Induction of cGMP-mediated migraine attacks is independent of CGRP receptor activation.

BACKGROUND: The cAMP and cGMP pathways are implicated in the initiation of migraine attacks, but their interactions remain unclear. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) triggers migraine attacks via cAMP, whereas the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil induces migraine attacks via cGMP. Our objective was to investigate whether sildenafil could induce migraine attacks in individuals with migraine pre-treated with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, adults with migraine without aura received a single subcutaneous injection of 140 mg erenumab on day 1. They were then randomized to receive sildenafil 100 mg or placebo on two experimental days, each separated by at least one week, between days 8 and 21. The primary endpoint was the difference in the incidence of migraine attacks between sildenafil and placebo during the 12-h observation period after administration. RESULTS: In total, 16 participants completed the study. Ten participants (63%) experienced a migraine attack within 12 h after sildenafil administration compared to three (19%) after placebo (p = 0.016). The median headache intensity was higher after sildenafil than after placebo (area under the curve (AUC) for the 12-h observation period, p = 0.026). Furthermore, sildenafil induced a significant decrease in mean arterial blood pressure (AUC, p = 0.026) and a simultaneous increase in heart rate (AUC, p < 0.001) during the first hour after administration compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that migraine induction via the cGMP pathway can occur even under CGRP receptor blockade. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT05889455.

Activation of ATP-sensitive potassium channels triggers migraine attacks independent of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptors: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate whether levcromakalim, a KATP channel opener, induces migraine attacks in people with migraine pre-treated with erenumab, a monoclonal CGRP receptor antibody. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way cross-over study, adults with migraine without aura received a subcutaneous injection of 140 mg of erenumab on day 1. Subsequently, they were randomized to receive a 20-minute infusion of 0.05 mg/ml levcromakalim or placebo on two experimental days separated by at least one week (between days 8 and 21). The primary endpoint was the difference in the incidence of migraine attacks between levcromakalim and placebo during the 12-hour post-infusion period. RESULTS: In total, 16 participants completed the study. During the 12-hour observation period, 14 (88%) of 16 participants experienced migraine attacks after levcromakalim, compared to two (12%) after placebo (p < 0.001). The area under the curve for median headache intensity was greater after levcromakalim than placebo (p < 0.001). Levcromakalim elicited dilation of the superficial temporal artery during the first hour after infusion, a response absent following placebo (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The induction of migraine attacks via opening of KATP channels appears independent of CGRP receptor activation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT05889442.

[Migraine and pregnancy : Gender-specific aspects and current knowledge]. / Migräne und Schwangerschaft : Geschlechtsspezifische Aspekte und aktuelles Wissen.

BACKGROUND: Migraine, a frequent and debilitating neurological disease, shows gender-specific differences in prevalence and severity. Pregnancy is associated with numerous unique features in terms of migraine course, treatment options and differential diagnoses. OBJECTIVES: How does pregnancy influence the course of migraine? What are the possible treatment options during pregnancy? Which differential diagnoses should be considered? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Narrative review with summary and discussion of relevant studies and guidelines on migraine in pregnancy. RESULTS: During pregnancy up to three quarters of women experience improvement of their migraine; however, there may be a renewed increase in frequency after childbirth. Choosing an appropriate treatment during pregnancy requires a careful risk-benefit assessment. It is important to consider secondary causes of headache as these can occur more frequently during pregnancy and some can be life-threatening. CONCLUSION: Consideration of specific aspects of migraine in pregnancy is crucial to be able to develop the best possible treatment strategies for affected patients.

[Anti-CGRP-based Migraine Medications: A Comprehensive Overview]. / Anti-CGRP basierte Migränemedikamente ­ eine Übersicht der Studienlage.

In the early 1990s, the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) was identified as a key messenger in the pathophysiology of migraine and emerged as a treatment target, fundamentally transforming our approach to migraine therapy. While previous prophylactic drugs were non-specific and often caused intolerable side effects, the discovery of CGRP marked the advent of a new era in migraine treatment. The two main classes of CGRP-specific migraine treatments are monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or the CGRP receptor, and CGRP receptor antagonists, the so-called gepants. Extensive clinical trials have conclusively demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of monoclonal CGRP(-receptor) antibodies in the prophylactic treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The same positive results apply to the use of various gepants. They have proven to be not only an effective alternative to triptans in acute migraine therapy but also promising options for continuous use as prophylactic treatments. In this review, we aim to present the current state of research on CGRP-specific migraine therapy and insights in real-world data from the first years after their launch in clinical practice.

Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies - insights from the German NeuroTransData registry.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice. METHODS: This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches. RESULTS: Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group. CONCLUSION: Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup.

PACAP-38 and sex hormones in women with migraine: exploratory analysis of a cross-sectional, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Endogeneous and exogeneous sex hormones can impact the frequency and severity of migraine attacks, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. In this study, we investigate the relationship between female sex hormones and Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) concentrations in plasma of women with migraine and healthy controls, aiming to elucidate potential hormonal influences on PACAP dynamics and their relevance to migraine pathophysiology. METHODS: This analysis is part of a cross-sectional, matched-cohort study. We recruited two groups of women with episodic migraine: one with a regular menstrual cycle (M-RMC) and another undergoing combined oral contraceptive treatment (M-COC). Additionally, we included corresponding age-matched control groups without migraine for both categories (C-RMC and C-COC). For participants with a RMC, the study visits were scheduled during the perimenstrual period (menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2) and periovulatory period (day 13 ± 2). Participants using COC were examined at day 4 ± 2 of the hormone-free interval and between day 7-14 of the hormone intake phase. During these visits, PACAP-38 concentrations in plasma were measured using a commercial Enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit. RESULTS: The study included 120 women, with 30 participants in each group. Women with migraine and a RMC had significantly higher PACAP-38 plasma concentrations compared to healthy controls at both study visits [day 2 ± 2: M-RMC: 2547.41 pg/ml (IQR 814.27 - 4473.48) vs. C-RMC: 1129.49 pg/ml (IQR 257.34 - 2684.88), p = 0.025; day 13 ± 2: M-RMC: 3098.89 pg/ml (IQR 1186.29 - 4379.47) vs. C-RMC: 1626.89 (IQR 383.83 - 3038.36), p = 0.028]. In contrast, PACAP-38 levels were comparable between migraine and control groups receiving COC. Women with migraine and a RMC exhibited higher PACAP-38 concentrations during menstruation compared to those using COC during the hormone-free interval. CONCLUSION: Systemic PACAP-38 concentrations in women vary based on the presence of migraine diagnosis and their hormonal status.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 1.

Current definitions of migraine that are based mainly on clinical characteristics do not account for other patient's features such as those related to an impaired quality of life, due to loss of social life and productivity, and the differences related to the geographical distribution of the disease and cultural misconceptions which tend to underestimate migraine as a psychosocial rather than neurobiological disorder.Global differences definition, care access, and health equity for headache disorders, especially migraine are reported in this paper from a collaborative group of the editorial board members of the Journal of Headache and Pain. Other components that affect patients with migraine, in addition to the impact promoted by the migraine symptoms such as stigma and social determinants, are also reported.

Open-label trials for CGRP-targeted drugs in migraine prevention: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted drugs have proven safe and effective for migraine prevention in large randomized-controlled, double-blind trials with an average duration of six months. Open-label studies may provide additional information on the long-term safety and efficacy of these substances. METHODS: We searched PubMed for open-label trials with calcitonin gene-related peptide(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies and calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonists. We summarized and critically analyzed the literature in a narrative way. RESULTS: Overall, 13 open-label trials were included in this review (n = 4 for erenumab, n = 4 for galcanezumab, n = 3 for fremanezumab, n = 1 for eptinezumab, n = 1 for atogepant). Open-label trial duration ranged between 12 and 264 weeks. No safety concerns emerged, and the adverse events profile was similar to the double-blind study phase. Discontinuation rates were generally low with >75% of patients remaining in the trials after one year. Efficacy data showed a sustained reduction of migraine frequency throughout the trials, along with a lasting improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The open-label study program for calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted migraine preventives confirms the favorable safety and efficacy profile of these drugs over time. Treatment adherence appears higher than with previous unspecific migraine preventives. Real-world data and post-marketing surveillance studies may corroborate and complement open-label results.

