Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine in whom prior preventive treatments had failed: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in the subgroup of patients with chronic migraine (CM) in whom prior preventive treatments had failed (TF) (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) and never failed (preventive naïve or prior preventive treatments had not failed), using the data from a 52-week, open-label treatment period (OLTP) of the parent study. BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to and inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. There are limited long-term data evaluating the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed. METHODS: Patients who had completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP) in the parent study were eligible to participate in the 52-week OLTP, during which they received erenumab every 4 weeks. The TF subgroups (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) were not mutually exclusive; patients in whom prior preventive treatments from ≥3 medication categories had failed were also counted in the ≥2 and ≥1 medication categories. Endpoints included monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD), achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction from baseline in MMD, and exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs; per 100 patient-years). RESULTS: Erenumab treatment provided sustained mean reductions in MMD and MSMD relative to the parent study baseline throughout the 52 weeks of the OLTP across all TF subgroups. At Week 52, the mean MMD change was -8.6 (SD 6.6) (baseline: 18.4 [SD 4.5] days) in the ≥1 TF subgroup. A post hoc completer analysis (52 weeks [OLTP] erenumab) showed that compared with erenumab 70 mg, the 140 mg dose was associated with numerically greater reductions in the mean MMD (Week 40: -8.6 and -7.2 days; Week 52: -9.7 and -7.9 days [≥1 TF subgroup]) and a higher proportion of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response thresholds across all subgroups at Weeks 40 and 52. Overall the exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of AEs did not increase during the OLTP versus the DBTP (≥1 TF subgroup: 141.9/100 versus 317.9/100 patient-years), and no new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION: The long-term treatment with erenumab was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed, with numerically greater treatment effects for 140 mg versus 70 mg.

Long-term safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine: Results from a 52-week, open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: This study reports the long-term safety and efficacy of erenumab in chronic migraine patients. METHODS: This was a 52-week open-label extension study of a 12-week double-blind treatment phase study. During the double-blind treatment phase, patients received placebo or once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. During the open-label treatment phase, the initial monthly dose was erenumab 70 mg. Following protocol amendment, patients continued to receive erenumab 70 mg if they had already completed their Week 28 visit, otherwise, patients switched from 70 mg to 140 mg; if enrolled after the amendment, patients received 140 mg monthly throughout. RESULTS: In all, 451/609 (74.1%) enrolled patients completed the study. The exposure-adjusted patient incidence rate for any adverse event was 126.3/100 patient-years for the overall erenumab group. Overall, the adverse event profile was similar to that observed in the double-blind treatment phase. Adverse event incidence rates did not increase with long-term erenumab treatment compared with the double-blind treatment phase, and no new serious or treatment-emergent events were seen. Efficacy was sustained throughout the 52 weeks. Clinically significant reductions from double-blind treatment phase baseline (about half) were observed for monthly migraine days and migraine-specific medication days. Achievement of ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reductions from the double-blind treatment phase baseline in monthly migraine days at Week 52 were reported by 59.0%, 33.2% and 8.9% of patients, respectively, for the combined dose group. A numerically greater benefit was observed with 140 mg compared with 70 mg at Weeks 40 and 52. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained efficacy of long-term erenumab treatment in patients with chronic migraine is demonstrated, with safety results consistent with the known safety profile of erenumab and adverse event rates comparable to placebo adverse event rates in the double-blind treatment phase. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02174861).

Effects of fremanezumab on the use of acute headache medication and associated symptoms of migraine in patients with episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of fremanezumab treatment on acute headache medication use and migraine-associated symptoms in patients with episodic migraine. METHODS: In the Phase 3 HALO trial, patients with episodic migraine were randomized to receive subcutaneous fremanezumab monthly (225 mg at baseline, weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline, placebo at weeks 4 and 8), or placebo over a 12-week period. The secondary endpoint was change from baseline in the monthly number of days with use of any acute headache mediation or migraine-specific acute headache medication; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline in the monthly number of days with nausea or vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia. RESULTS: Of 875 patients randomized, 865 were included in the analysis (monthly, n = 287; quarterly, n = 288; placebo, n = 290). Baseline mean ± standard deviation days with: Any acute headache medication use (monthly: 7.7 ± 3.4; quarterly: 7.8 ± 3.7; placebo: 7.7 ± 3.6), migraine-specific acute headache medication use (6.1 ± 3.1; 6.6 ± 3.1; 7.1 ± 3.0), nausea or vomiting (4.5 ± 3.6; 4.9 ± 3.7; 4.5 ± 3.3) and photophobia and phonophobia (5.5 ± 4.1; 6.3 ± 4.1; 6.0 ± 3.9) were similar among treatment arms. Fremanezumab reduced the number of days of acute headache medication use ([least-squares mean change vs. placebo] monthly: -1.4 [95% confidence interval: -1.84, -0.89], p < 0.001; quarterly: -1.3 [-1.76, -0.82], p < 0.001) and migraine-specific acute headache medication use (monthly: -2.2 [-2.80, -1.56], p < 0.001; quarterly: -2.2 [-2.81, -1.58], p < 0.001) compared with placebo. Fremanezumab also reduced nausea or vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab reduced the need for acute headache medications, including migraine-specific medications, while treating migraine-associated symptoms in patients with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02629861.

