Situational prevention: Pharmacotherapy during periods of increased risk for migraine attacks.

The small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication-overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo-controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy.

Long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in the treatment of patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of the PREVAIL study explored the effectiveness of eptinezumab for up to 2 years of open-label treatment in the subgroup of patients with chronic migraine who had a confirmed diagnosis of medication-overuse headache (MOH) at screening. BACKGROUND: MOH is a disabling and costly secondary headache disorder characterized by increased headache frequency and/or severity with increased acute headache medication use. Eptinezumab, an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, reduces headache frequency, severity, and associated disability and improves functioning and health-related quality of life as a preventive migraine therapy; short-term benefits in patients with concurrent MOH have also been reported. METHODS: Participants received up to eight quarterly intravenous infusions of eptinezumab 300 mg in the phase 3, single-arm, open-label PREVAIL study. Safety and patient-reported outcome measures (Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS], 6-item Headache Impact Test [HIT-6], patient-identified most bothersome symptom [PI-MBS], Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC], and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]) were conducted at predefined intervals. Patients were observed up to 20 weeks after their last infusion (Week 104). RESULTS: A total of 49/128 (38.3%) patients enrolled in PREVAIL had an MOH diagnosis at screening. In the MOH subgroup, long-term eptinezumab treatment was associated with reductions in headache frequency (43/49 [87.8%] patients reported ≥50% reduction in MIDAS-derived headache days at ≥1 visit), severity (2.2-point reduction [on a 10-point scale]), disability (mean MIDAS total score reduction of 51.9 points), and impact (mean HIT-6 total score reduction of 9.7 points) at Week 104. Most patients described a "much improved" or "very much improved" status by Week 48 (PI-MBS, 31/46 [67.4%]) and Week 104 (PGIC, 31/36 [86.1%]). Health-related quality of life improvements in the SF-36 were also observed. CONCLUSION: Eptinezumab preventive therapy in patients with chronic migraine showed benefits that extended to the subset of patients with concomitant MOH.

Serotonin syndrome in the acute treatment landscape of migraine: the lasmiditan experience.

Background: Serotonin syndrome (SS) symptoms overlap with adverse events associated with lasmiditan, a 5-HT (serotonin)1F receptor agonist for acute treatment of migraine. Because SS symptoms are heterogeneous, diagnosis can be challenging, and potential cases observed with lasmiditan treatment led to questions about SS pathophysiology. Here, we provide an overview of the potential risk of SS based on experience with lasmiditan. Methods: Results of eight phase 2 and phase 3 lasmiditan trials (n = 5,916) and a controlled intravenous trial of lasmiditan (n = 88) were analyzed for symptomatology consistent with SS. Post-marketing surveillance data from lasmiditan's US launch date (January 2020) until data cut-off (April 2021) were also examined. Established Sternbach and Hunter diagnostic criteria were used for formal determination of SS. Results: Of 6,004 lasmiditan-treated clinical trial patients, 15 reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event consistent with signs and symptom(s) of SS. After review, one case met Sternbach and Hunter criteria, two cases potentially met Sternbach criteria, and three cases reported as SS had limited/no information to determine if either criterion was met. During post-marketing surveillance (approximately 13,400 lasmiditan prescriptions), 17 cases with symptom complexes consistent with SS were reported; 3/17 cases had adequate case descriptions to apply predefined criteria. Of these, two met Sternbach and Hunter criteria, and one met Sternbach criteria. Conclusion: Awareness of clinical symptomatology and diagnostic criteria of SS can help clinicians with recognition of rare instances of SS that may occur with lasmiditan. Clinical trial registration: NCT03670810, NCT00384774, NCT00883051, NCT02565186.

