Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine. BACKGROUND: Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary. METHODS: Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences. RESULTS: In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from "wears off 2 weeks before next dose" to "does not wear off before the next dose" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from "cranial injections" to "intravenous infusions" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.

Use of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Migraines in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Migraines are a common comorbidity and source of disability in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS). Recently, therapeutic agents for episodic and chronic migraine known as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors have shown to effectively control migraine attacks and improve quality of life in the general population. This study explored the use of these novel agents in individuals with comorbid MS. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study at the University of South Florida's neurology clinic; it evaluated individuals with both MS and migraine. RESULTS: A total of 27 individuals with MS and chronic or episodic migraine who received treatment with a CGRP monoclonal antibody were identified. Of these, 63% reported a reduction in their migraine frequency of greater than 75%. Concurrent use of a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS occurred in 82% of patients, and in 37% of these, the DMT used was also a monoclonal antibody. Adverse effects from CGRP monoclonal antibodies were mild and occurred in only 11% of patients, and no patient experienced worsening of their MS symptoms during cotreatment over the duration of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a significant reduction in migraine frequency and a favorable adverse event profile for individuals with comorbid MS who took CGRP monoclonal antibodies and experienced no worsening of MS symptoms. In individuals with MS, CGRP monoclonal antibodies seem to be a safe and effective therapy for episodic or chronic migraine.

MicroRNA profiling in women with migraine: effects of CGRP-targeting treatment.

BACKGROUND: Migraine lacks biomarkers that can trace the biological pathways of the disease and predict the effectiveness of treatments. Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway - including erenumab - offer the opportunity of investigating potential migraine biomarkers due to their specific mechanism of action in preventing both episodic (EM) and chronic (CM) migraine. Our study aims at evaluating the expression levels of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) according to migraine type, before and after treatment with erenumab and based on treatment response, in order to identify miRNAs with potential role as epigenetic biomarkers. METHODS: The study included women aged 25-50 years with EM or CM treated with erenumab according to clinical indications. MiRNAs expression levels were assessed before (baseline) and after a 16-week treatment with erenumab, 140 mg every four weeks (post-treatment). An extensive miRNAs profiling was performed by qRT-PCR in small, pooled groups of ≤ 8 women each, classified according to migraine frequency (EM and CM) and the degree of response to erenumab. The expression levels of selected miRNAs were also validated using single miRNA assays in each woman with EM and CM. RESULTS: During the study, 36 women with migraine (19 with EM and 17 with CM) out of 40 who were initially screened, performed the assessment of miRNA expression at baseline and post-treatment, Erenumab treatment significantly improved migraine burden in both EM and CM. MiRNA profiling revealed differential expression levels of a wide set of miRNAs (hsa-let-7d-3p, hsa-miR-106b-3p, hsa-miR-122-5p, hsa-miR-143-3p, hsa-miR-144-3p, hsa-miR-16-5p, hsa-miR-181a-5p, hsa-miR-221-3p, hsa-miR-25-3p, hsa-miR-29b-2-5p, hsa-miR-326, miR-363-3p, hsa-miR-424-5p, hsa-miR-485-3p, hsa-miR-532-5p, hsa-miR-543, hsa-miR-629-5p, hsa-miR-660-5p, hsa-miR-92a-3p) depending on treatment response. Among them, single miRNA assays confirmed the progressive decrease of hsa-miR-143-3p expression levels in relation to increasing response to erenumab in women with EM (7 with low, 6 with medium, and 6 with high response; p = 0.02). Additionally, single assays showed higher hsa-miR-34a-5p and hsa-miR-382-5p expression levels at baseline in women with CM compared with those with EM (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0007, respectively), as well as their expression level decrease in women with CM from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that targeting the CGRP pathway in migraine changes the expression levels of certain miRNAs. These miRNA levels are linked to the levels of response to CGRP receptor blockage. Future research challenges include assigning specific functions to the modulated miRNAs to unravel pathways modulated by the disease and the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov with code NCT04659226 and in the Novartis database with code CAMG334AIT05T.

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

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

Evidence-based preventive treatment of migraine.

