Clinical Immunogenicity Evaluation of Eptinezumab, a Therapeutic Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

Background: Eptinezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds calcitonin gene-related peptide and is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis characterizes the immunogenic profile of eptinezumab using data from clinical trials of eptinezumab for migraine prevention. Methods: Immunogenicity data were collected from five studies that included 2076 patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab at dose levels ranging from 10 to 1000 mg, administered intravenously for up to 4 doses at 12-week intervals. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) results were available from 2074 of these patients. Four studies were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with ADA monitoring for up to 56 weeks; one was a 2-year, open-label, phase 3 safety study with ADA monitoring for 104 weeks. Patients who had a confirmed ADA-positive result at the end-of-study visit were monitored for up to 6 additional months. Development of ADA and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were evaluated to explore three key areas of potential impact: pharmacokinetic exposure profile (eptinezumab trough plasma concentrations), efficacy (change in monthly migraine days), and safety (rates of treatment-emergent adverse events). These studies included methods designed to capture the dynamics of a potential humoral immune response to eptinezumab treatment, and descriptive analyses were applied to interpret the relationship of ADA signals to drug exposure, efficacy, and safety. Results: Pooled across the five clinical trials, treatment-emergent ADAs and NAbs occurred in 15.8 and 6.2% of eptinezumab-treated patients, respectively. Highly consistent profiles were observed across all studies, with initial onset of detectable ADA observed at the week 8 measurement and maximal ADA frequency and titer observed at week 24, regardless of eptinezumab dose level or number of doses. After 24 weeks, the ADA and NAb titers steadily declined despite additional doses of eptinezumab. Interpretation: Collectively, these integrated analyses did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful impact from ADA occurring after treatment with eptinezumab. The ADA profiles were low titer and transient, with the incidence and magnitude of ADA or NAb responses declining after week 24. Development of ADAs and NAbs did not impact the efficacy and safety profiles of eptinezumab.

Eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine: efficacy and safety through 24 weeks of treatment in the phase 3 PROMISE-2 (Prevention of migraine via intravenous ALD403 safety and efficacy-2) study.

BACKGROUND: PROMISE-2 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of repeat intravenous (IV) doses of the calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibody eptinezumab (ALD403) for migraine prevention in adults with chronic migraine. This report describes the results of PROMISE-2 through 24 weeks of treatment. METHODS: Patients received up to two 30-min IV administrations of eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo separated by 12 weeks. Patients recorded migraine and headache endpoints in a daily eDiary. Additional assessments, including patient-reported outcomes, were performed at regularly scheduled clinic visits throughout the 32-week study period (screening, day 0, and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 32). RESULTS: A total of 1072 adults received treatment: eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 356; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366. The reduction in mean monthly migraine days observed during the first dosing interval (100 mg, - 7.7 days; 300 mg, - 8.2 days; placebo, - 5.6 days) was further decreased after an additional dose (100 mg, - 8.2 days; 300 mg, - 8.8 days; placebo, - 6.2 days), with both doses of eptinezumab demonstrating consistently greater reductions from baseline compared to placebo. The ≥50% and ≥ 75% migraine responder rates (MRRs) increased after a second dose, with more eptinezumab-treated patients experiencing migraine response than placebo patients (≥50% MRRs weeks 13-24: 100 mg, 61.0%; 300 mg, 64.0%; placebo, 44.0%; and ≥ 75% MRRs weeks 13-24: 100 mg, 39.3%; 300 mg, 43.1%; placebo, 23.8%). The percentages of patients who improved on patient-reported outcomes, including the Headache Impact Test and Patient Global Impression of Change, increased following the second dose administration at week 12, and were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. No new safety concerns were identified with the second dose regarding the incidence, nature, and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: Eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg administered IV at day 0 and repeated at week 12 provided sustained migraine preventive benefit over a full 24 weeks and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in patients with chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02974153 ). Registered November 23, 2016.