Real-world persistence and costs among patients with chronic migraine treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common neurologic disorder that imposes substantial burden on payers, patients, and society. Low rates of persistence to oral migraine preventive medications have been previously documented; however, less is known about persistence and costs associated with innovative nonoral migraine preventive medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world persistence and costs among adults with CM treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) or calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study analyzing the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases. The study sample included adults with CM initiating treatment with either onabotA or a CGRP mAb on or after January 1, 2018. Persistence and costs over 12 months after treatment initiation were evaluated using chi-square and Student's t-tests. Persistence to onabotA was compared with CGRP mAbs as a weighted average of the class and by individual CGRP mAbs. Mean pharmacy (acute and preventive), medical (inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient), and total costs are reported. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to generate adjusted estimates of persistence and costs after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, region, insurance type, number of baseline comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and number of previously used oral migraine preventive medications). RESULTS: Of 66,303 individuals with onabotA or CGRP mAb claims, 2,697 with CM met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In the total population, individuals were primarily female (85.5%), lived in the South (48.5%), and had a mean (SD) age of 44 (12) years, which was consistent across the onabotA and CGRP mAb cohorts. Common comorbid conditions included anxiety (23.9%), depression (18.2%), hypertension (16.5%), and sleep disorders (16.9%). After adjusting for potential confounding variables, persistence to onabotA during the 12-month follow-up period was 40.7% vs 27.8% for CGRP mAbs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.683; 95% CI = 0.604-0.768; P < 0.0001). Persistence to erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab was 25.5% (OR = 0.627; 95% CI = 0.541-0.722; P < 0.0001), 30.3% (OR = 0.746; 95% CI = 0.598-0.912; P = 0.0033), and 33.7% (OR = 0.828; 95% CI = 0.667-1.006; P = 0.058). All-cause ($18,292 vs $18,275; P = 0.9739) and migraine-related ($8,990 vs $9,341; P = 0.1374) costs were comparable between the onabotA and CGRP mAb groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CM receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs, individuals initiating onabotA treatment had higher persistence compared with those receiving CGRP mAbs. Total all-cause and migraine-related costs over 12 months were comparable between those receiving onabotA and CGRP mAbs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie), they contributed to the design and interpretation of data and the writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. Writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Dennis Stancavish, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, and was funded by AbbVie. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors received no honorarium/fee or other form of financial support related to the development of this article. Dr Schwedt serves on the Board of Directors for the American Headache Society and the American Migraine Foundation. Within the prior 12 months he has received research support from Amgen, Henry Jackson Foundation, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, SPARK Neuro, and US Department of Defense. Within the past 12 months, he has received personal compensation for serving as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Axsome, BioDelivery Science, Biohaven, Collegium, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, and Satsuma. He holds stock options in Aural Analytics and Nocira. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr Lee and Ms Shah are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Gillard was an employee of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Dr Knievel has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Biohaven; conducted research for AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; and is on speaker programs for AbbVie and Amgen. Dr McVige has served as a speaker and/or received research support from Allergan (now AbbVie Inc.), Alder, Amgen/Novartis, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Teva. Ms Wang and Ms Wu are employees of Genesis Research, which provides consulting services to AbbVie. Dr Blumenfeld, within the past 12 months, has served on advisory boards for Allergan, AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Amgen, Axsome, BDSI, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, Lilly, Novartis, Revance, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano; as a speaker for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, BDSI, Biohaven, Lundbeck, Lilly, and Teva; as a consultant for Allergan, AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, and Theranica; and as a contributing author for Allergan, AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Novartis, Lilly, and Teva. He has received grant support from AbbVie and Amgen. AbbVie is committed to responsible data sharing regarding the clinical trials we sponsor. This includes access to anonymized, individual, and trial-level data (analysis data sets), as well as other information (eg, protocols, clinical study reports, or analysis plans), as long as the trials are not part of an ongoing or planned regulatory submission. This includes requests for clinical trial data for unlicensed products and indications. These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent scientific research, and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan and execution of a Data Sharing Agreement. Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the United States and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process, or to submit a request, visit the following link: https://www.abbvieclinicaltrials.com/hcp/data-sharing/.

Multimodal Migraine Management and the Pursuit of Migraine Freedom: A Narrative Review.

