Provocation of attacks to discover migraine signaling mechanisms and new drug targets: early history and future perspectives - a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: The development of several experimental migraine provocation models has significantly contributed to an understanding of the signaling mechanisms of migraine. The early history of this development and a view to the future are presented as viewed by the inventor of the models. METHODS: Extensive knowledge of the literature was supplemented by scrutiny of reference lists. RESULTS: Early studies used methodologies that were not blinded. They suggested that histamine and nitroglycerin (Glyceryl trinitrate, GTN) could induce headache and perhaps migraine. The development of a double blind, placebo-controlled model, and the use of explicit diagnostic criteria for induced migraine was a major step forward. GTN, donor of nitric oxide (NO), induced headache in people with- and without migraine as well as delayed migraine attacks in those with migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) did the same, supporting the development of CGRP antagonists now widely used in patients. Likewise, pituitary adenylate cyclase activating peptide (PACAP) provoked headache and migraine. Recently a PACAP antibody has shown anti migraine activity in a phase 2 trial. Increase of second messengers activated by NO, CGRP and PACAP effectively induced migraine. The experimental models have also been used in other types of headaches and have been combined with imaging and biochemical studies. They have also been used for drug testing and in genetic studies. CONCLUSION: Conclusion. Human migraine provocation models have informed about signaling mechanisms of migraine leading to new drugs and drug targets. Future use of these models in imaging-, biochemistry- and genetic studies as well as in the further study of animal models is promising.

Case reports: Could sexual dysfunction in women with migraine be a side effect of CGRP inhibition?

BACKGROUND: The development and approval of antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor mark a revolutionary era for preventive migraine treatment. Real-world evidence sheds light on rare, stigmatized or overlooked side effects of these drugs. One of these potential side effects is sexual dysfunction. CASE REPORTS: We present two cases of one 42-year-old and one 45-year-old female patient with chronic migraine who both reported sexual dysfunction as a possible side effect of treatment with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide. DISCUSSION: As calcitonin gene-related peptide is involved in vaginal lubrication as well as genital sensation and swelling, inhibiting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway may lead to sexual dysfunction as a potential side effect. CONCLUSION: Sexual dysfunction in female migraine patients might be a rare and overlooked side effect of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway. Considering the discomfort and stigma surrounding both migraine and sexual dysfunction, we advocate for an open attitude and awareness among clinicians toward such side effects.

Switching CGRP(r) MoAbs in migraine: what evidence?

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 50% of patients that receive a CGRP(r) MoAb for the preventative treatment of migraine are expected to discontinue therapy. For patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy, few clinical options are available. One potential option is to switch CGRP(r) MoAbs, however, data concerning the efficacy of this intervention is scarce. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript aims to summarize all available data concerning the potential efficacy of switching CGRP(r) MoAbs following previous medication discontinuation. Data was sourced by completing a database search for the terms: 'CGRP monoclonal antibody switch OR CGRP monoclonal antibody switching.' EXPERT OPINION: While data considering the potential efficacy of CGRP(r) switching continues to grow, our expert opinion supports the most recent European Headache Federation statement regarding CGRP(r) MoAb prescribing practices, concluding that there remains insufficient data to determine the efficacy of this intervention. As this topic is of significant clinical importance, we recommend a call-to-action to expand on current data considering the therapeutic options for patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy.

Can calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies ameliorate writer's cramp and migraine?

Recently, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become available as a prophylactic treatment for migraine and have shown high efficacy and safety in clinical practice. CGRP mAbs have been reported to be effective not only for migraine but also for other comorbidities, such as psychiatric complications in patients with migraine. However, there are no reports examining the effect of CGRP mAbs on dystonia. We treated a patient with comorbid migraine and focal task-specific dystonia (writer's cramp) with a CGRP mAb (erenumab) because of an increase in monthly migraine days despite the addition of migraine prophylaxis. In this patient, erenumab treatment for 3 months led to improvements in symptoms of both focal dystonia and migraine, suggesting a role for CGRP in the pathophysiology of both conditions.

