Long-term safety and tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine: a 2-year, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody recently approved in the United States for preventive treatment of migraine in adults, was found to be well tolerated in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. The objective of the PREVAIL study was to evaluate the long-term safety, immunogenicity, and impact on patient-reported outcomes of repeat doses of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine. METHODS: PREVAIL was an open-label, phase 3 trial comprising a 48-week treatment phase followed by a second 48-week treatment phase. Adults with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 300 mg by 30-min intravenous administration every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. Patients were followed for 20 weeks after the final infusion (end-of-study visit at week 104). RESULTS: Overall, 128 adults (mean age, 41.5 years) with chronic migraine were included. During the 2 years, the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (14.1%), upper respiratory tract infection (7.8%), sinusitis (7.8%), influenza (6.3%), bronchitis (5.5%), and migraine (5.5%). The rate of study-drug discontinuation due to adverse events was 6.3%, which included 3 patients with infusion-related hypersensitivity. The incidence of anti-eptinezumab antibodies peaked at week 24 and declined despite continued dosing, to nondetectable levels at week 104. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were observed at first assessment (week 4) and generally sustained through week 104. CONCLUSION: In adults with chronic migraine, eptinezumab 300 mg demonstrated a favorable safety profile, limited long-term immunogenicity, early and sustained reductions in migraine-related burden, and improvements in health-related quality of life over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02985398 ).

Pharmacologic Characterization of ALD1910, a Potent Humanized Monoclonal Antibody against the Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Peptide.

Migraine is a debilitating disease that affects almost 15% of the population worldwide and is the first cause of disability in people under 50 years of age, yet its etiology and pathophysiology remain incompletely understood. Recently, small molecules and therapeutic antibodies that block the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway have reduced migraine occurrence and aborted acute attacks of migraine in clinical trials and provided prevention in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Heterogeneity is present within each diagnosis and patient's response to treatment, suggesting migraine as a final common pathway potentially activated by multiple mechanisms, e.g., not all migraine attacks respond to or are prevented by anti-CGRP pharmacological interventions. Consequently, other unique mechanisms central to migraine pathogenesis may present new targets for drug development. Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) is an attractive novel target for treatment of migraines. We generated a specific, high-affinity, neutralizing monoclonal antibody (ALD1910) with reactivity to both PACAP38 and PACAP27. In vitro, ALD1910 effectively antagonizes PACAP38 signaling through the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide type I receptor, vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor 1, and vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor 2. ALD1910 recognizes a nonlinear epitope within PACAP and blocks its binding to the cell surface. To test ALD1910 antagonistic properties directed against endogenous PACAP, we developed an umbellulone-induced rat model of neurogenic vasodilation and parasympathetic lacrimation. In vivo, this model demonstrates that the antagonistic activity of ALD1910 is dose-dependent, retaining efficacy at doses as low as 0.3 mg/kg. These results indicate that ALD1910 represents a potential therapeutic antibody to address PACAP-mediated migraine.

Randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing DFN-11 injection (3 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan) with 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of rapidly-escalating attacks of episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: A 6-mg dose of SC sumatriptan is the most efficacious and fast-acting acute treatment for migraine, but a 3-mg dose of SC sumatriptan may improve tolerability while maintaining efficacy. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study compared the efficacy and tolerability of 3 mg subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan (DFN-11) with 6 mg SC sumatriptan in 20 adults with rapidly-escalating migraine attacks. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1) to treat 1 attack with DFN-11 and matching placebo autoinjector consecutively or 2 DFN-11 autoinjectors consecutively and a second attack similarly but with the alternative dose (3 mg or 6 mg). RESULTS: The proportions of subjects who were pain-free at 60 min postdose, the primary endpoint, were similar following treatment with 3 mg SC sumatriptan and 6 mg SC sumatriptan (50% vs 52.6%, P  =  .87). The proportions of subjects experiencing pain relief (P  ≥  .48); reductions in migraine pain intensity (P  ≥  .78); and relief from nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia (P  ≥  .88) with 3 mg SC sumatriptan and 6 mg SC sumatriptan were similar, as were the mean scores for satisfaction with treatment (M  =  2.6 vs M  =  2.4, P  =  .81) and the mean number of rescue medications used (M  =  .11 vs M  =  .26, P  =  .32). The most common adverse events with the 3- and 6-mg doses were triptan sensations - paresthesia, neck pain, flushing, and involuntary muscle contractions of the neck - and the incidence of adverse events with both doses was similar (32 events total: 3 mg, n  =  14 [44%]; 6 mg, n  =  18 [56%], P  =  .60). Triptan sensations affected 4 subjects with the 6-mg dose only, 1 subject with the 3-mg dose only, and 7 subjects with both sumatriptan doses. Chest pain affected 2 subjects (10%) treated with the 6-mg dose and no subjects (0%) treated with the 3-mg dose of DFN-11. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mg SC dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 provided relief of migraine pain and associated symptoms comparable to a 6-mg SC dose of sumatriptan. Tolerability was similar with both study medications; DFN-11 treatment was associated with fewer triptan sensations than the 6-mg dose. DFN-11, with its 3-mg dose of sumatriptan, may be a clinically useful alternative to higher-dose autoinjectors.