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine: PROMISE-2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab, a humanized anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The Prevention of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy-2 (PROMISE-2) study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults with CM were randomly assigned to receive IV eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo administered on day 0 and week 12. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) over weeks 1 to 12. RESULTS: Among treated participants (n = 1,072), baseline mean number of MMDs was ≈16.1 across groups. Treatment with eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg was associated with significant reductions in MMDs across weeks 1 to 12 compared with placebo (placebo -5.6, 100 mg -7.7, p < 0.0001 vs placebo; 300 mg -8.2, p < 0.0001 vs placebo). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 43.5% (100 mg), 52.0% (300 mg), and 46.7% (placebo) of patients. Nasopharyngitis was the only TEAE reported for >2% of eptinezumab-treated patients at an incidence of >2% over placebo; it occurred in the 300 mg eptinezumab arm (eptinezumab 9.4%, placebo 6.0%). CONCLUSION: In patients with CM, eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg was associated with a significant reduction in MMDs from the day after IV administration through week 12, was well tolerated, and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with CM, a single dose of eptinezumab reduces MMDs over 12 weeks of treatment. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02974153.

Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab, a humanized anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: The PRevention Of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy-1 (PROMISE-1) study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults with episodic migraine were randomized to eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo for up to four intravenous (IV) doses administered every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) over weeks 1-12. RESULTS: A total of 888 patients received treatment across 84 study sites. Mean MMDs at baseline was ∼8.6 across treatment groups. Eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg met the primary endpoint, significantly reducing MMDs across weeks 1-12 compared with placebo (30 mg, -4.0; 100 mg, -3.9, p = 0.0182; 300 mg, -4.3; placebo, -3.2, p = 0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 58.4% (30 mg), 63.2% (100 mg), 57.6% (300 mg), and 59.5% (placebo) of patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥2% of eptinezumab-treated patients at an incidence greater than placebo included: upper respiratory tract infection (30 mg, 11.4%; 100 mg, 9.9%; 300 mg, 10.3%; placebo, 7.2%), and fatigue (30 mg, 2.3%; 100 mg, 3.6%; 300 mg, 3.6%; placebo, <1%). CONCLUSION: Eptinezumab (100 mg or 300 mg) significantly reduced migraine frequency, was well tolerated, and had an acceptable safety profile when used for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults with episodic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02559895.

The Research and Evaluation of Antipsychotic Treatment in Community Behavioral Health Organizations, Outcomes (REACH-OUT) study: real-world clinical practice in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient facilities, such as community behavioral health organizations (CBHOs), play a critical role in the care of patients with serious mental illness, but there is a paucity of "real-world" patient outcomes data from this health care setting. Therefore, we conducted The Research and Evaluation of Antipsychotic Treatment in Community Behavioral Health Organizations, Outcomes (REACH-OUT) trial, a real-world, prospective, noninterventional observational study of patients with mental illness treated at CBHOs across the United States. We describe demographic and clinical characteristics, antipsychotic therapy (APT) treatment patterns, and health care resource utilization in patients with schizophrenia undergoing medical care as usual. METHODS: This study enrolled adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder who initiated APT treatment at various time points: 1) within 8 weeks of initiating risperidone long-acting injectables (RLAIs) or other APTs except paliperidone palmitate (PP), 2) after more than 24 weeks of continuous RLAI treatment, or 3) at any time after initiating PP LAI treatment (schizophrenia only). Study assessments were performed via participant interview, medical chart abstraction, and clinical survey at enrollment and at month 12. RESULTS: A total of 1065 patients from 46 CBHOs were enrolled. Of these, 944 (88.6%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and 121 (11.4%) had bipolar I disorder. At enrollment, 599 (63.5%) of patients with schizophrenia were receiving RLAIs or PP LAI, 281 (29.8%) were receiving oral APTs, and 64 (6.8%) were receiving other injectable APTs. A number of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes were observed between patients in the LAI APT cohort and the oral APT cohort. CONCLUSION: Descriptive analyses from this observational study suggest differences in the patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical and economic outcomes among those with schizophrenia treated at CBHOs with LAI APT or oral APTs. Additional analyses will be conducted to delineate the impact of LAI APT versus oral APTs on patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry: NCT01181960 . Registered 12 August 2010.