Synergism of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies and OnabotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine: A Real-World Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic migraine do not achieve clinically meaningful improvement in their headache frequency with monotherapy. The burden associated with chronic migraine calls for a multifaceted treatment approach targeting multiple aspects of migraine pathophysiology. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of concurrent anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabot) treatment on median monthly migraine days (MMD) in patients with chronic migraine, through a retrospective study. METHODS: The electronic medical records of Cleveland Clinic patients either concurrently (dual therapy) or consecutively (monotherapy) treated with anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot between June 2018 and November 2021 were extracted. Only adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) were included in this study. MMDs for 194 concurrently treated (86.6% female and a median [interquartile range] age of 51 [41-61] years) and 229 consecutively treated (88.2% female and median age of 47 [IQR 39-57] years) patients were examined at baseline, after first therapy of either anti-CGRP mAb or onabot, and following dual therapy for 3 consecutive months. The reduction of MMDs for each treatment group were compared. The same approach was utilized to compare consecutive monotherapy at separate times (n = 229) and dual-therapy groups. RESULTS: The initial treatment of the dual-therapy group reduced the median (IQR) MMDs from 30 (30-30) to 15 (12-30) [p < 0.0001]. After initiation of dual therapy, the median MMDs was further decreased from 15 (12-30) to 8 (3-22) [p < 0.0001]. A majority [132/194 (68.0%)] of the dual-therapy patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MMD and 90/194 (46.4%) reported a ≥ 75% reduction. For the consecutive monotherapy group, median MMDs changed from a baseline of 30 (25-30) to 15 (8-25) from onabot monotherapy and decreased from 25 (15-30) to 12 (4-25) after anti-CGRP mAb monotherapy. Almost half (113/229 [49.3%] from onabot, and 104/229 [45.4%] from anti-CGRP mAb) of these patients achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs and a minority (38/229 [16.6%] from onabot, and 45/229 [19.7%] from anti-CGRP mAb) achieved a reduction of ≥ 75%. Additionally, dual therapy showed significant improvement in MMDs compared with monotherapy of either treatment (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dual therapy of anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot may be more efficacious than monotherapy, possibly due to their synergistic mechanisms of action.

Reducing the Impact of Headache and Allodynia Score in Chronic Migraine: An Exploratory Analysis from the Real-World Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling and hard-to-treat condition, associated with high disability and high cost. Among the preventive treatments, botulinum toxin A (BoNT-a) and monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related protein (anti-CGRP mAbs) are the only disease-specific ones. The assessment of the disease burden is complex, and among others, tools such as the allodynia symptoms checklist (ASC-12) and headache impact test (HIT-6) are very useful. This exploratory study analysed the impact of these two therapies on migraine burden. METHODS: The RAMO study was a multicentre, observational, retrospective investigation conducted in two headache centres: the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (Milan) and the Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico (Rome). This study involved patients with chronic migraine treated with mAbs or BoNT-A. We conducted a subgroup exploratory analysis on HIT-6 and ASC-12 scores in the two groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were performed. RESULTS: Of 126 patients, 36 on mAbs and 90 on BoNT-A had at least one available follow-up. mAbs resulted in a mean reduction of -11.1 and -11.4 points, respectively, in the HIT-6 at 6 and 12 months, while BoNT-A was reduced -3.2 and -3.6 points, respectively; the mAbs arm resulted in mean reductions in ASC-12 at 6 and 12 months of follow-up of -5.2 and -6.0 points, respectively, while BoNT-A showed lesser mean changes of -0.5 and -0.9 points, respectively. The adjusted analysis confirmed our results. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, anti-CGRP mAbs showed superior effectiveness for HIT-6 and ASC12 compared to BoNT-A. Reductions in terms of month headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and migraine acute medications (MAM) were clinically relevant for both treatments.

