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.

Headache/migraine-related stigma, quality of life, disability, and most bothersome symptom in adults with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and medication overuse: results of the Migraine Report Card survey.

BACKGROUND: High-frequency headache/migraine (HFM) and overuse of acute medication (medication overuse [MO]) are associated with increased disability and impact. Experiencing both HFM and MO can potentially compound impacts, including stigma; however, evidence of this is limited. The objective of this report was to evaluate self-reported stigma, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), disability, and migraine symptomology in US adults with HFM + MO from the Harris Poll Migraine Report Card survey. METHODS: US adults (≥ 18 yrs., no upper age limit) who screened positive for migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener completed an online survey. Participants were classified into "current HFM + MO" (≥ 8 days/month with headache/migraine and ≥ 10 days/month of acute medication use over last few months) or "previous HFM + MO" (previously experienced HFM + MO, headaches now occur ≤ 7 days/month with ≤ 9 days/month of acute medication use). Stigma, HRQoL, disability, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) were captured. The validated 8-item Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses (SSCI-8) assessed internal and external stigma (scores ≥ 60 are clinically significant). Raw data were weighted to the US adult population. Statistically significant differences were determined by a standard t-test of column proportions and means at the 90% (p < 0.1) and 95% (p < 0.05) confidence levels. RESULTS: Participants (N = 550) were categorized as having current (n = 440; mean age 41.1 years; 54% female; 57% White, not Hispanic; 24% Hispanic; 11% Black, not Hispanic) or previous (n = 110; mean age 47.2 years; 49% female; 75% White, not Hispanic; 13% Hispanic; 4% Black, not Hispanic) HFM + MO. Compared to those with previous HFM + MO (21%), adults with current HFM + MO were more likely to experience clinically significant levels of stigma (47%). Men with current HFM + MO (52% compared to men with previous HFM + MO [25%] and women with current [41%] or previous [18%] HFM + MO), non-Hispanic Black (51% compared to White, not Hispanic [45%] and Hispanic [48%] current HFM + MO groups and White, not Hispanic previous HFM + MO [12%]), current HFM + MO aged 18-49 years (50% compared to those with current HFM + MO aged ≥ 50 years [33%] and those with previous HFM + MO aged 18-49 [34%] and ≥ 50 years [4%]), and employed respondents (53% current and 29% previous compared to those not employed [32% current and 12% previous]) reported higher rates of clinically significant stigma. Those with current HFM + MO were more likely to have worse HRQoL and disability due to headache/migraine. Respondents aged ≥ 50 years with current HFM + MO were more likely than respondents aged 18-49 years with current HFM + MO to indicate that their overall quality of life (66% vs. 52%) and their ability to participate in hobbies/activities they enjoy were negatively impacted by headache/migraine (61% vs. 49%). Pain-related symptoms were identified as the MBS. CONCLUSIONS: Together these data suggest that current and previous HFM + MO can be associated with undesirable outcomes, including stigma and reduced HRQoL, which were greatest among people with current HFM + MO, but still considerable for people with previous HFM + MO.

Sequential administration of peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders-A retrospective tolerability and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Harris Poll Migraine Report Card: population-based examination of high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use. METHODS: An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment. RESULTS: Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous). CONCLUSION: Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden.

Early clinical experience with eptinezumab: results of a retrospective observational study of patient response in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for preventive migraine treatment in adults have been demonstrated in multiple, large-scale clinical trials. This non-interventional, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted to examine patient response to eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg every 12 weeks for 6 months in the clinical setting. METHODS: Eight headache specialists who reported early clinical experience with eptinezumab enrolled the first adults (1-6 adults per clinician; age ≥ 18 years) who met predefined selection criteria (including ≥ 12-month history of migraine, ≥ 4 migraine days/month prior to eptinezumab initiation, receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive eptinezumab doses, and ≥ 12-week follow-up period), and provided detailed patient, disease, treatment, and outcome information via SurveyMonkey and standardized case-report forms. RESULTS: Charts from 31 adults (median age, 49 years) with migraine (93.6% chronic) who received eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine were reviewed. Most patients (26/31 [83.9%]) were initiated at 100 mg. Eptinezumab reduced mean headache frequency (24.3 monthly headache days [MHDs] at baseline; 17.1 MHDs at Month 6); mean migraine frequency (17.3 monthly migraine days [MMDs] at baseline; 9.1 MMDs at Month 6); attack severity (17/31 [54.8%] patients); acute headache medication use (12.5 acute medication days at baseline; 7.4 at Month 6); and patient-reported disability (11/22 [50.0%] severe at baseline; 7/19 [36.8%] at Month 6). More than three-quarters of patients (24/31 [77.4%]) perceived improved disability/function and most (30/31 [96.8%]) perceived eptinezumab to be well tolerated after 6 months. Most of the headache specialists reported that eptinezumab was well tolerated by patients (30/31 [96.8%]) and that the intravenous infusion experience was not challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with migraine who received 6 months of preventive treatment with eptinezumab experienced reductions in migraine and headache frequency, disability, and acute medication use during the course of treatment.

Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of the randomized PROMISE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient-reported outcomes: 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE-2 population [n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT-6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24-week study. Responder rates for individual HIT-6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab-treated patients indicated the PGIC was "much" or "very much" improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI-MBS and SF-36 scores. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures: extension of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures in the placebo-controlled phase of the DELIVER clinical trial; its long-term effectiveness in this population has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in a migraine patient population during the 48-week extension phase of DELIVER. METHODS: DELIVER was conducted June 1, 2020 to September 15, 2022. 865 adults with migraine, with documented evidence of 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures and with completion of the 24-week placebo-controlled period of DELIVER received eptinezumab (100 or 300 mg) during the dose-blinded extension, either continuing their randomized dose or, if originally receiving placebo, were randomized 1:1 to an eptinezumab dose (100 or 300 mg). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate changes from baseline in the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs). RESULTS: Of 865 patients entering the extension (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 433; 300 mg, n = 432), 782 (90.4%) completed and 11 (1.3%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Eptinezumab was associated with early and sustained reductions in migraine frequency. Mean MMDs at baseline were approximately 14 days across groups. Mean (standard error) change from baseline in MMDs over the final dosing interval (weeks 61-72) was -6.4 (0.50) with placebo/eptinezumab 100 mg, -7.3 (0.49) with placebo/eptinezumab 300 mg, -7.1 (0.39) with eptinezumab 100 mg, and -7.0 (0.39) with eptinezumab 300 mg. During weeks 61-72, 63-70% of patients demonstrated ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs, and 36-45% demonstrated ≥ 75% reduction. Headache severity and acute medication use reductions, and patient-reported improvements in most bothersome symptom, disease status, quality of life, and work productivity, were observed. Adverse events were generally mild, transient, and similar in frequency/type to previous eptinezumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures was demonstrated by high completion rates and migraine-preventive benefits sustained for up to 18 months, implying that eptinezumab is a viable long-term treatment option for patients still seeking successful migraine treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765; URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

Cutaneous heat and light-induced pain thresholds in post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize cutaneous heat and light-induced pain thresholds in people with post-traumatic headache (PTH) compared with healthy controls (HCs). BACKGROUND: Photophobia and allodynia are common in PTH, and there is emerging evidence to support multimodal sensory dysfunction. METHODS: In this age- and sex-matched cohort study, individuals with PTH (n = 20) and HCs (n = 20), aged 18-65 years, were recruited from an institutional database of research volunteers, from the concussion clinic, and via the use of approved flyers posted on the Mayo Clinic Campus in Scottsdale, Arizona. Participants were assessed using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Quantitative sensory testing quantified heat pain thresholds. A light stimulation device quantified light-induced pain thresholds. Subsequently, heat pain thresholds were obtained immediately, 10, and 40 min after a bright light stressor. RESULTS: The mean photophobia symptom severity score, based on the PAQ, was higher in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 0.62 (SD = 0.25) versus mean 0.24 (SD = 0.24), p < 0.001. Light-induced pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH (median = 90.5 lux and quartiles = 17.8 to 378.5) compared with HCs (median = 863.5 lux and quartiles = 519.9 to 4906.5) and were independent from BDI and STAI (p < 0.001). Allodynia scores did not differ between participants with PTH and HCs after adjusting for BDI and STAI scores. Baseline forehead heat pain thresholds were not different, participants with PTH mean 41.9°C (SD = 0.89) versus HCs mean 44.3°C (SD = 0.89), p = 0.061; however, forearm heat pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 40.8°C (SD = 0.80) versus mean 44.4°C (SD = 0.80), p = 0.002. The forehead heat pain threshold change from baseline post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different immediately (mean -1.2 (SD = 0.53), p = 0.025), 10 min (mean -1.8 (SD = 0.74), p = 0.015), and 40 min (mean -1.8 (SD = 0.88), p = 0.047). The forearm heat pain threshold change immediately post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different, mean -1.9°C (SD = 0.58), p = 0.001, however, not different at 10 and 40 min. CONCLUSIONS: Photophobia is higher and light-induced pain thresholds are lower in participants with PTH. Exposure to a light stressor reduced heat pain thresholds in participants with PTH immediately post bright light stressor, but not in HCs. This study provides evidence for multimodal sensory dysfunction in people with PTH.

