophylaxis was significantly associated with a reduction in PSQI score (mean difference 1.841; 95%CI:1.413-2.269; p < 0.0001), most significantly in the anti-CGRP mAb group (mean difference 1.49; 95%CI:2.617-0.366; p = 0.010). Anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in significant improvement in migraine severity and MIDAS scores. Among oral therapies, calcium antagonists and antidepressants were the most effective in reducing PSQI score between T0 and T1 (p = 0.042; p = 0.049; p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

anti-CGRP mAbs revitalized the management of migraine with stable and well-documented efficacy. Our data also suggest that anti-CGRP mAbs result in a positive effect on sleep quality, with a significant improvement in PSQI scores. Knowing the relevant impact of sleep disruption on migraine severity, these data could help for the management of migraine patients.

A 12-week randomized double-blind clinical trial of eicosapentaenoic acid intervention in episodic migraine

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may benefit migraine improvement, though prior studies are inconclusive. This study evaluated the effect of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on episodic migraine (EM) prevention. Seventy individuals with EM participated in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from March 2020 and May 2022. They were randomly assigned to either the EPA (N = 35, 2 g fish oil with 1.8 g of EPA as a stand-alone treatment daily), or the placebo group (N = 35, 2 g soybean oil daily). Migraine frequency and headache severity were assessed using the monthly migraine days, visual analog scale (VAS), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in comparison to baseline measurements. The EPA group significantly outperformed the placebo in reducing monthly migraine days (-4.4 ± 5.1 days vs. - 0.6 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.001), days using acute headache medication (-1.3 ± 3.0 days vs. 0.1 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.035), improving scores for headache severity (ΔVAS score: -1.3 ± 2.4 vs. 0.0 ± 2.2, p = 0.030), disability (ΔMIDAS score: -13.1 ± 16.2 vs. 2.6 ± 20.2, p = 0.001), anxiety and depression (ΔHADS score: -3.9 ± 9.4 vs. 1.1 ± 9.1, p = 0.025), and quality of life (ΔMSQ score: -11.4 ± 19.0 vs. 3.1 ± 24.6, p = 0.007). Notably, female particularly benefited from EPA, underscoring its potential in migraine management. In conclusion, high-dose EPA has significantly reduced migraine frequency and severity, improved psychological symptoms and quality of life in EM patients, and shown no major adverse events, suggesting its potential as a prophylactic for EM.

Evaluation of the concomitant use of prophylactic treatments in patients with migraine under anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide therapies: The PREVENAC study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies are recent preventive therapies approved for both episodic and chronic migraine. One of the measures of effectiveness is the withdrawal of other preventive treatments. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of anti-CGRP drugs in concomitant preventive treatment in patients with migraine.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter cohort study with patients from nine national headache units. Patients with migraine undergoing treatment for at least 6 months with anti-CGRP antibodies, who were initially associated with some preventive treatment (oral and/or onabotulinumtoxinA) were included. Demographic and clinical variables were collected, as well as variables related to headache. Differences according to withdrawal or nonwithdrawal were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were included, 86.52% women, 48.79 (SD = 1.46) years old. Preventive treatment was withdrawn in 43.87% (179/408), 20.83% partially and 23.04% totally. In 27.45% (112/408), it was maintained exclusively due to comorbidity and in 28.6% (117/408) due to partial efficacy. The most frequent time of withdrawal was between 3 and 5 months after the start of treatment. The baseline characteristics associated with nonwithdrawal were comorbidities: insomnia, hypertension and obesity, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. In the multivariate analysis, the absence of high blood pressure, a greater number of preventive treatments at the start, and a lower number of migraine days/month after anti-CGRP treatment were independently associated with withdrawal of the treatment (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP antibodies allow the withdrawal of associated preventive treatment in a significant percentage of patients, which supports its effectiveness in real-life conditions.

Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Participants With Episodic Migraine in Whom 2-4 Prior Preventive Treatments Had Failed: LIBERTY 3-Year Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The LIBERTY study assessed the efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine (EM) and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. The results have been presented after 3 years of erenumab exposure in its open-label extension phase (OLEP).

METHODS

Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could enter the OLEP and receive 140 mg of erenumab once monthly for 3 years. The main outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), the mean MMD change from baseline, and tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 240/246 (97.6%) participants entered the OLEP and 168/240 (70.0%) completed the study (85/118 continuing erenumab [n = 1 lost during follow-up]; 83/122 switching from placebo [n = 2 lost during follow-up]). In the overall population, 79/151 participants (52.3%) with valid data points achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs at week 168 (i.e., responders). In the continuous erenumab group, 35/117 participants (29.9%) were ≥50% responders at week 12 of the DBTP and 26/35 (74.3%) remained ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of the 82/117 participants (70.1%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the continuous erenumab group, 17/82 (20.7%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of 103/120 participants (85.8%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the placebo-erenumab group, 42/103 (40.8%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits after switching to erenumab. Overall, the mean (SD) MMD change from baseline showed sustained improvement over 3 years (-4.4 [3.9] days at week 168). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (per 100 person-years) were nasopharyngitis (28.8), influenza (7.5), and back pain (5.8). Overall, 9.6% (3.9 per 100 person-years) and 6.7% (2.7 per 100 person-years) of participants reported events of treatment-emergent hypertension and constipation, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile remained consistent with earlier studies.