The spectrum of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and subgroup analysis of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab across the spectrum of response thresholds (≥50%, ≥75%, 100%) based on monthly migraine days (MMD) reduction in patients with chronic migraine from a 12-week, randomized study (NCT02066415). METHODS: Patients (n = 667) received (3:2:2) placebo or erenumab 70/140 mg once-monthly. The proportion of patients achieving a given response threshold was assessed. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to contextualize the actual treatment benefit in subgroups of patients achieving (or not) specified response thresholds. Outcome measures included MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) and disability. RESULTS: The proportion of patients responding to erenumab exceeded that of placebo at the ≥50% and ≥75% response thresholds. At month 3, 39.9% and 41.2% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥50% response versus placebo (23.5%). Similarly, at month 3, 17.0% and 20.9% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% response versus placebo (7.8%). Compared with the overall erenumab-treated population (change in MMD: -6.6 [both 70 and 140 mg]), ≥50% responders showed MMD reductions of -12.2/-12.5 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -2.6/-2.2 for those not achieving ≥50% response. ≥75% responders showed MMD reductions of -13.9/-14.8 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -5.0/-4.3 for those not achieving ≥75% response. Relative improvements in MSMD and disability were observed in responders versus overall erenumab-treated population. CONCLUSION: For erenumab-treated patients achieving ≥50% response, the actual reduction in MMD was almost twice that of the overall population. These findings provide context for setting realistic expectations regarding actual treatment benefit experienced by patients responding to treatment.

Interim results of a prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study of the long-term safety and efficacy of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine (the GLADIATOR study).

OBJECTIVES: To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186.

Erenumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody, in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 667 adults with chronic migraine were randomized (3:2:2) to placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg), stratified by region and medication overuse status. Data from patients with baseline medication overuse at baseline were used to assess changes in monthly migraine days, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days. RESULTS: Of 667 patients randomized, 41% (n = 274) met medication overuse criteria. In the medication overuse subgroup, erenumab 70 or 140 mg groups had greater reductions than the placebo group at month 3 in monthly migraine days (mean [95% confidence interval] -6.6 [-8.0 to -5.3] and -6.6 [-8.0 to -5.3] vs -3.5 [-4.6 to -2.4]) and acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (-5.4 [-6.5 to -4.4] and -4.9 [-6.0 to -3.8] vs -2.1 [-3.0 to -1.2]). In the placebo and 70 and 140 mg groups, ≥50% reductions in monthly migraine days were achieved by 18%, 36% (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.67 [1.36-5.22]) and 35% (odds ratio 2.51 [1.28-4.94]). These clinical responses paralleled improvements in patient-reported outcomes with a consistent benefit of erenumab across multiple measures of impact, disability, and health-related quality of life. The observed treatment effects were similar in the non-medication overuse subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication treatment days in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse, improving disability and quality of life. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02066415. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that erenumab reduces monthly migraine days at 3 months in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in chronic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Background Erenumab was effective and well tolerated in a pivotal clinical trial of chronic migraine. Here, we evaluated efficacy and safety of monthly erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) versus placebo in the subgroup of patients who had previously failed preventive treatment(s) (≥ 1, ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories) and in patients who had never failed. Methods Subgroup analyses evaluated change from baseline in monthly migraine days; achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days; and change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Adverse events were evaluated for each subgroup. Results Treatment with both doses of erenumab resulted in greater reductions in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) at Month 3 (treatment difference [95% CI], never failed subgroup: -2.2 [-4.1, -0.3] for 70 mg and -0.5 [-2.4, 1.5] for 140 mg; ≥ 1 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.5 [-3.8, -1.2], for 70 mg and -3.3 [-4.6, -2.1] for 140 mg; ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.7 [-4.2, -1.2], for 70 mg and -4.3 [-5.8, -2.8] for 140 mg). Similar results were observed in the monthly acute migraine-specific medication days endpoint, and in the achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days. There were no new or unexpected safety issues. Conclusion Erenumab showed consistent efficacy in chronic migraine patients who had failed prior preventive treatments and was well tolerated across subgroups.

