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.

Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence online engine in migraine: A multi-center study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the concordance in migraine diagnosis between an online, self-administered, Computer-based, Diagnostic Engine (CDE) and semi-structured interview (SSI) by a headache specialist, both using International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria. BACKGROUND: Delay in accurate diagnosis is a major barrier to headache care. Accurate computer-based algorithms may help reduce the need for SSI-based encounters to arrive at correct ICHD-3 diagnosis. METHODS: Between March 2018 and August 2019, adult participants were recruited from three academic headache centers and the community via advertising to our cross-sectional study. Participants completed two evaluations: phone interview conducted by headache specialists using the SSI and a web-based expert questionnaire and analytics, CDE. Participants were randomly assigned to either the SSI followed by the web-based questionnaire or the web-based questionnaire followed by the SSI. Participants completed protocols a few minutes apart. The concordance in migraine/probable migraine (M/PM) diagnosis between SSI and CDE was measured using Cohen's kappa statistics. The diagnostic accuracy of CDE was assessed using the SSI as reference standard. RESULTS: Of the 276 participants consented, 212 completed both SSI and CDE (study completion rate = 77%; median age = 32 years [interquartile range: 28-40], female:male ratio = 3:1). Concordance in M/PM diagnosis between SSI and CDE was: κ = 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.91). CDE diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity = 90.1% (118/131), 95% CI: 83.6%-94.6%; specificity = 95.8% (68/71), 95% CI: 88.1%-99.1%. Positive and negative predictive values = 97.0% (95% CI: 91.3%-99.0%) and 86.6% (95% CI: 79.3%-91.5%), respectively, using identified migraine prevalence of 60%. Assuming a general migraine population prevalence of 10%, positive and negative predictive values were 70.3% (95% CI: 43.9%-87.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The SSI and CDE have excellent concordance in diagnosing M/PM. Positive CDE helps rule in M/PM, through high specificity and positive likelihood ratio. A negative CDE helps rule out M/PM through high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio. CDE that mimics SSI logic is a valid tool for migraine diagnosis.

The Headache Pipeline: Excitement and Uncertainty.

There are many new treatment options available for migraine and more are coming. Three calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist monoclonal antibodies have been approved and a 4th is due in early 2020. Small molecule CGRP receptor-blocking oral compounds, both for acute care and prevention, are also coming. Four neurostimulators are available, with others on the way. New acute treatments coming soon include the 5HT1F agonist lasmiditan, a zolmitriptan intradermal micro-needle patch, and a nasal mist sumatriptan with a permeability enhancer. Farther out, three novel dihydroergotamine delivery systems, and a liquid-filled capsule of celecoxib show early promise. A new, safer form of methysergide is in the works, as is a longer-duration onabotulinumtoxinA. As always with new products, questions regarding safety, tolerability, cost, and insurance coverage will need to be addressed. Despite these concerns and uncertainties, a robust headache treatment pipeline is good for patients who are not satisfied with the results of their treatment and/or cannot tolerate existing treatments.

Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for the Acute Treatment of Migraine.

There is a significant unmet need for novel, effective, and well-tolerated acute migraine treatments. Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a non-pharmacological, non-invasive, acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation - an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which a conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. This review presents the method of action and the clinical data of REN and discusses its potential patient benefits. The clinically meaningful efficacy, together with a very favorable safety profile, suggests that REN may offer a promising alternative for the acute treatment of migraine and could be considered first-line treatment in some patients.