DISCUSSION

Erenumab (140 mg) showed sustained efficacy over 3 years in participants with EM and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. No new safety signals were observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03096834.

Unsatisfactory response to acute medications does not affect the medication overuse headache development in pediatric chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) negatively impacts the quality of life of 2 to 4% of pediatric patients. In adults, CM is frequently linked to medication overuse headache (MOH), but there is a much lower prevalence of MOH in children. A suboptimal response to acute therapies may lead to their reduced use, thus preventing MOH development in children and adolescents. The frequency of patients with CM who do not respond to acute therapies was examined in the present study. We investigated whether the prevalence of MOH was different between responders and non-responders. We also examined whether patients receiving prophylactic therapy had an improved response to acute therapy. Finally, we investigated if there was a difference in the frequency of psychiatric comorbidities between responders and non-responders.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed clinical data of all chronic pediatric migraineurs under the age of 18 referred to the Headache Centre at Bambino Gesù Children Hospital in June 2021 and February 2023. ICHD3 criteria were used to diagnose CM and MOH. We collected demographic data, including the age at onset of migraine and the age of the CM course. At baseline and after 3 months of preventive treatment, we evaluated the response to acute medications. Neuropsychiatric comorbidities were referred by the children's parents during the first attendance evaluation.

RESULTS

Seventy patients with CM were assessed during the chosen period. Paracetamol was tried by 41 patients (58.5%), NSAIDs by 56 patients (80.0%), and triptans by 1 patient (1.4%). Fifty-one participants (73%) were non-responder to the abortive treatment. The presence of MOH was detected in 27.1% of the whole populations. Regarding our primary aim, MOH was diagnosed in 29% of non-responder patients and 22% of responders (p > 0.05). All patients received preventative treatment. After 3 months of preventive pharmacological therapy, 65.4% of patients who did not respond to acute medications achieved a response, while 34.6% of patients who were non-responder remain non-responder (p < 0.05). Prophylactic therapy was also effective in 69% of patients who responded to acute medication (p < 0.05). Psychiatric comorbidities were detected in 68.6% of patients, with no difference between responders and non-responders (72.2% vs. 67.3%; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high prevalence of unresponsiveness to acute therapies in pediatric CM, it does not act as a protective factor for MOH. Moreover, responsiveness to acute drugs is improved by pharmacological preventive treatment and it is not affected by concomitant psychiatric comorbidities.

An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease with a substantial societal burden due to lost productivity. From a societal perspective, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

An individual patient simulation of discrete competing events was developed to evaluate eptinezumab cost-effectiveness compared to best supportive care for adults in the United Kingdom with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and prior failure of ≥ 3 preventive migraine treatments. Individuals with sampled baseline characteristics were created to represent this population, which comprised dedicated episodic and chronic migraine subpopulations. Clinical efficacy, utility, and work productivity inputs were based on results from the DELIVER randomised controlled trial (NCT04418765). Timing of natural history events and treatment holidays-informed by the literature-were simulated to unmask any natural improvement of the disease unrelated to treatment. The primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, migraine-associated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit, each evaluated over a 5-year time horizon from 2020. Secondary analyses explored a lifetime horizon and an alternative treatment stopping rule.

RESULTS

Treatment with eptinezumab resulted in an average of 0.231 QALYs gained at a saving of £4,894 over 5 years, making eptinezumab dominant over best supportive care (i.e., better health outcomes and less costly). This result was confirmed by the probabilistic analysis and all alternative assumption scenarios under the same societal perspective. Univariate testing of inputs showed net monetary benefit was most sensitive to the number of days of productivity loss, and monthly salary.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation shows that from a societal perspective, eptinezumab is a cost-effective treatment in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and for whom ≥ 3 other preventive migraine treatments have failed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

Pharmacogenomic study-A pilot study of the effect of pharmacogenomic phenotypes on the adequate dosing of verapamil for migraine prevention

OBJECTIVE

To investigate factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

BACKGROUND

Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the doses of verapamil for migraine prevention were assessed.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 33 migraine patients (82% with aura). The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses of verapamil were 178.2(20-320) mg and 227.9(20-480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

Rationale and design of the SPRING trail: effectivity and safety of Pfo closuRe vs medIcine in alleviatiNg migraine, a multicenter, randomized and open-label trail

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Several retrospective studies have suggested that the closure of the Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) may provide relief from migraines. However, three randomized controlled trials did not meet their primary endpoints regarding migraine cessation, reduction in monthly migraine days, and responder rates.