ARISE: A Phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine.

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3. Results Patients receiving erenumab experienced -2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with -1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) ( p < 0.001). A ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was achieved by 39.7% (erenumab) and 29.5% (placebo) of patients (OR:1.59 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.27) ( p = 0.010). Migraine-specific medication treatment days were reduced by -1.2 (erenumab) and -0.6 (placebo) days, a treatment difference of -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2) ( p = 0.002). The ≥5-point reduction rates in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Physical Impairment were 33.0% and 27.1% (OR:1.33 (0.92, 1.90) ( p = 0.13) and in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Everyday Activities were 40.4% and 35.8% (OR:1.22 (0.87, 1.71) ( p = 0.26). Safety and adverse event profiles of erenumab were similar to placebo. Most frequent adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, injection site pain, and nasopharyngitis. Conclusions As a preventive treatment of episodic migraine, erenumab at a dosage of 70 mg monthly significantly reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication use. (Funded by Amgen). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02483585.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center study of the safety and efficacy of ADAM zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine.

Objective To determine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ascending doses of Adhesive Dermally-Applied Microarray (ADAM) zolmitriptan versus placebo for acute migraine treatment. Background ADAM is a novel patient-administered system for intracutaneous drug administration. In a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study, zolmitriptan administered using ADAM had much faster absorption than oral administration with higher exposure in the first two hours. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase 2b/3 study evaluating ADAM zolmitriptan 1 mg, 1.9 mg, and 3.8 mg versus placebo. Co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome other migraine-associated symptom 2 hours post-dose. Results Of patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg or placebo, 41.5% and 14.2%, respectively were pain-free 2 hours post-dose ( p = 0.0001) and 68.3% and 42.9% were free from their most bothersome other symptom ( p = 0.0009). Due to the fixed sequential testing methodology, formal statistical significance was not established for secondary endpoints. However, the proportion of patients who were photophobia-free, phonophobia-free, and nausea-free at 2 hours post-dose was higher in the ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg group compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients who were pain-free, and who experienced pain relief up to 48 hours post-dose. Systemic adverse events were consistent with previous triptan trials, and included dizziness, paresthesia, muscle tightness, and nausea, all of which occurred in < 5% of patients in any group. Application site reactions were generally mild and resolved within 48 hours, although erythema and bruising persisted for longer periods in some patients. Conclusion ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg provides effective relief of migraine headache and associated most bothersome symptoms compared with placebo, and is well-tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02745392.

Migraine in women.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses hormonal milestones and the influence that hormonal fluctuations make in the frequency and severity of migraine in women and includes information on acute, short-term, and preventive strategies for hormonally influenced migraine and the situations in which hormonal therapies may be offered. RECENT FINDINGS: Genomic patterns in adolescent girls differentiate between menstrually related migraine and non-menstrually related migraine. The age at initiation of estrogen replacement therapy appears to be significant with respect to stroke. No increase in stroke occurred in women on low-dose (50 µg or less) transdermal estrogen replacement compared to women not using estrogen replacement. Childhood maltreatment is more common in women with migraine and depression than in women with migraine alone. SUMMARY: Management of hormonally influenced migraine involves a clear identification of the relationship between migraine and hormone change. A thorough history and detailed diary are critical in identifying this relationship and in predicting response or following response to hormonal therapies. The evolution of migraine in an individual may be strongly driven by hormonal shifts. Although limited, clinical evidence suggests that oral contraceptive use in young women with episodic migraine may transform their pattern into chronic migraine. Thus, particular attention to changes in migraine patterns following either endogenous or exogenous hormonal changes is crucial. Providing reassurance and education that migraine is a biological disorder and providing an understanding of the role of estrogen in the frequency and severity of migraine can guide treatment choices. Pharmacologic treatments include acute therapy, with short-term and standard prevention offered where appropriate. Hormonal therapies are not first-line therapies but may be important choices for a woman with migraine whose estrogen fluctuation is continually exacerbating migraine attacks. Given the many hormonal stages during the life of a woman with migraine, therapies may vary according to hormonal stage and status. Overall wellness should also be emphasized; regular exercise, balanced diet, smoking cessation, weight control, and sleep hygiene are important in the management of migraine.

Needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan for triptan users requiring a change in migraine therapy: efficacy and impact on patient-rated functionality, satisfaction, and confidence.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of, satisfaction with, and confidence in SDP (SUMAVEL DosePro *) among triptan users requiring a change in therapy. SDP is a needle-free, subcutaneous sumatriptan product that confers relief as early as 10 minutes postdose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In an open-label study, SDP was administered for ≤4 migraine attacks over ≤60 days by migraineurs currently treated with triptans (any form/dosage). In the 90 patients with baseline Migraine-ACT scores ≤2 (indicating the need for a change in therapy), efficacy data were collected from patient diaries, and satisfaction was measured with the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire (PPMQ-R). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01016834 on clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTS: Across all attacks, the rates of pain relief were 30.7%, 66.4%, 80.1%, 81.6%, and 77.6% at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, and 24 hours postdose, respectively. Corresponding results for pain-free response were 0.7%, 14.8%, 35.0%, 48.0, and 65.7%. Sustained 24-hour pain relief was observed in 61.0% of attacks. PPMQ-R scores (transformed to 0-100 scales, mean ± SD) improved from baseline to end of treatment for Efficacy (52.5 ± 17.8 versus 74.8 ± 23.4, p < 0.0001) and Functionality (46.2 ± 22.3 versus 71.3 ± 25.2, p < 0.0001) with no deterioration in Tolerability (80.6 ± 14.7 versus 83.5 ± 17.7, p = 0.12). PPMQ-R Overall Satisfaction score increased from baseline to end of treatment (55.1 ± 23.2 versus 74.6 ± 27.7, p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients (90% confidence interval) confident or very confident in treating migraine attacks increased from 22.2% (15.2, 30.6) at baseline to 57.8% (48.6, 66.6) at end of treatment. Results should be interpreted in the context of the open-label design of the original study. CONCLUSION: With SDP, triptan users requiring a change in therapy experienced increased efficacy, satisfaction with therapy, and confidence in treatment without deterioration in tolerability.

Migraine and functional impairment.

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide; approximately half of those affected have such severe attacks that they cannot function normally in routine daily activities. Research is beginning to focus upon the burden of migraine between attacks, referred to as interictal burden. This burden encompasses worry and expectation of future attacks that consequently may be associated with limitations in social and family interactions, as well as work capacity. This review aims to increase physician awareness of the degree and scope of functional impairment associated with migraine. Physicians are in a position to assess the true impact of migraine in their patients using techniques such as open-ended questions during visits, and paper-based migraine assessment tools such as the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire. Eliciting such information on interictal burden may help the physician prescribe the most appropriate therapy based on their patients' degree of impairment. This article also describes the instruments most widely used for measuring migraine-related functional impairment, summarizes studies assessing the effects of migraine on indicators of health-related quality of life and presents data on how preventive migraine treatment may beneficially influence migraine-related functional impairment.

Needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan (Sumavel DosePro): bioequivalence and ease of use.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of sumatriptan is currently associated with needle aversion in some patients, and sharps disposal issues. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a needle-free system can deliver s.c. sumatriptan. If so, to examine whether needle-free administration is bioequivalent to a 26-gauge needle-based auto-injector. Lastly, to assess the needle-free system for clinical acceptability and ease of use during migraine attacks. METHODS: Two clinical trials. Study A: Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence was studied in normal adult volunteers (n = 57 total), directly comparing needle-free (Sumavel DosePro) with needle-based (Imitrex STATdose System) administration of 6 mg s.c. sumatriptan. An incomplete, randomized, partial factorial, crossover design was used. Each subject received 2 administrations of each product, at 2 of the 3 anatomical sites (abdomen, thigh or arm). There were appropriate "washout" periods between each. Pharmacokinetic sampling was at standard time points, and tests for bioequivalence then followed. Study B: The term "ease of use" was used for clinical acceptability and utility of the needle-free system when it was assessed among 52 outpatients treating migraine attacks. Instructional materials were used as would be provided after ordinary prescription. The primary endpoint was successful use of the needle-free system to administer sumatriptan at the first attempt, including appropriate injection site selection. Second and subsequent uses of the needle-free system were also documented. RESULTS: For administration sites in the thigh and the abdomen, but not the arm, the needle-free and needle-based systems were bioequivalent (for all pharmacokinetic endpoints the mean ratios between the 2 devices were always between 90.1% and 115%). Among outpatients treating a migraine attack with the needle-free system, 51 of 52 on first attempt used the needle-free system successfully when treating a migraine attack. CONCLUSIONS: Sumavel DosePro needle-free delivery system is a new presentation of s.c. sumatriptan that delivers drug effectively, is bioequivalent to the existing needle auto-injector when used at the thigh or abdomen, and is easy to use.

