Validity and reliability of Arabic version of pediatric migraine disability assessment scale (Child Self-Report versus Parent Proxy-Report): a multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (PedMIDAS) is one of the most frequently used questionnaires to assess disability from migraine in pediatric patients. This work aimed to evaluate the validity and test-retest reliability of the Arabic version of the child self-report versus the parent proxy report PedMIDAS. We also aimed to test the agreement between children's and parents' reports of the scale. METHODS: PedMIDAS was subjected to translation and back-translation, then applied to 112 pediatric patients fulfilling the migraine diagnostic criteria. This cross-sectional study was conducted on two visits, one week apart. At visit 1, the following data were obtained from the included pediatric patients: disease duration, migraine type, current treatment regimen, monthly migraine days (MMD) during the last month preceding the enrollment, and migraine intensity using the visual analogue scale. Then, each child and his parent were independently asked to fill out PedMIDAS and Child Self-Report of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 4.0 (PedsQL™) to test the convergent validity of PedMIDAS. At visit 2, each child was requested to complete PedMIDAS again, and so was the parent to evaluate test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was estimated to be 0.94 for each instrument. For the child-self report PedMIDAS, the average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value was 0.992 (95%CI = 0.989-0.995), while it was estimated to be 0.990 for the parent-proxy report with 95%CI = 0.985-0.993, indicating excellent test-retest reliability for both instruments. The child-self report and the parent-proxy report PedMIDAS scores were significantly correlated with MMD, VAS, and all domains of the corresponding PedsQL, supporting convergent validity for both instruments. Agreement between parent and child on disability grading categories of PedMIDAS was substantial (κ = 0.644). CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of PedMIDAS was a valid and reliable instrument to assess disability from migraine in Arabic-speaking pediatric patients with migraine. Parent reports can be valuable as a complement to child reports for a comprehensive assessment of migraine.

Effectiveness of three calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A 12-month, single-center, observational real-world study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on the effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) in migraine patients are needed. METHODS: We performed a single-center, real-world study with an observation period of up to 12 months (mean 7.5 ± 3.4 months) after CGRP mAb administration. A total of 228 Japanese patients with episodic or chronic migraine (age, 45.9 ± 13.2 years; 184F; 45 erenumab; 60 galcanezumab; 123 fremanezumab) who were treated with CGRP mAbs for at least three months were ultimately included in this study. RESULTS: In the total cohort, after CGRP mAb treatment, mean monthly migraine days decreased by 7.2 ± 4.8, 8.3 ± 4.7, and 9.5 ± 5.0 at three, six and 12 months, respectively. The ≥50% monthly migraine day reduction rates at three, six and 12 months were 48.2%, 61.0% and 73.7%, respectively. In the logistic regression analysis, the presence of osmophobia and fewer baseline monthly migraine days contributed to ≥50% responders at three, six and 12 months. The ≥50% responders at three or six months were useful in predicting ≥50% responders at 12 months. In subgroups of patients with difficult-to-treat migraine (those with medication overuse headache or psychiatric comorbidities) and previous CGRP mAb users, monthly migraine days were substantially reduced over 12 months. There was no difference in monthly migraine day reduction over 12 months among three different CGRP mAbs. Adverse reactions were observed in 28 (12.3%) patients, with injection site reactions being the most common (n = 22) though generally mild in severity. CONCLUSION: This real-world study confirmed the efficacy and safety of three different CGRP mAbs for prophylactic treatment of patients with migraine.

Defining migraine days, based on longitudinal E-diary data.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for standardization of the definition of a migraine day for clinical and research purposes. METHODS: We prospectively compared different definitions of a migraine day with E-diary data of n = 1494 patients with migraine. We used a baseline definition based on migraine characteristics with a duration of ≥4 hours OR triptan intake (independently from its effect) OR (visual) aura lasting 5-60 minutes. RESULTS: Of all migraine days defined by triptan intake only, 66.2% had a duration <4 hours. Adjusting the headache duration criterion to ≥30 minutes led to a decrease in days defined by triptan intake only and resulted in a 5.4% increase in total migraine days (equals 0.45 migraine day increase in monthly migraine days). These additional migraine days had a median duration of 2.5 hours. CONCLUSION: We propose to define a migraine day as follows: 1) (a) headache duration ≥30 minutes; (b) matching ≥2 of four characteristics: unilateral, pulsating, moderate to severe pain, aggravation by or causing avoidance of routine physical activity; and (c) during headache ≥1 of the following: nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia or 2) (visual) aura duration 5-60 minutes or 3) a day with headache for which acute migraine-specific medication is used irrespective of its effect.

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305).

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks. CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03732638.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains. CONCLUSIONS: When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Erenumab prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and not just migraine days: Post-hoc analyses of a phase III study.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of erenumab on monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, and attack duration in patients with episodic migraine to investigate whether erenumab actually prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and/or shortens them. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the data from the STRIVE study, in 955 patients with episodic migraine. Relative changes from baseline to mean over months 4, 5 and 6 of the double-blind treatment phase in monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks and mean migraine attack duration were assessed. RESULTS: Erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and monthly migraine attacks compared with placebo in a similar way. Erenumab had only a minor impact on shortening the duration of migraine attacks. CONCLUSION: These post-hoc analyses demonstrate that the decrease in monthly migraine days by erenumab is mainly driven by a reduction in the frequency of monthly migraine attacks and to a much lesser extent by shortening the duration of migraine attacks.Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02456740).

The spectrum of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and subgroup analysis of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab across the spectrum of response thresholds (≥50%, ≥75%, 100%) based on monthly migraine days (MMD) reduction in patients with chronic migraine from a 12-week, randomized study (NCT02066415). METHODS: Patients (n = 667) received (3:2:2) placebo or erenumab 70/140 mg once-monthly. The proportion of patients achieving a given response threshold was assessed. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to contextualize the actual treatment benefit in subgroups of patients achieving (or not) specified response thresholds. Outcome measures included MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) and disability. RESULTS: The proportion of patients responding to erenumab exceeded that of placebo at the ≥50% and ≥75% response thresholds. At month 3, 39.9% and 41.2% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥50% response versus placebo (23.5%). Similarly, at month 3, 17.0% and 20.9% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% response versus placebo (7.8%). Compared with the overall erenumab-treated population (change in MMD: -6.6 [both 70 and 140 mg]), ≥50% responders showed MMD reductions of -12.2/-12.5 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -2.6/-2.2 for those not achieving ≥50% response. ≥75% responders showed MMD reductions of -13.9/-14.8 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -5.0/-4.3 for those not achieving ≥75% response. Relative improvements in MSMD and disability were observed in responders versus overall erenumab-treated population. CONCLUSION: For erenumab-treated patients achieving ≥50% response, the actual reduction in MMD was almost twice that of the overall population. These findings provide context for setting realistic expectations regarding actual treatment benefit experienced by patients responding to treatment.