Migraine is a neurologic disease with a complex pathophysiology that can be controlled with current treatment options but not cured. Therefore, treatment expectations are highly variable. The concept of migraine freedom was recently introduced and can mean different things, with some, for example, expecting complete freedom from headache and associated symptoms and others accepting the occasional migraine attack if it does not impact functioning. Therefore, migraine management should be optimized so that patients can have the best opportunity to achieve their optimal treatment goals. With migraine freedom as a goal and, given the complex pathophysiology of migraine and the high incidence of comorbidities among individuals with migraine, treatment with a single modality may be insufficient, as it may not achieve migraine freedom in those with more frequent or disabling attacks. In this clinical perspective article, we have identified four key, partially overlapping principles of multimodal migraine treatment: (1) manage common comorbidities; (2) control modifiable risk factors for progression by addressing medication and caffeine overuse; (3) diagnose and treat secondary causes of headache, if present; and (4) individualize acute and preventive treatments to minimize pain, functional disability, and allodynia. There are many barriers to pursuing migraine freedom, and strategies to overcome them should be optimized. Migraine freedom should be an aspirational goal both at the individual attack level and for the disease overall. We believe that a comprehensive and multimodal approach that addresses all barriers people with migraine face could move patients closer to migraine freedom.

Temporal analysis of remote electric neuromodulation for the prevention of migraine.

Aim: To evaluate the onset, magnitude and persistence of efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) compared with placebo for the preventive treatment of migraine. Materials & methods: Analysis was conducted on data from a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy of REN for the prevention of migraine. The number of monthly migraine days (MMD) per group was calculated in 2-week intervals and compared between the groups. Results: Differences between the active (N = 95) and placebo (N = 84) groups reached significance at 2 weeks: therapeutic gain 0.84 MMD; p = 0.036. 4 weeks gain 1.59 MMD; p = 0.025, 6 weeks gain 2.27 MMD; p < 0.001, 8 weeks gain 2.68 MMD; p < 0.001. Conclusion: REN provides rapid and consistent efficacy in preventive treatment of migraine.

Injection technique of the upper face with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to review the technique of onabotulinumtoxinA injection treatment in the glabellar and frontal regions using the PREEMPT (Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy) paradigm, with review of the aesthetic issues related to the procedure. OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective medication for the prevention of chronic migraine. The PREEMPT injection paradigm has been validated in randomized clinical trials and real-world settings. This treatment includes injections in the forehead and glabella area. In addition, for aesthetic uses, glabella onabotulinumtoxinA injections are done in similar muscles specifically the procerus, corrugator supercilii, and frontalis muscles. Often patients who have been injected with onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine have concerns about their appearance and will ask if they can see an aesthetic injector to improve this. This is a difficult issue as onabotulinumtoxinA should be injected with an interval of 10-12 weeks to avoid development of antibodies against onabotulinumtoxinA, so all injections (migraine and aesthetic) should ideally be done close together; however, if an aesthetic injection is done on the same day as a PREEMPT injection, the effect of the PREEMPT injection will not yet be visible as it takes time for onabotulinumtoxinA effects to be seen. Thus, there is a risk of a potential overdose in a particular area if aesthetic injections are done without input from the PREEMPT injector. METHODS: This is a narrative review supported by photographic documentation showing the technique of onabotulinumtoxinA injection of the upper face, considering anatomical differences between patients, and combining the needs in neurology and aesthetic medicine fields. RESULTS: Practitioners treating chronic migraine often modify some of the principles of the PREEMPT paradigm. Many practitioners are unsure about injections in the glabellar and frontal areas. The authors present a technique for using the PREEMPT protocol and adapting this to the individual patient's anatomy to prevent an unsightly appearance or ptosis. In addition, sites are provided where an aesthetic injector could inject to improve the patient's appearance without overlapping with the PREEMPT injection sites. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the PREEMPT injection protocol provides an evidence-based approach to achieving clinical benefit for patients with chronic migraine. Aesthetic elements of the treatment of the glabella and forehead require additional attention. The authors provide practical considerations and recommendations regarding this.