In-office discussions of migraine: results from the American Migraine Communication Study.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that successful migraine assessment and treatment depends on information obtained during patient and healthcare professional (HCP) discussions. However, no studies outline how migraine is actually discussed during clinical encounters. OBJECTIVE: Record naturally occurring HCP-migraineur interactions, analyzing frequency and impairment assessment, and preventive treatment discussions. DESIGN: HCPs seeing high volumes of migraineurs were recruited for a communication study. Patients likely to discuss migraine were recruited immediately before their normally scheduled appointment and, once consented, were audio- and video-recorded without a researcher present. Separate post-visit interviews were conducted with patients and HCPs. All interactions were transcribed. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients (83% female; mean age 41.7) were analyzed. Patients were diagnosed with migraine 14 years and experienced 5 per month, on average. APPROACH: Transcripts were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques such as number and type of questions asked and post-visit alignment on migraine frequency and impairment. American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study guidelines were utilized. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of HCP-initiated, migraine-specific questions were closed-ended/short answer; assessments focused on frequency and did not focus on attention on impairment. Open-ended questions in patient post-visit interviews yielded robust impairment-related information. Post-visit, 55% of HCP-patient pairs were misaligned regarding frequency; 51% on impairment. Of the 20 (33%) patients who were preventive medication candidates, 80% did not receive it and 50% of their visits lacked discussion of prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Sociolinguistic analysis revealed that HCPs often used narrowly focused, closed-ended questions and were often unaware of how migraine affected patients' lives as a result. It is recommended that HCPs assess impairment using open-ended questions in combination with the ask-tell-ask technique.

Headache related to pregnancy: management of migraine and migraine headache in pregnancy.

Evidence-based treatment algorithms are needed for managing headache during conception, pregnancy, and the postpartum period. Whereas most studies seem to indicate that headaches improve for most women during pregnancy (as estrogen levels increase), this often is not the case in women with more severe, frequent migraine. Few pharmacologic studies include pregnant women, so evidence-based treatments are lacking. Pregnancy registries to record adverse outcomes for various medications and large, population-based studies are needed to analyze the behavior of chronic headache, particularly chronic migraine, during pregnancy. Collaboration between headache specialists and obstetricians is needed to promote research and education for the optimal management of headache during pregnancy.

The migraine cycle: patient burden of migraine during and between migraine attacks.

Migraine is a neurologic disorder characterized by a cycle of attacks, including headache, separated by attack-free periods. Increasingly, episodic migraine is recognized as a disorder that may escalate to chronic migraine, with a frequency of 15 or more attacks per month. Migraine exacts a toll on the quality of life (QoL) of affected individuals, their families, and their workplace. Migraine adversely affects a patient's QoL during an attack, but also has an impact between attacks. This interictal burden on the patient manifests itself as worry in anticipation of the next painful attack and concern over its possible adverse impact on future plans or activities. The high prevalence of migraine, 12% in industrialized countries and approximately 28 million people in the United States, is considered a low estimate. Patients with disruptive migraines frequently overuse self-prescribed medications or may postpone a visit to a physician, which delays accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment for migraine. Consequently, migraine remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. An extensive literature search of migraine reviewed its associated disability and reduced QoL during, and especially between, attacks. Assessment tools to evaluate the interictal burden on QoL, and to help in migraine diagnosis and patient-physician communication, are readily available. Nevertheless, patients with frequent and recurring migraines, who suffer a reduced QoL, continue to be underrecognized and undertreated. This segment of the migraine population could benefit from preventive therapy.