Nonspecific oral medications versus anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs). BACKGROUND: Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs. METHODS: Databases were searched for class I or II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGRP mAbs or NOEPs versus placebo for migraine prevention in adults. The primary outcome measure was monthly migraine days (MMD) or moderate to severe headache days. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs for CGRP mAbs, 5 RCTs for topiramate, and 3 RCTs for divalproex were included in the meta-analysis. There was high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, with weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% confidence interval) of -1.64 (-1.99 to -1.28) MMD, which is compatible with small effect size (Cohen's d -0.25 [-0.34 to -0.16]). Certainty of evidence that topiramate or divalproex is more effective than placebo was very low and low, respectively (WMD -1.45 [-1.52 to -1.38] and -1.65 [-2.30 to -1.00], respectively; Cohen's d -1.25 [-2.47 to -0.03] and -0.48 [-0.67 to -0.29], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that information size was adequate and that CGRP mAbs had clear benefit versus placebo. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CGRP mAbs and topiramate (WMD -0.19 [-0.56 to 0.17]) or divalproex (0.01 [-0.73 to 0.75]). No significant difference was seen between topiramate or divalproex (0.21 [-0.45 to 0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: There is high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, but the effect size is small. When feasible, CGRP mAbs may be prescribed as first-line preventives; topiramate or divalproex could be as effective but are less well tolerated. The findings of this study support the recently published 2024 position of the American Headache Society on the use of CGRP mAbs as the first-line treatment.

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

BACKGROUND: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) have greatly changed migraine treatment options. In Japan, although CGRPmAb guidelines (≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) and ≥ 1 previous preventive failure) are well-acknowledged, the actual use of CGRPmAbs and the circumstances of the related headache care are unknown. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of Japanese Headache Society members, inquiring about the physicians' experience with CGRPmAbs and how they make decisions related to their use. RESULTS: Of the 397 respondents, 320 had prescribed CGRPmAbs. The threshold number of previous preventive failures for recommending a CGRPmAb was two for the majority of the respondents (n = 170, 54.5%), followed by one (n = 64, 20.5%). The MMD threshold was ≥ 4 for 71 respondents (22.8%), ≥ 6 for 68 (21.8%), ≥ 8 for 76 (24.4%), and ≥ 10 for 81 (26.0%). The respondents tended to assess treatment efficacy after 3 months (episodic migraine: n = 217, 69.6%, chronic migraine: n = 188, 60.3%). The cost of CGRPmAbs was described by many respondents in two questions: (i) any request for a CGRPmAb (27.7%), and (ii) the most frequently reported reason for responders to discontinue CGRPmAbs (24.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the respondents recommended CGRPmAbs to patients with ≥ 2 preventive failures, followed by ≥ 1. The MMD threshold ranged mostly from ≥ 4 to ≥ 10. The concern for costs was raised as a major limiting factor for prescribing CGRPmAbs.

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

OBJECTIVE: To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches. METHODS: Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. RESULTS: The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare. CONCLUSION: The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine: Focus on Drug Interactions.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide neurotransmission was the target for recent development of monoclonal antibodies that effectively prevent attacks of both episodic and chronic migraine. The aim of this narrative review was to offer deeper insight into drug-drug, drug-food and drug-disease interactions of monoclonal antibodies approved for prevention of migraine attacks. For this narrative review, relevant literature was searched for in MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, covering the 1966-2023 and 2006-2023 periods, respectively. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was also searched for relevant clinical studies whose results had not been published previously in medical journals, covering 2000-2023. Monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab) augment prophylactic action of gepants and onabotulinumtoxin A and somewhat increase efficacy of triptans used to abort migraine attacks; however, their adverse reactions may also be augmented. Pharmacokinetic interactions and interactions in general with drugs used for other indications except migraine are negligible, as are drug-food interactions. However, monoclonal antibodies may worsen diseases with already weakened CGRP neurotransmission, Raynaud phenomenon and constipation. Monoclonal antibodies used for prevention of migraine do not engage in significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs; however, they do engage in pharmacodynamic interactions with other anti-migraine drugs, additively augmenting their prophylactic action, but also increasing frequency and severity of adverse reactions, which are a consequence of the CGRP neurotransmission interruption.

Impact of multiple treatment cycles with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine course: focus on discontinuation periods. Insights from the multicenter, prospective, I-GRAINE study.

