Redefining migraine prevention: early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world.

BACKGROUND: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP MAbs) are approved and available treatments for migraine prevention. Patients do not respond alike and many countries have reimbursement policies, which hinder treatments to those who might respond. This study aimed to investigate clinical factors associated with good and excellent response to anti-CGRP MAbs at 6 months. METHODS: European multicentre, prospective, real-world study, including high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine (CM) patients treated since March 2018 with anti-CGRP MAbs. We defined good and excellent responses as ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) at 6 months, respectively. Generalised mixed-effect regression models (GLMMs) were used to identify variables independently associated with treatment response. RESULTS: Of the 5818 included patients, 82.3% were females and the median age was 48.0 (40.0-55.0) years. At baseline, the median of MHD was 20.0 (14.0-28.0) days/months and 72.2% had a diagnosis of CM. At 6 months (n=4963), 56.5% (2804/4963) were good responders and 26.7% (1324/4963) were excellent responders. In the GLMM model, older age (1.08 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), p=0.016), the presence of unilateral pain (1.39 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.60), p<0.001), the absence of depression (0.840 (95% CI 0.731 to 0.966), p=0.014), less monthly migraine days (0.923 (95% CI 0.862 to 0.989), p=0.023) and lower Migraine Disability Assessment at baseline (0.874 (95% CI 0.819 to 0.932), p<0.001) were predictors of good response (AUC of 0.648 (95% CI 0.616 to 0.680)). These variables were also significant predictors of excellent response (AUC of 0.691 (95% CI 0.651 to 0.731)). Sex was not significant in the GLMM models. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest real-world study of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. It provides evidence that higher migraine frequency and greater disability at baseline reduce the likelihood of responding to anti-CGRP MAbs, informing physicians and policy-makers on the need for an earlier treatment in order to offer the best chance of treatment success.

Evaluation of the concomitant use of prophylactic treatments in patients with migraine under anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide therapies: The PREVENAC study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies are recent preventive therapies approved for both episodic and chronic migraine. One of the measures of effectiveness is the withdrawal of other preventive treatments. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of anti-CGRP drugs in concomitant preventive treatment in patients with migraine. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter cohort study with patients from nine national headache units. Patients with migraine undergoing treatment for at least 6 months with anti-CGRP antibodies, who were initially associated with some preventive treatment (oral and/or onabotulinumtoxinA) were included. Demographic and clinical variables were collected, as well as variables related to headache. Differences according to withdrawal or nonwithdrawal were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were included, 86.52% women, 48.79 (SD = 1.46) years old. Preventive treatment was withdrawn in 43.87% (179/408), 20.83% partially and 23.04% totally. In 27.45% (112/408), it was maintained exclusively due to comorbidity and in 28.6% (117/408) due to partial efficacy. The most frequent time of withdrawal was between 3 and 5 months after the start of treatment. The baseline characteristics associated with nonwithdrawal were comorbidities: insomnia, hypertension and obesity, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. In the multivariate analysis, the absence of high blood pressure, a greater number of preventive treatments at the start, and a lower number of migraine days/month after anti-CGRP treatment were independently associated with withdrawal of the treatment (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CGRP antibodies allow the withdrawal of associated preventive treatment in a significant percentage of patients, which supports its effectiveness in real-life conditions.

Preventive treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preventive treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) is challenging and many therapies have been tried. OBJECTIVE: To study what could be considered the therapy of choice in rCCH through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021290983). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO's-International-Clinical-Trials-Registry-Platform. Studies on the preventive treatment for rCCH as defined by the European Headache Federation consensus statement were included. A meta-analysis of the pooled response rate was conducted for the different therapies. RESULTS: Of 336 results, 45 were eligible for inclusion. Most articles studied the effect of neuromodulation as a preventive treatment for rCCH. The most studied neuromodulation technique was occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), with a pooled response rate in the meta-analysis of 57.3% (95% CI 0.481-0.665). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) was the second most studied treatment with a pooled response rate of 77.0% (95% CI 0.594-0.957). DBS results were more heterogeneous than ONS, which could be related to the different stimulation targets in DBS studies, and reported more serious adverse events than in ONS studies. The remaining therapies (anti-CGRP pathway drugs, warfarin, ketamine-magnesium infusions, serial occipital nerve blocks, clomiphene, onabotulinum toxin A, ketogenic diet, sphenopalatine ganglion radiofrequency or stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation, upper cervical cord stimulation, and vidian neurectomy) present weaker results or have less quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ONS could be the first therapeutic strategy for patients with rCCH based on the current evidence.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab as a treatment of refractory episodic and chronic cluster headache: Case series and narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated clinical benefit as a preventive treatment of episodic cluster headache (ECH) but not in chronic cluster headache (CCH) to this date. Our objective was to analyze our clinical experience of the compassionate use of galcanezumab in cluster headache and to conduct a narrative review of the published literature. METHODS: We present a case series of patients with refractory ECH and CCH treated with 240 mg galcanezumab monthly in an outpatient headache clinic. We recorded epidemiologic and clinical data and analyzed the disease evolution after 3 and 6 months. The review was performed following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: We included three patients with ECH who were treated during a refractory cluster bout (mean duration of 83.7 days since the first attack, range 46.0-105.0 days) and six patients with CCH who had a high frequency of attacks (mean 35.8 attacks/week, range 7-56) and refractory to a mean of 5.2 preventive treatments (range, 3-9). In the CCH group, >50% frequency reduction was seen in 83% (5/6 patients) and the number of attacks per week showed a mean reduction of -24.2 at month 3 (range, -6 to -49) and -27.6 at month 6 (range, -7 to -49). In the ECH group, the bout ended a mean 17.3 days (range, 10-28) after galcanezumab administration. One third of patients reported mild adverse events, none of them leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our clinical experience supports the use of galcanezumab in patients with refractory cluster headache. These results might encourage the possibility of continuing clinical development with randomized controlled trials of anti-CGRP treatments in patients with cluster headache.