Adding eptinezumab to brief patient education to treat chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: Protocol for RESOLUTION-A phase 4, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Introduction: Migraine is a highly prevalent and disabling neurological disease. Excessive use of acute medications can lead to medication-overuse headache (MOH), occurring when a patient experiences an increasing number of headache and migraine days, despite taking greater amounts of acute medication. To treat MOH, a preventive migraine treatment and/or withdrawal of the overused medication(s) are advised. Brief Educational Intervention (BEI) has been shown to be an effective tool with promising results for MOH. Here, we report the design of a clinical trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of eptinezumab, an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide preventive migraine treatment, as an add-on to BEI for treatment of MOH in those with chronic migraine. Methods and analysis: RESOLUTION will be a phase 4, multi-national, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. This study will enroll approximately 570 participants with dual diagnoses of chronic migraine and MOH. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups, BEI and eptinezumab (100 mg; n = 285) or BEI and placebo (n = 285), in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1-4. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will assess monthly migraine days over weeks 1-12, MOH remission, transition from chronic to episodic migraine, health-related quality of life, work productivity, and the safety and tolerability of eptinezumab in this patient population. Ethics and dissemination: This study will be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice. All patients will be fully informed about the study, including the risks and benefits of participation, and all participants will provide informed consent for participation in the trial and dissemination of results.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose. RESULTS: In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Remote electrical neuromodulation for migraine prevention: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), used every other day, for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: Preventive treatment is key to managing migraine, but it is often underutilized. REN, a non-pharmacological acute treatment for migraine, was evaluated as a method of migraine prevention in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, with 1:1 ratio. The study consisted of a 4-week baseline observation phase, and an 8-week double-blind intervention phase in which participants used either REN or a placebo stimulation every other day. Throughout the study, participants reported their symptoms daily, via an electronic diary. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), of which 179 qualified for the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis (95 active; 84 placebo). REN was superior to placebo in the primary endpoint, change in mean number of migraine days per month from baseline, with mean reduction of 4.0 ± SD of 4.0 days (1.3 ± 4.0 in placebo, therapeutic gain = 2.7 [confidence interval -3.9 to -1.5], p < 0.001). The significance was maintained when analyzing the episodic (-3.2 ± 3.4 vs. -1.0 ± 3.6, p = 0.003) and chronic (-4.7 ± 4.4 vs. -1.6 ± 4.4, p = 0.001) migraine subgroups separately. REN was also superior to placebo in reduction of moderate/severe headache days (3.8 ± 3.9 vs. 2.2 ± 3.6, p = 0.005), reduction of headache days of all severities (4.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.8 ± 4.6, p < 0.001), percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in moderate/severe headache days (51.6% [49/95] vs. 35.7% [30/84], p = 0.033), and reduction in days of acute medication intake (3.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.4 ± 4.3, p = 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the ITT analysis. No serious device-related adverse events were reported in any group. CONCLUSION: Applied every other day, REN is effective and safe for the prevention of migraine.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. METHODS: A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination. CONCLUSION: The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Once-daily oral atogepant for the long-term preventive treatment of migraine: Findings from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of once-daily oral atogepant 60 mg in adults with migraine. BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of adults (18-80 years) with migraine. Lead-in trial completers or newly enrolled participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were enrolled and randomized (5:2) to atogepant 60 mg once daily or oral standard care (SC) migraine preventive medication. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atogepant; safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory evaluations, vital signs, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores. Efficacy assessments (atogepant only) included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) and the proportion of participants with reductions from baseline of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% in MMDs. RESULTS: The trial included 744 participants randomized to atogepant 60 mg (n = 546) or SC (n = 198). The atogepant safety population was 88.2% female (n = 479/543) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 42.5 (12.0) years. TEAEs occurred in 67.0% (n = 364/543) of participants treated with atogepant 60 mg. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥5%) were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%; 56/543), constipation (7.2%; 39/543), nausea (6.3%; 34/543), and urinary tract infection (5.2%; 28/543). Serious TEAEs were reported in 4.4% (24/543) for atogepant. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs for atogepant was -3.8 (0.1) for weeks 1-4 and -5.2 (0.2) at weeks 49-52. Similarly, the proportion of participants with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions in MMDs increased from 60.4% (310/513), 37.2% (191/513), and 20.7% (106/513) at weeks 1-4 to 84.2% (282/335), 69.9% (234/335), and 48.4% (162/335), at weeks 49-52. CONCLUSION: Daily use of oral atogepant 60 mg for preventive treatment of migraine during this 1-year, open-label trial was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious.

