Novel insight into atogepant mechanisms of action in migraine prevention.

Recently, we showed that while atogepant-a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist-does not fully prevent activation of meningeal nociceptors, it significantly reduces a cortical spreading depression (CSD)-induced early response probability in C fibres and late response probability in Aδ fibres. The current study investigates atogepant effect on CSD-induced activation and sensitization of high threshold (HT) and wide dynamic range (WDR) central dura-sensitive trigeminovascular neurons. In anaesthetized male rats, single-unit recordings were used to assess effects of atogepant (5 mg/kg) versus vehicle on CSD-induced activation and sensitization of HT and WDR trigeminovascular neurons. Single cell analysis of atogepant pretreatment effects on CSD-induced activation and sensitization of central trigeminovascular neurons in the spinal trigeminal nucleus revealed the ability of this small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist to prevent activation and sensitization of nearly all HT neurons (8/10 versus 1/10 activated neurons in the control versus treated groups, P = 0.005). In contrast, atogepant pretreatment effects on CSD-induced activation and sensitization of WDR neurons revealed an overall inability to prevent their activation (7/10 versus 5/10 activated neurons in the control versus treated groups, P = 0.64). Unexpectedly however, in spite of atogepant's inability to prevent activation of WDR neurons, it prevented their sensitization (as reflected their responses to mechanical stimulation of the facial receptive field before and after the CSD). Atogepant' ability to prevent activation and sensitization of HT neurons is attributed to its preferential inhibitory effects on thinly myelinated Aδ fibres. Atogepant's inability to prevent activation of WDR neurons is attributed to its lesser inhibitory effects on the unmyelinated C fibres. Molecular and physiological processes that govern neuronal activation versus sensitization can explain how reduction in CGRP-mediated slow but not glutamate-mediated fast synaptic transmission between central branches of meningeal nociceptors and nociceptive neurons in the spinal trigeminal nucleus can prevent their sensitization but not activation.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137). FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. FUNDING: Allergan (now AbbVie).

Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is being investigated for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with 4 to 14 migraine days per month in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean number of migraine days per month across the 12 weeks. Secondary end points included headache days per month, a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the 3-month average of migraine days per month, quality of life, and scores on the Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D). RESULTS: A total of 2270 participants were screened, 910 were enrolled, and 873 were included in the efficacy analysis; 214 were assigned to the 10-mg atogepant group, 223 to the 30-mg atogepant group, 222 to the 60-mg atogepant group, and 214 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 in the four groups. The changes from baseline across 12 weeks were -3.7 days with 10-mg atogepant, -3.9 days with 30-mg atogepant, -4.2 days with 60-mg atogepant, and -2.5 days with placebo. The mean differences from placebo in the change from baseline were -1.2 days with 10-mg atogepant (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.6), -1.4 days with 30-mg atogepant (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.8), and -1.7 days with 60-mg atogepant (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Results for the secondary end points favored atogepant over placebo with the exceptions of the AIM-D Performance of Daily Activities score and the AIM-D Physical Impairment score for the 10-mg dose. The most common adverse events were constipation (6.9 to 7.7% across atogepant doses) and nausea (4.4 to 6.1% across atogepant doses). Serious adverse events included one case each of asthma and optic neuritis in the 10-mg atogepant group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral atogepant once daily was effective in reducing the number of migraine days and headache days over a period of 12 weeks. Adverse events included constipation and nausea. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of atogepant for migraine prevention. (Funded by Allergan; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03777059.).

Pharmacogenomic study-A pilot study of the effect of pharmacogenomic phenotypes on the adequate dosing of verapamil for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes. BACKGROUND: Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the doses of verapamil for migraine prevention were assessed. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 33 migraine patients (82% with aura). The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses of verapamil were 178.2(20-320) mg and 227.9(20-480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

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.