The Effect of Beginning Treatment With Fremanezumab on Headache and Associated Symptoms in the Randomized Phase 2 Study of High Frequency Episodic Migraine: Post-Hoc Analyses on the First 3 Weeks of Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Migraine has a substantial impact on daily living, affecting productivity and quality of life for patients and their families. Patients frequently discontinue preventive medications in part because of a delay in headache and symptom relief due to the long dose titration procedures necessary for some migraine preventives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of fremanezumab, a selective monoclonal CGRP ligand antibody, during the first 3 weeks of therapy in patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) to relieve migraine headaches and associated symptoms and to reduce use of acute migraine medications. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, patients with HFEM who met inclusion criteria and were 80% compliant with daily headache diary entry were randomized and treated once every 28 days for 3 months with either placebo or fremanezumab 225 or 675 mg. Compared to placebo, both doses of fremanezumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint of the HFEM study, change in the number of migraine days in month 3 relative to baseline. Herein, we performed post-hoc analyses to assess the efficacy of each dose during the first 3 weeks of treatment to reduce migraine headache parameters, associated migraine symptoms, and the consumption of acute migraine medications. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 297 study participants. Compared to placebo, decreases in migraine days were seen during the first week of therapy for both fremanezumab doses with least square mean (LSM) differences between fremanezumab 225 mg and placebo of -0.93 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.49) and between 675 mg dose and placebo of -1.02 (95% CI: -1.46, -0.58), both P < .0001. This benefit was maintained through the second week of therapy for the 225 and 675 mg doses, respectively, (-0.76 (95% CI: -1.11, -0.40) P < .0001, -.79 (95% CI: -1.15, -0.44) P < .0001) and the third week of therapy (-0.64 (95% CI: -0.97, -0.30) P = .0003 and -0.64 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.30) P = .0003). Likewise in the first week, patients recorded reductions in associated migraine symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia, which continued through weeks 2 and 3. There were also reductions in days with acute medication use to treat migraine for the 225 and 675 mg fremanezumab doses compared to placebo. In the first week, LSM differences between 225 mg and placebo were -1.02 (95% CI: -1.39, -0.64) and between 675 mg and placebo were -1.06 (95% CI: -1.39, -0.64) P < .0001); for the second and third weeks (-1.01 (95% CI: -1.14, -0.55) P < .0001; -.90 (95% CI: -1.04, -0.44) P < .0001; -.91 (95% CI: -0.92, -0.34) P < .0001; and -.83 (95% CI: -0.84, -0.26) P = .0002), respectively. CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab treatment resulted in a rapid preventive response in patients with HFEM, with reductions seen in several headache parameters and migraine symptoms within the first week after therapy initiation and continuing during the second and third weeks. Patients also were able to rapidly reduce their use of acute medications to treat migraine attacks. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02025556.

Some aspects on the pathophysiology of migraine and a review of device therapies for migraine and cluster headache.

Migraine is a common, severe disease, affecting the brain and blood vessels, causing much pain, time missed from work and family, and severe disability. It affects approximately 12% of most Western populations studied and affects women three times more than men. Cluster headache is a much less common dysfunction of the hypothalamus, involving the sphenopalatine ganglion and other areas; it causes more frequent, shorter, and even more intense pain than migraine. The pain usually comes in cycles and is associated with ipsilateral autonomic features and associated with irritability and inability to stay still. It affects less than 0.1% of the population and is slightly more prevalent in men than women. Although we have some acute care and preventive medications for both types of headache, no treatment is optimal for each patient and some will not respond well or have significant adverse events to existing therapies.

Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) in the acute treatment of migraine: a comparison with usual care and acute migraine medications.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant unmet need for new, effective and well tolerated acute migraine treatments. A recent study has demonstrated that a novel remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) treatment provides superior clinically meaningful pain relief with a low rate of device-related adverse events. The results reported herein compare the efficacy of REN with current standard of care in the acute treatments of migraine. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis on a subgroup of participants with migraine from a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled, multicenter study on acute care. The original study included a 2-4 weeks run-in phase, in which migraine attacks were treated according to patient preference (i.e., usual care) and reported in an electronic diary; next, participants entered a double-blind treatment phase in which they treated the attacks with an active or sham device. The efficacy of REN was compared to the efficacy of usual care or pharmacological treatments in the run-in phase in a within-subject design that included participants who treated at least one attack with the active REN device and reported pain intensity at 2 h post-treatment. RESULTS: Of the 252 patients randomized, there were 99 participants available for analysis. At 2 h post-treatment, pain relief was achieved in 66.7% of the participants using REN versus 52.5% participants with usual care (p < 0.05). Pain relief at 2 h in at least one of two attacks was achieved by 84.4% of participants versus 68.9% in usual care (p < 0.05). REN and usual care were similarly effective for pain-free status at 2 h. The results also demonstrate the non-inferiority of REN compared with acute pharmacological treatments and its non-dependency on preventive medication use. CONCLUSION: REN is an effective acute treatment for migraine with non-inferior efficacy compared to current acute migraine therapies. Together with a very favorable safety profile, these findings suggest that REN may offer a promising alternative for the acute treatment of migraine and could be considered first line treatment in some patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03361423 . Registered 18 November 2017.