Tolerability and efficacy of tapentadol extended release in elderly patients ≥ 75 years of age with chronic osteoarthritis knee or low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Management of chronic pain in elderly adult patients is often complicated by analgesic medication-related side effects. This post hoc analysis of pooled data evaluated the tolerability and analgesic efficacy of tapentadol extended release (ER) compared with oxycodone controlled release (CR) in elderly adult patients (≥ 75 years of age) with moderate to severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee or low back pain. METHODS: Data were pooled from three similarly designed, randomized, doubleblind, placebo- and active-controlled, phase 3 studies of tapentadol ER for moderate to severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee (NCT00421928, NCT00486811) or low back (NCT00449176) pain, and data for patients ≥ 75 years of age were evaluated. Each study consisted of a 3-week titration and 12-week maintenance period. Patients received placebo, tapentadol ER (100-250 mg bid), or oxycodone HCl CR (20-50 mg bid). Tolerability was evaluated using adverse event reporting. Efficacy was evaluated using pain intensity ratings (11-point numerical rating scale). RESULTS: For patients ≥ 75 years of age (n = 210), incidences of gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall and TEAEs of vomiting and the composite of nausea and/or vomiting were significantly lower in the tapentadol ER group compared with the oxycodone CR group (all p ≤ 0.0206). Tapentadol ER treatment was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity from baseline to week 15 compared with placebo (p = 0.0075); differences between the oxycodone CR and placebo groups failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.1195), likely related to a higher treatment discontinuation rate in the oxycodone CR group. No significant differences were observed between the tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR groups in the change in pain intensity from baseline to week 15 (p = 0.2135). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly adult patients ≥ 75 years of age with moderate to severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee or low back pain, tapentadol ER (100-250 mg bid) provided significant pain relief compared with placebo and had a better overall gastrointestinal tolerability profile than oxycodone CR.

Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain.

UNLABELLED: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a self-report instrument used to evaluate depression and anxiety in clinical research. The HADS has advantages over other assessments of anxiety and depression; it is efficient in assessing both anxiety and depression with a total of 14 items, and it was originally developed on a general medical rather than psychiatric sample. However, the HADS has not been evaluated specifically for use in clinical trials of acute pain. Validation analyses were conducted on data from a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of tapentadol immediate release vs oxycodone immediate release for acute low back pain (N = 666). Analyses of psychometric properties, internal consistency, convergent validity, assessments of bias, and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted on pretreatment data. Additional analyses were performed to test the responsiveness and predictive validity of the HADS. Both the Anxiety and Depression subscales (1) showed good psychometric properties, (2) had high internal consistency, (3) displayed good convergent validity, (4) had no unexpected biases, (5) fit the a priori factor structure, and (6) were highly sensitive to changes as a result of analgesic treatment. We conclude that the HADS is a valid instrument for efficient, low-burden assessment of anxiety and depression in clinical trials with an acute low back pain population. PERSPECTIVE: Considered together with the results of other recent studies, the data suggest that the HADS can provide a valid, responsive, and efficient assessment of anxiety and depression in acute low back pain for clinical trials and other clinical research examining acute pain populations.

Validation of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) in acute low back pain.

UNLABELLED: The Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) assesses the major symptoms of both neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain and can be used in studies of epidemiology, natural history, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and treatment response. Previous research has demonstrated its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in diverse samples of patients with chronic pain. However, the SF-MPQ-2 has not been evaluated for use in patients with acute pain. Data were examined from a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of immediate-release tapentadol versus immediate-release oxycodone in patients with acute low back and associated radicular leg pain (N = 666). Analyses of internal consistency, convergent validity, and confirmatory factor structure were conducted using baseline data, and analyses of responsiveness were conducted using baseline and endpoint data. The SF-MPQ-2 total score and its 4 subscale scores (continuous pain, intermittent pain, predominantly neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors) generally showed good psychometric properties and 1) were internally consistent, 2) displayed good convergent validity, 3) fit the a priori factor structure, and 4) were highly responsive to analgesic treatment. These data extend previous evidence of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the SF-MPQ-2 in patients with chronic pain to those with acute low back and associated radicular leg pain. PERSPECTIVE: Considered together with the results of other recent studies, the data suggest that the SF-MPQ-2 can provide a valid, responsive, and efficient assessment of both neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain qualities for clinical trials and other clinical research examining patients with various acute and chronic pain conditions.

