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.

Patient-reported migraine-specific quality of life, activity impairment and headache impact with once-daily atogepant for preventive treatment of migraine in a randomized, 52-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, adults with 4-14 monthly migraine days received atogepant 60 mg once-daily or standard care. Health outcome endpoints collected from participants randomized to atogepant included change from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) Role Function-Restrictive (RFR), Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domain scores, change in Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domain scores, and change in Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) total score. RESULTS: Of 744 randomized participants, 521 received atogepant 60 mg in the modified intent-to-treat population. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in MSQ-RFR score were 30.02 (95% confidence interval = 28.16-31.87) at week 12 and 34.70 (95% confidence interval = 32.74-36.66) at week 52. Improvements were also observed in other MSQ domains, AIM-D PDA, PI and HIT-6 total scores. A ≥5-point improvement from baseline in HIT-6 score was observed in 59.9% of participants at week 4 and 80.8% of participants at week 52. CONCLUSION: Over 52 weeks, atogepant 60 mg once-daily was associated with sustained improvements in quality of life and reductions in activity impairment and headache impact.Trial Registration: NCT03700320.

Harassment in the headache field: a global web-based cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Matters of workplace harassment are an important issue. This issue needs to be recognized and studied to prevent occurrences. These important sensitive areas of effective workplace management are increasingly gaining more interest. We aimed to identify the prevalence of workplace sexual, verbal and physical harassment among headache professionals. METHODS: We adopted a cross­sectional exploratory survey approach with quantitative design. The survey was distributed electronically among headache healthcare and research professionals globally through the International Headache Society (IHS). RESULTS: Data were obtained from 579 respondents (55.3%; 320/579 women). A large percentage of respondents (46.6%; 270/579) had experienced harassment; specifically, 16.1% (93/578) reported sexual harassment, 40.4% (234/579) verbal harassment and 5.5% (32/579) physical harassment. Women were almost seven times more likely to experience sexual harassment compared to men (odds ratio = 6.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.5-13.2). Although women did also more frequently report other types of harassment, this was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime exposure to workplace harassment is prevalent among headache professionals, especially in women. The present study uncovers a widespread issue and calls for strategies to be implemented for building a healthy and safe workplace environment.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND: The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle.

BACKGROUND: Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). RESULTS: There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response. CONCLUSION: No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Perceived barriers to career progression in the headache field: A global web-based cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed. RESULTS: In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions. CONCLUSION: It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

Acute Treatment of Headache (Focus on Migraine).

Acute treatments for migraine and cluster headache are necessary to abort attacks, relieve pain and associated symptoms, and restore an individual's ability to function. Acute headache treatments consist of a variety of medication and nonmedication options. In this article, we discuss the approach to acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. We summarize the level of evidence to support each acute medication class according to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as guideline recommendations from the American Headache Society, American Academy of Neurology, and European Federation of Neurological Society.

Narrative review of neuroimaging in migraine with aura.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of the role and utility of various neuroimaging modalities (clinical and research) for the evaluation of migraine aura (MA) and hemiplegic migraine during the ictal and interictal phases. BACKGROUND: MA is defined by reversible neurologic symptoms and is considered a manifestation of a primary condition. As such, most patients with MA do not require imaging. However, if there are atypical features, change in symptom pattern, or it is a first-time presentation, neuroimaging may be used to evaluate for secondary conditions. Neuroimaging includes many modalities, and it is important to consider what information is being captured by these modalities (i.e., structural vs. functional). Imaging abnormalities may be noted both during (ictal) and between (interictal) MA attacks, and it is important for clinicians to be familiar with neuroimaging findings reported in migraine with aura (MWA) compared with other conditions. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we performed a review of the literature pertaining to MWA and neuroimaging in PubMed. Search terms included were magnetic resonance imaging, positron-emission tomography, single photon-emission computed tomography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and migraine with aura. We hand-searched these references to inform our subsequent literature review. RESULTS: Acute MA can be associated with several unique neuroimaging findings-reversible cortical diffusion restriction, cortical venous engorgement, and a "biphasic" transition from hypoperfusion to hyperperfusion. Imaging findings during MA tend to span more than one vascular territory. Between acute attacks, neuroimaging in people with MWA can resemble migraine without aura in terms of white matter abnormalities and "infarct-like lesions." Research imaging modalities such as volumetric analysis and functional imaging have demonstrated unique findings in migraine with aura. CONCLUSION: Although migraine is a clinical diagnosis, understanding of neuroimaging findings in MWA can help clinicians interpret imaging findings and improve patient care.