DFN-02 (Sumatriptan 10 mg With a Permeation Enhancer) Nasal Spray vs Placebo in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DFN-02 - a nasal spray comprising sumatriptan 10 mg and a permeation-enhancing excipient (0.2% 1-O-n-Dodecyl-ß-D-Maltopyranoside [DDM]) - for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. BACKGROUND: Prior work has shown that DFN-02, which contains only half the recommended adult dose of sumatriptan found in the original formulation (10 mg vs 20 mg), is more rapidly absorbed than commercial nasal spray of sumatriptan, with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. The efficacy of DFN-02 in the acute treatment of migraine has not been previously assessed. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy, safety, and tolerability phase 2 study of DFN-02. Subjects with at least a 12 month history of episodic migraine, who averaged 2-8 attacks per month, with no more than 14 headache days per month and a minimum of 48 headache-free hours between attacks, were randomized (1:1) to receive DFN-02 or a matching placebo. Subjects were instructed to treat a single migraine attack of moderate to severe pain intensity. The primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of subjects who were pain-free at 2 hours postdose in the first double-blind treatment period, was assessed with 2 protocol prespecified primary analyses: last observation carried forward (LOCF) and observed cases (OC). Secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours included pain relief; absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia; freedom from nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Sustained pain freedom from 2 through 24 hours postdose was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 107 subjects randomized, 86.9% (N = 93 [DFN-02, n = 50; placebo, n = 43]) had data in the first double-blind treatment period. The study met its primary endpoint; the proportion of subjects who were free from headache pain at 2 hours postdose, was statistically significantly higher in the DFN-02 group than in the placebo group in both prespecified primary analyses: LOCF (DFN-02, n = 21/48; placebo, n = 9/40; 43.8% vs 22.5%, P = .044) and OC (DFN-02, n = 21/48; placebo, n = 8/39; 43.8% vs 20.5%, P = .025). For secondary efficacy endpoints, at 2 hours postdose, DFN-02 was also statistically significantly superior to placebo for the proportion of subjects who had pain relief (83.3% vs 55.0%, P = .005); who were free of their MBS (70.7% vs 39.5%, P = .007); and who were free of nausea (78.3% vs 42.1%, P = .026), photophobia (71.8% vs 38.9%, P = .005), and phonophobia (78.1% vs 40.0%, P = .004). Compared with placebo, statistically significantly greater proportions of subjects who were treated with DFN-02 had sustained pain freedom from 2 through 24 hours postdose (38.9% vs 13.8%, P = .029). In total, 9.7% (9/93) of subjects reported a treatment-emergent adverse event during the study: 10.0% (5/50) of DFN-02 subjects in the first double-blind treatment period and 13.5% (5/37) of DFN-02 subjects in the second double-blind treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with DFN-02 was dysgeusia (3/37 subjects in the second double-blind treatment period). CONCLUSIONS: DFN-02 was shown to be effective, well tolerated, and safe in the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Additional studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02856802).

A new era in headache treatment.

Primary headache disorders, such as migraine and cluster headache, are common and often debilitating. When preventive therapy is needed, several oral medications are used. Patients tend to have poor adherence and persistence on their preventive therapy. The introduction of treatments blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is anticipated to begin a new era in migraine preventive treatment. In addition, non-triptan serotonin receptor agonists, newer delivery systems for older therapies, and innovative devices represent other exciting advances in acute and preventive migraine and cluster treatment and shall also be discussed in this review.