Evaluation of blood pressure and heart rate in patients with hypertension who received tapentadol extended release for chronic pain: a post hoc, pooled data analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension is one of the most common co-existing conditions in patients with chronic pain, and the potential effects of an analgesic on heart rate and blood pressure are of particular concern for patients with hypertension. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate changes in blood pressure and heart rate with tapentadol extended release (ER) treatment in patients with hypertension. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of data pooled from three randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, phase III studies of tapentadol ER for managing chronic osteoarthritis knee (NCT00421928, NCT00486811) or low back (NCT00449176) pain (15-week, double-blind treatment period). Data were independently analyzed for patients with a listed medical history of hypertension at baseline and patients with at least one listed concomitant antihypertensive medication at baseline. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured at each visit. RESULTS: In patients with a listed medical history of hypertension (n = 1,464), least-squares mean (LSM [standard error (SE)]) changes from baseline to endpoint with placebo, tapentadol ER, and oxycodone HCl controlled release (CR), respectively, were -0.7 (0.44), 0.2 (0.43), and -0.9 (0.45) beats per minute (bpm) for heart rate; -2.4 (0.64), -2.7 (0.64), and -3.7 (0.67) mmHg for SBP; and -1.0 (0.39), -1.3 (0.39), and -2.3 (0.41) mmHg for DBP; in patients with at least one listed concomitant antihypertensive medication (n = 1,376), the LSM (SE) changes from baseline to endpoint were -0.6 (0.45), 0.1 (0.44), and -0.7 (0.47) bpm for heart rate; -1.8 (0.66), -3.3 (0.65), and -3.7 (0.69) mmHg for SBP; and -0.7 (0.40), -1.4 (0.40), and -2.3 (0.42) mmHg for DBP. CONCLUSION: No clinically meaningful mean changes in heart rate or blood pressure were observed for the evaluated cohorts of patients with hypertension who were treated with tapentadol ER (100-250 mg twice daily).

Economic burden of back and neck pain: effect of a neuropathic component.

This was a retrospective database analysis (2001-2009) of employees' medical, prescription drug, and absence costs and days from sick leave, short- and long-term disability, and workers' compensation. Employees with an ICD-9 diagnostic code for back or neck pain and an ICD-9 for a back- or neck-related neuropathic condition (eg, myelopathy, compression of the spinal cord, neuritis, radiculitis) or radiculopathy were considered to have nociceptive back or neck pain with a neuropathic component. Employees with an ICD-9 for back pain or neck pain and no ICD-9 for a back- or neck-related neuropathic condition or radiculopathy were defined to have nociceptive back or neck pain. Patients with nociceptive back or neck pain with a neuropathic component were classified as having or not having prior nociceptive pain. Annual costs (medical and prescription drug costs and absence costs) and days from sick leave, short- and long-term disability, and workers' compensation were evaluated. Mean annual total costs were highest ($8512) for nociceptive pain with a neuropathic component with prior nociceptive pain (n=9162 employees), $7126 for nociceptive pain with a neuropathic component with no prior nociceptive pain (n=5172), $5574 for nociceptive pain only (n=35,347), and $3017 for control employees with no back or neck pain diagnosis (n=226,683). Medical, short-term disability, and prescription drugs yielded the highest incremental costs compared to controls. Mean total absence days/year were 8.26, 7.86, 5.70, and 3.44, respectively. The economic burden of back pain or neck pain is increased when associated with a neuropathic component.

Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to evaluate whether topiramate prevents development of chronic daily headache (CDH, ≥15 headache days per month) in adult subjects with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM, 9-14 migraine headache days/month). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of topiramate as preventive migraine treatment in this population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing topiramate 100 mg/day and placebo for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was new-onset CDH at month 6. Secondary efficacy measures included migraine and headache days. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 159 topiramate subjects and 171 placebo subjects were efficacy-evaluable. At month 6, 1.4% of topiramate subjects versus 2.3% of placebo subjects had CDH (p = .589). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean number of migraine days (6.6 vs. 5.3/28 days; p = .001) and headache days (6.6 vs 5.3/28 days; p = .001). Most commonly reported AEs in the topiramate versus placebo group included paresthesia (32.4% vs. 7.0%), fatigue (14.8% vs. 8.6%), dizziness (11.4% vs. 7.6%) and nausea (10.8% vs. 9.2%). CONCLUSION: Topiramate 100 mg/day did not prevent the development of CDH at six months in subjects with HFEM. Topiramate was effective in reducing headache days and migraine headache days and generally well tolerated.

