Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of atogepant in participants who completed the phase 3 ADVANCE trial (NCT03777059). METHODS: This 40-week, open-label extension trial (NCT03939312) monitored safety in participants receiving oral atogepant 60 mg once daily, followed by a four-week safety follow-up period. RESULTS: Of the 685 participants taking at least one dose of atogepant, the treatment period was completed by 74.6% of participants with a mean (standard deviation) treatment duration of 233.6 (89.3) days. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62.5% of participants, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%), urinary tract infection (5.3%), nasopharyngitis (4.8%), sinusitis (3.6%), constipation (3.4%), and nausea (3.4%) occurring at ≥3%. Serious adverse events were observed in 3.4% of participants (none were treatment-related), and there were no deaths. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurring at >0.1% were nausea (0.4%) and abdominal pain, vomiting, weight decrease, dizziness, and migraine (0.3% each). CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with atogepant's known safety profile and support long-term use of atogepant 60 mg once daily dosing as safe and well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03939312.

Migraine Care in the Era of COVID-19: Clinical Pearls and Plea to Insurers.

OBJECTIVE: To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in-person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe "social distancing" and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra-indicated in the setting of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN/RESULTS: The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence-based treatment where possible, but also describe "real world" strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. CONCLUSIONS: Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in-person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Getting to the Heart of the Matter: Migraine, Triptans, DHE, Ditans, CGRP Antibodies, First/Second-Generation Gepants, and Cardiovascular Risk.

PREMISE: The science of migraine pathophysiology has advanced significantly since the 1930's. Imaging techniques, neurochemical analysis, clinical trials, and the clinical experience of providers treating migraine patients have not only sharpened our understanding of the disease, but have also led to the development of novel neural-based targets. Targeted therapies such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies and "Second Generation" CGRP receptor antagonists (Gepants) have not only demonstrated efficacy, but have not resulted in any significant cardiovascular nor other serious adverse events. "First Generation" Gepants were associated with liver toxicity. PROBLEM: Triptans and dihydroergotamine (DHE) are contraindicated in patients with hemiplegic and basilar migraine based on theories of migraine pathophysiology from the 1930s. While our understanding of migraine has evolved substantially, perceived concerns of safety from almost a century ago continue to preclude their use in certain patient populations. POTENTIAL SOLUTION: While migraine aura was once thought to be primarily due to vasoconstriction, current evidence debunks this concept. For instance, hemiplegic migraine is the consequence of genetic mutations resulting in channelopathies without evidence of cerebral ischemia or infarction. Evidence of basilar artery constriction as postulated in basilar migraine is also lacking. This recognition has led the International Headache Society to rename basilar-type migraine to migraine with brainstem aura. The following discussion reviews current literature with respect to migraine as a neuronal disorder, as well as the published data on the safety of triptans, DHE, Ditans (a novel class of 5-HT1f receptor agonists), CGRP antibodies, and Gepants.

Association of neurologist care with headache expenditures: A population-based, longitudinal analysis.

Objective To assess the association of neurologist ambulatory care with healthcare utilization and expenditure in headache. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study from two-year duration panel data, pooled from 2002-2013, of adult respondents identified with diagnostic codes for headache in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Those with a neurologist ambulatory care visit in year one of panel participation were compared with those who did not for the change in annual aggregate direct headache-related health care costs from year one to year two of panel participation, inflated to 2015 US dollars. Results were adjusted via multiple linear regression for demographic and clinical variables, utilizing survey variables for accurate estimates and standard errors. Results Eight hundred and eighty-seven respondents were included, with 23.3% (207/887) seeing a neurologist in year one. The neurologist group had higher year-one mean headache-related expenditures ($3032 vs. $1636), but nearly equal mean year-two expenditures compared to controls ($1900 vs. $1929). Adjusted association between neurologist care and difference in mean annual expenditures from year two to year one was -$1579 (95% CI -$2468, -$690, p < 0.001). Conclusion Among headache sufferers, particularly those with higher headache-related healthcare expenditures, neurologist care is associated with a significant reduction in costs over two years.