METHODS

The SPRING study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and open-label trial designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure versus medication in the relief of migraines. The primary endpoint is the total cessation of migraines, as recorded in patient headache diaries during the follow-up period. Additional diagnostic tools include echocardiography with agitated saline contrast, transcranial Doppler, and routine laboratory measurements.

CONCLUSION

The SPRING trial aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure versus medication in mitigating migraines in real-world settings. (Clinical Trails ID: NCT04946734).

A Role for Visual Art Therapy in the Management of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is a disabling disorder that adversely affects the whole person and requires multimodal management. Through a brief historical overview of migraine as a subject for visual art, benefits reported from art therapy used in the management of other types of chronic pain, and a summary of the limited research involving art therapy for migraine, we aim to provide support for art therapy's potential role in the management of migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

As art therapy has been shown to be effective in the management of other chronic pain conditions, providing insight into the individual's pain experience and perception of pain, ameliorating pain by means of distraction, and improving psychosocial health, by extension, it may be of benefit in the migraine population as well. Migraine is disabling, and previous literature has shown efficacy in lifestyle modifications as well as complementary and alternative medicine. Based on its efficacy in other pain conditions, we suggest art therapy as an additional tool for the preventive management of migraine.

Medication "underuse" headache

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification.

METHODS

Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication.

RESULTS

The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Preventive Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

This article describes strategies for the preventive treatment of migraine including the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies and introduces novel paradigms for the preventive treatment of migraine.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Multiple migraine medications targeting CGRP have been introduced since 2018, including injectable monoclonal antibodies (ie, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (ie, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, and zavegepant). With the exceptions of ubrogepant and zavegepant, which are approved only as acute treatments, all of these agents have demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of migraine; the monoclonal antibodies and atogepant have evidence of effectiveness in adults with either episodic or chronic migraine. The safety and tolerability profiles of CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine are favorable.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The goals of preventive migraine therapy include reducing the frequency, severity, duration, and disability associated with attacks, reducing the need for acute treatment and the risk of medication overuse, enhancing self-efficacy and health-related quality of life, and reducing headache-related distress and interictal burden. Six drugs targeting CGRP (four monoclonal antibodies and two gepants) are now available for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. The efficacy of CGRP-targeted medications in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, together with good safety and tolerability, has led to the emergence of new approaches to preventive treatment.

Migraine and the microbiota. Can probiotics be beneficial in its prevention? - a narrative review

Migraine is a recurrent disease of the central nervous system that affects an increasing number of people worldwide causing a continuous increase in the costs of treatment. The mechanisms underlying migraine are still unclear but recent reports show that people with migraine may have an altered composition of the intestinal microbiota. It is well established that the gut-brain axis is involved in many neurological diseases, and probiotic supplementation may be an interesting treatment option for these conditions. This review collects data on the gastrointestinal and oral microbiota in people suffering from migraine and the use of probiotics as a novel therapeutic approach in its treatment.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update

OBJECTIVE

To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches.

METHODS

Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare.

CONCLUSION

The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US).

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics.

RESULTS

Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

A comparative study on prophylactic efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in childhood migraine: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pediatric migraine prophylaxis is indicated when headaches are frequent and/or disabling. We aimed to conduct a study to compare the efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in pediatric migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 4-17 years with migraine who were eligible for prophylaxis enrolled. The primary outcome was a reduction response rate of ≥50% with p < 0.005 with respect to headache characteristics. The secondary outcome was migraine disability assessment. We evaluated patients every four weeks for three months: T1: week 4, T2: week 8 and T3: week 12. The safety profile was also assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were randomly assigned to each group. However, 43 patients completed the trial. Headache frequency decreased in amitriptyline group more effectively in T1 (p = 0.004). Amitriptyline was more successful in reducing the headache duration in all three periods (p < 0.005). There was no significant difference in severity improvement and reducing disability score between the two groups (p > 0.005). No serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medications are effective in ameliorating migraine headaches and related disabilities. However, amitriptyline appears be a preferable option over cinnarizine, given its faster onset of action, efficacy in reducing headache duration and longer-lasting effects.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the code IRCT-20191112045413N1.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed.

METHODS

ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population.

FUNDING

Allergan (now AbbVie).

Treatment patterns of galcanezumab versus standard of care preventive migraine medications over 24 months: a US retrospective claims study

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016).

CONCLUSION

Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Structural equation modeling for identifying the drivers of health-related quality of life improvement experienced by patients with migraine receiving eptinezumab

BACKGROUND

As new migraine therapies emerge, it is crucial for measures to capture the complexities of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement beyond improvements in monthly migraine day (MMD) reduction. Investigations into the correlations between MMD reduction, symptom management, and HRQoL are lacking, particularly those that focus on improvements in canonical symptoms and improvement in patient-identified most-bothersome symptoms (PI-MBS), in patients treated with eptinezumab. This exploratory analysis identified efficacy measures mediating the effect of eptinezumab on HRQoL improvements in patients with migraine.