A multicenter, open-label, long-term safety and tolerability study of DFN-02, an intranasal spray of sumatriptan 10 mg plus permeation enhancer DDM, for the acute treatment of episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: DFN-02 is a novel intranasal spray formulation composed of sumatriptan 10 mg and a permeation-enhancing excipient comprised of 0.2% 1-O-n-Dodecyl-ß-D-Maltopyranoside (DDM). This composition of DFN-02 allows sumatriptan to be rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation and exhibit pharmacokinetics comparable to subcutaneously administered sumatriptan. Rapid rate of absorption is suggested to be important for optimal efficacy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of DFN-02 (10 mg) in the acute treatment of episodic migraine with and without aura over a 6-month period based on the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and the evaluation of results of clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, physical examination, and electrocardiograms. METHODS: This was a multi-center, open-label, repeat-dose safety study in adults with episodic migraine with and without aura. Subjects diagnosed with migraine with or without aura according to the criteria set forth in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition, who experienced 2 to 6 attacks per month with fewer than 15 headache days per month and at least 48 headache-free hours between attacks, used DFN-02 to treat their migraine attacks acutely over the course of 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 173 subjects was enrolled, 167 (96.5%) subjects used at least 1 dose of study medication and were evaluable for safety, and 134 (77.5%) subjects completed the 6-month study. A total of 2211 migraine attacks was reported, and 3292 doses of DFN-02 were administered; mean per subject monthly use of DFN-02 was 3.6 doses. Adverse events were those expected for triptans, as well as for nasally administered compounds. No new safety signals emerged. Dysgeusia and application site pain were the most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events over 6 months (21% and 30.5%, respectively). Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild. There were 5 serious adverse events, all considered unrelated to the study medication; the early discontinuation rate was 22.5% over the 6-month treatment period. CONCLUSION: DFN-02 was shown to be well tolerated when used over 6 months to treat episodic migraine acutely.

Acupuncture in the treatment of headache: a traditional explanation of an ancient art.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 4000 years, acupuncture has survived the test of time. Recent scientific studies posit acupuncture is an effective intervention for back and joint pain and headache, including migraine. METHODS: The process of acupuncture is explained, including the role of Qi, the integration of Yang and Yin, the 5 elements, the 8 trigrams, and the metaphors that help the acupuncturist understand the patient, interpret symptoms, and determine acupuncture points in the meridians used to prevent or treat disease. A case study is presented from 3 perspectives: allopathic, traditional acupuncture, and Western acupuncture. RESULTS: Selected acupuncture studies in headache are reviewed. The safety of acupuncture is discussed as well as the challenges in conducting clinical studies of acupuncture.