Efficacy and safety of DFN-11 (sumatriptan injection, 3 mg) in adults with episodic migraine: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: In a previous randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study in rapidly escalating migraine, a 3 mg dose of subcutaneous sumatriptan (DFN-11) was associated with fewer and shorter triptan sensations than a 6 mg dose. The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of acute treatment with DFN-11 compared with placebo in episodic migraine. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-11 in the acute treatment of adults with episodic migraine (study RESTOR). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects taking DFN-11 who were pain free at 2 h postdose in the double-blind period compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included earlier postdose timepoints, assessments of pain relief and subjects' freedom from their most bothersome symptom (MBS) (among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia). Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 392 subjects was screened, 268 (68.4%) were randomized, and 234 (87.3% of those randomized) completed the double-blind treatment period. The proportion of subjects who were pain free at 2 h postdose was significantly greater in the DFN-11 group than in the placebo group (51.0% vs 30.8%, P  =  0.0023). Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of subjects treated with DFN-11 were also pain free at 30, 60, and 90 min postdose (P  ≤  0.0195). DFN-11 was significantly superior to placebo for pain relief at 60 min, 90 min, and 2 h postdose (P ≤ 0.0179). At 2 h postdose, DFN-11 was also significantly superior to placebo for freedom from photophobia (P  =  0.0056) and phonophobia (P  =  0.0167). Overall, 33.3% (37/111) who received DFN-11 and 13.4% (16/119) who received placebo experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), the most common of which were injection site swelling (7.2% vs 0.8%) and pain (7.2% vs 5.9%). Chest discomfort was about half as common in the DFN-11 treatment group as it was in the placebo group (0.9% vs 1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study met its primary endpoint, pain freedom at 2 h postdose, with DFN-11 significantly better than placebo, and the incidence of TEAEs and triptan sensations with DFN-11 was low. The 3 mg dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 appears to be an effective alternative to a 6 mg SC dose of sumatriptan, with good safety and tolerability. ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02569853; registered 07 October 2015).

Efficacy and safety of DFN-11 (sumatriptan injection, 3 mg) in adults with episodic migraine: an 8-week open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: DFN-11, a 3 mg sumatriptan subcutaneous (SC) autoinjector for acute treatment of migraine, has not been assessed previously in multiple attacks. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of DFN-11 in the acute treatment of multiple migraine attacks. METHODS: This was an 8-week open-label extension of multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled US study. Subjects averaging 2 to 6 episodic migraine attacks per month were randomized to DFN-11 or placebo to treat a single attack of moderate-to-severe intensity and then entered the extension study to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of DFN-11 in multiple attacks of any pain intensity. RESULTS: Overall, 234 subjects enrolled in the open-label period, and 29 (12.4%) discontinued early. A total of 848 migraine episodes were treated with 1042 doses of open-label DFN-11 and subjects treated a mean (SD) of 3.9 (2.3) attacks. At 2 h postdose in attacks 1 (N = 216), 2 (N = 186), 3 (N = 142) and 4 (N = 110), respectively, pain freedom rates were 57.6%, 64.6%, 61.6%, and 66.3%; pain relief rates were 83.4%, 88.4%, 84.1%, and 81.7%; most bothersome symptom (MBS)-free rates were 69.0%, 76.5%, 77.7%, and 74.7%; nausea-free rates were 78.1%, 84.6%, 86.5%, and 85.7%; photophobia-free rates were 75.3%, 76.4%, 72.3%, and 77.5%; and phonophobia-free rates were 75.2%, 77.5%, 73.6%, and 76.0%. Overall, 40.6% (89/219) of subjects reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), the most common of which were associated with the injection site: swelling (12.8%), pain (11.4%), irritation (6.4%), and bruising (6.4%). Most subjects (65.2%, 58/89) had mild TEAEs; severe TEAEs were reported by 1 subject (treatment-related jaw tightness). Five subjects (2.1%) discontinued due to adverse events, which included mild throat tightness (n = 2), moderate hernia pain (n = 1), moderate hypersensitivity (n = 1), and 1 subject with mild nausea and moderate injection site swelling. There were no serious TEAEs and no new or unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: DFN-11 was effective, tolerable, and safe in the acute treatment of 4 migraine attacks over 8 weeks, with consistent responses on pain and associated symptoms. Most TEAEs were mild, with a very low incidence of triptan-related TEAEs. DFN-11 is potentially an effective and safe alternative for the acute treatment of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02569853 . Registered 07 October 2015.

New treatments for headache.