METHODS

Data from the DELIVER study of patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures (NCT04418765) were inputted to two structural equation models describing sources of HRQoL improvement via Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) scores. A single latent variable was defined to represent HRQoL and describe the sources of HRQoL in DELIVER. One model included all migraine symptoms while the second model included the PI-MBS as the only migraine symptom. Mediating variables capturing different aspects of efficacy included MMDs, other canonical symptoms, and PI-MBS.

RESULTS

In the first model, reductions in MMDs and other canonical symptoms accounted for 35% (standardized effect size [SES] - 0.11) and 25% (SES - 0.08) of HRQoL improvement, respectively, with 41% (SES - 0.13) of improvement comprising "direct treatment effect," i.e., unexplained by mediators. In the second model, substantial HRQoL improvement with eptinezumab (86%; SES - 0.26) is due to MMD reduction (17%; SES - 0.05) and change in PI-MBS (69%; SES - 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in HRQoL experienced by patients treated with eptinezumab can be substantially explained by its effect on migraine frequency and PI-MBS. Therefore, in addition to MMD reduction, healthcare providers should discuss PI-MBS improvements, since this may impact HRQoL. Health technology policymakers should consider implications of these findings in economic evaluation, as they point to alternative measurement of quality-adjusted life years to capture fully treatment benefits in cost-utility analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ; EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

The effect of selenium supplementation on oxidative stress, clinical symptoms and mental health status in patients with migraine: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Despite a number of recommended strategies, effective treatment of migraine remains elusive. Given the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of migraine, selenium, as an antioxidant nutrient, may have a beneficial effect on migraine outcomes. However, no study has explored the effects of selenium supplementation on migraine symptoms, oxidative stress biomarkers, and mental health. Therefore, this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial aims to examine the effects of selenium supplementation among migraine patients.

METHODS

Seventy-two migraine patients will receive either 200 µg/day selenium supplement (n = 36) or placebo (n = 36) for 12 weeks in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. The severity, frequency, and duration of headaches, mental health indices including depression, anxiety, and distress, and quality of life, as well as biomarkers of oxidative stress such as nitric oxide (NO), malondialdehyde (MDA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), and total oxidant status (TOS), will be measured at the baseline and end of the study. The intention-to-treat (ITT) approach will be used to estimate missing values. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be performed to detect the effect of selenium supplementation on outcome variables.

DISCUSSION

Oxidative stress is recognized as a key contributor to migraine pathogenesis. Selenium is an essential trace element with antioxidant properties, capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB), holding promise to alleviate the oxidative stress and neurotoxicity. Thus, selenium may beneficially affect clinical symptoms and oxidative stress as well as the quality of life in migraine patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials ( https://www.irct.ir/ ) on 27 May 2023 with the code number IRCT20121216011763N60.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in Japan: insights from an online survey of physician members of the Japanese headache society

BACKGROUND

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) have greatly changed migraine treatment options. In Japan, although CGRPmAb guidelines (≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) and ≥ 1 previous preventive failure) are well-acknowledged, the actual use of CGRPmAbs and the circumstances of the related headache care are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of Japanese Headache Society members, inquiring about the physicians' experience with CGRPmAbs and how they make decisions related to their use.

RESULTS

Of the 397 respondents, 320 had prescribed CGRPmAbs. The threshold number of previous preventive failures for recommending a CGRPmAb was two for the majority of the respondents (n = 170, 54.5%), followed by one (n = 64, 20.5%). The MMD threshold was ≥ 4 for 71 respondents (22.8%), ≥ 6 for 68 (21.8%), ≥ 8 for 76 (24.4%), and ≥ 10 for 81 (26.0%). The respondents tended to assess treatment efficacy after 3 months (episodic migraine: n = 217, 69.6%, chronic migraine: n = 188, 60.3%). The cost of CGRPmAbs was described by many respondents in two questions: (i) any request for a CGRPmAb (27.7%), and (ii) the most frequently reported reason for responders to discontinue CGRPmAbs (24.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the respondents recommended CGRPmAbs to patients with ≥ 2 preventive failures, followed by ≥ 1. The MMD threshold ranged mostly from ≥ 4 to ≥ 10. The concern for costs was raised as a major limiting factor for prescribing CGRPmAbs.

Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM).

RESULTS

The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

How early can we treat migraine attacks? A perspective based on prodrome

Treating migraine attacks early at the onset of a headache is a common proven strategy. But does this strategy work before headache onset? In the PRODROME trial, Dodick et al. showed that ubrogepant taken during the prodrome can prevent headache attacks and reduce functional disability.1.