Long-term efficacy of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study for repetitive sphenopalatine blockade with bupivacaine vs. saline with the Tx360 device for treatment of chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine if repetitive sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) blockades with 0.5% bupivacaine delivered with the Tx360 device results in long-term improvement in chronic migraine (CM). The SPG is a small concentrated structure of neuronal tissue that resides within the pterygopalatine fossa in close proximity to the sphenopalatine foramen and is innervated by the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve. In a previous article, these authors reported repetitive SPG blockades with 0.5% bupivacaine delivered by the Tx360 device, which was an effective and well-tolerated intervention to incrementally decrease baseline headache intensity of subjects with CM. METHODS: This was a double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot study using a novel intervention for acute treatment in CM. A total of 41 subjects were enrolled at two headache specialty clinics in the USA. Eligible subjects were between 18 and 80 years of age and had a history of CM defined by International Classification of Headache Disorders-II definition. Subjects were allowed a stable dose of migraine preventive medications that was maintained throughout the study. Following a 28-day baseline period, subjects were randomized by computer-generated lists 2:1 to receive 0.3 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine or saline, respectively, delivered with the Tx360 twice a week for 6 weeks. Secondary end-points reported in this manuscript include post-treatment measures including number of headache days and quality of life measures. RESULTS: The final data set included 38 subjects: 26 in the bupivacaine group and 12 in the saline group. Our primary end-point for the study, difference in numeric pain rating scale scores, was met and reported in a previous article. The supplemental secondary end-points reported in this manuscript did not reach statistical significance. When looking collectively at these end-points, trends were noticed and worthy of reporting. Subjects receiving bupivacaine reported a decrease in the number of headache days 1 month post-treatment (Mdiff = -5.71), whereas those receiving saline only saw a slight improvement (Mdiff = -1.93). Headache Impact Test 6 scores were decreased in the bupivacaine group at 1 month (Mdiff = -5.13) and 6 months (Mdiff = -4.78) post-treatment, but only a modest reduction was seen for those receiving saline at 1 and 6 months, respectively (Mdiff = -2.08, Mdiff = -1.58). Furthermore, subjects receiving bupivacaine reported a reduction in acute medication usage and improved quality of life measures (average pain in the previous 24 hours, mood, normal work, and general activity) up to 6 months post-treatment. The changes in these measures for the saline group were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this exploratory pilot study suggest that there may be long-term clinical benefits with the use of repetitive SPG blockades with bupivacaine delivered with the simple to use Tx360 device. These include a sustained reduction of headache days and improvement in several important quality of life assessments. The SPG blockades were not associated with any significant or lasting adverse events. Further research on SPG blockade is warranted.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of breath powered nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder (AVP-825) in the treatment of acute migraine (The TARGET Study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AVP-825, a drug-device combination of low-dose sumatriptan powder (22 mg loaded dose) delivered intranasally through a targeted Breath Powered device vs an identical device containing lactose powder (placebo device) in the treatment of migraine headache. BACKGROUND: Early treatment of migraine headaches is associated with improved outcome, but medication absorption after oral delivery may be delayed in migraineurs because of reduced gastric motility. Sumatriptan powder administered with an innovative, closed-palate, Bi-Directional, Breath Powered intranasal delivery mechanism is efficiently absorbed across the nasal mucosa and produces fast absorption into the circulation. Results from a previously conducted placebo-controlled study of AVP-825 showed a high degree of headache relief with an early onset of action (eg, 74% AVP-825 vs 38% placebo device at 1 hour, P<.01). METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura, participants were randomized via computer-generated lists to AVP-825 or placebo device to treat a single migraine headache of moderate or severe intensity. The primary endpoint was headache relief (defined as reduction of headache pain intensity from severe or moderate migraine headache to mild or none) at 2 hours post-dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients (116 AVP-825 and 114 placebo device) were randomized, of whom 223 (112 and 111, respectively) experienced a qualifying migraine headache (their next migraine headache that reached moderate or severe intensity). A significantly greater proportion of AVP-825 patients reported headache relief at 2 hours post-dose compared with those using the placebo device (68% vs 45%, P=.002, odds ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval [1.45, 4.42]). Between-group differences in headache relief were evident as early as 15 minutes, reached statistical significance at 30 minutes post-dose (42% vs 27%, P=.03), and were sustained at 24 hours (44% vs 24%, P=.002) and 48 hours (34% vs 20%, P=.01). Thirty-four percent of patients treated with AVP-825 were pain-free at 2 hours compared with 17% using the placebo device (P=.008). More AVP-825 patients reported meaningful pain relief (patient interpretation) of migraine within 2 hours of treatment vs placebo device (70% vs 45%, P<.001), and fewer required rescue medication (37% vs 52%, P=.02). Total migraine freedom (patients with no headache, nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, or vomiting) reached significance following treatment with AVP-825 at 1 hour (19% vs 9%; P=.04). There were no serious adverse events (AEs), and no systemic AEs occurred in more than one patient. Chest pain or pressure was not reported, and only one patient taking AVP-825 reported mild paresthesia. No other triptan sensations were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted delivery of a low-dose of sumatriptan powder via a novel, closed-palate, Breath Powered, intranasal device (AVP-825) provided fast relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults that reached statistical significance over placebo by 30 minutes. The treatment was well tolerated with a low incidence of systemic AEs.