OBJECTIVES: While a single 12-month treatment cycle (TrC) with anti-CGRP mAbs is not disease-modifying for most patients, there is limited understanding of the effects of multiple TrCs on migraine course. We evaluated whether a second TrC might modify the migraine course by comparing the occurrence of migraine relapse after discontinuation of the second TrC to that following the cessation of the first TrC. METHODS: In a real-life, multicenter, prospective study we considered all consecutive patients diagnosed with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) with > 3 treatment failures and treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 2 consecutive 12-month TrCs who were responders at week 12. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) for HFEM or monthly headache days (MHD) for CM at the first month of treatment discontinuation after the second TrC (D2) compared to the first TrC (D1). Secondary endpoints included variations in monthly analgesic medications (MAM), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates, and relapse from episodic migraine to CM and from no-medication overuse (MO) to MO at D2 vs. D1. RESULTS: One-hundred-seventy-eight patients completed two 12-month TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs. At D2, patients experienced a significant reduction in MMD (- 0.6, p = 0.028), MHD (- 2.6, p < 0.001), monthly analgesic medications (- 2.0, p < 0.001), and HIT-6 score (- 2.2, p < 0.001) compared to D1, indicating improved effectiveness. The ≥ 50% response rate at weeks 45-48 during the first TrC was 95.5%, while at weeks 45-48 of the second TrC was 99.4%. Corresponding rates at D1 was 20.2% whereas at D2 was 51.6% (p < 0.0001). No statistical difference emerged in ≥ 75% and 100% responders. The relapse rate from episodic migraine to CM at D2 was lower than at D1 (12.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.0002) Fewer patients experienced relapse from no-MO to MO at D2 compared to D1 (29.5% vs 68.7%; p = 0.00001). DISCUSSION: A second TrC with anti-CGRP mAbs demonstrated clinical improvements compared to the first one, as indicated by a milder migraine relapse at D2 compared to D1. Multiple TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs could progressively modify migraine evolution by reducing CGRP-dependent neuroinflammatory nociceptive inputs to the brain.

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway improve the effectiveness of acute medication-a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: One of the aims of migraine prevention is to improve response to acute migraine treatments. The aim of the present study was to assess whether monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (CGRP-mAbs) can improve the perceived efficacy of acute treatments. METHODS: We included and followed up patients with chronic or episodic migraine from the Headache Centers of Avezzano-L'Aquila and Naples treated with CGRP-mAbs from March 2021 to December 2022. All patients filled out the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (MTOQ), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and the Migraine Impact and Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) at baseline and 3-6 months after the start of treatment with CGRP-mAbs. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (81.3%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Most patients were female (55, 84.6%), with a median age of 46 years (IQR 39-56). Median MTOQ score increased from 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-13) at baseline to 15 (IQR 11-17) at 3 months (p < 0.001) and 16 (IQR 13-17) at the 6-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Median migraine days over 90-day periods decreased from 40 (IQR 24-60) to 24 (IQR 15-30) at 3 months (p < 0.001) and to 20 (IQR 12-24) at 6 months (p < 0.001). Median monthly intake of acute medication decreased from 55 doses (IQR 29-80.5) to 24 doses (IQR 15-40) at 3 months and 18 doses (IQR 11-30) at 6 months (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that 6 months of preventive treatment with CGRP-mAbs led to a significantly better effectiveness of acute treatments, paralleled by decreased monthly migraine days and acute treatment intake.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan and CGRP-antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1. RESULTS: A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons.

C. difficile intoxicates neurons and pericytes to drive neurogenic inflammation.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated gastrointestinal infections1,2. The exaggerated colonic inflammation caused by C. difficile toxins such as toxin B (TcdB) damages tissues and promotes C. difficile colonization3-6, but how TcdB causes inflammation is unclear. Here we report that TcdB induces neurogenic inflammation by targeting gut-innervating afferent neurons and pericytes through receptors, including the Frizzled receptors (FZD1, FZD2 and FZD7) in neurons and chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 (CSPG4) in pericytes. TcdB stimulates the secretion of the neuropeptides substance P (SP) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) from neurons and pro-inflammatory cytokines from pericytes. Targeted delivery of the TcdB enzymatic domain, through fusion with a detoxified diphtheria toxin, into peptidergic sensory neurons that express exogeneous diphtheria toxin receptor (an approach we term toxogenetics) is sufficient to induce neurogenic inflammation and recapitulates major colonic histopathology associated with CDI. Conversely, mice lacking SP, CGRP or the SP receptor (neurokinin 1 receptor) show reduced pathology in both models of caecal TcdB injection and CDI. Blocking SP or CGRP signalling reduces tissue damage and C. difficile burden in mice infected with a standard C. difficile strain or with hypervirulent strains expressing the TcdB2 variant. Thus, targeting neurogenic inflammation provides a host-oriented therapeutic approach for treating CDI.