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1-24). RESULTS: A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1-24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1-24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153 . Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab reduced acute headache medication and headache frequency to below diagnostic thresholds in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE-2 study. BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE-2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. METHODS: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders-3ß criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class-specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. RESULTS: In PROMISE-2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1-24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one-fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab in patients with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of PROMISE-2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with the dual diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be effective for treating patients with a dual diagnosis of CM and MOH. METHODS: PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study that comprised a screening visit, a 28-day pretreatment period, and a 32-week study duration. Patients in this exploratory analysis of a prespecified subgroup had confirmed diagnoses of both CM and MOH at screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) during weeks 1-12, migraine responder rates at week 12, and percentages of patients below International Classification of Headache Disorders thresholds for CM and MOH over weeks 1-24. RESULTS: There were 431 patients who were diagnosed with CM and MOH as specified in the protocol and received eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 139), 300 mg (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145). During the baseline period, these patients experienced an average of 16.7 migraine days across treatment arms. Over weeks 1-12, eptinezumab-treated patients experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than placebo patients (100 mg, change from baseline = -8.4, difference from placebo [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -3.0 [-4.56, -1.52], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; 300 mg, change from baseline = -8.6, difference from placebo [95% CI] = -3.2 [-4.66, -1.78], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; placebo, -5.4). Compared with placebo, more eptinezumab-treated patients were ≥50% migraine responders (100 mg, 84/139 [60.4%]; 300 mg, 91/147 [61.9%]; placebo, 50/145 [34.5%]) or ≥75% responders (100 mg, 38/139 [27.3%]; 300 mg, 44/147 [29.9%]; placebo, 21/145 [14.5%]) over weeks 1-12. Therapeutic benefits with eptinezumab were observed from day 1 after dosing, and improvements were sustained with an additional dose. For the full 24-week treatment period, 71/139 (51.1%), 80/147 (54.4%), and 47/145 (32.4%) of 100, 300 mg, and placebo-treated patients, respectively, were below CM thresholds, and of the patients who provided sufficient acute medication data, 47/93 (50.5%), 53/107 (49.5%), and 26/96 (27.1%), respectively, were below medication-overuse thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: In patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH, eptinezumab treatment resulted in greater reductions in MMDs, higher responder rates, and fewer patients meeting CM and MOH criteria, thus demonstrating the efficacy and clinical utility of eptinezumab in this patient population.

A pilot exploratory study comparing the King-Devick test (KDT) during and between migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND: The King-Devick test is a timed rapid number naming task that involves complex cerebral functions. The objective of this pilot exploratory study is to determine whether there is a difference in the King-Devick test during a migraine attack compared to the interictal phase. METHODS: We evaluated 29 adult subjects with migraine with aura or migraine without aura. For each participant, we performed King-Devick tests during migraine attacks and interictal phases. Subjects served as their own controls. RESULTS: The King-Devick test was slower during the migraine attack compared to the interictal baseline (median 4.6 sec slower, p < 0.001). The slowing of the King-Devick test during migraine attack was more prominent in those with migraine with aura compared to subjects with migraine without aura (median 7.5 vs. 2.8 sec, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory, observational study shows changes in the King-Devick test during migraine compared to the interictal phase. Future studies are required to determine if the King-Devick test may be used as a rapid and simple tool to objectively characterize migraine-associated disability.