Long-term, open-label safety study of oral almotriptan 12.5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the long-term safety of oral almotriptan 12.5 mg for the treatment of multiple migraine episodes in adolescents over a 12-month period. Efficacy outcomes were assessed as a secondary objective. METHODS: Adolescent migraineurs aged 12-17 years were enrolled in this 12-month, open-label study (Study ID CR002827). Patients were instructed to record their assessments on paper headache records whenever they experienced a migraine headache that they treated with study medication. Safety was assessed descriptively and assessments included adverse event (AE) recording, change in laboratory values, vital signs, and electrocardiogram parameters. Efficacy outcomes were assessed descriptively and outcomes included rates for 2- and 24-hour pain relief and sustained pain relief, 2- and 24-hour pain-free and sustained pain-free, and presence of migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Overall, 67.1% of patients reported >or=1 AE over the course of the trial, 7.6% had an AE judged by the study investigator to be related to treatment with almotriptan, 2.4% discontinued because of an AE, and 1.9% reported serious AEs. The most commonly reported treatment-related AEs (occurring in >or=1% of patients) were nausea (1.4%) and somnolence (1.4%). Pain relief responses for treated migraines of moderate or severe intensity at baseline were 61.7% and 68.6%, at 2 and 24 hours, respectively; the sustained pain relief rate was 55.5%. Pain-free responses were reported for 40.5% of all treated migraines at 2 hours and 65.9% of treated migraines at 24 hours; the sustained pain-free rate was 38.4%. The proportion of migraines that achieved the pain relief, sustained pain relief, pain-free and sustained pain-free endpoints were similar in the 12- to 14-year and 15- to 17-year age groups. Treating with almotriptan 12.5 mg when headache pain was mild was associated with higher rates of pain relief and pain-free at 2 and 24 hours, and sustained pain relief and sustained pain-free, compared with treatment initiated when pain was severe. CONCLUSIONS: Almotriptan 12.5 mg was well tolerated in this adolescent population over a 12-month period. No unexpected safety or tolerability concerns were revealed over the course of this study. The results are consistent with almotriptan 12.5 mg being effective for the acute treatment of pain and symptoms associated with migraine in both younger and older adolescents.

Carisbamate in essential tremor: brief report of a proof of concept study.

The efficacy and safety of carisbamate, an investigational neuromodulator currently in development for epilepsy, were examined in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled study of essential tremor. Sixty-two patients (intent-to-treat analysis set; mean age 64 years; 66% men) received carisbamate 400 mg/day or matching placebo in a crossover study design with two 21-day treatment periods. The Fahn-Tolosa-Marín Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) was the primary assessment tool. Carisbamate and placebo treatment did not differ in their effect on the TRS (P = 0.94) or on measures of affect, mood, or quality of life. Carisbamate was generally well tolerated and had an adverse event profile comparable to that of placebo.

Electronic medical records as a research tool: evaluating topiramate use at a headache center.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMRs) are used in large healthcare centers to increase efficiency and accuracy of documentation. These databases may be utilized for clinical research or to describe clinical practices such as medication usage. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of EMR data from a headache clinic to evaluate clinician prescription use and dosing patterns of topiramate. The study cohort comprised 4833 unique de-identified records, which were used to determine topiramate dose and persistence of treatment. RESULTS: Within the cohort, migraine was the most common headache diagnosis (n = 3753, 77.7%), followed by tension-type headache (n = 338, 7.0%) and cluster or trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (n = 287, 5.9%). Physicians prescribed topiramate more often for subjects with migraine and idiopathic intracranial hypertension (P < .0001) than for those with other conditions, and more often for subjects with coexisting conditions including obesity, bipolar disorder, and depression. The most common maintenance dose of topiramate was 100 mg/day; however, approximately 15% of subjects received either less than 100 mg/day or more than 200 mg/day. More than a third of subjects were prescribed topiramate for more than 1 year, and subjects with a diagnosis of migraine were prescribed topiramate for a longer period of time than those without migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from our study using EMR demonstrate that physicians use topiramate at many different doses and for many off-label indications. This analysis provided important insight into our patient populations and treatment patterns.