Effect of Atogepant for Preventive Migraine Treatment on Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 ADVANCE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is indicated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. We evaluated changes in patient-reported outcomes with atogepant in adults with migraine. METHODS: In this phase 3, 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (ADVANCE), adults with 4-14 migraine days per month received atogepant (10, 30, or 60 mg) once daily or placebo. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (RFR) domain at week 12 and mean monthly Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D) Performance of Daily Activities (PDA) and Physical Impairment (PI) domains across the 12-week treatment period. Exploratory endpoints included change in MSQ Role Function-Preventive (RFP) and Emotional Function (EF) domains; AIM-D total scores; and change in Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 scores. RESULTS: Of 910 participants randomized, 873 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant: 10 mg [n = 214]; 30 mg [n = 223]; and 60 mg [n = 222]; placebo [n = 214]). All atogepant groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements vs placebo in MSQ RFR that exceeded minimum clinically meaningful between-group difference (3.2 points) at week 12 (least-square mean difference [LSMD] vs placebo: 10 mg [9.9]; 30 mg [10.1]; 60 mg [10.8]; all p < 0.0001). LSMDs in monthly AIM-D PDA and PI scores across the 12-week treatment period improved significantly for the atogepant 30 (PDA: -2.54; p = 0.0003; PI: -1.99; and p = 0.0011) and 60 mg groups (PDA: -3.32; p < 0.0001; PI: -2.46; p < 0.0001), but not for the 10 mg group (PDA: -1.19; p = 0.086; PI: -1.08; p = 0.074). In exploratory analyses, atogepant 30 and 60 mg were associated with nominal improvements in MSQ RFP and EF domains, other AIM-D outcomes, and HIT-6 scores at the earliest time point (week 4) and throughout the 12-week treatment period. Results varied for atogepant 10 mg. DISCUSSION: Atogepant 30 and 60 mg produced significant improvements in key patient-reported outcomes including MSQ-RFR scores and both AIM-D domains. Nominal improvements also occurred for other MSQ domains and HIT-6, reinforcing the beneficial effects of atogepant as a new treatment for migraine prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777059. Submitted: December 13, 2018; First patient enrolled: December 14, 2018. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03777059. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that daily atogepant is associated with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures in patients with 4-14 migraine days per month.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle.

BACKGROUND: Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). RESULTS: There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response. CONCLUSION: No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Effectiveness and Safety of Chronic Migraine Preventive Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data (> 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months. RESULTS: Substantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years. CONCLUSION: While substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Adverse Events Reported with Therapies Targeting the CGRP Pathway During the First 6 Months Post-launch: A Retrospective Analysis Using the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Through 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) had received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for migraine prevention: erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) safety surveillance database during the first 6 months post-approval of erenumab (May 2018 to November 2018), fremanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019), and galcanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019). Reporting rates (RR) per 1000 exposed patients were calculated from number of reported events (when product classified as "primary suspect") in each AE category and estimated number of treated patients based on de-identified prescription data (IQVIA database) and were ranked on the basis of frequency for each product. RESULTS: RR per 1000 exposed patients for "migraine" (erenumab, 4.89; fremanezumab, 1.01; galcanezumab, 2.99), "headache" (3.32, 1.27, 3.07), and "drug ineffective" (3.68, 1.14, 1.69) were commonly reported for all three products, as were migraine-associated symptoms ("nausea": 2.94, 0.91, 1.09) and "injection-site" reactions ("pain": 2.94, 0.8, 4.9; "swelling": 0.56, 0.53, 1.25; "pruritus": 0.26, 0.63, 1.14; "erythema": 0.58, 0.71, 1.58). "Constipation" ranked second for erenumab (4.90) but did not make the top ten events for fremanezumab (0.46) or galcanezumab (0.76); cardiovascular events did not rank in the top ten AEs for any product. The frequency of serious outcomes was low, with ≤ 2% of AEs categorized as serious across the CGRP mAbs. CONCLUSION: These results aid in supporting the safety profile of CGRP mAbs in the real-world setting and may provide clinicians and patients with additional insight when considering migraine preventive treatments.