Impact of Greater Occipital Nerve Block on Photophobia Levels in Migraine Patients.

BACKGROUND: To study the effect of greater occipital nerve (GON) block on migraine-associated photophobia levels. Photophobia is one of the most bothersome symptoms reported by migraine patients. Studies investigating the impact of migraine treatment on this symptom are scarce. METHODS: This is an observational prospective case-control study. Patients with migraine and photophobia attending a Headache Clinic were recruited. Cases were defined as patients in whom GON block was performed, following usual clinical practice guidelines. All patients were evaluated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, the Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale (UPSIS-12), and the Korean Photophobia Questionnaire (KUMC-8); both in the first visit (V1) and one week after (V2). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were recruited, 28 (68.3%) cases and 13 (31.7%) controls. At V1, there were no significant differences in the median [p25-p75] score of UPSIS-12 in cases vs controls (32.0 [21.0-34.0] vs 30.5 [22.0-37.0], P = 0.497) or KUMC-8 (6.5 [5.5-7.0] vs 7.0 [6.0-8.0], P = 0.463). At V2, cases experimented a significant improvement in UPSIS-12 of -5.5 [-8.8 to -1.3] and in KUMC-8 of -0.5 [-2.0 to 0], whereas there were no significant changes in the control group. Migraine with aura patients presented higher UPSIS-12 score at V1 (33.5 [24.5-37.0] vs 26.0 [16.0-35.0]) and lesser improvement at V2 after GON block compared with migraine without aura patients (-4.0 [-6.0 to -1.0] vs -8.0 [-17.0 to -2.0]), although statistical significance was not achieved ( P = 0.643 and P = 0.122, respectively). There was no significant variation in the remaining scales. CONCLUSIONS: Greater occipital nerve block improves migraine-associated photophobia, measured with UPSIS-12 and KUMC-8. Patients without aura may exhibit a greater improvement. Physicians could consider GON block for management of photophobia in migraine patients.

Evaluation of Systemic Gentamicin as Translational Readthrough Therapy for a Patient With Epidermolysis Bullosa Simplex With Muscular Dystrophy Owing to PLEC1 Pathogenic Nonsense Variants.

IMPORTANCE: Epidermolysis bullosa simplex with muscular dystrophy (EBS-MD) is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by pathogenic variants in PLEC1, which encodes plectin. It is characterized by mild mucocutaneous fragility and blistering and muscle weakness. Translational readthrough-inducing drugs, such as repurposed aminoglycoside antibiotics, may represent a valuable therapeutic alternative for untreatable rare diseases caused by nonsense variants. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether systemic gentamicin, at a dose of 7.5 mg/kg/d for 14 consecutive days, is clinically beneficial in a patient with EBS-MD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single patient in Madrid, Spain, received 2 treatment courses with gentamicin on July 2019 and February 2020 with a follow-up period of 120 and 150 days, respectively. RESULTS: In this case report of a woman in her 30s with EBS-MD, before gentamicin treatment, the patient had mucocutaneous involvement, skeletal and respiratory muscle weakness, and myalgia that negatively affected her quality of life. Outcomes were evaluated with extensive laboratory tests and clinical scales. No nephrotoxic or ototoxic effects were detected after intravenous gentamicin administration. Gentamicin treatment was followed by plectin expression in the skin for at least 5 months. Although minimal changes were noted in skeletal muscle function (as measured by the Hammersmith functional motor scale and its expanded version: 6/40 to 7/40 and from 10/66 to 11/66, respectively) and respiratory musculature (maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures D0 vs D16, MIP: 2.86 vs 3.63 KPa and MEP: 2.93 vs 4.63 KPa), myalgia disappeared (VAS dropped from 6 to 0), and quality of life improved (EuroQoL-5D-3L pain and anxiety dropped from 2 to 1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this single case report suggest that gentamicin treatment may help suppress PLEC1 premature termination codons and induce plectin expression in EBS-MD primary keratinocytes and skin. Our study suggests that gentamicin may play an important role in treating EBS-MD owing to nonsense variants.

Post-COVID-19 persistent headache: A multicentric 9-months follow-up study of 905 patients.