Open-label, long-term tolerability of naratriptan for short-term prevention of menstrually related migraine.

BACKGROUND: Although naratriptan is not approved for prophylactic use in migraine, naratriptan has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo for short-term prevention of menstrually related migraine (MRM). The tolerability of naratriptan administered intermittently for prophylaxis for MRM over the long term has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability of naratriptan 1 mg given twice daily for 6 days per month, administered for up to 1 year for short-term prevention of MRM in an open-label study. METHODS: Patients were eligible for the study if they were between 18 and 65 years of age and had at least a 1-year history of migraine, with or without aura, as defined by 1988 International Headache Society criteria; reported a history of MRM; and had at least 1 MRM attack during their last menstrual cycle. MRM was defined as any migraine beginning during the perimenstrual period (PMP). By definition, the PMP consisted of Days -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, and 4, with Day 1 being the first day of menstrual flow. During each menstrual cycle occurring over a 1-year period, patients began short-term treatment with naratriptan 1 mg twice daily (BID) 3 days before the expected onset of MRM and treated for a total of 6 days. Naratriptan 2.5 mg could be taken for breakthrough MRM attacks. Tolerability and safety measures included adverse events, standard clinical laboratory tests, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and vital signs. The secondary endpoints were the percentage of PMPs without MRM; headache disability as measured by the Headache Impact Test (HIT), and psychological health as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory version 2 (BDI-II). RESULTS: The number of patients who took at least 1 dose of study medication (safety population) was 457, and the numbers of patients completing 6 months and 12 months of treatment were 318 and 131, respectively. Note that 171 (37%) patients were asked to leave the study once target enrollment numbers were met. The only adverse event occurring at an incidence of more than 2% during the 6-day treatment periods when naratriptan 1 mg BID was taken with or without an additional 2.5-mg dose for breakthrough attacks was ear, nose, throat infection (3%). No specific adverse event considered at least possibly to be related to study medication occurred in more than 2% of patients. No serious drug-related adverse events were reported. Furthermore, no patient experienced clinically relevant drug-related changes in 12-lead ECGs, vital signs, or clinical laboratory tests. Patients in both the 6- and 12-month populations did not experience an MRM in approximately 50% of treated PMPs. Health outcomes results suggested that naratriptan reduced headache impact when used for up to 12 months for the short-term prevention of MRM. CONCLUSION: Naratriptan 1 mg BID, with the optional use of an additional 2.5-mg dose for breakthrough attacks, was well tolerated when used for 6 continuous days per month for up to 1 year for short-term prevention of MRM.

Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Multiple pathogenic mechanisms may be involved in generating the migraine symptom complex, and multimechanism-targeted therapy may confer advantages over monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose tablet containing sumatriptan succinate and naproxen sodium relative to efficacy and safety of each monotherapy and placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two replicate, randomized, double-blind, single-attack, parallel-group studies conducted among 1461 (study 1) and 1495 (study 2) patients at 118 US clinical centers who were diagnosed as having migraine and received study treatment for a moderate or severe migraine attack. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a single tablet containing sumatriptan, 85 mg, and naproxen sodium, 500 mg; sumatriptan, 85 mg (monotherapy); naproxen sodium, 500 mg (monotherapy); or placebo, to be used after onset of a migraine with moderate to severe pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included the percentages of patients with headache relief 2 hours after dosing, absence of photophobia, absence of phonophobia, and absence of nausea for the comparison between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and placebo, and the percentages of patients with sustained pain-free response for the comparison between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and each monotherapy. RESULTS: Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was more effective than placebo for headache relief at 2 hours after dosing (study 1, 65% vs 28%; P<.001 and study 2, 57% vs 29%; P<.001), absence of photophobia at 2 hours (58% vs 26%; P<.001 and 50% vs 32%; P<.001), and absence of phonophobia at 2 hours (61% vs 38%; P<.001 and 56% vs 34%; P<.001). The absence of nausea 2 hours after dosing was higher with sumatriptan-naproxen sodium than placebo in study 1 (71% vs 65%; P = .007), but in study 2 rates of absence of nausea did not differ between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and placebo (65% vs 64%; P = .71). For 2- to 24-hour sustained pain-free response, sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was superior at P<.01 (25% and 23% in studies 1 and 2, respectively) to sumatriptan monotherapy (16% and 14% in studies 1 and 2), naproxen sodium monotherapy (10% and 10% in studies 1 and 2), and placebo (8% and 7% in studies 1 and 2). The incidence of adverse events was similar between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and sumatriptan monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sumatriptan, 85 mg, plus naproxen sodium, 500 mg, as a single tablet for acute treatment of migraine resulted in more favorable clinical benefits compared with either monotherapy, with an acceptable and well-tolerated adverse effect profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00434083 (study 1); NCT00433732 (study 2).