Allodynia-associated symptoms, pain intensity and time to treatment: predicting treatment response in acute migraine intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between treatment outcomes and allodynia-associated symptoms (AAS) at the time of treatment with almotriptan. METHODS: Analyses were performed with data collected prospectively from patients in 2 recently completed early intervention trials, AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS) and AXERT 12.5 mg time vs Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS): 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief (AEGIS only), sustained pain free (SPF), use of rescue medication, and median headache duration (AIMS only), in the presence and absence of pretreatment AAS, which was determined by responses to a questionnaire. Analyses were conducted to evaluate possible prognostic variables. RESULTS: The presence of pretreatment AAS did not have a significant effect on 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief or SPF rates, use of rescue medication, or headache duration. Significant factors for most favorable outcomes (greater 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief and SPF rates, less use of rescue medication, and shorter headache duration) included treatment with almotriptan 12.5 mg, treatment of mild or moderate headache pain, and treatment within 1 hour of headache onset. CONCLUSION: Almotriptan 12.5 mg was efficacious in providing 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief, SPF, and reducing rescue medication use irrespective of the presence of AAS at the time of treatment. The most optimal efficacy outcomes occurred when patients treated migraine attacks early and before the onset of severe pain. The presence of AAS, which may indicate an early phase of allodynia, did not influence the efficacy of almotriptan therapy.

Characteristics of migraine attacks and responses to almotriptan treatment: a comparison of menstrually related and nonmenstrually related migraines.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical characteristics of menstrually related migraines (MRMs) and nonmenstrually related migraines (nonMRMs) and to investigate the efficacy of almotriptan in the treatment of these migraine subtypes. DESIGN/METHODS: These are post hoc analyses of data from the AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS), a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial that evaluated adults with IHS-defined migraine with and without aura. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treat 3 consecutive headaches with almotriptan 12.5 mg or matching placebo at the first sign of headache typical of their usual migraine, at any level of pain intensity but within 1 hour of onset. MRMs were defined as those occurring +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow. Post hoc analyses to describe headache characteristics pooled all migraine attacks experienced by patients who reported > or = 1 menses during the study regardless of assigned treatment group. The post hoc efficacy analyses included outcomes of almotriptan treatment compared with placebo treatment for all migraines in patients with a menstrual record. RESULTS: Of the 275 women in the AEGIS intent-to-treat population, 190 (69.1%; 97 almotriptan, 93 placebo; aged 18-54 years) reported > or = 1 menses during the trial. Of the 506 migraines reported by these patients, 95 (18.8%) occurred +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow and were defined as MRM. Aura was associated with 11.7% of MRM and 15.0% of nonMRM. Allodynia-associated symptoms were present with 62.8% of MRM and 57.0% of nonMRM. Prior to treatment, 19.1% of MRM were associated with normal functional ability, 68.1% with disturbed functional ability, and 12.8% required bed rest compared with 18.9%, 68.8%, and 12.3%, respectively, of nonMRM. Pretreatment pain intensity was mild in 40.0%, moderate in 47.4%, and severe in 12.6% of MRM compared with 43.6%, 47.2%, and 9.2%, respectively, of nonMRM. Almotriptan treatment efficacy outcomes for MRM vs nonMRM, respectively, were: 2-hour pain relief, 77.4% vs 68.3%; 2-hour pain free, 35.4% vs 35.9%; and sustained pain free, 22.9% vs 23.8%. Almotriptan was similarly effective in relieving migraine-associated symptoms and improving functional disability associated with both MRM and nonMRM. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to treatment, the presence of migraine-associated characteristics including aura, allodynia-associated symptoms, photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea were similar for both MRM and nonMRM attacks. The pretreatment levels of pain intensity and functional disability were likewise similar across the migraine subtypes. Almotriptan was equally effective in the treatment of both MRM and nonMRM attacks and was associated with an adverse event profile that was similar to placebo treatment.

Is migraine a neuropathic pain syndrome?

