Sustained benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: An analysis of the pooled Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the long-term (56-week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment. BACKGROUND: There are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy. METHODS: The two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase and a 32-week open-label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double-blind phase (Weeks 21-24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13-24) and the entire study (Weeks 53-56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4-week period). We assessed the long-term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1). RESULTS: We analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double-blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open-label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56-week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% (n = 175) and 29.3% (n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13-24 of the double-blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA-treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo-treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month (p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25-56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53-56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12-week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT-6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within-group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21-24 had a greater mean HIT-6 score reduction (-6.5 vs. -1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role-Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache-related disability and migraine-specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15-monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long-term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM.

Clinical factors associated with day-to-day peak pain severity in individuals with chronic migraine: A cohort study using daily prospective diary data.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between day-to-day peak pain severity and clinical factors in individuals with chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: Little is known about how clinical factors relate to day-to-day pain severity in individuals with CM. METHODS: Adults with CM were enrolled into this observational prospective cohort study that collected daily data about headache, associated symptoms, and lifestyle factors using a digital health platform (N1-Headache™) for 90 days. "Migraine days" were defined as days in which a headache occurred that had features described by the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria. On these days, peak pain severity was recorded on a 4-point scale; on non-headache days peak pain severity was imputed as "0/none". The associations between peak pain severity and 12 clinical factors were modeled and adjusted for sex, age, daily headache, presence of menstrual bleeding, day of the week, and disability. All numerical and Likert scale variables were standardized prior to analysis. RESULTS: Data were available for 392 participants (35,280 tracked days). The sample was predominantly female (90.6%), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 39.9 (12.8) years. In the final multivariable model with random intercept and slopes, higher than typical self-reported levels of standardized stress (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.11), standardized irritability (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08), standardized sadness (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.07), fatigue (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36), eyestrain (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.26-1.52), neck pain (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.76-2.13), skin sensitivity (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.44-1.80), and dehydration (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.42) were associated with higher reported peak pain severity levels, while standardized sleep quality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) and standardized waking feeling refreshed (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.88) were associated with lower reported peak pain severity levels. The inclusion of a random intercept and random slopes improved upon more parsimonious models and illustrated large differences in individuals' reporting of peak severity according to the levels of the associated clinical factors. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that the experience of CM, from a pain severity perspective, is complex, related to multiple clinical variables, and highly individualized. These results suggest that future work should aim to study a personalized approach to both medical and behavioral interventions for CM based on which clinical factors relate to the individual's experience of pain severity.

How early can we treat migraine attacks? A perspective based on prodrome.

Treating migraine attacks early at the onset of a headache is a common proven strategy. But does this strategy work before headache onset? In the PRODROME trial, Dodick et al. showed that ubrogepant taken during the prodrome can prevent headache attacks and reduce functional disability.1.

Evidence-based preventive treatment of migraine.

The evidence base for migraine prevention in both episodic and chronic migraine is outlined. The older oral preventatives, including antidepressants, antihypertensives, serotonin antagonists, antiepileptics, and calcium channel antagonists, and newer options including onabotulinumtoxinA and the CGRP monoclonal antibodies are covered. Many of the older oral preventatives were trialed before chronic migraine was defined, and they are used in chronic migraine based on the assumption that episodic migraine and chronic migraine are on a spectrum of the same condition. First- and second-line options are given, and a multicountry perspective is considered.

Drug-Free Noninvasive Thermal Nerve Block: Validation of Sham Devices.

Headache is a leading cause of disability and suffering. One major challenge in developing device treatments is demonstrating their efficacy given devices' often-high placebo rate. This paper reviews the importance of validating sham devices as part of finalizing the design for larger-scale prospective randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic headache as well as the results of a prospective, single-blind trial to validate two potential sham noninvasive thermal nerve block devices. Study participants were trained to self-administer thermal nerve block treatment using sham devices in an office visit. Two different sham systems with different temperature profiles were assessed. Devices were offered for patients to use daily at-home for one week to assess the durability of sham placebo effects before participants were given active treatment in a second office visit followed by another optional week of self-administered active treatment at-home use. Sham treatments reduced pain scores by an average of 31% from 6.0 ± 2.3 to 4.3 ± 3.3, including two participants who fell asleep during the in-office treatment and woke up with no pain, but whose pain recurred after returning home during at-home use of the sham system. In-office active treatments reduced pain scores by 52% from 6.7 ± 2.1 to 3.3 ± 2.9 with sustained pain relief during optional at-home use. Successful blinding for the study was confirmed with an ideal Bang's Blinding Index of 0 and an ideal James' Blinding Index of 1. Both the sham and active treatments were viewed by participants as highly credible, and credibility increased from the beginning to end of sham treatments on average.