AVP-825 breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan powder vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraines (The COMPASS study): a comparative randomized clinical trial across multiple attacks.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of AVP-825, an investigational bi-directional breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing low-dose (22 mg) sumatriptan powder, vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan for acute treatment of migraine in a double-dummy, randomized comparative efficacy clinical trial allowing treatment across multiple migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: In phases 2 and 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 provided early and sustained relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults, with a low incidence of triptan-related adverse effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, active-comparator, double-dummy, cross-over, multi-attack study (COMPASS; NCT01667679) with two ≤12-week double-blind periods. Subjects experiencing 2-8 migraines/month in the past year were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated sequences to AVP-825 plus oral placebo tablet or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablet for the first period; patients switched treatment for the second period in this controlled comparative design. Subjects treated ≤5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 hour of onset, even if pain was mild. The primary end-point was the mean value of the summed pain intensity differences through 30 minutes post-dose (SPID-30) using Headache Severity scores. Secondary outcomes included pain relief, pain freedom, pain reduction, consistency of response across multiple migraines, migraine-associated symptoms, and atypical sensations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 275 adults were randomized, 174 (63.3%) completed the study (ie, completed the second treatment period), and 185 (67.3%) treated at least one migraine in both periods (1531 migraines assessed). There was significantly greater reduction in migraine pain intensity with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes post-dose (least squares mean SPID-30 = 10.80 vs 7.41, adjusted mean difference 3.39 [95% confidence interval 1.76, 5.01]; P < .001). At each time point measured between 15 and 90 minutes, significantly greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom occurred with AVP-825 treatment compared with oral sumatriptan. At 2 hours, rates of pain relief and pain freedom became comparable; rates of sustained pain relief and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours remained comparable. Nasal discomfort and abnormal taste were more common with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan (16% vs 1% and 26% vs 4%, respectively), but ∼90% were mild, leading to only one discontinuation. Atypical sensation rates were significantly lower with AVP-825 than with conventional higher dose 100 mg oral sumatriptan. CONCLUSIONS: AVP-825 (containing 22 mg sumatriptan nasal powder) provided statistically significantly greater reduction of migraine pain intensity over the first 30 minutes following treatment, and greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom within 15 minutes, compared with 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Sustained pain relief and pain freedom through 24 and 48 hours was achieved in a similar percentage of attacks for both treatments, despite substantially lower total systemic drug exposure with AVP-825. Treatment was well tolerated, with statistically significantly fewer atypical sensations with AVP-825.

Consistency of return to normal function, productivity, and satisfaction following migraine attacks treated with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the consistency of improved functioning, productivity, and medication satisfaction in migraines treated with a single tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (S/NS) using an early intervention approach. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover, multi-attack, multi-center, outpatient studies of moderate to severe adult migraineurs were conducted to compare S/NS with placebo. Participants recorded outcome assessments in a diary during the 24 hours following study medication. Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population who treated at least 1 attack. Statistical significance between treatment groups used analysis of variance repeated measures models and the intent-to-treat population. There were no corrections for multiplicity. RESULTS: Almost half (48.5%) of migraineurs treated with S/NS returned to normal functioning at 2 hours and 73.3% at 4 hours postdose, compared with 28.7% (2 hours) and 43.3% (4 hours) of placebo-treated attacks. Total productivity loss over the 24 hours postdose was significantly reduced following S/NS treatment (2.5 hours on average) compared with placebo (4.0 hours). Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment resulted in significantly higher medication satisfaction scores on the efficacy, functionality, and total efficacy subscales compared with placebo in all attacks in both studies. Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment also provided significantly greater ease of use in 7 of the 8 attacks. Although tolerability was high in both treatment groups (over 90%), the placebo group was significantly less bothered by side effects in 6 of 8 attacks. CONCLUSION: Results from these 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-attack, crossover studies demonstrated the rapid and consistent restoration of patients' functioning, the consistent reduction in productivity loss, and high satisfaction ratings from patients treating multiple migraine attacks with S/NS using an early intervention approach.