Near-death experiences are associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions in migraine patients, independent of migraine aura.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Migraine aura, near-death experiences (NDEs), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions might share common mechanisms. Here, we investigated the prevalence of NDEs and REM sleep intrusions in people with migraine. We hypothesized that NDEs and REM sleep intrusions are more prevalent in migraine patients with aura than in those without. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional cohort study at a tertiary headache center, based on a prespecified sample size (n = 808). Migraine patients completed a series of questionnaires, including questions about demographic and headache characteristics, the 16-item Greyson NDE scale, four questions about REM sleep intrusions, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21). RESULTS: Of 808 migraine patients (mean age 44.4 ± 13.3 years, 87.0% women), 353 (43.7%) had a current or previous history of migraine aura. Prevalence of NDE was 2.7% and not different in patients with and without aura (2.8% vs. 2.6%; p > 0.999). REM sleep intrusions were reported by 5.4% of participants and in a similar proportion of patients with and without aura (6.3% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.43). However, participants with REM sleep intrusions had had an NDE more often than participants without REM sleep intrusions (n = 5/44, 11.4% vs. n = 17/754, 2.2%; p = 0.005). Higher DASS-21 scores were associated with REM sleep intrusions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this tertiary center cohort study, the prevalence of NDE and REM sleep intrusions was not influenced by migraine aura status. However, we identified an association between NDE and REM sleep intrusions, which corroborates the notion that they might share pathophysiological mechanisms.

Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and real-world studies revealed a spectrum of response to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in migraine prophylaxis, ranging from no effect at all to total migraine freedom. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical characteristics between super-responders (SR) and non-responders (NR) to CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at the Headache Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The definition of super-response was a ≥ 75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) in the third month after treatment initiation compared to the month prior to treatment begin (baseline). Non-response was defined as ≤ 25% reduction in MHD after three months of treatment with a CGRP-receptor mAb and subsequent three months of treatment with CGRP mAb, or vice versa. We collected demographic data, migraine disease characteristics, migraine symptoms during the attacks in both study groups (SR/NR) as well as the general medical history. SR and NR were compared using Chi-square test for categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and June 2022, n = 260 patients with migraine received preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) mAbs and provided complete headache documentation for the baseline phase and the third treatment month. Among those, we identified n = 29 SR (11%) and n = 26 NR (10%). SR reported more often especially vomiting (SR n = 12/25, 48% vs. NR n = 4/22, 18%; p = 0.031) and typical migraine characteristics such as unilateral localization, pulsating character, photophobia and nausea. A subjective good response to triptans was significantly higher in SR (n = 26/29, 90%) than in NR (n = 15/25, 60%, p = 0.010). NR suffered more frequently from chronic migraine (NR n = 24/26, 92% vs. SR n = 15/29, 52%; p = 0.001), medication overuse headache (NR n = 14/24, 58% versus SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.024), and concomitant depression (NR n = 17/26, 65% vs. SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Several clinical parameters differ between SR and NR to prophylactic CGRP(-R) mAbs. A thorough clinical evaluation prior to treatment initiation might help to achieve a more personalized management in patients with migraine.

Menstrual migraine is caused by estrogen withdrawal: revisiting the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and critically appraise the evidence supporting the role of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine. MAIN BODY: Menstrual migraine, impacting about 6% of reproductive-age women, manifests as migraine attacks closely related to the menstrual cycle. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis posits that the premenstrual drop in estrogen levels serves as a trigger of migraine attacks. Despite its wide acceptance, the current body of evidence supporting this hypothesis remains limited, warranting further validation. Estrogen is believed to exert a modulatory effect on pain, particularly within the trigeminovascular system - the anatomic and physiologic substrate of migraine pathogenesis. Nevertheless, existing studies are limited by methodologic inconsistencies, small sample sizes, and variable case definitions, precluding definitive conclusions. To improve our understanding of menstrual migraine, future research should concentrate on untangling the intricate interplay between estrogen, the trigeminovascular system, and migraine itself. This necessitates the use of robust methods, larger sample sizes, and standardized case definitions to surmount the limitations encountered in previous investigations. CONCLUSION: Further research is thus needed to ascertain the involvement of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine and advance the development of effective management strategies to address unmet treatment needs.

Impact of a reimbursement policy change on treatment with erenumab in migraine - a real-world experience from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment. RESULTS: We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD. CONCLUSIONS: Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide. MAIN BODY: Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