Targeting the PACAP-38 pathway is an emerging therapeutic strategy for migraine prevention

INTRODUCTION

The pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) has emerged as a key mediator of migraine pathogenesis. PACAP-38 and its receptors are predominantly distributed in arteries, sensory and parasympathetic neurons of the trigeminovascular system. Phase 2 trials have tested human monoclonal antibodies designed to bind and inhibit PACAP-38 and the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide type I (PAC1) receptor for migraine prevention.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the significance of the PACAP-38 pathway as a target in migraine prevention. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

A PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody was not effective for preventing migraine in a proof-of-concept trial, paving the way for alternative strategies to be considered. Lu AG09222 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PACAP-38 that was effective in preventing physiological responses of PACAP38 and reducing monthly migraine days in individuals with migraine. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the clinical utility, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting the PACAP pathway.

Effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of preventive anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients over 65 years old: a multicenter real-world case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical characteristics, effectiveness, and tolerability of preventive anti- calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the elderly. Anti-CGRP mAbs have demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with migraine although there is limited information regarding the elderly.

DESIGN

We performed a multicenter case-control study of cases (patients over 65 years old) and controls (sex-matched patients under 55 years old) with migraine receiving anti-CGRP mAbs.

METHODS

We included the demographic characteristics, effectiveness-reduction in the number of monthly headache days (MHD) and monthly migraine days (MMD), 30%, 50%, and 75% responder rates-and treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The primary endpoint was the 50% response rate regarding MHD at weeks 20-24; exploratory 50% response predictors in the elderly were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 228 patients were included: 114 cases , 114 controls-. Among cases 84.2% (96/114) were women, 79.8% (91/114) CM; mean age of cases 70.1 years old (range: 66-86); mean age of controls was 42.9 years old(range: 38-49). Cases had a higher percentage of vascular risk factors (P < .05),older age of onset (P < .001) and more reported prior preventive treatments (P < .001). Regarding effectiveness in cases, 50% response rate was achieved by 57.5% (42/73) at 20-24 weeks, with lower reduction in the MHD at 8-12 weeks (5 [7.2], 8 [9.1]; P = .001) and a higher reduction in MMD at 20-24 weeks (10.7 [9.1], 9.2 [7.7]; P = .04) compared to the control group. The percentage of TEAEs was similar in the 2 groups. Diagnosis of episodic migraine (EM) (P = .03) and lower number of MHD at baseline (P = .001) were associated with a 50% response in the elderly in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides real world evidence of effectiveness and safety of anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients without upper age-limit and possible predictors of anti-CGRP response in the elderly.

Efficacy of migraine prophylaxis treatments for treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171843.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Oral CGRP Antagonists, Atogepant and Rimegepant, for the Preventative Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from a US Societal Perspective Model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, atogepant and rimegepant, were approved in 2021 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM), yet no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atogepant 60 mg and rimegepant 75 mg compared with placebo.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed over a 1-year time horizon from a US societal perspective. Patient cohorts were simulated using baseline and change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) reported in the trials to incorporate responder rates and within patient response into the model. Due to heterogeneity between the trial populations, each medication was compared with its respective trial's placebo group. Direct healthcare resource costs, productivity costs, acute medication costs, and quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The atogepant cohort experienced an incremental increase in healthcare plus productivity costs of $11,978 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $450,000/QALY. The rimegepant cohort experienced an incremental increase of $21,692 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.024 QALYs. This yields an ICER of more than $890,000/QALY when comparing rimegepant with placebo. Cost savings between atogepant and atogepant placebo were greatest with respect to acute medication costs at $735 of savings over 1 year, followed by savings of $135 for healthcare resource utilization and $34 for productivity costs. A similar relationship was seen between rimegepant and rimegepant placebo. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis found that monthly acquisition costs of atogepant and rimegepant had the largest impact on the ICER, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant and rimegepant were both unable to meet generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds < 150,0000/QALY. Additional studies are needed to better guide decision making regarding oral CGRPs' place in therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Early and annual projected savings from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention: a cost-benefit analysis in the working-age population

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have proven to be safe and efficacious as preventive migraine treatments. However, their use is restricted in many countries due to their apparently high cost. Cost-benefit studies are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To study the cost-benefit of anti-CGRP MAbs in working-age patients with migraine.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of consecutive migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) following National reimbursement policy in a specialized headache clinic. Migraine characteristics and the work impact scale (WPAI) were compared between baseline (M0) and after 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) of treatment. Using WPAI and the municipal average hourly wage, we calculated indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) at each time point. Direct costs (emergency visits, acute medication use) were also analysed. A cost-benefit study was performed considering the different costs and savings of treating with MAbs. Based on these data an annual projection was conducted.

RESULTS

From 256 treated working-age patients, 148 were employed (89.2% women; mean age 48.0 ± 8.5 years), of which 41.2% (61/148) were responders (> 50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD)). Statistically significant reductions between M0 and M3/M6 were found in absenteeism (p < 0.001) and presenteeism (p < 0.001). Average savings in indirect costs per patient at M3 were absenteeism 105.4 euros/month and presenteeism 394.3 euros/month, similar for M6. Considering the monthly cost of anti-CGRP MAbs, the cost-benefit analysis showed savings of 159.8 euros per patient at M3, with an annual projected savings of 639.2 euros/patient. Both responders and partial responders (30-50% reduction in MHD) presented a positive cost-benefit balance. The overall savings of the cohort at M3/M6 compensated the negative cost-benefit balance for non-responders (< 30% reduction in MHD).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP MAbs have a positive impact in the workforce significantly reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In Spain, this benefit overcomes the expenses derived from their use already at 3 months and is potentially sustainable at longer term; also in patients who are only partial responders, prompting reconsideration of current reimbursement criteria and motivating the extension of similar cost-benefit studies in other countries.