Evaluation of sumatriptan-naproxen in the treatment of acute migraine: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study assessing cognitive function.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cognitive effects of acute migraine and the subsequent impact of acute treatment in a controlled setting. BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction may be an associated symptom in patients with migraine with or without aura. The loss of cognitive efficiency in migraine may be disabling and is often under recognized. METHODS: Thirty migraine patients were prospectively studied for cognitive function before and then at the beginning of a migraine using a computerized cognitive battery (Mental Efficacy Workload Test). Each patient then was treated for 2 headaches in a cross-over manner with sumatriptan-naproxen (Treximet®) or placebo in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion with cognitive testing repeated at 1 and 2 hours post-dose. RESULTS: Twenty-five of the 30 screened migraine subjects completed study-specific procedures and were included in the data analyses. There were no significant side effects from Treximet or placebo and no serious adverse events. At the onset of headache, there was a statistically significant decline in overall cognitive efficiency compared with the baseline cognitive testing (migraine-free) for all subjects (P = .001 paired samples t-test). For subjects taking Treximet compared with taking placebo, there was a statistically significant return to cognitive efficiency by measures of immediate and sustained attention, visual-spatial awareness, mental flexibility, and reaction time between 1 hour and 2 hours (P = .05). There was no statistical significance between patients taking Treximet or placebo in measures of complex reasoning or fine motor coordination. Subanalysis showed a correlation between headache severity and Performance Index in the Treximet group but not in the placebo group (∼Fig. ). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant decline in global cognitive efficiency at the onset of an attack of migraine. The use of Treximet allows a significantly faster recovery time in some measures of cognitive efficiency compared with placebo. Decline of cognitive efficiency may be independent of headache severity.

Two center, randomized pilot study of migraine prophylaxis comparing paradigms using pre-emptive frovatriptan or daily topiramate: research and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and clinical benefit of 2 paradigms of migraine prevention using pre-emptive frovatriptan and daily topiramate. The study compares the paradigms of pre-emptive use of frovatriptan, a drug approved for acute migraine, and the daily use of topiramate, a Federal Drug Administration-approved and -accepted standard for migraine prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, preventive treatment of migraine required daily medication. However, recent studies suggest that pre-emptive prophylaxis may be beneficial to those migraineurs who can predict an attack of migraine based on premonitory symptoms and treat during that phase. METHODS: A total of 76 adult subjects with a diagnosis of migraine were screened for the study. During a 1-month baseline period, subjects demonstrated through a daily diary that they predicted at least 50% of migraine attacks during the premonitory phase and treated with their usual medication. Of these, 55 were randomized to either Group A (daily topiramate) or Group B (frovatriptan during premonitory symptoms); 44 completed the study. The treatment period lasted 2 months. The subjects answered the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire at randomization, and at Weeks 4 and 8. The revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire was answered 24 hours after taking frovatriptan (Group A, for break-through headaches; Group B, treatment during premonitory symptoms). RESULTS: The number of migraine attacks and headache days per month decreased significantly from baseline for both Groups A and B. Subjects in Group A had considerably more adverse events leading to study withdrawal than in Group B (18% vs 4%). Though this study was not powered to directly compare the efficacy of the 2 drugs, topiramate showed superiority over frovatriptan at Month 2 in reduction of headache days, which was a secondary end point in the study (P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that statistical benefit for reduction of headache days over baseline for both pre-emptive frovatriptan and daily topiramate. Subjects utilizing pre-emptive frovatriptan experienced fewer adverse events leading to study withdrawal. Subjects utilizing daily topiramate had fewer headache days at Month 2.