Assessing the ability of topiramate to improve the daily activities of patients with migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of topiramate on the daily activities of patients with migraine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial Initiated on March 1, 2001, and completed on April 4, 2002. Patient-reported data from the Migraine Specific Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) were collected at baseline and at weeks 8, 16, and 26 from an intent-to-treat population receiving either topiramate, 50, 100, or 200 mg/d, or placebo. Two activity-related MSQ domains (role restrictive [MSQ-RR] and role prevention [MSQ-RP]) and 2 activity-related SF-36 domains (role physical [SF36-RP] and vitality [SF36-VT]) were the prospectively designated secondary outcome measures. The changes in MSQ and SF-36 scores for each treatment group were calculated by measuring the area under the curve from week 8 (the beginning of the maintenance period) through week 26 of the double-blind phase, relative to the prospective baseline. A mixed-effect piecewise linear regression model was used to estimate average domain score over time. RESULTS: Patients receiving topiramate, 100 or 200 mg/d, had significantly reduced mean monthly (28-day) migraine frequency (P = .008 and P < .001, respectively) compared with placebo, but not patients receiving topiramate, 50 mg/d (P = .48). Topiramate significantly improved mean MSQ-RR domain scores (50 mg/d [P = .02], 100 mg/d [P< .001], and 200 mg/d [P < .001]) and mean MSQ-RP domain scores (50 mg/d [P = .007], 100 mg/d [P = .001], and 200 mg/d [P= .002]) vs placebo. Topiramate, 100 and 200 mg/d, significantly improved mean SF36-RP domain scores vs placebo (P = .02). Topiramate (all doses) improved SF36-VT domain scores, although not significantly vs placebo. Changes in prospectively designated domain scores were significantly correlated with changes in mean monthly migraine frequency (P < or = .001 [MSQ domains], P < or = .002 [SF-36 domains]). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported migraine-specific outcomes measured by the MSQ-RR and MSQ-RP domains improved significantly for those receiving topiramate (all doses) vs placebo. The SF36-RP domain scores improved significantly for patients receiving 100 or 200 mg/d of topiramate. Improvements in all 4 prospectively selected MSQ and SF-36 domains were significantly correlated with decreases in mean monthly migraine frequency.

The influence of estrogen on migraine: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Menstrual migraine affects approximately 50% to 60% of female migraineurs, but knowledge regarding the role of hormones, especially estrogen, appears incomplete. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to determine the role of hormones on menstrual migraine. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE (January 1966 through September 1, 2005) and EMBASE Drugs and Pharmacology (January 1991 through September 1, 2005) were searched for articles published in the English language using the keywords migraine, estrogen, menstrual migraine, pure menstrual migraine, true menstrual migraine, menstrually-associated migraine, menstrually-related migraine, pregnancy, breast-feeding, perimenopause, menopause, nitric oxide, and estrogen receptors. A total of 643 unique articles were reviewed for relevance, scientific rigor, and generalizability. For each relevant citation, the bibliography was reviewed to identify additional sources of pertinent data. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The influence of estrogen on migraine is evident by a 3-fold greater prevalence among women compared with men, and by significant changes in migraine incidence with changes in female reproductive status. Menstrual migraines are usually more resistant to treatment, generally not associated with aura, of longer duration, and associated with more functional disability compared with attacks at other times of the month. Biochemical and genetic evidence suggest central and peripheral roles for estrogen in the pathophysiology of menstrual migraine, with potential interactions with excitatory circuits, including serotonergic components. Although evidence for estrogen as a preventive treatment for menstrual migraine is inconsistent, serotonin receptor agonists (triptans) provide acute relief and also may have a role in prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiological, pathophysiological, and clinical evidence link estrogen to migraine headaches. Triptans appear to provide acute relief and also may be useful for headache prevention. Clear, focused, and evidence-based treatment algorithms are needed to support primary care physicians, neurologists, and gynecologists in the treatment of this common condition.