Grand rounds education in neurology, with a focus on headache medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in academic neurology programs and to compare this with adult neurology residency director views on the need for an increase in headache-related grand rounds. BACKGROUND: Although headache are among the most prevalent and most burdensome neurologic conditions, headache medicine is often considered underrepresented in neurology departments. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many neurology residency directors feel that training programs do not include an adequate amount of exposure to headache clinics or headache-related didactics. One important aspect of didactic education in neurology departments is adult neurology grand rounds. Previous publications have evaluated neither the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in academic neurology departments nor the residency program directors' views on appropriate amount of headache-related grand rounds. Our study has attempted to quantify this information to elucidate opportunities to improve practice educational gaps. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed adult neurology residency directors (from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] listing of academic adult neurology residency programs) between October 2018 and September 2019. In addition, we used two methods to obtain the proportion of headache-related grand rounds in neurology: (1) emailing residency directors a questionnaire asking for a list of prior grand rounds topics and (2) an online search for each academic neurology program. RESULTS: First, for our grand rounds analysis, headache medicine consisted of 3.7% of the lectures in 2017-2018 and 6.3% of the lectures in 2018-2019 (average of each institution; 17 institutions and 411 total lectures in 2017-2018, 21 institutions and 463 total lectures in 2018-2019). The most common number of lectures on headache medicine for each grand rounds series was zero (for 7 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017-2018 and 7 of 21 in 2018-2019), followed closely by one lecture (for 6 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017-2018 and 6 of 21 in 2018-2019). Second, for our survey, the response rate was 19.3% (29/150). No residency director thought their institution had too many grand rounds dedicated to headache medicine, and 62.1% (18/29) thought they had an adequate amount of headache grand rounds. Within the survey responders, 75.9% (22/29) of adult neurology residency programs have a board-certified headache specialist at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: Although most adult neurology residency directors believe that headache is adequately represented in adult neurology grand rounds, headache medicine makes up 4%-6% of all neurology grand rounds. Compared with other neurology subspecialties and the other core ACGME milestones, headache makes up the fewest grand rounds lectures that were assessed in this study.

Dehydration and Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We define dehydration and its relationship to pain physiology including both primary and secondary headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Intravenous fluids administered for acute migraine attacks in an emergency department setting have not been shown to improve pain outcomes. However, increased intravascular volume before diagnostic lumbar puncture may reduce the frequency of post-lumbar puncture headache from iatrogenic spinal fluid leak. Maintenance of euhydration can help treat orthostatic and "coat-hanger" headache due to autonomic disorders. Similarly, prevention of fluid losses can mitigate secondary headaches provoked by dehydration such as cerebral venous thrombosis or pituitary apoplexy. Dehydration alone may cause headache, but oftentimes exacerbates underlying medical conditions such as primary headache disorders or other conditions dependent on fluid balance.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults. Data Sources: Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Findings: Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham. Conclusions and Relevance: There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Migraine Care in the Era of COVID-19: Clinical Pearls and Plea to Insurers.

OBJECTIVE: To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in-person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe "social distancing" and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra-indicated in the setting of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN/RESULTS: The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence-based treatment where possible, but also describe "real world" strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. CONCLUSIONS: Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in-person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ten Eleven Things Not to Say to Healthcare Professionals During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well-established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic-related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in-person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs' psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self-efficacy among HCPs.