A 12-week randomized double-blind clinical trial of eicosapentaenoic acid intervention in episodic migraine.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may benefit migraine improvement, though prior studies are inconclusive. This study evaluated the effect of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on episodic migraine (EM) prevention. Seventy individuals with EM participated in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from March 2020 and May 2022. They were randomly assigned to either the EPA (N = 35, 2 g fish oil with 1.8 g of EPA as a stand-alone treatment daily), or the placebo group (N = 35, 2 g soybean oil daily). Migraine frequency and headache severity were assessed using the monthly migraine days, visual analog scale (VAS), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in comparison to baseline measurements. The EPA group significantly outperformed the placebo in reducing monthly migraine days (-4.4 ± 5.1 days vs. - 0.6 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.001), days using acute headache medication (-1.3 ± 3.0 days vs. 0.1 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.035), improving scores for headache severity (ΔVAS score: -1.3 ± 2.4 vs. 0.0 ± 2.2, p = 0.030), disability (ΔMIDAS score: -13.1 ± 16.2 vs. 2.6 ± 20.2, p = 0.001), anxiety and depression (ΔHADS score: -3.9 ± 9.4 vs. 1.1 ± 9.1, p = 0.025), and quality of life (ΔMSQ score: -11.4 ± 19.0 vs. 3.1 ± 24.6, p = 0.007). Notably, female particularly benefited from EPA, underscoring its potential in migraine management. In conclusion, high-dose EPA has significantly reduced migraine frequency and severity, improved psychological symptoms and quality of life in EM patients, and shown no major adverse events, suggesting its potential as a prophylactic for EM.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication.

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: a single-center, real-world, observational study.

BACKGROUND: The present study investigates the wearing-off effect in adults with chronic migraine treated with erenumab or fremanezumab. METHODS: This real-world observational study was based on pre-collected headache diaries from chronic migraine patients in treatment with either monthly injections of 140 mg of erenumab or 225 mg of fremanezumab. Consistent wearing-off was defined as an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days in the last week compared to the second week over two consecutive 4-week treatment periods. The primary endpoint was wearing-off in the total population. The secondary endpoints were difference in wearing-off in (i) a subgroup of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab and (ii) consistent wearing-off in patients with a ≥30% reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to baseline, in the two consecutive treatment months. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients (erenumab: n = 60, fremanezumab: n = 40) were included. Sixty-two out of 100 (62%) patients had consistent ≥30% treatment response on antibody therapy in both months (erenumab: n = 36, fremanezumab: n = 26). There was no consistent wearing-off over the two consecutive months from week 2 to week 4 (3.04%, p = 0.558). There was no wearing-off within the erenumab (p = 0.194) or the fremanezumab (p = 0.581) groups. Among the ≥30% treatment responders, there was no consistent wearing-off over the two consecutive months (2.6%, p = 0.573). CONCLUSIONS: There was no wearing-off in treatment responders, which is in alignment with premarketing data from placebo-controlled phase III studies. These data suggest that patients should be informed upfront that no wearing-off effect is expected because anxiety for attacks at the end of the month per se may generate migraine attacks.

Hypersensitivity to CGRP as a predictive biomarker of migraine prevention with erenumab.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate the predictive value of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-induced migraine attacks for effectiveness to erenumab treatment in people with migraine. METHODS: In total, 139 participants with migraine underwent a single experimental day involving a 20-min infusion with CGRP. Following this, the participants entered a 24-week treatment period with erenumab. The primary endpoints were the predictive value of CGRP-induced migraine attacks on the effectiveness of erenumab, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, or ≥ 50% reduction in either monthly migraine or monthly headache days of moderate to severe intensity. RESULTS: Among participants with CGRP-induced migraine attacks, 60 of 99 (61%) achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days during weeks 13-24 with erenumab. Conversely, 13 of 25 (52%) where CGRP infusion did not induce a migraine achieved the same endpoint (p = 0.498). There were no significant differences between the ≥50% reduction in either monthly migraine or monthly headache days of moderate to severe intensity between CGRP-sensitive and non-sensitive participants (p = 0.625). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the CGRP-provocation model cannot be used to predict erenumab's effectiveness. It remains uncertain whether this finding extends to other monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP ligand or to gepants.Trial Registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04592952).