E-Consultation in Headache Medicine: A Quality Improvement Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Access to headache consultations by a headache specialist is limited. E-consultations are an efficient approach shown to reduce costs and improve continuity of care with the primary care provider. Indications, suitability, and uptake in the headache population are not well studied. METHODS: This quality improvement pilot aims to explore the appropriateness of e-consultations for patients referred to a headache specialist. E-consultation feasibility was explored through (1) retrospective review of completed face-to-face consultations; (2) prospective survey of providers to identify face-to-face consultations appropriate for e-consultation; (3) cross-sectional review of the current waiting list to assess theoretical triaging to face-to-face vs e-consultation; and (4) prospective review of all e-consultations requested from an academic headache clinic to improve the understanding of e-consultation feasibility and referral triage. RESULTS: The retrospective review included 75 face-to-face consultations with a mean (SD) wait time of 33 (39.4) days for consultations, of which 28/75 (37.3%) were deemed to be feasible e-consultations. The prospective survey of providers identified 10 face-to-face consultations that were felt to be theoretically appropriate for e-consultation. The cross-sectional review identified 20 patients on the clinic waiting list, of whom 5/20 (25%) were theoretically triaged to e-consultation. Finally, the prospective review found 12 requested e-consultations, of which 6/12 (50%) were for migraine prophylaxis recommendations. Chart data often lacked details for complete assessments, with 5/12 (41.7%) converted to face-to-face consultations and only 4/12 (33.3%) deemed appropriate for e-consultation. CONCLUSION: E-consultation in headache medicine could be considered if appropriately triaged. Pathways are needed to reach patients earlier in their disease course to ensure headache care meets guideline recommendations, and e-consultation is 1 option. However, better communication with primary care is required for system optimization.

Pressing Issues Among Trainees and Early Career Physicians in Headache Medicine: Survey Results From the American Headache Society New Investigator and Trainee Section and International Headache Academy.

OBJECTIVE: We surveyed the American Headache Society (AHS) New Investigators and Trainees Section (NITS), and International Headache Academy (IHA) attendees to better understand what they perceive as the most pressing issues for themselves as new investigators and trainees in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The NITS and IHA are intended as platforms for mentorship, leadership training, and professional development in the field of headache medicine. Identifying and addressing pressing issues among new investigators and trainees based on their perceived needs is critical to encouraging their development and success as headache medicine clinicians and researchers. METHODS: Paper surveys were administered at the NITS meeting at the November 2018 Scottsdale Headache Symposium and the January 2019 IHA. Additionally an online version was sent to the NIT listserv in November of 2018. The survey queried demographic information (gender, race, age, profession, training status, and years in practice) and asked participants to identify their top 3 most pressing issues/questions among a list of options. RESULTS: Fifty-three responses were submitted (53/255; total response rate 20.7%). Among the surveys, 18 in-person responses were from the NITS meeting (18/20; response rate 90.0%), 23 in-person responses were from the IHA (23/45; response rate 51.1%), and 12 responses were from the online survey (12/190; response rate 6.3%). No duplicate responses were submitted based on comparison of demographics. One respondent identified as a researcher exclusively and was excluded from further analyses; the rest identified as clinicians at various levels of medical training. Fifteen respondents were not members of the NITS (28.8%); the most common reason for nonmembership was lack of awareness of the section (92.8%). Overall the most pressing issues/questions included (% of respondents who ranked issue/question among top 3): Career planning (51.9%), Logistics of running a headache clinic (40.4%), and Opportunities for involvement (38.5%). Most pressing issues/questions differed depending on level of training. Working with industry was the most pressing issue/question identified by early career physicians (55.0%). Career planning was the most pressing issue/question among fellows (72.2%) and residents (64.3%). CONCLUSION: Many of the most pressing issues identified by respondents are topics that are not formally addressed in medical and research training.

