The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs. SUMMARY: The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

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).

Improvement of migraine depressive symptoms is not related to headache frequency: exploring the impact of anti-CGRP therapies.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to describe the prevalence and evolution of depressive symptoms in a cohort of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: This is an exploratory, prospective, unicentric, one-year longitudinal study. We included migraine patients who started treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Baseline demographic data, medical history, concomitant medication and migraine characteristics were collected. The presence of depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory-II quarterly and treatment response was categorized according to the reduction in monthly headache days. A generalized mixed-effect regression model was used to model depression score over a one-year treatment taking into account frequency response rates. RESULTS: We included 577 patients: 84.2% females; median (range) age 47.0 (39.0-53.0) years, 46.1% (266/577) of them presented depressive symptoms at baseline (16.1% mild, 13.3% moderate and 16.6% severe). After six-month treatment, 47.4% (126/266) reduced headache frequency ≥50% after one year and 63.5% (169/266) achieved a clinically significant improvement in depression symptoms. We observed a 30.8% (-50.0%, -3.2%) main reduction in depression score during the first quarter. The improvement in depression symptoms was independently associated with headache frequency response: non-responders, -25.0% (-43.9%, -1.1%); partial responders, -30.2% (-51.3%, -7.6%); and good responders, -33.3% (-54.6%, -7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP are effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with migraine. The main change of depression score happens during the first three months of treatment. The reduction in depressive symptoms is independent of migraine frequency improvement.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of pharmacological preventive treatment for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache. METHODS: The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

Quantifying sensory thresholds along the migraine cycle: An exploratory longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To date, a number of studies on migraine have cross-sectionally evaluated sensory sensitivity with aversion thresholds/scores along the migraine cycle, reporting a decreased tolerance to sensory stimuli in different sensory modalities. Our hypothesis was that patients with migraine would exhibit heightened sensitivity to sound, light, touch and smell on days where they reported greater headache intensity. METHODS: This is an exploratory, longitudinal study, carried out over the course of 27 days. Aversion thresholds or scores to sound, light, touch and smell were quantified in six patients with migraine (11.33 ± 6.53 headache days/month). RESULTS: Patients reported an increased sensitivity to light (padj = 0.0297), touch (padj = 0.0077), and smell (padj = 0.0201) on days with higher headache intensity. However, a greater sensitivity to sound on days with higher headache intensity was only reported when anxiety levels were high (padj = 1.4e-06). Interestingly, variable levels of tolerance to bothersome light over time can also influence the correlation between light sensitivity and headache intensity (padj = 1.4e-06). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present findings, future longitudinal studies evaluating sensory threshold changes along the migraine cycle in patients with migraine should account for the increased tolerance to bothersome light over time as well as the effect of anxiety on auditory sensitivity.

Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Dynamic fluctuations of salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks: association with clinical variables and phenotypic characterization.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a complex neurological disorder with significant heterogeneity in its clinical presentation and molecular mechanisms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a key player in migraine pathophysiology, but challenges remain in its utilization as a biomarker. This study aimed to investigate salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks across the frequency spectrum and explore associations with clinical variables. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal pilot study was conducted, recruiting migraine patients from an outpatient headache clinic. Salivary CGRP levels were measured at interictal, onset, post-2 h of onset and end-of-attack. Using generalized linear mixed models, we explored the effect of CGRP changes over the attack in presence of depressive symptoms (DS), acute attack treatment, and after three-months of erenumab treatment. Finally, patients were classified and compared according to their CGRP phenotype. RESULTS: A total of 44 migraine patients were included (90.9% women), with 80 migraine attacks analyzed. Salivary CGRP levels increased at the onset of migraine attacks. We observed statistically significant interactions between DS and both the linear (Est. [SE]: 19.4 [5.8], p = 0.001) and quadratic terms of time (-19.1 [6.0], p = 0.002). Additionally, a significant three-way interaction within the use of acute treated attack (linear-term: -18.5 [6.2], p = 0.005; quadratic-term: 19.2 [6.8], p = 0.005) was also found. Molecular phenotyping revealed that 72.7% (32/44) of patients presented only CGRP-dependent attacks, while 27.3% (12/44) presented non-CGRP-dependent migraine attacks. Patients with only CGRP-dependent attacks were associated with younger age, shorter disease evolution time, a higher proportion of aura, and fewer monthly headache days (p < 0.05). Exploratory analysis of erenumab treatment effects did not result in changes in CGRP levels during migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the dynamic nature of migraine at a molecular level and emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical variables, such as depressive symptoms, in understanding its pathophysiology. The identification of distinct migraine subtypes based on CGRP dependence suggests potential opportunities for personalized treatment approaches.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment. METHODS: These were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated. RESULTS: In ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8-81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3-61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8-41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSION: Over 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