The introduction of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and their effect on the prescription patterns of chronic migraine preventive medications in a tertiary headache center: A retrospective, observational analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of the introduction of the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) in 2018 on the prescribing of older medications for the prevention of chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 2018, the preventive treatment of migraine borrowed from medications intended to treat other illnesses with the last medication, onabotulinumtoxinA, receiving Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the prevention of chronic migraine in 2010. The FDA approval of three CGRP mAbs in 2018 provided the ideal natural experiment to assess how the introduction of these medications, and a fourth in 2020, affected the generally stable migraine preventive medications market.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using the aggregated de-identified data of 6595 patients. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of ten most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinumtoxinA, or any of the four CGRP mAbs, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from our clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

RESULTS

We observed a statistically significant decrease in the prescription of the top 10 most prescribed medications after the introduction of the CGRP mAbs overall (1456/3144, 46.3%, to 1995/4629, 43.1%, p = 0.001), as well as with most individual medications, including large decreases in verapamil (230/3144, 7.3%, to 125/4629, 2.7%; p < 0.001), the tricyclic antidepressants (494/3144, 15.7%, to 532/4629, 11.5%; p < 0.001), topiramate (566/3144, 18.0%, to 653/4629, 14.1%; p < 0.001), and onabotulinumtoxinA (861/3144, 27.4%, to 1134/4629, 24.5%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of the CGRP mAbs during 2018 resulted in a decrease in utilization of most oral medications and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of migraine. Future work should continue to observe how the prescription patterns of these medications evolve with time.

Pharmacotherapies for Migraine and Translating Evidence From Bench to Bedside

Migraine is a ubiquitous neurologic disorder that afflicts more than 1 billion people worldwide. Recommended therapeutic strategies include the use of acute and, if needed, preventive medications. During the past 2 decades, tremendous progress has been made in better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying migraine pathogenesis, which in turn has resulted in the advent of novel medications targeting signaling molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Here, we provide an update on the rational use of pharmacotherapies for migraine to facilitate more informed clinical decision-making. We then discuss the scientific discoveries that led to the advent of new medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide signaling. Last, we conclude with recent advances that are being made to identify novel drug targets for migraine.

Effect of galcanezumab in women with episodic migraine meeting criteria for menstrually related migraine: A post hoc analysis of EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2

BACKGROUND

We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM).

METHODS

Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed.

RESULTS

Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.

Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders.

METHODS

Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24.

RESULTS

Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

High Dosage Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Existing Pharmacological Options for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurologic disorder with prevalence rates ranging from 9% to 18% worldwide. Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have limited efficacy and acceptability, with relatively low response rates of 40% to 50% and limited safety profiles. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are considered promising therapeutic agents for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various dosages of EPA/DHA and other current Food and Drug Administration-approved or guideline-recommended prophylactic pharmacologic interventions for migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled participants with a diagnosis of either episodic or chronic migraine. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcomes assessed were 1) changes in migraine frequency and 2) acceptability (i.e., dropout for any reason). Secondary outcomes included response rates, changes in migraine severity, changes in the frequency of using rescue medications, and frequency of any adverse events. Forty RCTs were included (N = 6616; mean age = 35.0 y; 78.9% women). Our analysis showed that supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA yields the highest decrease in migraine frequency [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.32, -0.39 compared with placebo] and the largest decrease in migraine severity (SMD: -2.23; 95% CI: -3.17, -1.30 compared with placebo) in all studied interventions. Furthermore, supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA showed the most favorable acceptability rates (odds ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06, 17.41 compared with placebo) of all examined prophylactic treatments. This study provides compelling evidence that high dosage EPA/DHA supplementation can be considered a first-choice treatment of migraine prophylaxis because this treatment displayed the highest efficacy and highest acceptability of all studied treatments. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42022319577.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice.

METHODS

An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles.

CONCLUSION

In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Real-world experience with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted antibodies for migraine prevention: a retrospective observational cohort study at two Japanese headache centers

BACKGROUND

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention.