Headache disorders are common worldwide and often disabling. Until recently, treatments were borrowed from other branches of neurology and medicine. Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand and receptor, small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist gepants, serotonin1F agonists, new devices to deliver currently available drugs, and neuromodulation devices have recently been in the forefront of headache treatments that are rather specific for various headache disorders. These novel therapies are changing the field of headache medicine. Herein, we update the latest data available for these therapies.

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.

Spontaneous extracranial hemorrhagic phenomena in primary headache disorders: A systematic review of published cases.

Background Head pain is a cardinal feature of primary headache disorders (PHDs) and is often accompanied by autonomic and vasomotor symptoms and/or signs. Spontaneous extracranial hemorrhagic phenomena (SEHP), including epistaxis, ecchymosis, and hematohidrosis (a disorder of bleeding through sweat glands), are poorly characterized features of PHDs. Aim To critically appraise the association between SEHP and PHDs by systematically reviewing and pooling all reports of SEHP associated with headaches. Methods Advanced searches using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate databases were carried out for clinical studies by combining the terms "headache AND ecchymosis", "headache AND epistaxis", and "headache AND hematohidrosis" spanning all medical literature prior to October 10, 2015. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were applied. Results A total of 105 cases of SEHP associated with PHDs (83% migraine and 17% trigeminal autonomic cephalgias) were identified (median age 27 years, male to female ratio 1:2.3); 63% had epistaxis, 33% ecchymosis, and 4% hematohidrosis. Eighty-three percent of studies applied the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. Eighty percent of the reported headaches were episodic and 20% were chronic. Twenty-four percent of studies reported recurrent episodes of SEHP. Conclusions Our results suggest that SEHP may be rare features of PHDs. Future studies would benefit from the systematic characterization of these phenomena.

Indomethacin Responsive Headaches: Exhaustive Systematic Review with Pooled Analysis and Critical Appraisal of 81 Published Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between indomethacin (IMC) and headache treatment has long intrigued clinicians and clinical researchers in Headache Medicine. Why is it efficacious in many types of headache disorders when other medications are not, and what is the mechanism behind its efficacy? IMC and headache related topics that have been explored in detail in the literature include IMC-responsive headache disorders ("traditional"), pharmacology of IMC, symptomatic headaches responsive to IMC, "novel" headache conditions that respond, cluster headache and IMC, IMC provoking headache, the issue about" absolute" and "non-absolute" effect of IMC on headache disorders, and the morphing trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs). DATA SOURCE: A PubMed/MEDLINE search was used for Clinical Studies Categories and Systematic Reviews on the PubMed Clinical Queries. The search details were "indomethacin" AND "headache" spanning all previous years until February 1, 2015. Methods were in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. REVIEW METHODS: Articles were excluded if IMC had not been used to treat headache disorders in adults, if the article concerned IMC-responsive headaches but made no reference to the use of IMC, and articles not addressing the above mentioned topics. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The "velocity" of publications on IMC and headache seems to be decreasing, particularly on the use of IMC for the treatment of TACs. The science behind the understanding of the putative mechanisms of IMC's action on headache has moved forward, but the answer to why it works better than other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been elusive. There are case reports of other rare headache disorders that may be responsive to IMC. The dosages of IMC used as a tool for detecting IMC responsive disorders vary according to different centers of investigation. In many circumstances, headache disorders similar to "primary" IMC-responsive disorders are actually symptomatic disorders. Cluster headache as an IMC-resistant headache disorder may not be as absolute as once thought. Sometimes, IMC has been found to provoke headache; differentiating IMC-provoked headache from IMC-resistant headache can make headache diagnosis and management difficult. As for the "absolute" responsiveness of IMC, it is possible that using higher dosages leads to higher sensitivity, probably at the expense of decreased specificity. There are many reports about the occurrence of two or more IMC-responsive disorders (latu sensu) in the same patient, which may be coincidental.

Update on the Pharmacological Treatment of Chronic Migraine.