Early and annual projected savings from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention: a cost-benefit analysis in the working-age population.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have proven to be safe and efficacious as preventive migraine treatments. However, their use is restricted in many countries due to their apparently high cost. Cost-benefit studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-benefit of anti-CGRP MAbs in working-age patients with migraine. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of consecutive migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) following National reimbursement policy in a specialized headache clinic. Migraine characteristics and the work impact scale (WPAI) were compared between baseline (M0) and after 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) of treatment. Using WPAI and the municipal average hourly wage, we calculated indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) at each time point. Direct costs (emergency visits, acute medication use) were also analysed. A cost-benefit study was performed considering the different costs and savings of treating with MAbs. Based on these data an annual projection was conducted. RESULTS: From 256 treated working-age patients, 148 were employed (89.2% women; mean age 48.0 ± 8.5 years), of which 41.2% (61/148) were responders (> 50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD)). Statistically significant reductions between M0 and M3/M6 were found in absenteeism (p < 0.001) and presenteeism (p < 0.001). Average savings in indirect costs per patient at M3 were absenteeism 105.4 euros/month and presenteeism 394.3 euros/month, similar for M6. Considering the monthly cost of anti-CGRP MAbs, the cost-benefit analysis showed savings of 159.8 euros per patient at M3, with an annual projected savings of 639.2 euros/patient. Both responders and partial responders (30-50% reduction in MHD) presented a positive cost-benefit balance. The overall savings of the cohort at M3/M6 compensated the negative cost-benefit balance for non-responders (< 30% reduction in MHD). CONCLUSION: Anti-CGRP MAbs have a positive impact in the workforce significantly reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In Spain, this benefit overcomes the expenses derived from their use already at 3 months and is potentially sustainable at longer term; also in patients who are only partial responders, prompting reconsideration of current reimbursement criteria and motivating the extension of similar cost-benefit studies in other countries.

Salivary CGRP and Erenumab Treatment Response: Towards Precision Medicine in Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed (1) to analyze salivary calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) levels in patients with migraine, (2) to predict erenumab response from baseline CGRP levels, and (3) to evaluate CGRP change post-treatment. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study that measured salivary CGRP levels in healthy controls (HCs), patients with episodic migraine (EM) and patients with chronic migraine (CM). Participants collected saliva samples at baseline and, the patients who were candidates to receive erenumab, also collected saliva after 3 doses of treatment. We quantified CGRP-like immunoreactivity (CGRP-LI) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and we performed an analysis at baseline and post-treatment through generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: At baseline, a higher headache frequency was associated with higher CGRP levels, those being even higher in the presence of depressive symptoms. A cutoff point (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of 103.93 (95% CI = 103.35-104.51) pg/ml was estimated to differentiate migraine from controls with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC, 95% CI) of 0.801 (95% CI = 0.798-0.804). We also found that higher pretreatment salivary CGRP levels were statistically significantly associated to a higher probability of having 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency in patients with EM, but not in patients with CM. After 12 weeks of treatment with erenumab, salivary CGRP levels from patients within all spectrum of migraine frequency converged to similar CGRP values. In contrast, in patients with concomitant depressive symptoms, this convergence did not happen. INTERPRETATION: Patients with migraine not only have higher CGRP levels compared with HCs, but also the presence of depressive symptoms seems to increase salivary CGRP levels and we have evidence, for the first time, that baseline salivary CGRP concentration is associated with treatment response to erenumab. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:846-859.

The impact of epigenetic mechanisms in migraine: Current knowledge and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, microRNAs and histone modifications, may modulate the genetic expression in migraine and its interaction with internal and external factors, such as lifestyle and environmental changes. OBJECTIVE: To summarize, contextualize and critically analyze the published literature on the current state of epigenetic mechanisms in migraine in a narrative review. FINDINGS: The studies published to date have used different approaches and methodologies to determine the role of epigenetic mechanisms in migraine. Epigenetic changes seem to be involved in migraine and are increasing our knowledge of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in DNA methylation, microRNA expression and histone modifications could be utilized as biomarkers that would be highly valuable for patient stratification, molecular diagnosis, and precision medicine in migraine.

Evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs and gepants for the preventive treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several novel treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed for migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of these medications, including atogepant, rimegepant, erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab, for the prevention of migraine via network meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central, were systematically reviewed, and all eligible phase 3 randomised controlled trials were included. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n = 14,584 participants) were included. Studies included episodic (n = 11) and chronic (n = 4) migraine or both (n = 4). All interventions, except for eptinzumab 30 mg, significantly reduced mean monthly migraine days compared to placebo. All medications had a higher ≥50% responder rate than placebo and results were statistically significant in those with the subcutaneous or intravenous route of administrations, but not with the oral one. All medications significantly reduced mean monthly headache days, although no data for this outcome was available for rimegepant, and mean monthly acute medication days, with no data for eptinezumab. CONCLUSION: The results show that medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide were effective in preventing migraine compared to placebo. Considering limitations of single studies, different populations such as episodic and chronic migraine, and the absence of head-to-head trials, all novel treatments decreased mean monthly migraine and headache days, and showed higher 50%, 75% and 100% responder rates than placebo.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42022310579.

Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine accompanying symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of basal accompanying symptoms on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies treatment response and their evolution after six months of treatment in migraine patients. METHODS: Patients with migraine diagnosis seen in the Headache Clinic and treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab were prospectively recruited. They completed a daily eDiary which provided data on headache frequency and the following accompanying symptoms of each day: photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on 50% or greater reduction in headache days per month at month 6 (≥50% response rate). Accompanying symptoms ratios based on headache days per month were assessed per patient at baseline and after three and six months. Comparisons for basal characteristics, basal accompanying symptoms ratios and their evolution after six months between responders and non-responders were performed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included, 44% (69/158) showed ≥50% response rate after six months. A significant reduction in headache days per month in both groups was found at month 6 (-9.4 days/month in ≥50% response rate group; p < 0.001, -2.2 days/month in <50% response rate group; p = 0.004). Additionally, significant decreases in photophobia (-19.5%, p < 0.001), phonophobia (-12.1%, p = 0.010) and aura ratios (-25.1%, p = 0.008) were found in ≥50% response rate group. No statistically significant reductions were found in nausea and dizziness in any group since their reduction was correlated with the decrease in headache days per month. Higher photophobia ratios at baseline were predictive of an increased response between months 3 and 6 (Incidence Risk Ratio = 0.928, p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: The days per month with photophobia, phonophobia and aura decreased at a higher rate than headache days per month after six months in the ≥50% response group. Higher photophobia ratios were associated with higher response rates between three and six months. It could indicate an involvement of peripheral CGRP in photophobia as well as a central modulation of migraine through these treatments which mainly act on the periphery.

Epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache: a global update.

BACKGROUND: This narrative review aims to broaden our understanding of the epidemiology, burden and clinical spectrum of cluster headache based on updated findings with a global perspective. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on the following topics: (a) epidemiology; (b) burden: quality of life, disability, economic burden, job-related burden and suicidality; and (c) clinical spectrum: male predominance and its changes, age, pre-cluster and pre-attack symptoms, aura, post-drome, attack characteristics (location, severity, duration and associated symptoms), bout characteristics (attack frequency, bout duration and bout frequency), circadian and seasonal rhythmicity and disease course. RESULTS: New large-scale population-based reports have suggested a lower prevalence than previous estimations. The impact of cluster headache creates a significant burden in terms of the quality of life, disability, economic and job-related burdens and suicidality. Several studies have reported decreasing male-to-female ratios and a wide age range at disease onset. The non-headache phases of cluster headache, including pre-cluster, pre-attack and postictal symptoms, have recently been revisited. The latest data regarding attack characteristics, bout characteristics, and circadian and seasonal rhythmicity from different countries have shown variability among bouts, attacks, individuals and ethnicities. Studies on the disease course of cluster headache have shown typical characteristics of attacks or bouts that decrease with time. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster headache may be more than a "trigeminal autonomic headache" because it involves complex central nervous system phenomena. The spectrum of attacks and bouts is wider than previously recognised. Cluster headache is a dynamic disorder that evolves or regresses over time.