Long-term reductions in disease impact in patients with chronic migraine following preventive treatment with eptinezumab.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab is an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide humanized monoclonal antibody approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The PREVAIL study demonstrated a favorable safety profile with sustained reductions in overall migraine-related burden in patients with chronic migraine (CM). This post hoc analysis aimed to examine item-level changes in the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire over 2 years in participants with CM on eptinezumab treatment. METHODS: PREVAIL was an open-label, phase 3 trial that included 96 weeks of treatment where 128 adults received intravenous eptinezumab administered over 30 min every 12 weeks (wks) for up to 8 doses of 300 mg. MIDAS was administered at baseline, Wk12, and every 12wks thereafter. Two supplementary MIDAS items not included in the total score calculation assessed number of headache days in the past 3 months (MIDAS headache) and average headache pain severity (from 0 [none] to 10 [worst]). MIDAS total scores were summed from 5 items, each quantifying the number of days in the past 3 months with migraine-related disability. Items 1, 3, and 5 assessed absenteeism, namely how many days the patient missed work/school (Q1), household work (Q3), or family/social/leisure activities (Q5). Items 2 and 4 were measures of presenteeism, namely how many days the patient had reduced productivity in work/school (Q2) or household work (Q4). RESULTS: Mean MIDAS headache days decreased from 47.4 (baseline) to 17.1 (Wk12) and 16.3 (Wk104). The average headache pain severity score (0‒10) decreased from a mean of 7.3 (baseline) to 5.5 (Wk12) to 4.5 (Wk104). Mean MIDAS scores measuring absenteeism (Q1, 3, 5) changed from 9.7 days at baseline to 3.2 days (Wk12) and to 3.9 days (Wk104). Mean MIDAS scores measuring presenteeism (Q2, 4) at Wk12 decreased from 14.2 days at baseline to 5.2 days (Wk12, 104). Patients categorized with very severe MIDAS disability had a mean total MIDAS score of 84.8, with an average reduction of 56.7 days (Wk12), which was maintained at 32 days at Wk104. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with eptinezumab in patients with CM suggested sustained reductions in MIDAS-quantified disability, consistent with the sustained reductions in headache frequency and pain severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02985398 .

Rates of Response to Atogepant for Migraine Prophylaxis Among Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Some patients with migraine, particularly those in primary care, require effective, well-tolerated, migraine-specific oral preventive treatments. Objective: To examine the efficacy of atogepant, an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, using 4 levels of mean monthly migraine-day (MMD) responder rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine from December 14, 2018, to June 19, 2020, in adults with 4 to 14 migraine-days per month at 128 sites in the US. Interventions: Patients were administered 10 mg of atogepant (n = 222), 30 mg of atogepant (n = 230), 60 mg of atogepant (n = 235), or placebo (n = 223) once daily in a 1:1:1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: These analyses evaluated treatment responder rates, defined as participants achieving 50% or greater (α-controlled, secondary end point) and 25% or greater, 75% or greater, and 100% (prespecified additional end points) reductions in mean MMDs during the 12-week blinded treatment period. Results: Of 902 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.6 [12.3] years; 801 [88.8%] female; 752 [83.4%] White; 825 [91.5%] non-Hispanic), 873 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (placebo, 214; 10 mg of atogepant, 214; 30 mg of atogepant, 223; and 60 mg of atogepant, 222). For the secondary end point, a 50% or greater reduction in the 12-week mean of MMDs was achieved by 119 of 214 participants (55.6%) treated with 10 mg of atogepant (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.1-4.6), 131 of 223 participants (58.7%) treated with 30 mg atogepant (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3), 135 of 222 participants (60.8%) treated with 60 mg of atogepant (odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.6-5.7), and 62 of 214 participants (29.0%) given placebo (P < .001). The numbers of participants who reported a 25% or greater reduction in the 12-week mean of MMDs were 157 of 214 (73.4%) for 10 mg of atogepant, 172 of 223 (77.1%) for 30 mg of atogepant, and 180 of 222 (81.1%) for 60 mg of atogepant vs 126 of 214 (58.9%) for placebo (P < .002). The numbers of participants who reported a 75% or greater reduction in mean MMDs were 65 of 214 (30.4%) for 10 mg of atogepant, 66 of 223 (29.6%) for 30 mg of atogepant, and 84 of 222 (37.8%) for 60 mg of atogepant compared with 23 of 214 (10.7%) for placebo (P < .001). The numbers of participants reporting 100% reduction in mean MMDs were 17 of 214 (7.9%) for 10 mg of atogepant (P = .004), 11 of 223 (4.9%) for 30 mg of atogepant (P = .02), and 17 of 222 (7.7%) for 60 mg of atogepant (P = .003) compared with 2 of 214 (0.9%) for placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: At all doses, atogepant was effective during the 12-week double-blind treatment period beginning in the first 4 weeks, as evidenced by significant reductions in mean MMDs at every responder threshold level. Higher atogepant doses appeared to produce the greatest responder rates, which can guide clinicians in individualizing starting doses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03777059.