Chronic migraine (CM) is a common and disabling disorder that remains underdiagnosed and poorly treated. Significant unmet therapeutic needs add to the burden of this disorder; even when CM is recognized, effective treatment options are limited and randomized controlled trials supporting the use of various preventive medications are sparse. In this review, we discuss the available options for CM treatment. Currently the only FDA-approved treatment for CM prevention is onabotulinumtoxinA. Two double-blind studies have demonstrated the efficacy of topiramate for CM prevention, but it is not FDA-approved for this indication. Treatments in development for migraine will also be reviewed. Advancements in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis have identified new targets for both acute and preventive treatment and have engendered the development of targeted and mechanism-based therapies. The need for more effective treatment for CM patients, which has long since been identified, is now being addressed. Several of the emerging treatments for migraine prevention are under investigation specifically for CM or high-frequency episodic migraine.

Cluster headache in Greece: an observational clinical and demographic study of 302 patients.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is considered the most excruciating primary headache syndrome; although much less prevalent than migraine, it is not rare as it affects more than 1/1000 people. While its clinical presentation is considered stereotypic, atypical features are often encountered. Internationally, cluster headache is often misdiagnosed, undertreated and mistreated. METHODS: We prospectively studied 302 CH patients, all examined by the same headache specialist. The aim of our study was to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of CH patients in Greece and draw attention to under-management, under-treatment and mis-treatment often encountered in clinical practice; our purpose is to improve recognition and successful treatment of cluster patients by Greek neurologists and other physicians. RESULTS: In the present cohort, clinical characteristics of CH are similar to those described in other populations. Beyond the standard clinical characteristics, features like side shifts (12.6 %), location of maximal pain intensity outside the first trigeminal branch division (10.2 %), lack of autonomic features (7 %), presence of associated features of migraine and aggravation by physical activity (10 %) were encountered. Four out of five patients had consulted a physician prior to diagnosis. The median number of physicians seen prior to diagnosis was 3 and the median time to diagnosis was 5 years, though it improved for patients with recent onset. Chronic cluster headache, side shifts, pain location in the face or the back of the head and aggravation by physical activity were found, among others, to be statistically significantly related to delayed diagnosis or more physicians seen prior to diagnosis. Even properly diagnosed patients were often undertreated or mistreated. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster headache, in a large cohort of Greek patients, has the same phenotypic characteristics as described internationally. Uncommon clinical features do exist and physicians should be aware of those, since they may eventuate in diagnostic problems. Most CH patients in Greece remain misdiagnosed or undiagnosed for rather lengthy periods of time, but time to diagnosis has improved recently. Even after diagnosis, treatment received was suboptimal.

New players in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Migraine is a common, chronic disorder of the brain causing much disability, as well as personal, familial and societal impact. Several oral preventive agents are available in different countries for the prevention of migraine, but none have performed better than 50% improvement in 50% of patients in a clinical trial. Additionally, each has various possible adverse events making their tolerability less than optimal. Recently, three monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand (LY2951742, ALD403 and TEV-48125) and one targeting the CGRP receptor (AMG 334) have completed phase 2 trials, and the results have been reported. These early results show them all to be somewhat more effective than placebo, with no serious adverse events. Three have been studied for episodic migraine, and only TEV-48125 has been studied for both high frequency episodic and chronic migraine. Moreover, preliminary data suggests that neurostimulation is effective in migraine treatment, including stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion, transcutaneous supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve, and transcutaneous vagus nerve. In this article, these innovative therapies will be reviewed.

Therapeutic antibodies against CGRP or its receptor.

CGRP is an extensively studied neuropeptide that has been implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine. While a number of small molecule antagonists against the CGRP receptor have demonstrated that targeting this pathway is a valid and effective way of treating migraine, off-target hepatoxicity and formulation issues have hampered the development for regulatory approval of any therapeutic in this class. The development of monoclonal antibodies to CGRP or its receptor as therapeutic agents has allowed this pathway to be re-investigated. Herein we review why CGRP is an ideal target for the prevention of migraine and describe four monoclonal antibodies against either CGRP or its receptor that are in clinical development for the treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. We describe what has been publically disclosed about their clinical trials and future clinical development plans.