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with prior preventive treatment failures: subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled DELIVER study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling neurological disease adversely affecting many aspects of life. Most patients are still required to have failed several older oral preventive therapies before being reimbursed for a preventive, migraine-specific anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment. In the 24-week placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER, eptinezumab was shown to reduce migraine frequency and resulted in higher migraine responder rates compared with placebo in patients with two to four previous preventive treatment failures. This subgroup analysis assessed if demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with differences in preventive benefits. METHODS: Migraine frequency reductions and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients reaching a ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days relative to baseline) were determined in the total population and predefined subgroups by sex, age, migraine frequency (chronic migraine, episodic migraine, high-frequency episodic migraine, low-frequency episodic migraine), medication overuse, medication-overuse headache, and previous preventive treatment failures (2, >2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1-12. RESULTS: Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo over weeks 1-12 (-4.8 and -5.3 vs -2.1, respectively; p < 0.0001). In most subgroups, eptinezumab-treated patients demonstrated larger monthly migraine days reductions from baseline over weeks 1-12 than patients receiving placebo, with reductions maintained or increased over weeks 13-24. For ≥50% and ≥75% migraine responder rates, the odds ratios versus placebo all numerically favored eptinezumab. CONCLUSION: Eptinezumab had larger monthly migraine days reductions and higher responder rates than placebo across clinically relevant subgroups showing that, across different demographic populations and clinical characteristics, eptinezumab is effective in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765).

Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis in an antimigraine-treated preclinical model of cortical spreading depolarization.

BACKGROUND: Cortical spreading depolarization, the cause of migraine aura, is a short-lasting depolarization wave that moves across the brain cortex, transiently suppressing neuronal activity. Prophylactic treatments for migraine, such as topiramate or valproate, reduce the number of cortical spreading depression events in rodents. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether cortical spreading depolarization with and without chronic treatment with topiramate or valproate affect the DNA methylation of the cortex. METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were intraperitoneally injected with saline, topiramate or valproate for four weeks when cortical spreading depolarization were induced and genome-wide DNA methylation was performed in the cortex of six rats per group. RESULTS: The DNA methylation profile of the cortex was significantly modified after cortical spreading depolarization, with and without topiramate or valproate. Interestingly, topiramate reduced by almost 50% the number of differentially methylated regions, whereas valproate increased them by 17%, when comparing to the non-treated group after cortical spreading depolarization induction. The majority of the differentially methylated regions lay within intragenic regions, and the analyses of functional group over-representation retrieved several enriched functions, including functions related to protein processing in the cortical spreading depolarization without treatment group; functions related to metabolic processes in the cortical spreading depolarization with topiramate group; and functions related to synapse and ErbB, MAPK or retrograde endocannabinoid signaling in the cortical spreading depolarization with valproate group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results may provide insights into the underlying physiological mechanisms of migraine with aura and emphasize the role of epigenetics in migraine susceptibility.

Harassment in the headache field: a global web-based cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Matters of workplace harassment are an important issue. This issue needs to be recognized and studied to prevent occurrences. These important sensitive areas of effective workplace management are increasingly gaining more interest. We aimed to identify the prevalence of workplace sexual, verbal and physical harassment among headache professionals. METHODS: We adopted a cross­sectional exploratory survey approach with quantitative design. The survey was distributed electronically among headache healthcare and research professionals globally through the International Headache Society (IHS). RESULTS: Data were obtained from 579 respondents (55.3%; 320/579 women). A large percentage of respondents (46.6%; 270/579) had experienced harassment; specifically, 16.1% (93/578) reported sexual harassment, 40.4% (234/579) verbal harassment and 5.5% (32/579) physical harassment. Women were almost seven times more likely to experience sexual harassment compared to men (odds ratio = 6.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.5-13.2). Although women did also more frequently report other types of harassment, this was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime exposure to workplace harassment is prevalent among headache professionals, especially in women. The present study uncovers a widespread issue and calls for strategies to be implemented for building a healthy and safe workplace environment.

Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination and the impact on primary headache disorders of the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to summarize the knowledge on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of secondary headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination; as well as to delineate their impact on primary headache disorders. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the literature regarding primary and secondary headache disorders in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a literature search in 2022 on PubMed, with the keywords "COVID 19" or "vaccine" and "headache" to assess the appropriateness of all published articles for their inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Headache is a common and sometimes difficult-to-treat symptom of both the acute and post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Different pathophysiological mechanisms may be involved, with the trigeminovascular system as a plausible target. Specific evidence-based effective therapeutic options are lacking at present. Headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations is also common, its pathophysiology being unclear. People with primary headache disorders experience headache in the acute phase of COVID-19 and after vaccination more commonly than the general population. Pandemic measures, forcing lifestyle changes, seemed to have had a positive impact on migraine, and changes in headache care (telemedicine) have been effectively introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge, having an impact on the development of secondary headaches, both in people with or without primary headaches. This has created opportunities to better understand and treat headache and to potentiate strategies to manage patients and ensure care.