The development of a survey to measure completeness of response to migraine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of a new patient-reported migraine instrument, the Completeness of Response Survey (CORS), which measures a comprehensive set of factors important to patients' decisions regarding the initiation and continuation of treatment. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, migraine treatments and the instruments used to demonstrate their efficacy have focused on the relief of headache pain. As new treatments emerge with the potential for more complete and consistent migraine relief, more comprehensive tools are needed to demonstrate these benefits. The CORS includes 2 modules, the static CORS, which comprehensively evaluates one treatment at one time point, and the comparative CORS, which provides a more global comparison between 2 treatments at one time point. Together, the 2 modules can measure unmet treatment needs and improvements over the course of a clinical study. METHODS: Data from an 8-site study comparing 147 patients' recent experiences with their current triptan therapy and 2 months of study treatment with a single-tablet formulation of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium were used to conduct a preliminary psychometric evaluation of the CORS. The study included both modules of the CORS, the Headache Impact Test, the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, and a migraine diary. RESULTS: The CORS response categories in both the static and comparative modules demonstrated limited floor or ceiling effects and few missing values (<3%). Inter-item correlations, principal components analysis (component loading range: 0.62 to 0.95), and high estimates of internal consistency (alpha range: 0.88 to 0.94) for each composite score supported the structure and proposed scoring algorithm for the static module. The pattern of correlations between the CORS static and comparative items and composites with the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire items and subscales, as well as the relationships between responses to selected static CORS items and the migraine diary, supported the construct validity of the CORS. CONCLUSIONS: The CORS is capable of demonstrating advantages of more comprehensive migraine therapies over traditional therapies, which are primarily focused on the resolution of headache pain, by addressing the frequency and speed with which the most common migraine symptoms are resolved and patients' return to normal functioning. This research shows evidence for the value and utility for the CORS static and comparative items and components, and further evaluation is underway.

Naming migraine and those who have it.

Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, the responses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that "migraine," not "migraine headache," was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and "sufferer" should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, "disease" was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term "migraineur" at all or if "person with migraine" was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language.

Rizatriptan for treatment of acute migraine in patients taking topiramate for migraine prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: There are limited data from prospective controlled trials demonstrating the benefit of triptans in patients who experience migraine attacks while taking prophylactic medication. METHODS: This was a worldwide, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multiple-attack study in adults with a >1-year history of migraine taking a stable dose of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis and experiencing ≥2 moderate/severe attacks per month. Participants treated 3 moderate/severe attacks in crossover fashion (2 with rizatriptan 10-mg ODT, 1 with placebo) following random assignment to 1 of 3 treatment sequences. The primary end point was 2-hour pain relief. RESULTS: Two-hour pain relief was significantly greater with rizatriptan compared with placebo (55.0% vs 17.4%, P < .001). Response rates also favored rizatriptan for sustained pain relief from 2-24 hours (32.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001), 2-hour pain freedom (36.0% vs 6.5%, P < .001), normal functional ability at 2 hours (42.2% vs 12.7%, P < .001), and overall treatment satisfaction at 24 hours (60.8% vs 33.6%, P < .001). Few participants reported adverse experiences (16 [15.8%] with rizatriptan, 3 [3.2%] with placebo); none were serious. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT was superior to placebo at all pain end points for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated in this population. These results are comparable with those from clinical trials in patients not using prophylaxis, suggesting that the use of topiramate does not affect the efficacy or tolerability of rizatriptan for acute migraine treatment.

The bowel and migraine: update on celiac disease and irritable bowel syndrome.

This article explores possible relationships between migraine, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease (CD), and gluten sensitivity. These seemingly distinct medical entities curiously share many common epidemiological, psychosocial, and pathophysiological similarities. Considerable evidence is emerging to support a concept that experiencing significant threatening adverse events creates a state of hypervigilance in the nervous system, which associates with exaggerated response to future threats and episodic attacks of migraine and IBS. While this sensitizing response is generally considered to reside in the central nervous system, it may be possible that the initiation resides in the enteric nervous system as well. What appears to link migraine, IBS, and CD is a disease model of a genetically sensitive nervous system transformed into one that is hypervigilant, and that over time can often develop disabling and pervasive disease.