The importance of an early onset of migraine prevention: an evidence-based, hypothesis-driven scoping literature review.

Recently approved migraine preventive therapies facilitate rapid control of migraine activity, potentially improving patients' lives and minimizing the societal burden of migraine. This review synthesizes available evidence on rates and timing of early onset of migraine prevention and identifies patient-level outcomes related to early onset prevention. This evidence-based scoping review identified all available clinical trial evidence regarding the early onset of prevention of migraine, under the hypothesis 'Patients with migraine (episodic or chronic) report additional benefits when receiving an approved migraine preventive treatment that demonstrates an early onset of prevention'. Early onset of prevention was defined as migraine preventive benefits within 30 days post-administration. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for publications between 1988 and 2020. Overall, 16 publications described 18 studies. All studies were conducted in approved treatments [four anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and one chemodenervation agent] in patients with episodic/chronic migraine; no publications were identified for traditional oral agents for early migraine prevention. Compared to placebo, erenumab (three studies) reduced weekly migraine days within 1 week; fremanezumab (six studies) increased reports of no headache of at least moderate severity on Day 1 and significantly reduced migraine frequency within 1 week; galcanezumab (three studies) significantly reduced the mean number of patients with migraine beginning Day 1 and each day of the first week; eptinezumab (four studies) significantly reduced migraine attack likelihood on Day 1 by > 50% versus baseline; and onabotulinumtoxinA (two studies) reduced headache and migraine days within 1 week. Four publications described function, disability, and quality of life improvements as early as Week 4; none reported cost-benefit. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) and a chemodenervation agent (onabotulinumtoxinA) provide clinically relevant benefits during the first treatment week. Literature describing clinically relevant benefits regarding early onset of prevention in patients with migraine is limited.

Practical Insights on the Identification and Management of Patients with Chronic Migraine.

Chronic migraine (CM) is one of the most disabling diseases, and it is commonly misdiagnosed and mistreated. Despite the importance of a timely and accurate diagnosis for the effective management of CM, recent surveys have shown that only 20-25% of individuals with CM receive a correct diagnosis. The obvious consequences of misdiagnosed CM are prolongation of symptoms and their associated effects on disability and health-related quality of life. Additionally, mistreatment of CM can lead to acute medication overuse headache with escalation of headache and end organ damage. Ideally, a diagnosis of CM should be made in the primary care setting, based on a thorough medical history including detailed descriptions of headaches occurring earlier in life as well as current headaches, and the range of headaches (not just the worst headaches). In our experience, it is often equally informative to ask the patient about the number of headache-free days (HFDs) and no accompanying symptoms (i.e., crystal-clear days) to quantify headache days and accurately estimate headache frequency/impact. Headache frequency is important, as this count is one key means of diagnosing CM, which requires ≥ 15 headache days/month, noting that these do not need to be migraine days. A headache day is defined as more than 4 h a day of headache. Comorbidities are common in CM and may affect the treatment choice and increase disability. Every CM patient should be offered a preventive migraine treatment. In this commentary, we provide practical insights and tips for diagnosing CM and cover issues of medication overuse, patient communication, diagnostic testing, and when to make a referral. Our key message to physicians for a patient who comes to the clinic with frequent disabling headaches having features of migraine is to assume CM until proven otherwise.