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

Improvement of migraine depressive symptoms is not related to headache frequency: exploring the impact of anti-CGRP therapies.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to describe the prevalence and evolution of depressive symptoms in a cohort of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: This is an exploratory, prospective, unicentric, one-year longitudinal study. We included migraine patients who started treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Baseline demographic data, medical history, concomitant medication and migraine characteristics were collected. The presence of depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory-II quarterly and treatment response was categorized according to the reduction in monthly headache days. A generalized mixed-effect regression model was used to model depression score over a one-year treatment taking into account frequency response rates. RESULTS: We included 577 patients: 84.2% females; median (range) age 47.0 (39.0-53.0) years, 46.1% (266/577) of them presented depressive symptoms at baseline (16.1% mild, 13.3% moderate and 16.6% severe). After six-month treatment, 47.4% (126/266) reduced headache frequency ≥50% after one year and 63.5% (169/266) achieved a clinically significant improvement in depression symptoms. We observed a 30.8% (-50.0%, -3.2%) main reduction in depression score during the first quarter. The improvement in depression symptoms was independently associated with headache frequency response: non-responders, -25.0% (-43.9%, -1.1%); partial responders, -30.2% (-51.3%, -7.6%); and good responders, -33.3% (-54.6%, -7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP are effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with migraine. The main change of depression score happens during the first three months of treatment. The reduction in depressive symptoms is independent of migraine frequency improvement.

Long-Term Effectiveness of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Migraine: An Italian Retrospective Analysis (REALITY).

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is approved in the European Union (EU) as migraine prophylaxis in adults with at least four migraine days per month. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of galcanezumab on migraine-related burdens and its impact on the use of healthcare resources for migraine prophylaxis in an Italian setting. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab for migraine prevention between September 2019 and December 2020. Patient data for monthly migraine days (MMDs) and MMDs with acute medication intake were obtained by medical chart reviews. Information on patient-reported outcomes (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire and Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6] questionnaire) and on the use of healthcare resources were also collected. The time points of interest were 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months after the initiation of galcanezumab, and the most recent time point available during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients were enrolled in the study. Starting from month 3 after treatment initiation, more than half of the patients presented at least a 50% reduction in MMDs, and approximately one-third of non-responders at month 3 became responders at month 6. From month 3 to month 12, MMDs decreased on average by 10 days. Headache impact and disability, as well as migraine-associated health resource utilization decreased significantly during the treatment period. A positive significant association among the three dimensions of clinical burden (MMDs, MIDAS and days of acute medication intake) was also observed. CONCLUSION: The results of this Italian real-world study confirmed that galcanezumab has a rapid onset of effect and provides a long-term response among patients over different migraine-related burdens. The use of healthcare resources was also remarkably reduced.

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

OBJECTIVE: To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Only few patients (3 − 13%) with migraine, who qualify for preventive treatment, are using them. Conventional preventive treatments have not been developed specifically for migraine treatment, and more than half of the patients stop using them prematurely. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies such as galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab are newer treatments that provide migraine-specific preventive treatment. Prior studies have compared 6- to 12-month migraine medication use by patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting traditional standard of care (SOC) migraine preventive medications. We compared long-term (24-month) migraine medication use in patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting SOC migraine preventive medications to confirm if the results are sustained over a longer period. Over 24 months, patients who used galcanezumab followed the prescribed treatment regimen to a greater extent compared with those who used SOC medications (48% vs. 38%, respectively). Additionally, patients using galcanezumab continued treatment for a longer time compared with those using SOC. Over 24 months, about 85% of patients stopped taking SOC medications, while around 80% of patients stopped taking galcanezumab. Our findings indicate that patients with migraine are more likely to continue using galcanezumab as a preventive treatment for a longer period compared with SOC medications. This study helps identify gaps in the preventive treatment of migraine and provides insights on how they are not being used enough.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM). METHODS: Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.

Effects of Introvision, a self-regulation method with a mindfulness-based perception technique in migraine prevention: a monocentric randomized waiting-list controlled study (IntroMig Study).