Treatment of chronic migraine with Botox (onabotulinumtoxinA): Development, insights, and impact.

Chronic migraine (CM) is a neurological disease characterized by frequent migraine attacks that prevent affected individuals from performing daily activities of living, significantly diminish quality of life, and increase familial burden. Before onabotulinumtoxinA was approved for CM, there were few treatment options for these seriously disabled patients and none had regulatory approval. The terminology and recognition of CM evolved in parallel with the onabotulinumtoxinA clinical development program. Because there were no globally accepted classification criteria for CM when onabotulinumtoxinA was in development, the patient populations for the trials conducted by Allergan were determined by the Allergan migraine team in collaboration with headache scientists and clinicians. These trials and collaborations ultimately led to improvements in CM classifications. In 2010, onabotulinumtoxinA became the first medication and first biologic approved specifically to prevent headaches in patients with CM. Approval was based on 2 similarly designed phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical studies. Both studies showed significantly greater improvements in mean change from baseline in headache-day frequency in patients with CM receiving onabotulinumtoxinA compared with those receiving placebo. The safety and effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA have been established globally in >5000 patients with CM with or without medication overuse treated in clinical and observational studies. Benefits also include improvements in quality of life, fewer psychiatric comorbidities, and reduced healthcare resource utilization. Across studies, onabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated; adverse events tended to be mild or moderate in severity and to decline over subsequent treatment cycles.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and acute medication overuse: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse. BACKGROUND: Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies. METHODS: This 52-week open-label extension study followed a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline. RESULTS: Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was -9.3 (95% confidence interval: -10.4, -8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -9.3 (-10.1, -8.5 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine-specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine-specific medication days at Week 52 was -7.4 (-8.3, -6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -5.4 (-6.1, -4.7 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non-overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Long-term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for menstrual migraine: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: In this article, we discuss menstrual migraine (MM), which can be categorized as menstrually related migraine (MRM) or pure menstrual migraine (PMM). MM attacks are often longer, more severe, and harder to treat than other migraine attacks. Appropriate treatment strategies include acute treatment, short term preventive treatment, and daily preventive treatment, depending on the patient's pattern of migraine and occurrence of migraine outside the menstrual period. AREAS COVERED: A PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Ovid search from inception to October 2022 provided articles relating to MM pathophysiology and treatment. EXPERT OPINION: In patients for whom standard acute therapy is inadequate, short term or daily preventive treatment should be considered. Patients with PMM may be adequately managed with short term preventive treatment started 2 days prior to the onset of migraine and continued for 5-6 days. Frovatriptan is the mainstay of short-term prevention. Patients who experience additional attacks outside the menstrual period may benefit from daily preventive treatment. Estrogen-containing contraceptive treatment may be effective in appropriately selected patients. Emerging research on the pathophysiology of MM indicates that oxytocin agonists and CGRP antagonists may prove to be effective treatment options.

Adverse Events Reported with Therapies Targeting the CGRP Pathway During the First 6 Months Post-launch: A Retrospective Analysis Using the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Through 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) had received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for migraine prevention: erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) safety surveillance database during the first 6 months post-approval of erenumab (May 2018 to November 2018), fremanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019), and galcanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019). Reporting rates (RR) per 1000 exposed patients were calculated from number of reported events (when product classified as "primary suspect") in each AE category and estimated number of treated patients based on de-identified prescription data (IQVIA database) and were ranked on the basis of frequency for each product. RESULTS: RR per 1000 exposed patients for "migraine" (erenumab, 4.89; fremanezumab, 1.01; galcanezumab, 2.99), "headache" (3.32, 1.27, 3.07), and "drug ineffective" (3.68, 1.14, 1.69) were commonly reported for all three products, as were migraine-associated symptoms ("nausea": 2.94, 0.91, 1.09) and "injection-site" reactions ("pain": 2.94, 0.8, 4.9; "swelling": 0.56, 0.53, 1.25; "pruritus": 0.26, 0.63, 1.14; "erythema": 0.58, 0.71, 1.58). "Constipation" ranked second for erenumab (4.90) but did not make the top ten events for fremanezumab (0.46) or galcanezumab (0.76); cardiovascular events did not rank in the top ten AEs for any product. The frequency of serious outcomes was low, with ≤ 2% of AEs categorized as serious across the CGRP mAbs. CONCLUSION: These results aid in supporting the safety profile of CGRP mAbs in the real-world setting and may provide clinicians and patients with additional insight when considering migraine preventive treatments.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Clinic-Based Headache Registries, 1st edition.