Reversion From Chronic Migraine to Episodic Migraine in Patients Treated With Fremanezumab: Post Hoc Analysis From HALO CM Study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine preventive medications are used to reduce headache frequency, severity, and duration. In patients with chronic migraine (CM), reversion to episodic migraine (EM) is an important treatment goal. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of fremanezumab on the rate of reversion from CM to EM. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial included a 28-day pretreatment period and a 3-month treatment period. Patients with CM received subcutaneous fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline) or monthly (675 mg at baseline; 225 mg at Weeks 4 and 8), or placebo. Post hoc analyses evaluated the proportion of patients who reverted from CM to EM, defined as either a reduction to an average of <15 headache days per month during the 3-month treatment period or a reduction to <15 headache days per month in all 3 months of the treatment period. RESULTS: This analysis included data from 1088 CM patients (quarterly, n = 366; monthly, n = 365; placebo, n = 357). More fremanezumab-treated patients with CM reverted to EM using either the monthly average number of headache days criteria for reversion (quarterly: 50.5% [185/366], P = .108; monthly: 53.7% [196/365], P = .012; vs placebo: 44.5% [159/357]) or the monthly headache day count at Months 1, 2, and 3 criteria for reversion (quarterly: 31.2% [114/366], P = .008; monthly: 33.7% [123/365], P = .001; vs placebo: 22.4% [80/357]). Patients with CM who reported previous topiramate or onabotulinumtoxinA use, concomitant preventive medication use, or medication overuse were less likely to revert to EM. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab may offer the benefit of reversion from CM to EM, based on a reduction in the number of headache days over 3 months of treatment.

Ubrogepant, an Acute Treatment for Migraine, Improved Patient-Reported Functional Disability and Satisfaction in 2 Single-Attack Phase 3 Randomized Trials, ACHIEVE I and II.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient-reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co-primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient-reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient-relevant outcomes. METHODS: ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-attack trials in adults (18-75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis. RESULTS: In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant-treated participants vs placebo-treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient-centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.

COVID-19 and Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) and Corticosteroid Use.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. RESULTS: There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Sustained reductions in migraine days, moderate-to-severe headache days and days with acute medication use for HFEM and CM patients taking fremanezumab: Post-hoc analyses from phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 and 3 studies, fremanezumab, a monoclonal CGRP antibody, was an effective preventive treatment for high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). OBJECTIVE: Post-hoc analyses evaluated population-wise 50%, 75% and 100% responder rates, and the extent to which individual responders sustained a 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in migraine days, moderate-to-severe (M/S) headache days and days of acute medication use during all three treatment months of the fremanezumab phase 2 studies. DESIGN/METHODS: HFEM patients received either placebo or three once-monthly injections of 225 mg or 675 mg. CM patients received either placebo or three once-monthly injections of 900 mg, or an initial loading dose of 675 mg and subsequent injections of 225 mg. Patients reported headache-related data daily using an electronic diary. RESULTS: In the HFEM study, the percent of patients on fremanezumab doses 225 mg and 675 mg were greater compared to the percent of placebo patients with sustained 50% reduction in migraine days (39% and 35% vs. 10% for placebo, both p < 0.0001), M/S headache days (36% and 38% vs. 16% placebo, p = 0.0017 and p = 0.0007 respectively), and acute medication use days (36% and 27% vs. 8% placebo, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003). Likewise, although there were fewer patients with sustained 75% reduction, there were increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 225 mg and 675 mg in the HFEM study relative to placebo patients in migraine days (19% and 11% vs. 3% placebo, p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0176), M/S headache days (19% and 15% vs. 2% placebo, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0011) and days of acute medication use (16% and 8% vs. 2% placebo, p = 0.0005 and p = 0.0377). In the CM study, there were increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 675/225 mg and 900 mg with 50% sustained reduction in M/S headache days (32% and 40% vs. 15% placebo, p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0002) and days of acute medication use (26% and 22% vs. 11% placebo, p = 0.0098 and p = 0.0492). There were also increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 675/225 mg and 900 mg compared to patients on placebo with 75% sustained reduction in M/S headache days (10% and 13% vs. 3%, p = 0.0665 and p = 0.0203). Few patients had 100% sustained reductions in these parameters in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Post-hoc results must be interpreted with caution; nonetheless, a statistically significant percentage of patients who initially responded to fremanezumab within 1 month sustained this response over the subsequent 2 months. Sustained reduction in individual patients may provide a novel patient-centric, clinically meaningful endpoint for future trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive migraine treatments. Trials are registered as http://clinical trials.gov as NCT02025556 and NCT02021773.