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a brain disorder with recurrent headache attacks and altered sensory processing. Introvision is a self-regulation method based on mindfulness-like perception techniques, developed at the University of Hamburg. Here, we examined the effect of Introvision in migraine prevention. METHODS: Migraineurs with at least five headache days per month were block-randomized to the experimental group (EG) or waiting list group (WL), the latter starting Introvision training six weeks after the EG. Participants learned Introvision in six weekly on-site group sessions with video-conference support followed by three individual video-conference sessions. Headache diaries and questionnaires were obtained before Introvision training and three months after the last individual Introvision session. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients completed the study. The primary outcome, headache days of the EG after Introvision training compared to those of the WL before the training, showed no significant effect (10.6 ± 7.7, n = 22; vs. 10.9 ± 6.3, n = 29, p = 0.63; Mann-Whitney-U-Test). The secondary outcome, comparing pooled EG and WL data before and after Introvision training, revealed a significant reduction of headache days (from 11.7 ± 6.5 to 9.8 ± 7.0; p = 0.003; Wilcoxon-paired-Test) as well as of acute medication intake and Headache-Impact-Test 6 (HIT-6) scores and increased self-efficacy as quantified by increased FKMS-scores (FKMS: german short form of the Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale (HMSE)). CONCLUSION: Although the study did not reach its primary endpoint, several secondary outcome parameters in the pooled (non-controlled) pre-post analysis showed an improvement with a decrease in monthly headache days by 1.9 days/ month. A larger randomized controlled trial has to corroborate these preliminary findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03507400, Registration date 09.03.2018.

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response. METHODS: A total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine. RESULTS: Among the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP in migraine prevention. GRADE tables elaborated by the ad hoc working group of the International Headache Society.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tables were created using a standardized and independent assessment of the efficacy and side effects of treatments with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or the CGRP receptor for the prevention of migraine. We hope to provide support for author groups writing national or regional treatment or management guidelines for migraine prevention. METHODS: We formulated patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) questions for the efficacy and safety of mAb against CGRP or the CGRP-receptor for the prevention of migraine attacks. We performed a systematic literature research for randomized studies with eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab and a pooled analysis was done, using RevMan 5.4 software. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratio, and for continuous outcomes we used the mean difference to compare and summarize the evidence between groups. The evidence across studies, for each outcome, except serious adverse events, was assessed using GRADE evidence tables. Additionally, we report the serious adverse effects in the tables of the characteristics of the studies. RESULTS: All mAb are superior to placebo for the reduction in monthly migraine days (days in which a headache consistent with migraine occurred) in participants with episodic and chronic migraine. There are no major differences between the mAb. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE evidence summary tables provided will support author groups to write treatment guidelines for the prevention of migraine with mAb.

Effects of a Single Session of OnabotulinumtoxinA Therapy on Sleep Quality and Psychological Measures: Preliminary Findings in a Population of Chronic Migraineurs.

Chronic migraine is a burdensome condition, and onabotulinumtoxinA is revealed to be an effective therapy. Migraine shows a bidirectional relationship with sleep, but the effects of preventive therapies on sleep quality are poorly studied. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a single session of onabotulinumtoxinA on patients' sleep quality and correlates the results with measures of comorbid anxiety/depression. Patients completed self-administrable questionnaires about sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index-PSQI) and psychological symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition-BDI-II-and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-HADS-subscales "a" and "d" for anxiety and depression, respectively), and reported migraine frequency at baseline and after 12 weeks. The 42 included patients showed a significant reduction in migraine days (from 20.6 ± 6.0 to 13.6 ± 6.2, p < 0.001), while no changes were observed in sleep quality (PSQI score from 11.0 ± 5.0 to 9.8 ± 4.6, p = 0.277) or psychological measures (BDI-II from 16.7 ± 10.2 to 15.7 ± 10.3, p = 0.678; HADS-a from 10.3 ± 4.8 to 9.3 ± 5.5, p = 0.492; and HADS-d from 7.2 ± 3.9 to 7.1 ± 5.0, p = 0.901). On the other hand, a strong correlation among PSQI, BDI-II, HADS-a, and HADS-d scores (p < 0.001, rho > 0.7) was found. Despite its efficacy in migraine prevention, a single session of onabotulinumtoxinA was not able to affect patients' sleep quality or their psychological symptoms.

Antiseizure medications as migraine preventatives: a call for action for a teratogenic and neurodevelopmental risk removal.

INTRODUCTION: A recent study has demonstrated an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder, in individuals exposed to either valproate or topiramate monotherapy. Regulatory bodies have initiated a review to reassess the safety of topiramate exposure during pregnancy. These novel findings raise concerns regarding the recommendation of antiseizure medications in women of childbearing potential. This manuscript highlights current research defining concerns specific to the use of valproate and topiramate in women of childbearing potential. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript summarizes recent findings regarding the safety of valproate and topiramate when compared to alternative therapies for the preventative treatment of migraine in women of childbearing potential. The studies included in this review were selected following a comprehensive literature review of multiple relevant databases. All studies that were published within the past 15 years were considered for inclusion. EXPERT OPINION: The use of valproate and topiramate in women of childbearing potential should be highly discouraged. Our recommendations include a review of current prescribing guidelines, further public education regarding the neurodevelopmental and congenital risks associated with the use of valproate and topiramate, and an appeal for further research defining the safety of alternative medications for migraine prevention when intrauterine exposure is possible.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interactions and safety of atogepant coadministered with esomeprazole.