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Lidocaine infusions for refractory chronic migraine: a retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with refractory chronic migraine have poor quality of life. Intravenous infusions are indicated to rapidly 'break the cycle' of pain. Lidocaine infusions may be effective but evidence is limited. METHODS: The records of 832 hospital admissions involving continuous multiday lidocaine infusions for migraine were reviewed. All patients met criteria for refractory chronic migraine. During hospitalization, patients received additional migraine medications including ketorolac, magnesium, dihydroergotamine, methylprednisolone, and neuroleptics. The primary outcome was change in headache pain from baseline to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes measured at the post-discharge office visit (25-65 days after treatment) included headache pain and the number of headache days, and percentage of sustained responders. Percentage of acute responders, plasma lidocaine levels, and adverse drug effects were also determined. RESULTS: In total, 609 patient admissions met criteria. The mean age was 46±14 years; 81.1% were female. Median pain rating decreased from baseline of 7.0 (5.0-8.0) to 1.0 (0.0-3.0) at end of hospitalization (p<0.001); 87.8% of patients were acute responders. Average pain (N=261) remained below baseline at office visit 1 (5.5 (4.0-7.0); p<0.001). Forty-three percent of patients were sustained responders at 1 month. Headache days (N=266) decreased from 26.8±3.9 at baseline to 22.5±8.3 at the post-discharge office visit (p<0.001). Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse drug effects and all were mild. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine infusions may be associated with short-term and medium-term pain relief in refractory chronic migraine. Prospective studies should confirm these results.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies and Antagonists in Migraine: Current Evidence and Rationale.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37 amino-acid neuropeptide found mostly in peptidergic sensory C-fibers, has been suggested to be implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological disorders seen in medical practice, affecting almost 16% of the US population. While previously thought to be a vascular condition, migraine attacks are the result of neurogenic inflammation and peripheral/central sensitization through dysfunctional activation of the trigeminovascular system. To date, two classes of therapeutic agents have been developed to interrupt the function of CGRP: CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule antagonists (gepants). There are currently four CGRP-targeted mAbs and three gepants that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of migraine. Multiple phase II and III studies have established the efficacies and tolerability of these treatments. Previously, we reviewed the fundamental role of CGRP in migraine pathogenesis. Here, we discuss in depth the clinical evidence (randomized controlled trials and real-world studies), safety, and tolerability of CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants for treating migraine.

The Arrival of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine.

Remarkable advancements have been made in the field of migraine pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy over the past decade. Understanding the molecular mechanism of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has led to the discovery of a novel class of drugs, CGRP functional blocking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), for migraine prevention. CGRP is a neuropeptide inherently involved in migraine physiology where its receptors are found dispersed throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems. CGRP-targeted mAbs are effective in the preventive treatment of both chronic and episodic migraine. The advantages of mAbs over oral migraine preventives are numerous. Favorable attributes of the mAbs include high affinity and selectivity for CGRP molecular targets, long-circulating plasma half-lives, and limited risk for nonspecific hepatic and renal toxicity. This pharmacological profile leads to fewer off-target (side) effects and drug-drug interactions rendering mAbs an attractive alternative to traditional small molecule therapies, especially for the preventive treatment of migraine. MAbs display minimal drug interaction thus are excellent for patients prescribed with multiple medications. However, the long-term safety of CGRP blockade is incompletely known, and CGRP mAbs use should be avoided during pregnancy. CGRP mAbs represent a radical shift in preventing chronic and episodic migraine.