Preventive treatment of migraine: Non-specific oral agents

Migraine headache is highly prevalent and the most common neurologic disorder, affecting one billion people worldwide. It is also the most disabling condition in people under 50, with a huge impact on working ability, family, and social life. Access to effective preventive medication is important and may be considered if the patient has 6 or more migraine days per month, ineffective abortive agents, or disability on 2 or more days per month. Propranolol, metoprolol, candesartan, topiramate, divalproex, lisinopril, amitriptyline, and venlafaxine have the strongest evidence to support for use. Flunarizine and pizotifen may also be effective. Selection of preventive treatments is based on individual characteristics, comorbid conditions, efficacy, contraindications, side effects, cost, compliance, and drug. An adequate trial of migraine prophylaxis is usually 2 months at the target dose, and it is always important to re-evaluate indication for prophylactic use after a period of time.

CGRP monoclonal antibodies and CGRP receptor antagonists (Gepants) in migraine prevention

Migraine is a prevalent and disabling neurological disease. Its preventive treatment for decades has been rather limited due to the absence of disease-specific therapies with limited efficacy and tolerability. The advances made in migraine research have led to the discovery of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine pathophysiology. CGRP is a neuropeptide that acts as potent vasodilator and is involved in pain processing. Increased levels of plasma CGRP have been observed during migraine attacks as well as interictally when comparing patients with migraine and healthy controls. In the last years, two classes of drugs antagonizing CGRP have therefore been developed as the first migraine-specific preventive treatments: anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants. Four mAbs have been approved: erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab. Gepants are small molecules that antagonize the CGRP receptor; currently only rimegepant and atogepant have been approved for migraine prevention. These new drugs have demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials for both episodic and chronic migraine, and results from their real-world experience are being increasingly reported in literature. In this review, we provide an overview of anti-CGRP drugs and their placement in migraine prevention.

No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: a single-center, real-world, observational study

BACKGROUND

The present study investigates the wearing-off effect in adults with chronic migraine treated with erenumab or fremanezumab.

METHODS

This real-world observational study was based on pre-collected headache diaries from chronic migraine patients in treatment with either monthly injections of 140 mg of erenumab or 225 mg of fremanezumab. Consistent wearing-off was defined as an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days in the last week compared to the second week over two consecutive 4-week treatment periods. The primary endpoint was wearing-off in the total population. The secondary endpoints were difference in wearing-off in (i) a subgroup of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab and (ii) consistent wearing-off in patients with a ≥30% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to baseline, in the two consecutive treatment months.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients (erenumab: n = 60, fremanezumab: n = 40) were included. Sixty-two out of 100 (62%) patients had consistent ≥30% treatment response on antibody therapy in both months (erenumab: n = 36, fremanezumab: n = 26). There was no consistent wearing-off over the two consecutive months from week 2 to week 4 (3.04%, p = 0.558). There was no wearing-off within the erenumab (p = 0.194) or the fremanezumab (p = 0.581) groups. Among the ≥30% treatment responders, there was no consistent wearing-off over the two consecutive months (2.6%, p = 0.573).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no wearing-off in treatment responders, which is in alignment with premarketing data from placebo-controlled phase III studies. These data suggest that patients should be informed upfront that no wearing-off effect is expected because anxiety for attacks at the end of the month per se may generate migraine attacks.

Evidence-based preventive treatment of migraine

The evidence base for migraine prevention in both episodic and chronic migraine is outlined. The older oral preventatives, including antidepressants, antihypertensives, serotonin antagonists, antiepileptics, and calcium channel antagonists, and newer options including onabotulinumtoxinA and the CGRP monoclonal antibodies are covered. Many of the older oral preventatives were trialed before chronic migraine was defined, and they are used in chronic migraine based on the assumption that episodic migraine and chronic migraine are on a spectrum of the same condition. First- and second-line options are given, and a multicountry perspective is considered.

Characteristics associated with response to subcutaneously administered anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody medications in a real-world community cohort of persons living with migraine: A retrospective clinical and genetic study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate response to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) migraine preventives in a real-world community cohort of persons living with migraine and to identify clinical and genetic characteristics associated with efficacious response.

BACKGROUND

Erenumab-aooeb, fremanezumab-vrfm, and galcanezumab-gnlm target CGRP or its receptor; however, many patients are non-responsive.

METHODS

In this retrospective clinical and genetic study, we identified 1077 adult patients who satisfied the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine without aura, migraine with aura, or chronic migraine and who were prescribed an anti-CGRP migraine preventive between May 2018 and May 2021. Screening of 558 patients identified 289 with data at baseline and first follow-up visits; data were available for 161 patients at a second follow-up visit. The primary outcome was migraine days per month (MDM). In 198 genotyped patients, we evaluated associations between responders (i.e., patients with ≥50% reduction in MDM at follow-up) and genes involved in CGRP signaling or pharmacological response, and genetic and polygenic risk scores.