Differential pharmacokinetics of diclofenac potassium for oral solution vs immediate-release tablets from a randomized trial: effect of fed and fasting conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of, and food effect on, diclofenac potassium delivered as an oral solution vs an immediate-release tablet. BACKGROUND: Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is the only nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug approved as monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura in adults 18 years of age or older. It is formulated with potassium bicarbonate as a buffering agent to raise the pH and consequently increase the aqueous solubility of diclofenac in the acidic environment of the stomach following oral administration. The dosage is 50 mg of powdered diclofenac potassium dissolved in 1 to 2 ounces (30 to 60 mL) of water prior to administration, with dosing time in relation to food intake not specified - this was the case for the pivotal efficacy and safety trials in subjects with acute migraine attacks in which the primary endpoints were achieved. For acute treatment of migraine attacks, rapid onset of pain relief is desirable and is likely related to a rapid appearance of an effective concentration of the drug in the systemic circulation. The rate at which an orally administered drug reaches the blood is affected by both its formulation and the presence of food in the stomach. The present study was designed to investigate the pharmacokinetics of 2 formulations of diclofenac potassium, an immediate-release tablet and an oral solution, and to ascertain the effect of food. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, single-center, crossover trial in healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomized using computer-generated list to 1:1:1:1 ratio. They received a single 50-mg dose of diclofenac potassium in 4 sequences (ABCD, BADC, CDBA, and DCAB) during each of the 4 treatment periods. The 4 treatments were: A, oral solution fasting; B, tablet fasting; C, oral solution fed; and D, tablet fed. There was a ≥7-day washout period between dosing. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were taken for up to 12 hours post-dose and analyzed for diclofenac concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including peak concentration (Cmax ), time to Cmax (tmax ), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to last measurable concentration (AUCt ), and extrapolation to infinity (AUC∞ ) were obtained using non-compartmental analysis. Comparative assessments for Cmax and AUC were performed between the solution and tablet under fed and fasting conditions and between fed and fasting states for both formulations. Bioequivalent exposure was defined as the geometric mean ratio and its 90% confidence interval falling within 80.0-125.0% for Cmax and AUC. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the trial. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of the 36 randomized subjects were male, 91.7% were Caucasian, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 31.9 (7.6) years. Thirty-three (91.7%) subjects completed all 4 treatments. SOLUTION VS TABLET: When taken under fed conditions, the oral solution resulted in an approximately 80% faster median tmax (0.17 vs 1.25 hours, P = .00015) and a 21% lower Cmax (mean ± SD, ng/mL: 506 ± 305 vs 835 ± 449, P = .00061) compared with the tablet. AUC values were similar between the 2 formulations. When taken under fasting conditions, the oral solution exhibited a 50% faster median tmax (0.25 vs 0.50 hours, P = .00035) to achieve a 77% higher Cmax (mean ± SD, ng/mL: 1620 ± 538 vs 1160 ± 452, P = .00032) compared with the tablet. AUCt and AUC∞ were similar between the 2 formulations. FED VS FASTING: When taken under fed conditions, the oral solution resulted in a similar median tmax (0.17 vs 0.25 hours, P = .185) and 64% lower Cmax (mean ± SD, ng/mL: 506 ± 305 vs 1620 ± 538, P < .00001) compared with fasting conditions. In comparison, the tablets under fed conditions resulted in a statistically significantly delayed median tmax (1.25 vs 0.50, P = .00143) and ∼30% lower Cmax (mean ± SD, ng/mL: 835 ± 449 vs 1160 ± 452, P = .00377). AUC values were similar between fed and fasting conditions for both formulations. Twelve subjects (33%) experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent AE during the study. All AEs were mild and resolved without treatment; none resulted in study discontinuation. More treatment-emergent AEs were reported in subjects receiving the tablet compared with the solution formulation (20.0% vs 11.8 % in fasting and 17.1% vs 8.6% in fed conditions). CONCLUSIONS: Diclofenac potassium oral solution and tablet formulations produced statistically significantly different Cmax and tmax but similar AUC under fed and fasting conditions. Fed conditions produced significantly lower Cmax for both formulations and profoundly delayed tmax for the tablet, but had no effect on tmax for the solution formulation. These data provide insights into the importance of an earlier and greater exposure to diclofenac arising from the solution formulation than the tablet, which may account for the superiority in the onset and sustained pain reduction for the solution than the tablet formulation observed in the double-blind, efficacy/safety study in migraine patients conducted in Europe.