Aim: To investigate potential pharmacokinetic interactions between atogepant and esomeprazole. Methods: Atogepant, esomeprazole, or both were administered to 32 healthy adults in an open-label, nonrandomized, crossover study. Systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] and peak plasma concentration [Cmax]) for atogepant administered in combination versus alone were compared using a linear mixed effects model. Results: Coadministration with esomeprazole delayed atogepant time to Cmax by ∼1.5 h and reduced Cmax by ∼23% with no statistically significant change in AUC compared with atogepant alone. Administration of atogepant 60 mg alone or in combination with esomeprazole 40 mg was well tolerated in healthy adults. Conclusion: Esomeprazole had no clinically meaningful effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Clinical Trial Registration: unregistered phase I study.

A clinical study was conducted in 32 healthy adults to evaluate the possibility of interactions between atogepant, a new drug for the prevention of migraine, and esomeprazole, a drug used to reduce stomach acid. The participants of the study were given each drug alone and together to understand the effect they had on the body's ability to absorb, distribute, and excrete each drug alone and together. The results of this study show that there are no clinically important changes in how atogepant is processed by the body when administered with esomeprazole, and they can be safely taken together.

Patterns of response to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies during first 6 months of treatment in resistant migraine patients: Impact on outcome.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The response pattern to monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAbs) shown in migraine prevention clinical trials is not always reproducible at an individual level. This study was undertaken to describe patterns of start and consistency of the response to anti-CGRP MAbs during the first 6 months of treatment and the association with baseline clinical characteristics. METHODS: This is a prospective clinical cohort observational study. We included migraine patients treated with erenumab or galcanezumab evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months (M3, M6) of treatment. The response was categorized according to reduction in monthly headache days (MHD): Sustained-response (SustainedR, ≥50% at M3 and M6), Short-Response (ShortR, M3 ≥50% and M6 <50%), Late-Response (LateR, M3 <50% and M6 ≥50%), Limited-Response (LimitedR, 25%-50% at M3 and M6), and No-Response (NoR, <25% at M3 and M6). Response patterns were compared at baseline and with outcome variables at M3 and M6. RESULTS: We included 357 patients with a headache frequency of 21.0 (interquartile range = 16.0-28.0) MHD, and 84.0% (300/357) were chronic migraine. The distribution according to response pattern was 37.0% (110/297) SustainedR, 16.8% (50/297) LateR, 10.4% (31/297) ShortR, 22.6% (67/297) LimitedR, and 13.1% NoR (39/297). The SustainedR and LateR groups showed statistically significant anxiety and depression score reduction at M3 and M6 compared to the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial response to anti-CGRP MAbs is not consistent in all patients. Persistence of anxiety and depression might be associated with lower response rates at M6.

"Wearing-off" efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A new migraine prevention, CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), is injectable on a monthly or quarterly basis. In clinical practice, some patients reported that drug effectiveness does not last until the upcoming scheduled injection, a so-called "wearing-off" effect. We aimed to evaluate the wearing-off effect of the CGRP mAbs for migraine prevention in patients with different monthly migraine days. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for studies that reported migraine frequency after CGRP monoclonal antibody administration from MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis, random-effects model was applied to assess the difference in migraine frequency between early and later weeks after medication to assess the presence of a wearing-off effect. Risk ratio was calculated to report the pooled treatment effect. RESULTS: Four studies were entered for the analysis, comprising 2409 patients in randomized controlled trials. There was no association between CGRP mAbs and wearing-off effect in patients with galcanezumab with a pooled risk ratio of 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.28) compared to placebo group. However, there was an association between galcanezumab and wearing-off effect in patients with chronic migraine with a pooled risk ratio of 1.91 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.28) compared to placebo group. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, there was a wearing-off efficacy of galcanezumab but only in a small percentage of patients with chronic migraine in randomized controlled trials.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden. METHODS: CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement. RESULTS: The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]). CONCLUSION: In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.