Trajectory of blood pressure after initiating anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment of migraine: a target trial emulation from the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is involved in migraine pathophysiology and blood pressure regulation. Although clinical trials have established the cardio-cerebrovascular safety profile of anti-CGRP treatment, limited high-quality real-world evidence exists on its long-term effects on blood pressure (BP). To address this gap, we examined the safety of anti-CGRP treatment on BP in patients with migraine headache in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: We emulated a target trial of patients who initiated anti-CGRP treatment or topiramate for migraine prevention between May 17th, 2018 and February 28th, 2023. We calculated stabilized inverse probability weights to balance between groups and then used weighted linear mixed-effect models to estimate the systolic and diastolic BP changes over the study period. For patients without hypertension at baseline, we estimated the cumulative incidence of hypertension using Kaplan-Meier curve. We also used weight mixed-effect Poisson model to estimate the number of antihypertension medications for patients with hypertension at baseline. RESULTS: This analysis included 69,589 patients and 554,437 blood pressure readings. of these, 18,880 patients received anti-CGRP treatment, and they were more likely to be women, have a chronic migraine diagnosis and higher healthcare utilization than those received topiramate. Among patients without hypertension at baseline, we found no significant differences in systolic BP changes over the four-year follow-up between anti-CGRP (slope [standard error, SE] = 0.48[0.06]) and topiramate treated patients (slope[SE] = 0.39[0.04]). The incidence of hypertension was similar for anti-CGRP and topiramate group (4.4 vs 4.3 per 100 person-years). Among patients with hypertension at baseline who initiated anti-CGRP treatment, we found a small but persistent effect on exacerbating hypertension during the first four years of treatment, as evidenced by a significant annual 3.7% increase in the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed (RR = 1.037, 95%CI 1.025-1.048). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that anti-CGRP treatment is safe regarding blood pressure in patients without hypertension. However, for those with baseline hypertension, anti-CGRP treatment resulted in a small but persistent increase in the number of antihypertensives, indicating an exacerbation of hypertension. Future studies are needed to evaluate the cardio-cerebrovascular safety of anti-CGRP treatment beyond the first four years.

[Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the Italian scenario.] / Anticorpi monoclonali anti-CGRP per il trattamento preventivo degli attacchi di emicrania: un'analisi costo-efficacia nello scenario italiano.

Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies anti the calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand (anti-Cgrp mAbs) have demonstrated a good effectiveness in the prevention of migraine. This review was carried out with the aim of collecting evidence of anti-Cgrp mAbs efficacy assessing the cost-effectiveness between these medicines distributed in the Italian market. The literature review was performed on the PubMed database; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-Cgrp mAbs has been extracted consulting two Italian national databases. Our study confirms efficacy and good tolerability of anti-Cgrp mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. With equal efficacy and safety, anti-Cgrp mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the national healthcare service resources. Therefore, Ssn pharmacist's role can be crucial to the proper management of pharmaceutical expenditure governance in support of treatment effectiveness and economic sustainability.

OnabotulinumtoxinA Add-On to Monoclonal Anti-CGRP Antibodies in Treatment-Refractory Chronic Migraine.

We sought to assess the effectiveness of combining dual therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA (BTX) add-on to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP MAbs) in treatment-refractory patients with chronic migraine (CM). We retrospectively reviewed the medical files of 19 treatment-refractory patients with CM who had failed to two oral migraine preventatives, at least three consecutive BTX cycles (less than 30% response rate), at least three consecutive sessions with either fremanezumab or erenumab (less than 30% response rate), and were eventually switched to dual therapy with BTX add-on to any of the already-given anti-CGRP MAbs. We then assessed from baseline to each monotherapy or dual intervention predefined efficacy follow-up the changes in the following efficacy outcomes: (i) monthly headache days (MHD), (ii) monthly days with moderate/severe peak headache intensity, and (iii) monthly days with intake of any acute headache medication. Response (50% reduction in MHD) rates, safety, and tolerability were also determined. In the majority of cases (n = 14), dual targeting proved effective and was associated with clinically meaningful improvement in all efficacy variables; 50% response rates (also disability and QOL outcomes) coupled with favorable safety/tolerability. Our results advocate in favor of the view that dual therapy is effective and should be considered in difficult-to-treat CM patients who have failed all available monotherapies.