The understanding of migraine pathophysiology has evolved from the belief that migraine is a vascular disorder, to evidence that better defines migraine as a neurogenic disorder associated with secondary changes in brain perfusion. There is evidence to suggest that the early phase of migraine pain results from neurogenic inflammation affecting cranial blood vessels and dura. Allodynia, hyperalgesia, and expansion of nociceptive fields occur during most well-established migraine attacks. These clinical features of migraine are evocative of those traditionally associated with neuropathic pain. A hypothesis that defines migraine pain as a unique neuropathic pain disorder can imply the potential for neural plasticity and may provide insight into the mechanisms that underlie the transformation of episodic to chronic forms of migraine. The neuropathic pain model of migraine pathophysiology not only paves the way for mechanism-based treatment strategies that can improve the acute and preventive management of migraine attacks, but also opens the door for the discovery of novel therapeutic targets. It also lends momentum to an understanding of clinically intriguing topics such as opiate-induced hyperalgesia and medication-overuse headache (rebound headache), opioid resistance in the treatment of chronic headache, and disease modification in defending against the potential for migraine transformation.

An update on migraine pathophysiology and mechanism-based pharmacotherapeutics for migraine.

The pathophysiologic mechanisms of migraine are complex but appear to primarily involve the trigeminovascular system. Within this system, a number of factors may contribute to the generation and perpetuation of pathophysiologic changes leading to migraine. Current migraine medications exert their therapeutic benefit via actions at various points relating to these pathophysiologic changes. However, no single agent currently exists that targets all the hypothesized anatomical and cellular mechanisms of the migraine process. A future strategy for achieving optimal therapeutic effect and improving clinical outcomes in migraine involves rational targeting of the multiple mechanisms involved in its pathophysiology; conceptually, this may require concomitant use of multiple pharmacotherapeutic agents.

Cervicogenic headache: a review of diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Cervicogenic headache is a syndrome characterized by chronic hemicranial pain that is referred to the head from either bony structures or soft tissues of the neck. The trigeminocervical nucleus is a region of the upper cervical spinal cord where sensory nerve fibers in the descending tract of the trigeminal nerve (trigeminal nucleus caudalis) are believed to interact with sensory fibers from the upper cervical roots. This functional convergence of upper cervical and trigeminal sensory pathways allows the bidirectional referral of painful sensations between the neck and trigeminal sensory receptive fields of the face and head. A functional convergence of sensorimotor fibers in the spinal accessory nerve (CN XI) and upper cervical nerve roots ultimately converge with the descending tract of the trigeminal nerve and might also be responsible for the referral of cervical pain to the head. Diagnostic criteria have been established for cervicogenic headache, but its presenting characteristics occasionally may be difficult to distinguish from primary headache disorders such as migraine, tension-type headache, or hemicrania continua. This article reviews the clinical presentation of cervicogenic headache, proposed diagnostic criteria, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and methods of diagnostic evaluation. Guidelines for developing a successful multidisciplinary pain management program using medication, physical therapy, osteopathic manipulative treatment, other nonpharmacologic modes of treatment, and anesthetic interventions are presented.

Physical treatments for headache: a structured review.

BACKGROUND: Primary headache disorders, especially migraine, are commonly accompanied by neck pain or other symptoms. Because of this, physical therapy (PT) and other physical treatments are often prescribed. This review updates and synthesizes published clinical trial evidence, systematic reviews, and case series regarding the efficacy of selected physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and other sources of information were searched through June 2004 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews, case series, or other information published in English that assessed the treatment of headache or migraine with chiropractic, osteopathic, PT, or massage interventions. RESULTS: PT is more effective than massage therapy or acupuncture for the treatment of TTH and appears to be most beneficial for patients with a high frequency of headache episodes. PT is most effective for the treatment of migraine when combined with other treatments such as thermal biofeedback, relaxation training, and exercise. Chiropractic manipulation demonstrated a trend toward benefit in the treatment of TTH, but evidence is weak. Chiropractic manipulation is probably more effective in the treatment of tension-type headache (TTH) than it is in the treatment of migraine. Evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these treatments in reducing headache frequency, intensity, duration, and disability in many commonly encountered clinical situations. Many of the published case series and controlled studies are of low quality. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Further studies of improved quality are necessary to more firmly establish the place of physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. With the exception of high velocity chiropractic manipulation of the neck, the treatments are unlikely to be physically dangerous, although the financial costs and lost treatment opportunity by prescribing potentially ineffective treatment may not be insignificant. In the absence of clear evidence regarding their role in treatment, physicians and patients are advised to make cautious and individualized judgments about the utility of physical treatments for headache management; in most cases, the use of these modalities should complement rather than supplant better-validated forms of therapy.