A double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual feverfew and ginger (LipiGesic™ M) in the treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic needs of migraineurs vary considerably from patient to patient and even attack to attack. Some attacks require high-end therapy, while other attacks have treatment needs that are less immediate. While triptans are considered the "gold standard" of migraine therapy, they do have limitations and many patients are seeking other therapeutic alternatives. In 2005, an open-label study of feverfew/ginger suggested efficacy for attacks of migraine treated early during the mild headache phase of the attack. METHODS/MATERIALS: In this multi-center pilot study, 60 patients treated 221 attacks of migraine with sublingual feverfew/ginger or placebo. All subjects met International Headache Society criteria for migraine with or without aura, experiencing 2-6 attacks of migraine per month within the previous 3 months. Subjects had <15 headache days per month and were not experiencing medication overuse headache. Inclusion required that subjects were able to identify a period of mild headache in at least 75% of attacks. Subjects were required to be able to distinguish migraine from non-migraine headache. Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive either sublingual feverfew/ginger or a matching placebo and were instructed but not required to treat with study medication at the earliest recognition of migraine. RESULTS: Sixty subjects treated 208 evaluable attacks of migraine over a 1-month period; 45 subjects treated 163 attacks with sublingual feverfew/ginger and 15 subjects treated 58 attacks with a sublingual placebo preparation. Evaluable diaries were completed for 151 attacks of migraine in the population using feverfew/ginger and 57 attacks for those attacks treated with placebo. At 2 hours, 32% of subjects receiving active medication and 16% of subjects receiving placebo were pain-free (P= .02). At 2 hours, 63% of subjects receiving feverfew/ginger found pain relief (pain-free or mild headache) vs 39% for placebo (P= .002). Pain level differences on a 4-point pain scale for those receiving feverfew/ginger vs placebo were -0.24 vs -0.04 respectively (P= .006). Feverfew/ginger was generally well tolerated with oral numbness and nausea being the most frequently occurring adverse event. CONCLUSION: Sublingual feverfew/ginger appears safe and effective as a first-line abortive treatment for a population of migraineurs who frequently experience mild headache prior to the onset of moderate to severe headache.

Satisfaction with and confidence in needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan in patients currently treated with triptans.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction with and confidence in Sumavel® DosePro® (needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan) among current triptan users administering Sumavel DosePro for up to 4 migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: Sumavel DosePro is a needle-free, single-use device that facilitates subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan 6 mg and confers relief as early as 10 minutes after dosing. DESIGN/METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, Sumavel DosePro was self-administered for ≤4 migraine attacks (over a ≤60-day period) involving moderate or severe baseline pain by adult migraineurs who currently were using triptans (any form, any dosage) and reported being less than very satisfied with their current therapy (i.e., baseline satisfaction ranging from satisfied to very dissatisfied). Treatment satisfaction was measured via the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, revised (PPMQ-R). RESULTS: Among the 212 patients using Sumavel DosePro to treat ≥1 migraine attack, PPMQ-R Overall Satisfaction (primary endpoint) increased significantly from baseline to the end of treatment (mean ± SD 65.7 ± 19.8 vs. 73.7 ± 29.1, P = .0007), an improvement that met the criterion for clinical significance. From baseline to the end of treatment, PPMQ-R scores also improved significantly for Efficacy (62.2 ± 17.6 vs. 76.2 ± 23.7, P < .0001), Functionality (59.0 ± 22.3 vs. 73.8 ± 25.3, P < .0001), and Tolerability (83.9 ± 13.1 vs. 86.4 ± 15.0, P = .02), but declined for Ease of Use (82.6 ± 15.3 vs 67.8 ± 27.6, P < .0001). For all global satisfaction domains, the percentage of patients satisfied or very satisfied increased from baseline to the end of treatment (Overall Satisfaction 36.3% vs. 64.0%, Satisfaction with Medication Effectiveness 40.1% vs. 68.2%, Satisfaction with Side Effects 48.6% vs. 67.3%). The percentage of patients who were confident or very confident in treating repeated migraine attacks also increased (baseline: 41.0%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 35.4, 46.9 vs. end of treatment: 66.5%, 90% CI 58.9, 70.1). The efficacy results (pain relief, pain-free response, sustained 24-hour pain relief and pain-free response) were consistent with those previously observed with needle-based sumatriptan. CONCLUSIONS: Patients currently treated with triptans and less than very satisfied with their acute migraine therapy experienced a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in satisfaction with therapy and enhanced confidence in treatment after use of Sumavel DosePro for up to 4 migraine attacks.

Total migraine freedom, a potential primary endpoint to assess acute treatment in migraine: comparison to the current FDA requirement using the complete rizatriptan study database.