Is prednisone still a reasonable option in the treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in the age of CGRP antibodies? A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Along with the development of novel migraine therapies as the monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor, the question arises if the treatment of chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH) must be reconsidered. Have previous therapeutic approaches, including glucocorticoids, lost their role in the management of this debilitating disorder? In this narrative review, we present an overview of the available treatment options in CM and MOH in light of CGRP antibodies as well as an evaluation of the role of glucocorticoids in withdrawal therapy. BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine and medication overuse continues to be a difficult to treat condition. To date, potent treatment options are scarce and algorithms for advising patients with MOH are often still based on expert consensus rather than evidence-based medicine. For years and probably due to lack of effective alternatives, glucocorticoids have been used in MOH, especially to alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused by detoxification. Small case series report positive effects of steroids in this respective patient group; however, randomized controlled trials did not show a consistent benefit, although this may be due to methodological limitations. Because of these discrepancies, their role in MOH has been under debate ever since. METHODS: We searched the electronic database PubMed for articles up to June 1, 2022 on the use of glucocorticoids in CM and MOH. CONCLUSION: Despite popular use in clinical practice, there is currently still no scientific evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids in patients with CM and MOH. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies achieved high transition rates from medication overuse to non-overuse. However, further research is needed to evaluate the additional benefit of these new agents.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Episodic Migraine: part I.

The Brazilian Headache Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia, SBCe, in Portuguese) nominated a Committee of Authors with the aim of establishing a consensus with recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine based on articles published in the worldwide literature, as well as personal experience. Migraine affects 1 billion people around the world and more than 30 million Brazilians. In addition, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder. It is well known within the medical community of neurologists, and especially among headache specialists, that there is a need to disseminate knowledge about prophylactic treatment for migraine. For this purpose, together with the need for drug updates and to expand knowledge of the disease itself (frequency, intensity, duration, impact and perhaps the progression of migraine), this Consensus was developed, following a full online methodology, by 12 groups who reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of the drugs used and, at the end of the process, met to read and establish conclusions for this document. The drug classes studied were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) antibodies, beta-blockers, antihypertensives, calcium channel inhibitors, other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, and dual-action antidepressants), other drugs, and polytherapy. Hormonal treatment and anti-inflammatories and triptans in minimum prophylaxis schemes (miniprophylaxis) will be covered in a specific chapter. The drug classes studied for part I of the Consensus were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies, and beta-blockers.

A Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia (SBCe) nomeou um Comitê de Autores com o objetivo de estabelecer um consenso com recomendações sobre o tratamento profilático da enxaqueca episódica com base em artigos da literatura mundial e da experiência pessoal. A enxaqueca é um distúrbio subdiagnosticado e subtratado que acomete um bilhão de pessoas no mundo e mais de 30 milhões de brasileiros. É conhecido na comunidade médica de neurologistas e, sobretudo, dos especialistas em cefaleia, a necessidade de se divulgar o conhecimento sobre o tratamento profilático da enxaqueca. Com esta finalidade, aliada às necessidades de atualizações de drogas e de se aumentar o conhecimento sobre a doença em si (frequência, intensidade, duração, impacto e talvez a progressão da enxaqueca), foi elaborado este Consenso, com metodologia totalmente on-line, por 12 grupos que revisaram e escreveram sobre as categorias farmacológicas das drogas e, ao final, reuniram-se para a leitura e conclusão do documento. As classes de drogas estudadas para este Consenso foram: anticonvulsivantes, antidepressivos tricíclicos, anticorpos monoclonais do antipeptídeo relacionado ao gene da calcitonina (peptídeo relacionado ao gene da calcitonina ­ anti-CGRP), betabloqueadores, anti-hipertensivos, inibidores dos canais de cálcio, outros antidepressivos (inibidores seletivos de recaptação de serotonina, ISRSs, e antidepressivos de ação dual), outras drogas, e politerapia. O tratamento hormonal, bem como anti-inflamatórios e triptanas em esquema de profilaxia mínima (miniprofilaxia), será abordado em um capítulo próprio. As classes de drogas estudadas na parte I do Consenso foram: anticonvulsivantes, antidepressivos tricíclicos, anticorpos monoclonais anti-CGRP, e betabloqueadores.