Real-World Patient Experience With Erenumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, has been well tolerated with good efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. Limited post-market observations are available to validate these findings in a real-world tertiary headache clinic population with complex comorbidities and refractory migraine. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to demonstrate the real-world performance of erenumab among patients in a tertiary care headache clinic by describing patient selection, experience, and clinical characteristics after 6 months of erenumab therapy. METHODS: A retrospective, exploratory, observational study was conducted on patients receiving at least 1 erenumab injection (70 or 140 mg). Baseline data obtained by chart review and telephone calls were compared to 6-month follow-up telephone calls. The primary outcome was the reduction in self-reported headache days per month at baseline compared to 6 months for those with complete 6-month data. The significance level was set at P < .05. Secondary analyses explored the distribution of headache severity, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment scores, adverse effects, ineffective preventives, comorbidities, wearing-off, and discontinuation. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients who consented to participate, 89.1% (90/101) were women, and the mean age of all patients was 49 years (range, 19-80 years). At baseline, 94.1% (95/101) of patients had chronic migraine, 5.0% (5/101) had episodic migraine, and 18.8% (19/101) had medication overuse headache. The mean (SD) number of baseline headache and migraine days per month for the entire cohort were 24.3 (8.2) and 18.2 (9.3) days, respectively. Participants had numerous comorbidities and had tried a mean of 11.2 unique oral medications and 4.8 unique medication categories before receiving erenumab, including 83.2% (84/101) who had also received onabotulinumtoxinA. Six-month post-erenumab follow-up data were available for 42.6% (43/101) of participants. For these 43 participants, the number of headache days per month decreased significantly by 6.5 days from a baseline mean (SD) of 24.8 (6.47) days to 18.3 (12) days at 6-month follow-up (P < .001); similarly, the monthly migraine days decreased significantly by 8.4 days from a baseline mean of 19.1 (9.3) days to 10.7 days at 6-month follow-up (P < .001). The 50% responder rate was 34.9% (15/43) for monthly headache days and 54.8% (23/43) for monthly migraine days. Of all 101 participants, 28 (27.7%) discontinued erenumab, primarily because it was ineffective (39.3%, 11/28) or because of adverse effects (42.9%, 12/28). CONCLUSION: This post-market observational study of patient experience describes response to erenumab in a real-world tertiary headache clinic with a complex patient population. Overall, these complex patients had a significant positive clinical response to erenumab, but with high rates of discontinuation. This study also noted a 1-week wearing-off response and high rates of constipation. Further post-market studies are needed to better characterize patient selection and real-world response to erenumab.

Migraine Headache Day Response Rates and the Implications to Patient Functioning: An Evaluation of 3 Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Galcanezumab in Patients With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories. BACKGROUND: Migraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients. METHODS: Analyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Because migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.

COVID-19 and Headache Medicine: A Narrative Review of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) and Corticosteroid Use.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. BACKGROUND: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. RESULTS: There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID-19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: Scientific information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID-19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Advocacy in Headache Medicine: Tips at the Bedside, the Institutional Level, and Beyond.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We describe the pervasiveness of headache diseases across the globe and the need for healthcare advocacy, define healthcare advocacy, and identify how providers can incorporate healthcare advocacy into clinical practice and beyond. RECENT FINDINGS: Nearly 3 billion people across the globe experience migraine or tension-type headache, yet headache diseases receive a fraction of the funding that is allocated to other diseases. Despite its prevalence, those with headache diseases, especially migraine, experience external and internal stigma. As physicians, our job extends past the direct needs of the patient and must also focus on the systemic problems affecting our patients such as accessibility to healthcare providers and treatment options, as well as addressing stigma. We can empower our patients with education, community, and supportive, non-stigmatizing language used to describe headache diseases. Headache diseases are prevalent throughout the world and contribute to a substantial amount of disability. Disability is further compounded by stigma. Advocacy starts with empowering patients and peers with knowledge. It extends into the workplace to create accommodations and in the community to raise awareness and lobby for access to specialists, treatment options, and research funding.

Noninvasive Neuromodulation in Migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The past two decades has seen an influx of noninvasive neuromodulation devices aimed at treatment of various primary headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. This narrative review is to summarize the current options in noninvasive neuromodulation in migraine. RECENT FINDINGS: A variety of noninvasive neuromodulation devices have been FDA cleared and marketed for use in migraine, including single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS), noninvasive vagal nerve stimulators (nVNS), and external trigeminal nerve stimulators (eTNS). Newer devices include peripheral electrical stimulation devices (PES), caloric stimulation, and others. Each has varying levels of evidence supporting its use in migraine, tolerability profiles, and access issues. Noninvasive neuromodulation devices can be beneficial when used in patients with migraine, with minimal side effects. As more devices are developed, approved, and marketed in the future, rigorous research on efficacy and safety remain a top priority.