BACKGROUND: Headache is a frequent symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its long-term evolution remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients that presented headache during the acute phase of COVID-19. METHODS: This is a post-hoc multicenter ambisective study including patients from six different third-level hospitals between 1 March and 27 April 2020. Patients completed 9 months of neurological follow-up. RESULTS: We included 905 patients. Their median age was 51 (IQR 45-65), 66.5% were female, and 52.7% had a prior history of primary headache. The median duration of headache was 14 (6-39) days; however, the headache persisted after 3 months in 19.0% (95% CI: 16.5-21.8%) and after 9 months in 16.0% (95% confidence interval: 13.7-18.7%). Headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache (Hazard ratio 0.655; 95% confidence interval: 0.582-0.737). CONCLUSION: The median duration of headache was 2 weeks, but in approximately a fifth of patients it became persistent and followed a chronic daily pattern.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Drug-Resistant Chronic Cluster Headache.

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main endpoint was the reduction the rate of attacks per week. We also evaluated the pain intensity through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient overall perceived improvement and decrease in oral medication intake. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (4.5-9.0), patients decreased from a median of 30 weekly attacks to 22.5 (5.6-37.5, p = 0.012), 7.5 at 1 year (p = 0.006) and 15.0 at the end of follow-up (p = 0.041). The VAS decreased from a median of 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.011) at three months, to 7.0 (p = 0.008) at twelve months and 7.0 (p = 0.003) at the end of the follow-up. A total of 23.5% had an overall perceived improvement of ≥70% at 3 months, 41.2% at 1 year and 27.8% at the end of follow-up. Reducing prophylactic oral medication was possible in 76.5% and it was stopped in 17.7%. Triptan use decreased in all the responder patients and 17.7% stopped its intake. A total of 41.2% presented mild adverse events. In conclusion, our long-term experience suggests that ONS could be an interesting option for drCCH-selected patients, as it is a beneficial and minimally invasive procedure with no serious adverse events.

Headache as a Cardinal Symptom of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the semiology of pain and its associated features in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and headache presenting to the emergency department who do not require urgent services. BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most frequent neurological symptoms reported in case series, epidemiological studies, and meta-analyses of COVID-19, with a prevalence ranging from 8 to 71.1%. Studies addressing the semiology of these headaches are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Patients classified according to the Manchester Triage System as standard and non-urgent and those fulfilling the criteria for probable or confirmed COVID-19 according to World Health Organization guidelines who presented with headache were included. A standardized questionnaire was used for data collection. RESULTS: Of the 145 confirmed and probable COVID-19 patients, 99 (68.3%) reported headache. A total of 54/99 (54.5%) were classified with probable COVID-19 and 45/99 (45.5%) with confirmed COVID-19. The mean age (44.7 ± 11.8 vs 40.4 ± 10.7, P = .061), sex distribution (35/54 [64.8%] vs 28/45 [62.2%] female, P = .768), and headache comorbidity (19/54 [35.2%] vs 17/45 [37.8%], P = .789) were similar between the probable and confirmed COVID-19 groups, along with other medical comorbidities and laboratory data. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 showed a higher incidence of anosmia (21/54 [38.9%] vs 28/45 [62.2%], P = .021) and pneumonia (10/54 [18.5%] vs 18/45 [40%], P = .018), headache at onset (32/54 [59.3%] vs 39/45 [86.7%], P = .002), and hospital admission (0/54 [0%] vs 2/45 [11.1%], P = .017). In most cases, the headache appeared simultaneously with other COVID-19 symptoms (57/99, 57.6%). It was bilateral (86/99, 86.9%), frontal or holocranial (34/99, 34.3% each) in location and intense (60/99, 60.6%, reported a visual analog scale [VAS] score ≥7). A total of 39/99 (39.4%) identified triggers, most commonly fever. The most frequent aggravating factors were physical activity (45/99, 45.5%) and coughing (43/99, 43.4%). Patients showed a propensity toward prostration (41/99, 41.4%), photophobia (29/99, 29.3%), and phonophobia (27/99, 27.3%). Partial (53/99, 53.5%) or total (26/99, 26.3%) responses to first-step analgesics were reported. A total of 25/99 (25.3%) patients had a prior history of migraine, presenting with headache different from the usual in 23/25 (92.0%) patients. Individuals with migraine were more likely to have earlier (headache at onset of the respiratory symptoms in 24/25 [96.0%] vs 57/74 [77.0%], P = .023 [95% CI: 0.067, 0.313]), longer (>24 hours of pain in 20/25 [80%] vs 25/74 [33.8%], P < .001 [95% CI: 0.272, 0.652]), and more intense (VAS score ≥5 in 25/25 [100%] vs 63/74 [85.1%], P = .043 [95% CI: 0.057, 0.213]) headaches than patients without migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Headache is a very prevalent COVID-19 symptom among patients presenting to the emergency room, most frequently presenting as holocranial or bifrontal moderate to severe, and pressing quality headache. Individuals with migraine tend to present with earlier, longer, and more intense headaches.