Medication "underuse" headache.

BACKGROUND: Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification. METHODS: Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication. RESULTS: The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun. CONCLUSIONS: The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Acupuncture plus topiramate placebo versus topiramate plus sham acupuncture for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A single-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been used for the treatment of chronic migraine, but high-quality evidence is scarce. We aimed to evaluate acupuncture's efficacy and safety compared to topiramate for chronic migraine. METHODS: This double-dummy randomized controlled trial included participants aged 18-65 years diagnosed with chronic migraine. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive acupuncture (three sessions/week) plus topiramate placebo (acupuncture group) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus sham acupuncture (topiramate group) over 12 weeks, with the primary outcome being the mean change in monthly migraine days during weeks 1-12. RESULTS: Of 123 screened patients, 60 (mean age 45.8, 81.7% female) were randomly assigned to acupuncture or topiramate groups. Acupuncture demonstrated significantly greater reductions in monthly migraine days than topiramate (weeks 1-12: -2.79 [95% CI: -4.65 to -0.94, p = 0.004]; weeks 13-24: -3.25 [95% CI: -5.57 to -0.92, p = 0.007]). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture may be safe and effective for treating chronic migraine. The efficacy of 12 weeks of acupuncture was sustained for 24 weeks and superior to that of topiramate. Acupuncture can be used as an optional preventive therapy for chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org Identifier 13563102.

A comparative study on prophylactic efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in childhood migraine: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric migraine prophylaxis is indicated when headaches are frequent and/or disabling. We aimed to conduct a study to compare the efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in pediatric migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 4-17 years with migraine who were eligible for prophylaxis enrolled. The primary outcome was a reduction response rate of ≥50% with p < 0.005 with respect to headache characteristics. The secondary outcome was migraine disability assessment. We evaluated patients every four weeks for three months: T1: week 4, T2: week 8 and T3: week 12. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to each group. However, 43 patients completed the trial. Headache frequency decreased in amitriptyline group more effectively in T1 (p = 0.004). Amitriptyline was more successful in reducing the headache duration in all three periods (p < 0.005). There was no significant difference in severity improvement and reducing disability score between the two groups (p > 0.005). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both medications are effective in ameliorating migraine headaches and related disabilities. However, amitriptyline appears be a preferable option over cinnarizine, given its faster onset of action, efficacy in reducing headache duration and longer-lasting effects.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the code IRCT-20191112045413N1.

Targeting the PACAP-38 pathway is an emerging therapeutic strategy for migraine prevention.

INTRODUCTION: The pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) has emerged as a key mediator of migraine pathogenesis. PACAP-38 and its receptors are predominantly distributed in arteries, sensory and parasympathetic neurons of the trigeminovascular system. Phase 2 trials have tested human monoclonal antibodies designed to bind and inhibit PACAP-38 and the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide type I (PAC1) receptor for migraine prevention. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the significance of the PACAP-38 pathway as a target in migraine prevention. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases. EXPERT OPINION: A PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody was not effective for preventing migraine in a proof-of-concept trial, paving the way for alternative strategies to be considered. Lu AG09222 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PACAP-38 that was effective in preventing physiological responses of PACAP38 and reducing monthly migraine days in individuals with migraine. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the clinical utility, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting the PACAP pathway.

Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders. METHODS: Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24. RESULTS: Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo. CONCLUSION: Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

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.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Real-world experience with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted antibodies for migraine prevention: a retrospective observational cohort study at two Japanese headache centers.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine. METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention.

A Dutch cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab versus best supportive care in patients with chronic migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model. METHODS: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population.

Effect of galcanezumab in women with episodic migraine meeting criteria for menstrually related migraine: A post hoc analysis of EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM). METHODS: Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.