Safety and tolerability of fremanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine: a pooled analysis of phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy for preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine. Since calcitonin gene-related peptide is expressed within the cardio- and cerebrovascular system and may have cardioprotective effects, it is critical to understand the cardio- and cerebrovascular safety of fremanezumab. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, 12-week trials in which patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine received quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or placebo. Incidences of overall and serious adverse events were analyzed. Cardio- and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs) were analyzed in subgroups stratified by cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), and use of cardio- and cerebrovascular medications or triptans. RESULTS: Two thousand, eight hundred and forty-two patients were included in the study. Overall (58-65%) and serious adverse events (<1-2%) occurred in similar proportions across fremanezumab and placebo groups. CVAEs were infrequent, regardless of cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history (2-6%). CVAEs occurred in low, similar proportions of patients with CVRFs and those using cardio- and cerebrovascular medications or triptans. No cardio- and cerebrovascular signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab demonstrated a favorable overall and cardio- and cerebrovascular safety profile in more than 2800 patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine, regardless of cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history, CVRFs, or medication use.Trial Registrations: NCT02629861 (HALO EM, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02629861), NCT02621931 (HALO CM, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02621931), NCT03308968 (FOCUS, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/NCT03308968).

Efficacy and quality-of-life improvements with fremanezumab treatment in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine with associated neurological dysfunction.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin-gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy as a preventive treatment for adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and inadequate response to two to four prior preventive treatment classes in the phase 3b FOCUS study. In this post hoc analysis, efficacy and effects on quality-of-life outcomes for fremanezumab were evaluated in subgroups of patients with and without aura or similar neurological symptoms, here referred to as migraine with or without associated neurological dysfunction. METHODS: In the FOCUS study, 838 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab or matched placebo for 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. For this post hoc analysis, subgroups of patients with migraine with and without associated neurological dysfunction at baseline were identified based on patient response to questions about symptoms. RESULTS: In patients with migraine with associated neurological dysfunction at baseline, fremanezumab significantly reduced monthly average days with neurological symptoms (quarterly, -1.7 days; monthly, -1.8 days) compared to placebo (-0.5 days; both p ≤ 0.01). In comparison with placebo, both dosing regimens of fremanezumab yielded greater reductions in monthly migraine days over 12 weeks (p < 0.0001) and improvements in Headache Impact Test 6 and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life scores over the last 4 weeks (p < 0.05), regardless of neurological dysfunction at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab reduced days with neurological symptoms, effectively prevented migraine, and improved quality of life in patients with migraine with associated neurological dysfunction, including those with previous inadequate response to two to four migraine preventive medication classes.

Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1-4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week. RESULTS: We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1-4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from -3.1 to -3.9 across atogepant doses vs -1.6 for placebo (p < 0.0001). For weeks 5-8 and 9-12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from -3.7 to -4.2 for atogepant vs -2.9 for placebo (p ≤ 0.012) and -4.2 to -4.4 for atogepant vs -3.0 for placebo (p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from -0.77 to -1.03 for atogepant vs -0.29 with placebo (p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo (p ≤ 0.0071). CONCLUSION: Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059.

Intravenous ibuprofen for acute treatment of migraine: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) Ibuprofen for acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: IV nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are an alternative to oral NSAIDs, especially in patients with severe migraine who have emesis or gastroparesis. To date, only three IV NSAIDs (ketorolac, ibuprofen, and meloxicam) are available in the United States for use in moderate and severe pain, but no placebo-controlled trial is available for migraine. We performed a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IV ibuprofen as an acute treatment of migraine (NCT01230411). METHODS: Individuals with episodic migraine were screened at the Jefferson Headache Center. Qualified subjects were treated for migraine attacks within 2-72 h following the headache onset with either 800 mg of IV ibuprofen or placebo in 250 ml saline bolus. Migraine pain intensity (4-point Likert scale) and associated symptoms were assessed at predetermined time points (0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 24 h). The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 h after infusion. Important secondary endpoints included pain freedom at 2 h, sustained relief over 24 h, use of rescue therapy, and absence of associated symptoms. Adverse events (AEs) were also collected. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants were enrolled between 2011 and 2017. Forty-four subjects (female 33/44; 75.0%) with mean (SD) age 41.0 (11.2)   11.2 years came for the treatment. All treated subjects (n = 44) were included in the analysis. Among them, 23 were randomized to receive IV ibuprofen. Both groups were demographically similar except for longer migraine duration (i.e., years lived with disease) in the active treatment than in the placebo group. At 2 h posttreatment, pain relief was found in 74% (17/23) and 48% (10/21) after IV ibuprofen and placebo, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% CI: 0.88-11.0; p = 0.078). Other secondary endpoints at 2 and 24 h were not significant. The longitudinal repeated-measures analysis within 2 h on ibuprofen treatment showed significant pain relief (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.08-5.7; p = 0.033) and absence of associated symptoms: photophobia (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.57-10.3; p = 0.004), phonophobia (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.16-8.4; p = 0.025), and osmophobia (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.01-11.8; p = 0.048). AEs were observed in seven subjects in both groups, with arm pain being the most common. No serious AE was reported. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet the primary endpoint but showed pain relief and elimination of several associated symptoms within 2 h on repeated-measures analysis. Although limited by small sample size and high placebo response, our results indicate that IV ibuprofen may be a safe and effective option for acute treatment of migraine, but more extensive studies are necessary.