Serum tau protein elevation in migraine: a cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disorder associated with neuropeptide release, pain and inflammation. Tau protein has recently been linked to inflammatory diseases and can be influenced by neuropeptides such as CGRP, a key neurotransmitter in migraine. Here, we report serum concentrations of total-tau protein in migraine patients and healthy controls. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, interictal blood samples from n = 92 patients with episodic migraine (EM), n = 93 patients with chronic migraine (CM), and n = 42 healthy matched controls (HC) were studied. We assessed serum total-tau protein (t-tau) and for comparison neurofilament light chain protein (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L (UCH-L1) concentrations using the Neurology 4-plex kit, on a single molecule array HD-X Analyzer (Quanterix Corp Lexington, MA). Matched serum/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were used for post-hoc evaluations of a central nervous system (CNS) source of relevant findings. We applied non-parametric tests to compare groups and assess correlations. RESULTS: Serum t-tau concentrations were elevated in EM [0.320 (0.204 to 0.466) pg/mL] and CM [0.304 (0.158 to 0.406) pg/mL] patients compared to HC [0.200 (0.114 to 0.288) pg/mL] (p = 0.002 vs. EM; p = 0.025 vs. CM). EM with aura [0.291 (0.184 to 0.486 pg/mL); p = 0.013] and EM without aura [0.332 (0.234 to 0.449) pg/mL; p = 0.008] patients had higher t-tau levels than HC but did not differ between each other. Subgroup analysis of CM with/without preventive treatment revealed elevated t-tau levels compared to HC only in the non-prevention group [0.322 (0.181 to 0.463) pg/mL; p = 0.009]. T-tau was elevated in serum (p = 0.028) but not in cerebrospinal fluid (p = 0.760). In contrast to t-tau, all proteins associated with cell damage (NfL, GFAP, and UCH-L1), did not differ between groups. DISCUSSION: Migraine is associated with t-tau elevation in serum but not in the CSF. Our clinical study identifies t-tau as a new target for migraine research.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Visual snow syndrome is probably not mediated by CGRP: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Visual snow syndrome is a phenomenon for which no effective treatment is known. It is highly comorbid with migraine, therefore we performed a retrospective chart review of patients with visual snow syndrome treated with a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor. FINDINGS: We enrolled 15 patients with visual snow syndrome who received at least once a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor. None of the patients reported relief of visual snow syndrome whereas those patients with comorbid migraine reported a very good efficacy of the antibody against the migraine headache but not against the migraine aura. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that visual snow syndrome is not mediated by calcitonin gene related peptide in a relevant way and that the calcitonin gene related peptide receptor is not involved in the network underlying the visual snow syndrome.

Migraine evolution after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibody prophylaxis: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend stopping migraine prophylaxis with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies after 6-12 months of successful therapy. In this study, we aimed to analyze the course of migraine for four months after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies use. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included patients with migraine who received a CGRP-(receptor) antibody for ≥8 months before treatment cessation. We analyzed headache data in the four-week period prior to mAb treatment initiation (baseline), in the month before the last mAb injection, in weeks 5-8 and 13-16 after last treatment. Primary endpoint of the study was the change of monthly migraine days from the month before last treatment to weeks 13-16. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients equally distributed between prophylaxis with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab and the CGRP antibodies galcanezumab or fremanezumab participated in the study. Patients reported 8.2 ± 6.6 monthly migraine days in the month before last treatment. Monthly migraine days gradually increased to 10.3 ± 6.8 in weeks 5-8 (p = 0.001) and to 12.5 ± 6.6 in weeks 13-16 (p < 0.001) after drug cessation. Monthly migraine days in weeks 13-16 were not different from baseline values (-0.8 ± 5.4; p > 0.999). Monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use showed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies migraine prophylaxis was associated with a significant increase of migraine frequency and acute medication intake over time.

Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab. METHODS: We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache. RESULTS: The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience.

BACKGROUND: Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption. METHODS: Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13-16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9-12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period. RESULTS: This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life. CONCLUSIONS: Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

Long COVID headache.

Headache is among the most frequent symptoms persisting or newly developing after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as part of the so-called long COVID syndrome. The knowledge on long COVID headache is still limited, however growing evidence is defining the features of this novel condition, in particular regarding clinical characteristics, some pathophysiological mechanisms and first treatment recommendations. Long COVID headache can present in the form of worsening of a preexisting primary headache, or, more specifically, in the form of a new (intermittent or daily) headache starting during the acute infection or after a delay. It often presents together with other long COVID symptoms, most frequently with hyposmia. It can manifest with a migrainous or, more frequently, with a tension-type-like phenotype. Persistent activation of the immune system and trigeminovascular activation are thought to play a role. As there are virtually no treatment studies, treatment currently is largely guided by the existing guidelines for primary headaches with the corresponding phenotype. The present report, a collaborative work of the international group of the Junior Editorial Board of The Journal of Headache and Pain aims to summarize the most recent evidence about long COVID headache and suggests approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of this disorder.