A retrospective analysis of triptan and dhe use for basilar and hemiplegic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with basilar migraine (BM) and hemiplegic migraine (HM) have been excluded from triptan and DHE clinical trials due to a potential risk of ischemic vascular events, and the FDA mandates that package labeling state that they are contraindicated in BM and HM. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that triptans and DHE can be used for the abortive treatment of BM and HM without significant adverse ischemic vascular events. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with BM features or HM who received acute abortive treatment with either triptans or DHE was conducted at 4 headache centers to assess the frequency of ischemic vascular events after administration. The diagnoses of BM or HM were made by headache specialists based on The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II). Searchable terms included BM, vertigo, dysarthria, diplopia, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, facial droop, weakness, confusion, altered consciousness, confusion, ataxia, and aphasia, as well as all triptans or DHE. RESULTS: The study included 67 patients with BM features and 13 patients with HM. Among those receiving triptans, 40 were in the BM group and 5 were in the HM group. Among those receiving DHE, 27 were included in the BM group and 8 were in the HM group. No side effects of stroke or myocardial infarction were reported. In the triptan group, 5 patients reported adverse effects that included GI upset, rash, neck dystonia, nightmares, and flushing. In the DHE group, 5 patients had adverse events that included chest tightness, dystonic reaction, transient asymptomatic anterior T wave inversion, and agitation. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, triptans and DHE were used with no reported, subsequent acute/subacute ischemic vascular events for the abortive treatment of migraines with basilar and hemiplegic-type features. Although the small sample sizes generated theoretical statistical event rates of 4.5% for BM and 23% for HM, there has been no clear evidence that BM and HM carry an actual elevated risk for vascular events compared with migraine with aura.

Expert consensus recommendations for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks for headaches--a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of headache disorders. BACKGROUND: PNBs have long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice. METHODS: The American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures convened meetings during 2010-2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminal PNBs. A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology. RESULTS: PNB indications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns. PNBs described include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of the PNB should result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication-overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations from the American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures members for PNB methodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.

Antiamyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer Disease: Emerging Issues in Neurology.

With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting ß-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. Given that these new antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are associated with nontrivial risks and burdens of treatment that are radically different from current mainstays of AD management, effectively and equitably translating their use to real-world clinical care will require systematic and practice-specific modifications to existing workflows and infrastructure. In this Emerging Issues in Neurology article, we provide practical guidance for a wide audience of neurology clinicians on logistic adaptations and decision making around emerging antiamyloid mAbs. Specifically, we briefly summarize the rationale and available evidence supporting antiamyloid mAb use in AD to facilitate appropriate communication with patients and care partners on potential benefits. We also discuss pragmatic approaches to optimizing patient selection and treatment monitoring, with a particular focus on the value of incorporating shared decision making and multidisciplinary collaboration. In addition, we review some of the recognized limitations of current knowledge and highlight areas of future evolution to guide the development of sustainable and flexible models for treatment and follow-up. As the field enters a new era with disease-modifying treatment options for AD, it will be critical for neurology practices to prepare and continually innovate to ensure optimal outcomes for patients.

Futures Planning at the AAN: Approach and Initial Outcome.

We describe a process of organizational strategic future forecasting, with a horizon of 2035, as implemented by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) on behalf of its members, and as a model approach for other organizations. The participants were members of the 2018-2020 AAN Boards of Directors and Executive Team, moderated by a consultant with expertise in future forecasting. Four predetermined model scenarios of import to our field (1 "expectable," 1 "challenging," and 2 "visionary") were discussed in small groups, with alternative scenarios developed in specific domains. Common themes emerged among all scenarios: the importance of thoughtful integration of biomedical and information technology tools into neurologic practice; continued demonstration of the value of neurologic care to society; and emphasis on population management and prevention of neurologic disease. Allowing for the inherent uncertainties of predicting the future, the AAN's integration of structured forecasting into its strategic planning process has allowed the organization to prepare more effectively for change, such as the disruptions stemming from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The approaches outlined here will be integrated into future AAN operations and may be implemented to a similar effect by other organizations.