Ketamine for Refractory Chronic Migraine: An Observational Pilot Study and Metabolite Analysis.

Patients with refractory chronic migraine have substantial disability and have failed many acute and preventive medications. When aggressive intravenous therapy is indicated, both lidocaine and (R,S)-ketamine infusions have been used successfully to provide relief. Retrospective studies have shown that both agents may be associated with short-term analgesia. In this prospective, observational pilot study of 6 patients, we compared the effects of lidocaine and (R,S)-ketamine infusions and performed metabolite analyses of (R,S)-ketamine to determine its metabolic profile in this population. One of (R,S)-ketamine's metabolites, (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine, has been shown in animal studies to reduce pain, but human studies in patients undergoing continuous (R,S)-ketamine infusions for migraine are lacking. All 6 patients tolerated both infusions well with mild adverse effects. The baseline mean pain rating (0-10 numeric rating scale) decreased from 7.5 ± 2.2 to 4.7 ± 2.8 by end of lidocaine treatment ( P≤.05 ) but increased to 7.0 ± 1.4 by the postdischarge visit at 4 weeks (P > .05 vs baseline). The baseline mean pain rating prior to ketamine treatment was 7.4 ± 1.4, which decreased to 3.7 ± 2.3 by the end of the hospitalization ( P≤.05 ) but increased to 7.2 ± 1.7 by the postdischarge visit at 6 weeks (P > .05 vs baseline). For the primary outcome the change in pain from baseline to end of treatment was greater for ketamine than lidocaine (-3.7 vs -2.8; P≤.05 ), but this has minimal clinical significance. Ketamine metabolite analysis revealed that (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine was the predominant metabolite during most of the infusion, consistent with previous studies.

A new hypothesis linking oxytocin to menstrual migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To highlight the emerging understanding of oxytocin (OT) and oxytocin receptors (OTRs) in modulating menstrual-related migraine (MRM). BACKGROUND: MRM is highly debilitating and less responsive to therapy, and attacks are of longer duration than nonmenstrually related migraine. A clear understanding of the mechanisms underlying MRM is lacking. METHODS: We present a narrative literature review on the developing understanding of the role of OT and the OTR in MRM. Literature on MRM on PubMed/MEDLINE database including clinical trials and basic science publications was reviewed using specific keywords. RESULTS: OT is a cyclically released hypothalamic hormone/neurotransmitter that binds to the OTR resulting in inhibition of trigeminal neuronal excitability that can promote migraine pain including that of MRM. Estrogen regulates OT release as well as expression of the OTR. Coincident with menstruation, levels of both estrogen and OT decrease. Additionally, other serum biochemical factors, including magnesium and cholesterol, which positively modulate the affinity of OT for OTRs, both decrease during menstruation. Thus, during menstruation, multiple menstrually associated factors may lead to decreased circulating OT levels, decreased OT affinity for OTR, and decreased expression of the trigeminal OTR. Consistent with the view of migraine as a threshold disorder, these events may collectively result in decreased inhibition promoting lower thresholds for activation of meningeal trigeminal nociceptors and increasing the likelihood of an MRM attack. CONCLUSION: Trigeminal OTR may thus be a novel target for the development of MRM therapeutics.

Chronic versus episodic migraine: The 15-day threshold does not adequately reflect substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of headache frequency.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the 15-day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. BACKGROUND: The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. METHODS: The patients with migraine (N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0-7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8-14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15-23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), and General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scores were compared. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS-PI, GAD-7, and PHQ-4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20-58] vs. 55 [30-90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7-30], p < 0.001), WPAI-% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS-PI-T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52-138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7-30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20-58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30-90), p < 0.001], WPAI-%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI-% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI-%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.