Sustained responses to lasmiditan: Results from post-hoc analyses of two Phase 3 randomized clinical trials for acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Sustained pain freedom is an important attribute of acute migraine therapies for patients and physicians. Here we report efficacy of the centrally penetrant, highly selective, 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan on sustained pain freedom and other outcomes at 24 and 48 hours post-dose. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the similarly designed, Phase 3, double-blind studies SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174) were pooled to more precisely estimate efficacy effects in these post-hoc analyses. In both studies, inclusion criteria were 3-8 migraine attacks per month and Migraine Disability Assessment Score of ≥ 11 (at least moderate disability). Patients were randomized equally to lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg (50 mg only in SPARTAN), or to placebo. The study drug was to be taken within 4 hours of onset of pain for non-improving headache of at least moderate severity. Sustained pain freedom was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and at the given time point (24 or 48 hours) post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. Sustained responses were assessed similarly for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free, and disability-free outcomes. For comparisons with previously published data on other acute medications, an additional endpoint of modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and no moderate-to-severe headache at 24 hours post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. RESULTS: Significantly higher proportions of patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo achieved headache pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose: 200 mg: 35.6%; 100 mg: 29.9%; 50 mg: 28.6%; placebo: 18.3% (all p < 0.001). Sustained pain freedom was significantly higher in patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 hours: 200 mg: 21.2%; 100 mg: 16.9%; 50 mg: 17.4%; placebo: 10.3% (all p < 0.01); and at 48 hours: 200 mg: 18.4%; 100 mg: 15.2%; 50 mg: 14.9%; placebo: 9.6% (all p < 0.05). Similar sustained benefits of lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 and 48 hours were noted for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. Modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was also observed in significantly higher proportions of lasmiditan-treated patients versus placebo: 200 mg: 27.0%; 100 mg: 21.7%; 50 mg: 21.7%; placebo: 12.9% (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Sustained responses at 24 and 48 hours were noted in significantly more patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo for several efficacy outcomes including pain freedom, most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NUMBERS: SAMURAI: NCT02439320; SPARTAN: NCT02605174.

Neuromodulation for the Acute and Preventive Therapy of Migraine and Cluster Headache.

Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide. Pharmacologic acute and preventive treatments are often insufficient and poorly tolerated, and the majority of patients are unable to adhere to their migraine treatments due to these issues. With improvements in our understanding of migraine and cluster headache pathophysiology, neuromodulation devices have been developed as safe and effective acute and preventive treatment options. In this review, we focus on neuromodulation devices that have been studied for migraine and cluster headache, with special attention to those that have gained food and drug administration (FDA) clearance. We will also explore how these devices can be used in patients who might have limited pharmacologic options, including the elderly, children, and pregnant women.

The Hypertensive Headache: a Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview and update on the common causes of headache attributed to arterial hypertension with a focus on secondary headache disorders. We will also highlight uncommon and recent findings in this area of research. RECENT FINDINGS: There is some controversy in the relationship between chronic hypertension and headache, particularly migraine; recent research suggests that there may be a link, but it is likely complex and multifactorial. Many recent studies and case reports demonstrate that the pathophysiology underlying the onset of headache as it relates to abrupt rises in blood pressure seems to lie at the cellular level and mechanically becomes an issue with disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Although not a formally defined headache entity, carotid revascularization syndrome demonstrates this phenomenon and also has a recent set of proposed criteria that include headache and elevated blood pressure. This paper reviews the various etiologies of hypertensive headaches, mostly in regard to headache as a secondary symptom of elevated blood pressure. We will also discuss trends of hypertensive headache in pregnancy. Finally, we will touch on controversy that exists in relation to chronic hypertension and its causal relationship to headache as well as the relationship between hypertension and migraine.