RESULTS

The median time to first follow-up was 4.4 (0.9-22) months after preventive start. At the second follow-up, 5.7 (0.9-13) months later, 145 patients had continued on the same preventive. Preventives had strong, persistent effects in reducing MDM in responders (follow-up 1: η2  = 0.26, follow-up 2: η2  = 0.22). At the first but not second follow-up: galcanezumab had a larger effect than erenumab, while no difference was seen at either follow-up between galcanezumab and fremanezumab or fremanezumab and erenumab. The decrease in MDM at follow-up was generally proportional to baseline MDM, larger in females, and increased with months on medication. At the first follow-up only, patients with prior hospitalization for migraine or who had not responded to more preventive regimens had a smaller decrease in MDM. Reasons for stopping or switching a preventive varied between medications and were often related to cost and insurance coverage. At both follow-ups, patient tolerance (1: 92.2% [262/284]; 2: 95.2% [141/145]) and continued use (1: 77.5% [224/289]; 2: 80.6% [116/145]) were high and similar across preventives. Response consistency (always non-responders: 31.7% [46/145]; always responders: 56.5% [82/145], and one-time only responders: 11.7% [17/145]) was also similar across preventives. Non-responder status had nominally significant associations with rs12615320-G in RAMP1 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.7 [1.5, 14.7]), and rs4680-A in COMT (0.6[0.4, 0.9]). Non-responders had a lower mean genetic risk score than responders (1.0 vs. 1.1; t(df) = -1.75(174.84), p = 0.041), and the fraction of responders increased with genetic and polygenic risk score percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world setting, anti-CGRP preventives reduced MDM persistently and had similar and large effect sizes on MDM reduction; however, clinical and genetic factors influenced response.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: β-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020.

METHODS

We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Long-Term Effects of Intervention on Vestibular Migraine: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Vestibular migraine is a common cause of vertigo. Intervention often includes preventive and/or rescue medications. Lifestyle modifications are often used along with medications but can be used as the sole intervention. There is lack of clarity regarding the long-term benefits of these interventions.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to determine long-term effects of intervention types on dizziness in patients with vestibular migraine.

METHODS

Twenty-three participants were grouped based on intervention into preventive medication plus lifestyle modifications, rescue medication plus lifestyle modifications, or lifestyle modifications only. Outcomes were determined at ~372 days post intervention by comparing pre- and post-Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores. A difference of ≥18 points was considered a change and we also evaluated change in severity scale on this measure.

RESULTS

Using the group mean change score, only the rescue medication plus lifestyle modification group was significantly improved at 372 days of intervention. Considering all individual participants, 30% of the participants had improvement in dizziness at this point, regardless of intervention. Fifty percent of the rescue medication plus lifestyle modification group had significant reduction in dizziness, while the preventive medication plus lifestyle modification and the lifestyle modification only groups performed similarly using this criterion. Considering change in severity category, 43% of all participants improved by at least one category. The rescue medication plus lifestyle modifications and the lifestyle modifications only groups performed similarly with 50% of their respectively groups exhibiting improvement by at least one category. Notably, there was no worsening of dizziness for any participant in the lifestyle modification only group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that improvement in dizziness is maintained at ~372days of intervention in patients with vestibular migraine. Intervention using rescue medications plus lifestyle modifications had the best outcomes, followed by lifestyle modifications only. There was no worsening in dizziness for the lifestyle modification only intervention. More work is needed to better understand intervention effects, but it is encouraging that effects are maintained at greater than one year.

Compromised trigemino-coerulean coupling in migraine sensitization can be prevented by blocking beta-receptors in the locus coeruleus

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder, characterized by recurrent headaches. During migraine attacks, individuals often experience sensory symptoms such as cutaneous allodynia which indicates the presence of central sensitization. This sensitization is prevented by oral administration of propranolol, a common first-line medication for migraine prophylaxis, that also normalized the activation of the locus coeruleus (LC), considered as the main origin of descending noradrenergic pain controls. We hypothesized that the basal modulation of trigeminal sensory processing by the locus coeruleus is shifted towards more facilitation in migraineurs and that prophylactic action of propranolol may be attributed to a direct action in LC through beta-adrenergic receptors.

METHODS

We used simultaneous in vivo extracellular recordings from the trigeminocervical complex (TCC) and LC of male Sprague-Dawley rats to characterize the relationship between these two areas following repeated meningeal inflammatory soup infusions. Von Frey Hairs and air-puff were used to test periorbital mechanical allodynia. RNAscope and patch-clamp recordings allowed us to examine the action mechanism of propranolol.

RESULTS

We found a strong synchronization between TCC and LC spontaneous activities, with a precession of the LC, suggesting the LC drives TCC excitability. Following repeated dural-evoked trigeminal activations, we observed a disruption in coupling of activity within LC and TCC. This suggested an involvement of the two regions' interactions in the development of sensitization. Furthermore, we showed the co-expression of alpha-2A and beta-2 adrenergic receptors within LC neurons. Finally propranolol microinjections into the LC prevented trigeminal sensitization by desynchronizing and decreasing LC neuronal activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether these results suggest that trigemino-coerulean coupling plays a pivotal role in migraine progression, and that propranolol's prophylactic effects involve, to some extent, the modulation of LC activity through beta-2 adrenergic receptors. This insight reveals new mechanistic aspects of LC control over sensory processing.