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.

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.

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.

Chronic migraine headache prevention with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation: The EVENT study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the prevention of chronic migraine (CM) attacks. METHODS: In this first prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study of nVNS in CM prophylaxis, adults with CM (≥15 headache d/mo) entered the baseline phase (1 month) and were subsequently randomized to nVNS or sham treatment (2 months) before receiving open-label nVNS treatment (6 months). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Efficacy endpoints in the intent-to-treat population included change in the number of headache days per 28 days and acute medication use. RESULTS: Fifty-nine participants (mean age, 39.2 years; mean headache frequency, 21.5 d/mo) were enrolled. During the randomized phase, tolerability was similar for nVNS (n = 30) and sham treatment (n = 29). Most adverse events were mild/moderate and transient. Mean changes in the number of headache days were -1.4 (nVNS) and -0.2 (sham) (Δ = 1.2; p = 0.56). Twenty-seven participants completed the open-label phase. For the 15 completers initially assigned to nVNS, the mean change from baseline in headache days after 8 months of treatment was -7.9 (95% confidence interval -11.9 to -3.8; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with nVNS was well-tolerated with no safety issues. Persistent prophylactic use may reduce the number of headache days in CM; larger sham-controlled studies are needed. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01667250. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, nVNS is safe, is well-tolerated, and did not significantly change the number of headache days. This pilot study lacked the precision to exclude important safety issues or benefits of nVNS.

Managing migraine by patient profile: role of frovatriptan.

For the last quarter of a century, triptans have been available for acute treatment of migraine but with little guidance on which of the different triptan products to use for which patient or which attack of migraine. In this article, we propose a structured approach to analysis of individual migraine attacks and patient characteristics as a means of defining and optimizing acute intervention. Assessment of patient and attack profiles includes the "5-Ps": pattern, phenotype, patient, pharmacology, and precipitants. Attending to these five components of information can assist in developing an individualized behavioral, pharmacological, and nonpharmacological comprehensive treatment plan for most migraine patients. This clinical approach is then focused on frovatriptan because of its unique molecular signature and potential novel clinical applications. Frovatriptan like all triptans is indicated for acute treatment of migraine but its role has been explored in management of several unique migraine phenotypes. Frovatriptan has the longest half-life of any triptan and consequently is often promoted for acute treatment of migraine of longer duration. It has also been studied as a short-term preventive treatment in women with menstrual-related migraine. Given that 60% of female migraineurs suffer from menstrual-related migraine, this population is the obvious group for continued study. Small studies have also explored frovatriptan's use in treating migraine predicted by premonitory symptoms as a preventive for the headache phase of migraine. By identifying patient and attack profiles, clinicians may effectively determine the viability of frovatriptan as an effective pharmacological intervention for migraine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Red flags and comfort signs for ominous secondary headaches.

Secondary headaches are classified by the cause of the underlying disease process that is causing the headache. There are hundreds of secondary headache diagnoses and this article is not an exhaustive discussion of secondary headache disorders. Maintaining a high level of virulence and having a structured approach to evaluating all patients with headache is the key to timely diagnosis of secondary headache disorders. Diagnostic testing is indicated based on the suspected disorder and management is determined by treatment of the underlying disease causing the headache.

Chronic migraine in women.

Chronic migraine is a frequent, severely disabling headache that often evolves from EM. Treatment should be individualized with consideration of the patient as a whole person rather than just the headaches. Many options have been used for acute and preventive pharmacologic management, although good scientific and clinical evidence is limited to a few options. Evidence supports the efficacy and tolerability of both topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for prevention of CM headaches. However, only onabotulinumtoxinA is approved by the FDA for preventive treatment of CM.

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.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: PREEMPT 24-week pooled subgroup analysis of patients who had acute headache medication overuse at baseline.

Acute headache medication overuse (MO) is common in patients with chronic migraine (CM). We evaluated safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA as preventive treatment of headache in CM patients with baseline MO (CM+MO) in a planned secondary analysis from two similarly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, Phase III trials. Patients were randomized to treatment groups (155-195 U of onabotulinumtoxinA or placebo) using MO (patient-reported and diary-captured frequency of intake) as a stratifying variable. Of 1384 patients, 65.3% (n=904) met MO criteria (onabotulinumtoxinA: n=445, placebo: n=459). For the CM+MO subgroup at Week 24, statistically significant between-treatment group mean changes from baseline favoring onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo were observed for headache days (primary endpoint: -8.2 vs. -6.2; p<0.001) and other secondary endpoints: frequencies of migraine days (p<0.001), moderate/severe headache days (p<0.001), cumulative headache hours on headache days (p<0.001), headache episodes (p=0.028), and migraine episodes (p=0.018) and the percentage of patients with severe Headache Impact Test-6 category (p<0.001). At Week 24, change from baseline in frequency of acute headache medication intakes (secondary endpoint) was not statistically significant (p=0.210) between groups, except for triptan intakes (p<0.001), where the onabotulinumtoxinA-treated group was favored. OnabotulinumtoxinA was effective and well tolerated as headache prophylaxis in CM+MO patients.

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.

Advances in drug development for acute migraine.

Triptans revolutionized medical recognition and the acute treatment of migraine. Yet, throughout a lifetime, millions of patients who live with migraine endure hundreds of days of disability due to their disease. Most migraine attacks respond to migraine-specific interventions, but attack response does not predict patient response. Generally, migraine patients respond to acute treatment for some, but not necessarily all, attacks of migraine. Consequently, there remains a substantial unmet clinical need for better acute treatment of migraine. Numerous avenues of research and clinical observation provide insight into potential advances in acute treatment of migraine. These include better delivery systems for existing drugs, as well as the development of potential new therapeutic agents. In addition, new changes in migraine taxonomy and clinical observations of migraine suggest additional important therapeutic opportunities. Based on clinical observations, this article explores future acute treatment needs, drugs in development for acute migraine, and new products that deliver established drugs to improve treatment response.

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.

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.

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.