OBJECTIVE: To examine total migraine freedom (TMF), defined as pain freedom and absence of associated symptoms, using rizatriptan clinical trial data and to explore advantages of TMF as a single primary composite efficacy endpoint. BACKGROUND: The FDA has set a higher regulatory hurdle for registration of new migraine agents requiring both pain freedom (or relief) and absence of each associated symptom (phonophobia, photophobia, and nausea). METHODS: Twelve studies representing phase III + efficacy/safety studies of rizatriptan 10 mg in adults treating migraine were included in the meta-analysis. The percentage of patients achieving TMF at 2 hours by study and combined by treatment group was summarized by treatment paradigm (early/mild pain, moderate/severe, menstrual migraine). To demonstrate the impact of the strict migraine regulatory hurdle on clinical trial design and to compare it to TMF, simulation via bootstrap sampling was used. RESULTS: Odds ratios (rizatriptan vs placebo, all P < .001) for TMF were 6.2 (95% CI: [4.9, 7.7]) for moderate/severe, 2.7 (95% CI: [1.8, 4.0]) for menstrual, and 3.1 (95% CI: [2.4, 4.0]) for early/mild. Most with moderate/severe migraine reported photophobia and/or phonophobia at baseline, but only half had nausea. Simulation results showed a substantial loss of power analyzing absence of pain and each symptom compared with the composite TMF endpoint across all treatment paradigms. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10 mg was superior to placebo in achieving TMF at 2 hours post-dose across all treatment paradigms. Given that the majority of patients with migraine do not exhibit all 3 associated symptoms, the TMF endpoint has significant advantages vs establishing efficacy on pain and each symptom individually.

A multi-center double-blind pilot comparison of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This multi-center pilot study compared the efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA with topiramate (a Food and Drug Administration approved and widely accepted treatment for prevention of migraine) in individuals with chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A total of 59 subjects with CM were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group 1 (n = 30) received topiramate plus placebo injections, Group 2 (n = 29) received onabotulinumtoxinA injections plus placebo tablets. Subjects maintained daily headache diaries over a 4-week baseline period and a 12-week active study period. The primary endpoint was the Physician Global Assessment, which measured the treatment responder rate and indicated improvement in both groups over 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints, measured at weeks 4 and 12, included headache days per month, migraine days, headache-free days, days on acute medication, severity of headache episodes, Migraine Impact & Disability Assessment, Headache Impact Test, effectiveness of and satisfaction with current treatment on the amount of medication needed, and the frequency and severity of migraine symptoms. At 12 weeks subjects were re-evaluated and tapered off oral study medications over a 2-week time period. Subjects not reporting a >50% reduction of headache frequency at 12 weeks were invited to participate in a 12-week open label extension study with onabotulinumtoxinA. Of these, 20 subjects, 9 from the Topiramate Group and 11 from the OnabotulinumtoxinA Group, volunteered for this extension from weeks 14 to 26. RESULTS: This study demonstrated positive benefit for both onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate in subjects with CM. Overall, the results were statistically significant within groups but not between groups. By week 26, subjects had a reduction of headache days per month compared with baseline. This was a significant within-group finding. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate demonstrated similar efficacy for subjects with CM as determined by Global Physician Assessment and supported by multiple secondary endpoint measures.

Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for menstrual migraine and dysmenorrhea: satisfaction, productivity, and functional disability outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination tablet on patient satisfaction, productivity, and functional disability in menstrual migraine treated during the mild pain phase of a single menstrual migraine attack associated with dysmenorrhea. BACKGROUND: Menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea represent a unique patient population not previously studied. When health outcomes end points are analyzed alongside traditional efficacy end points in migraine studies, a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the many factors that may influence patients' choice of and adherence to pharmacological treatments for migraine is observed. METHODS: In 2 replicate, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, participants with menstrual migraine and dysmenorrhea treated a single menstrual migraine attack with a single fixed-dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg formulated with RT Technology™ and naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan-naproxen sodium) or placebo. RESULTS: Participants randomized to sumatriptan-naproxen sodium were significantly more satisfied than those randomized to placebo at 24 hours post dose, as demonstrated by higher satisfaction subscale scores for efficacy (P < .001 for both studies), functionality (P = .003 for study 1; P < .001 for study 2), and ease of use (P = .027 for study 1; P = .011 for study 2). There was little bothersomeness of side effects associated with either treatment. Use of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was also associated with lower reported "lost-time equivalents" in work and leisure time (pooled analysis, P = .003) and lower rates of functional disability (P = .05, study 1; P < .001, study 2) compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: A fixed-dose combination tablet containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium significantly improved patient satisfaction, productivity, and restoration of normal functioning in menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea.