Effectiveness and tolerability of eptinezumab in treating patients with migraine resistant to conventional preventive medications and CGRP (receptor) antibodies: a multicentre retrospective real-world analysis from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP mAb) and is used for migraine prophylaxis. Efficacy data are mainly from clinical trials, real-world data are hardly available yet. Reimbursement policy in Germany leads to eptinezumab mainly being used in patients having failed pre-treatment with other CGRP mAb. To date, it is unclear whether eptinezumab is efficacious and well tolerated in this population and how the treatment response differs from patients who are naive to CGRP mAbs. METHODS: We analysed clinical routine data of 79 patients (episodic migraine (EM): n = 19; chronic migraine (CM): n = 60) from four different centres in Germany. All patients were treated with eptinezumab (100mg). Differences in monthly headache (MHD), migraine (MMD) and acute medication days (AMD) after three months were analysed. The correlation of response with the number of CGRP mAb failures was evaluated. Significance level has been corrected (alpha = 0.017). RESULTS: After three months MHD, MMD and AMD were significantly reduced. In EM, the median reduction for MHD was 4.0 days (IQR: -6.5 to -1.0; p = 0.001), for MMD 3.0 days (IQR: -5.5 to -1.5; p < 0.001) and for AMD 2.0 days (IQR: -5.0 to -0.5; p = 0.006). In CM, median reduction of MHD was 4 days (IQR: -8.0 to 0.0; p < 0.001), 3.0 days (IQR: -6.0 to-1.0; p < 0.001) for MMD and 1.0 day (IQR: -5.0 to 0.0; p < 0.001) for AMD. All patients were resistant to conventional preventive therapies and most to CGRP mAbs. Fourteen patients had never received a CGRP mAb and 65 patients had received at least one mAb without sufficient effectiveness and/or intolerability (one: n = 20, two: n = 28, three: n = 17). There was a significant association between the number of prior therapies and the 30% MHD responder rate (none: 78.6%, one: 45.0%, two: 32.1%, three: 23.5%, p = 0.010). Regarding tolerability, 10.4% (8/77) reported mild side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of eptinezumab is significantly reduced in patients who have not previously responded to other CGRP mAbs. However, limitations such as the retrospective nature of the analysis, the small sample size and the short treatment period with only the lower dose of eptinezumab must be considered when interpreting the results.

Long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures: extension of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures in the placebo-controlled phase of the DELIVER clinical trial; its long-term effectiveness in this population has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in a migraine patient population during the 48-week extension phase of DELIVER. METHODS: DELIVER was conducted June 1, 2020 to September 15, 2022. 865 adults with migraine, with documented evidence of 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures and with completion of the 24-week placebo-controlled period of DELIVER received eptinezumab (100 or 300 mg) during the dose-blinded extension, either continuing their randomized dose or, if originally receiving placebo, were randomized 1:1 to an eptinezumab dose (100 or 300 mg). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate changes from baseline in the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs). RESULTS: Of 865 patients entering the extension (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 433; 300 mg, n = 432), 782 (90.4%) completed and 11 (1.3%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Eptinezumab was associated with early and sustained reductions in migraine frequency. Mean MMDs at baseline were approximately 14 days across groups. Mean (standard error) change from baseline in MMDs over the final dosing interval (weeks 61-72) was -6.4 (0.50) with placebo/eptinezumab 100 mg, -7.3 (0.49) with placebo/eptinezumab 300 mg, -7.1 (0.39) with eptinezumab 100 mg, and -7.0 (0.39) with eptinezumab 300 mg. During weeks 61-72, 63-70% of patients demonstrated ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs, and 36-45% demonstrated ≥ 75% reduction. Headache severity and acute medication use reductions, and patient-reported improvements in most bothersome symptom, disease status, quality of life, and work productivity, were observed. Adverse events were generally mild, transient, and similar in frequency/type to previous eptinezumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures was demonstrated by high completion rates and migraine-preventive benefits sustained for up to 18 months, implying that eptinezumab is a viable long-term treatment option for patients still seeking successful migraine treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765; URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab. METHODS: We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache. RESULTS: The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the tolerability and efficacy of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, to topiramate for migraine prophylaxis in adults. METHODS: HER-MES was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial conducted in 82 sites in Germany. Patients with ≥4 migraine days per month and naïve to study drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus topiramate placebo (erenumab group) or oral topiramate at the individual dose with optimal efficacy (50-100 mg/day) plus erenumab placebo (topiramate group).The primary endpoint was medication discontinuation due to an adverse event during the double-blind phase. The proportion of patients that achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days during the last 3 months of the double-blind phase was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomised (from 22 February 2019 to 29 July, 2020) and 95.1% completed the study. In the erenumab group, 10.6% discontinued medication due to adverse events compared to 38.9% in the topiramate group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.27; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline with erenumab (55.4% vs. 31.2%; odds ratio 2.76; 95% confidence interval 2.06-3.71; p < 0.001). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab demonstrated a favourable tolerability and efficacy profile compared to topiramate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03828539.

Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab. METHODS: ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women. RESULTS: Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Real-life use of onabotulinumtoxinA reduces healthcare resource utilization in individuals with chronic migraine: the REPOSE study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with substantial economic burden. Real-world data suggests that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM reduces healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) and related costs. METHODS: REPOSE was a 2-year prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational study to describe the real-world use of onabotulinumtoxinA in adult patients with CM. This analysis examined the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on HRU. Patients received onabotulinumtoxinA treatment approximately every 12 weeks according to their physicians' discretion, guided by the summary of product characteristics (SPC) and PREEMPT injection paradigm. HRU outcome measures were collected at baseline and all administration visits and included headache-related hospitalizations and healthcare professional (HCP) visits. Health economic data, including family doctor and specialist visits, inpatient treatment for headache, acupuncture, technical diagnostics, use of nonpharmacologic remedies, and work productivity were also collected for patients enrolled at German study centres. RESULTS: Overall, 641 patients were enrolled at 78 study centres across 7 countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and Russia), 633 received ≥1 onabotulinumtoxinA dose, and 128 completed the 2-year study. Patients were, on average, aged 45 years, 85% were female, and 60% (n = 377) were from Germany. At the end of the 2-year observation period, significantly fewer patients reported headache-related hospitalizations (p < 0.02) and HCP visits (p < 0.001) within the past 3 months than in the 3 months before baseline. In the German population, reductions were observed across all health services at all follow-up visits compared with baseline. The percentage of patients who saw a family doctor decreased from 41.7% at baseline to 13.5% at administration visit 8 and visits to a medical specialist decreased from 61.7% to 5.2% of patients. Inpatient acute treatment and technical diagnostics declined from 6.4% and 19.7% of patients at baseline to 0.0% and 1.0% at administration 8, respectively. The use of nonpharmacologic remedies and medication for the acute treatment of migraine also decreased with continued onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. Work incapacity, disability, absenteeism, and impaired performance at school/work improved with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM over the 2-year observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence from REPOSE demonstrates that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment is associated with decreased HRU and supports the long-term benefits associated with the use of onabotulinumtoxinA for CM in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01686581 . Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. URL of registry: Date of retrospective registration: September 18, 2012. Date of enrolment of first patient: July 23, 2012.

Shift from high-frequency to low-frequency episodic migraine in patients treated with Galcanezumab: results from two global randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with episodic migraine (EM) with a higher-frequency of migraine headache days (HFEM: 8-14 migraine headache days/month) have a greater disease burden and a higher risk of progressing to chronic migraine (CM) with associated acute treatment overuse versus those with low-frequency EM (LFEM: 4-7 migraine headache days/month). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the proportions of patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM and to very low-frequency EM (VLFEM: 0-3 migraine headache days/month) status following treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo. METHODS: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 were double-blind, Phase 3 studies in patients with EM. Patients (18-65 years) were randomized (2:1:1) to subcutaneous monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg (240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg, for up to 6 months. Data were pooled and endpoints were change from baseline in number of migraine headache days/month and patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM or VLFEM status. Impact of change in HFEM status on migraine headache days/month, quality of life and disability was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 66% (1176/1773) patients from EVOLVE studies had HFEM status at baseline and were included in this analysis; placebo: 592, galcanezumab 120 mg: 294 and galcanezumab 240 mg: 290. At each month, both doses of galcanezumab resulted in a higher proportion of patients who shifted to 0-7 monthly headache days/month (VLFEM or LFEM status). Patients who shifted from HFEM at baseline to VLFEM status at Month 3, a relatively larger proportion of patients on galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo remained at VLFEM status at Months 4-6; Months 4-5 for galcanezumab 240 mg versus placebo. Among the galcanezumab-treated patients who did-not-shift or shifted to LFEM or VLFEM status for ≥3 consecutive months until the end of the study, patients who shifted from HFEM to VLFEM status experienced the largest reduction in migraine headache days/month and the largest clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning (MSQ-RFR) and disability (MIDAS). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFEM, treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg and 240 mg) significantly reduced migraine headache days/month, maintained remission status at subsequent months until the end of the study, and improved patients' quality of life versus placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: EVOLVE-1, NCT02614183 ; EVOLVE-2, NCT02614196 .

Peripheral nerve stimulation registry for intractable migraine headache (RELIEF): a real-life perspective on the utility of occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is common and ranked as the first cause of disability in people under fifty. Despite significant advances in its pharmacological treatment, it often remains intractable. Neuromodulation is one option considered in the management of those patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation in the treatment of intractable chronic migraine using the Abbott occipital nerve stimulator. METHODS: Recruitment took place in 18 centres in 6 countries. Patients over the age of 18 who had failed three or more preventative drugs, had at least moderate disability based on MIDAS or HIT-6 score and were implanted with an Abbott neurostimulator were included in the study. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 24 months. Data were collected on adverse events, headache relief, headache days, quality of life, migraine disability, satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included, 79 female and 33 male, with 45 patients reaching the maximum follow-up of 24 months. At 3 months, 33.7% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure with 43.0% reporting improved or greatly improved quality of life. 67.5% indicated that they would undergo the procedure again with satisfaction peaking at 9 months when 49.3% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure. At 24 months, 46.7% of available patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure-18% of enrolled patients. The adverse events were however frequent with incidences of 37%, 47% and 31% respectively for hardware-, biological and stimulation-related side effects. CONCLUSION: Neuromodulation can be beneficial for selected patients with intractable chronic migraine although frequent complications have been consistently reported across studies. Further research focusing on development of better hardware and technique optimisation and in particular reliable randomised trials with significantly longer follow-ups are warranted in this field.

Epidemiology, Demographics, Triptan Contraindications, and Prescription Patterns of Patients with Migraine: A German Claims Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is a neurological disease with a considerable economic and societal burden that negatively impacts quality of life and productivity. Triptans are potent serotonin receptor agonists widely used to treat migraine attacks. Little is known about German patients with migraine diagnosed with triptan contraindications or those who discontinue triptans. METHODS: This retrospective observational study identifies adults with migraine from a German sickness fund database (2010-2018). Migraine prevalence was calculated for the database population and extrapolated to the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) population. Medication use, proportion and demographics of patients with triptan contraindications, prevalence of triptan discontinuation and use of triptans by patients with contraindications were analysed. RESULTS: In total 120,170 patients with migraine were identified in the database population, of whom 77.7% were female; migraine prevalence was 2.0% (male) and 7.3% (female), leading to an extrapolated 2,923,979 patients with migraine in the entire German SHI population (2019); of these, 14.5% had ≥ 1 triptan contraindication. The most frequent contraindication was a history of stroke/transient ischaemic attack. However, an extrapolated 25.9% of patients who had a triptan contraindication received a triptan prescription following diagnosis. We calculated that 975,698 patients in the entire German SHI population had ever received a triptan, of whom 596,364 did not receive a triptan prescription in the follow-up year. Of these 596,364 individuals, 96.6% continued to receive a migraine diagnosis after their last triptan prescription. These 'triptan discontinuers' were predominantly female (82.6%). Most patients utilized only one specific triptan, with a large majority of ongoing triptan users who had used this specific triptan receiving > 4 prescriptions. CONCLUSION: We confirm the existence of German patients with migraine and unmet therapeutic needs. These are patients diagnosed with triptan contraindications or patients who have discontinued triptan use despite continued migraine attacks. More research is needed to ascertain reasons for triptan discontinuation and the risk of triptan use by patients with contraindications.

A Digital Therapeutic Allowing a Personalized Low-Glycemic Nutrition for the Prophylaxis of Migraine: Real World Data from Two Prospective Studies.

Migraine is a headache disorder associated with a high socioeconomic burden. The digital therapeutic sinCephalea provides an individualized low-glycemic diet based on continuous glucose measurement and is intended to provide a non-pharmacological migraine prophylaxis. We performed two prospective studies with migraine patients who used sinCephalea over a period of 16 weeks. The patients used a headache diary and recorded their migraine-related daily life impairments using the assessment tools HIT-6 and MIDAS for a pre versus post comparison. In addition, continuous glucose data of patients were compared to healthy controls. In both studies, patients reported a reduction of headache and migraine days as well as reductions in HIT-6 and MIDAS scores. More specifically, migraine days decreased by 2.40 days (95% CI [-3.37; -1.42]), HIT-6 improved by 3.17 points (95% CI [-4.63; -1.70]) and MIDAS by 13.45 points (95% CI [-22.01; -4.89]). Glucose data suggest that migraine patients have slightly increased mean glucose values compared to healthy controls, but drop into a glucose range that is below one's individual standard range before a migraine attack. In conclusion, sinCephalea is a non-pharmacological, digital migraine prophylaxis that induces a therapeutic effect within the range of pharmacological interventions.

A Digital Health Application Allowing a Personalized Low-Glycemic Nutrition for the Prophylaxis of Migraine: Proof-of-Concept Data from a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a headache disorder with the highest socioeconomic burden. The aim of this study was to deliver the first proof-of-concept data of the potential role of an individual low-glycemic diet provided by a novel digital health application in the prophylaxis of migraine. METHODS: We analyzed data from a retrospective survey of individuals who participated in a digital nutrition program that provides dietary recommendations based on the individual analysis of continuous glucose measurement from an up to 14-day test phase. A total of 84 individuals completed the retrospective digital survey. The endpoints were changes in the number of migraine days, average duration of attacks, average pain severity, frequency of intake of pain medication, absenteeism, and presenteeism before and after program participation. RESULTS: The intraindividual comparisons of the endpoints before and after program participation revealed decreases in migraine frequency and other patient-relevant migraine parameters. Moreover, patients with a baseline migraine frequency of two and more migraine days per month and adherence to the dietary recommendations (n = 40) showed a mean reduction in migraine days by 33% with a 50%-responder rate of 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The data provides emerging evidence that an individualized low-glycemic diet based on continuous glucose measurement could be a promising approach for a diet-based, non-pharmacological migraine prophylaxis. However, future research is required to confirm the implied effectiveness.

Relevant factors for neurologists to define effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs and take decisions on treatment. My-LIFE European Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines agree that preventive treatment should be considered in patients with uncontrolled migraine despite acute medications or patients with ≥4 migraine days per month. However, the criteria to define the effectiveness of treatment and the factors that inform the decision to (dis)continue it are not clearly defined in clinical practice. METHODS: Overall, 148 healthcare practitioners from five European countries completed a two-wave questionnaire. The Steering Committee defined a simulated set of 108 migraine patient profiles based on the combination of five factors (frequency of the attacks, intensity of the attacks, use of acute migraine medications, patient perception and presence/absence of tolerable side effects). These profiles were used in a Delphi survey among European neurologists to identify the criteria that should be used to decide treatment response and continuation using a conjoint analysis approach. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 82/108 (76%) of profiles regarding treatment response, and for 86/108 (80%) regarding treatment continuation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that a ≥50% reduction in the use of acute migraine medications and positive patient's perception of treatment were the most important factors that lead to the decision of continuing (combined factors, OR = 18.3, 95% CI 13.4-25.05). CONCLUSIONS: This survey identifies two relevant outcome measures: one objective (use of acute migraine treatment medications) and one subjective (positive patient perception) that guide the clinician decision to continue preventive treatment in migraine patients. SIGNIFICANCE: In clinical practice, criteria to define the effectiveness of migraine preventive treatment and factors that guide treatment stop or continuation are not clearly defined. In this simulated clinical setting study, a reduction in the use of acute migraine medications was the factor associated with preventive treatment effectiveness definition. This study also revealed that factors strongly associated with the decision of treatment continuation in real life are the acute migraine medications use and a positive patient's perception of treatment effectiveness.

Gender Differences in 3-Month Outcomes of Erenumab Treatment-Study on Efficacy and Safety of Treatment With Erenumab in Men.

Objective: We reported gender-specific data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody antagonizing the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. Methods: Our pooled patient-level analysis of real-world data included patients treated with erenumab and followed up for 12 weeks. We considered the following outcomes at weeks 9-12 of treatment compared with baseline: 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-75%, and ≥75% responder rates, according to the decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs), rate of treatment stopping, change in MHDs, monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly days of acute medication and triptan use, and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score from baseline to weeks 9-12. Outcomes were compared between men and women by the chi-squared test or t-test, as appropriate. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to identify factors influencing the efficacy outcomes. Results: We included 1,410 patients from 16 centers, of which 256 (18.2%) were men. Men were older than women and had a lower number of MHDs at baseline. At weeks 9-12, compared with baseline, 46 (18.0%) men had a ≥75% response, 75 (29.3%) had a 50-74% response, 35 (13.7%) had a 30-49% response, and 86 (33.6%) had a 0-29% response, while 14 (5.5%) stopped the treatment. The corresponding numbers for women were 220 (19.1%), 314 (27.2%), 139 (12.0%), 402 (34.8%), and 79 (6.8%). No gender difference was found in any of the outcomes. The ANCOVA showed that gender did not influence the efficacy of outcomes. Conclusion: We found that erenumab is equally safe and effective in men compared with women after 12 weeks.

Triptan efficacy does not predict onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy but improves with onabotulinumtoxinA response in chronic migraine patients.

Chronic migraine (CM) is a highly disabling primary headache. Botulinum toxin (onabotulinumtoxinA) is effective for treatment of CM, with ~ 50% of patients responding after 24 weeks. A response predictor would prevent unnecessary treatments. Inhibiting calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) release from trigeminal nociceptive fibres is one of the modes of acting discussed for onabotulinumtoxinA in CM. Therefore, we hypothesized that the response to triptans might predict response to onabotulinumtoxinA. Contrariwise, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment might affect triptan efficacy. 49 CM patients scheduled for their first onabotulinumtoxinA treatment were included. Before (T0) and three months after (T1) onabotulinumtoxinA treatment, patients rated triptan efficacy and indicated number of headache days/month. At T1, patients additionally rated onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy. Headache days/month were on average reduced by 7.1 ± 7.0 days from T0 to T1 (p < 0.001). Triptan efficacy ratings at T0 did not predict onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy ratings at T1 (p = 0.19) or reduction of headache days (p = 0.37). However, triptan efficacy significantly improved from T0 to T1 in onabotulinumtoxinA responders (p < 0.001) but not in non-responders (p = 1.00). Triptan efficacy did not predict response to onabotulinumtoxinA in CM. However, triptan efficacy increased after successful onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. This supports the hypothesis that efficacy of acute migraine treatment with triptans improves with effective migraine prophylaxis.

Erenumab in Chronic Migraine Patients Who Previously Failed Five First-Line Oral Prophylactics and OnabotulinumtoxinA: A Dual-Center Retrospective Observational Study.

Background: German authorities reimburse migraine prevention with erenumab only in patients who previously did not have therapeutic success with at least five oral prophylactics or have contraindications to such. In this real-world analysis, we assessed treatment response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) who failed five oral prophylactics and, in addition, onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA). Methods: We analyzed retrospective data of 139 CM patients with at least one injection of erenumab from two German headache centers. Patients previously did not respond sufficiently or had contraindications to ß-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, amitriptyline, valproate, and BoNTA. Primary endpoint of this analysis was the mean change in monthly headache days from the 4-weeks baseline period over the course of a 12-weeks erenumab therapy. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly migraine days, days with severe headache, days with acute headache medication, and triptan intake in the treatment period. Results: Erenumab (starting dose 70 mg) led to a reduction of -3.7 (95% CI 2.4-5.1) monthly headache days after the first treatment and -4.7 (95% CI 2.9-6.5) after three treatment cycles (p < 0.001 for both). All secondary endpoint parameters were reduced over time. Half of patients (51.11%) had a >30% reduction of monthly headache days in weeks 9-12. Only 4.3% of the patients terminated erenumab treatment due to side effects. Conclusion: In this treatment-refractory CM population, erenumab showed efficacy in a real-world setting similar to data from clinical trials. Tolerability was good, and no safety issues emerged. Erenumabis is a treatment option for CM patients who failed all first-line preventives in addition to BoNTA.

Part I: what do patients really need and want from migraine treatment?

Migraine is characterised by recurrent episodes of head pain, often accompanied by other symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting. In addition to migraine impairing a patient's ability to function normally during an attack, fear of the next attack can detract from quality of life between attacks. Of those migraineurs who consult a physician for headache, the minority are prescribed migraine-specific triptans and many are dissatisfied with current therapy. Clinical trials have shown that triptans are capable of providing rapid and effective relief of headache pain, which is what patients primarily desire from acute migraine therapies. Patients generally prefer to administer acute migraine therapies orally, but conventional tablets do not suit all patients and situations. Some patients dislike swallowing tablets, nausea can make swallowing difficult and can be exacerbated by fluid intake, and attacks can easily strike when fluids are not readily available, especially as many young migraineurs lead busy, active lives. Patients need a treatment that enables any migraine attack to be treated promptly and effectively in any given situation. Tablets that dissolve rapidly on the tongue without a requirement for extra fluid intake are a popular alternative to conventional tablets, allowing discreet, convenient and early treatment of migraine anywhere and anytime it strikes. Several triptans are currently on the market in conventional tablet form, but some are available in other formulations, such as orally disintegrating tablets or nasal sprays, making it possible to prescribe rapidly effective migraine treatments in formulations that suit individual patient preferences, lifestyles and attack characteristics.

Part IV: effects of zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet on migraine symptoms and ability to perform normal activities: a post-marketing surveillance study in Germany.

Zolmitriptan has been developed in an orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) formulation that rapidly dissolves on the tongue and can be taken quickly, conveniently and discreetly without fluid intake. In this 3-month, non-comparative, observational, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study, 5,570 physicians prescribed the zolmitriptan 2.5 mg ODT for 16,261 patients with migraine. Of the 14,543 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis, 94% had reduced headache intensity within 2 hours of taking zolmitriptan 2.5 mg ODT for the first attack. Improvements were reported within 30 minutes in 35% of patients and within 15 minutes in 7% of patients. Non-headache migraine symptoms and normal daily activities improved for the majority of patients within 2 hours of taking zolmitriptan ODT. Ninety-one percent of patients required only a single dose of zolmitriptan 2.5 mg ODT to treat each attack. Ninety-two percent of patients considered zolmitriptan ODT as having very good or good efficacy and 96% said that tolerability was very good or good. This study also demonstrated that 94% of patients would be willing to continue to use zolmitriptan ODT in the future and 81% of patients considered that being able to take the ODT without water was important or very import ant. In summary, zolmitriptan ODT has demonstrated high efficacy and excellent tolerability. In addition, patients found zolmitriptan ODT to be convenient and easy to use, and were willing to continue using the product. Following placebo-controlled studies, these PMS results provide insight into the use of zolmitriptan ODT in a setting more representative of real life than randomised clinical trials, further demonstrating that it provides a reliable and convenient alternative to conventional tablets.

Migraine treatment strategies: the global Migraine And Zolmitriptan Evaluation (MAZE) survey--phase IV.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which medications UK migraineurs have access to and assess the usage of these products in a 'real-life' setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected using an online questionnaire, which subjects were directed to by advertisements in pharmacies, a UK national newspaper, on the internet and information on the Migraine Action Association website and newsletters. Respondents were eligible for inclusion if attacks fulfilled International Headache Society criteria for migraine and/or if previously diagnosed by a physician as having migraine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were asked to specify which products had been prescribed or purchased for migraine treatment. The pattern of use of these products was determined, including the reasons why respondents chose particular products to treat attacks. RESULTS: Of 3072 eligible respondents, the majority had purchased a variety of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines for treatment of attacks. Eighty-seven per cent had been diagnosed by a physician and were prescribed multiple products (average 1.68); 45% received triptans, but 26% were still prescribed products that were also available OTC. Over half (52%) of respondents initially used an OTC medicine to treat the last migraine attack. However, 73% required a second dose/product, mainly as a result of lack of efficacy of the first dose/product. Respondents using triptans were less likely to require a second dose/product than those not using triptans (52% vs. 78%, respectively). The two main reasons for choosing a triptan to treat an attack were the need for quick control and the severity of the attack. Satisfaction with regard to migraine medication was higher among triptan-users than nontriptan users. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines that are available OTC are often used as first-line therapy for migraine despite many migraineurs having access to prescription therapies such as triptans. Many migraineurs require a second dose/product, possibly indicating sub-optimal treatment efficacy. Physicians should consider the range of migraine-specific treatments available, including triptans, in order to develop a treatment plan that is based on the patient's needs and preferences.

Topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents: a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficacy and safety of topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents from 3 randomized, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding the efficacy and safety of prophylactic medications for treatment of adolescent migraine, a significant health problem. In studies that included adults and children, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day were effective and generally well-tolerated in the prevention of migraine headache. METHODS: We performed a post hoc subset analysis of the efficacy and safety data from the 51 patients, ages 12-17 years, enrolled in 3 pivotal trials of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. RESULTS: Daily treatment with topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg for 26 weeks reduced monthly migraine frequency from baseline 46% (P= .07), 63% (P= .02), and 65% (P= .04), respectively, compared with placebo (16%). Similarly, topiramate reduced both the monthly mean number of migraine days (1, 4, and 5 days for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 1 day for placebo) and percentage of days during which acute migraine medications were administered (59%, 54%, and 67% for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 42% for placebo), although the treatment differences did not reach nominal statistical significance. Topiramate 200 mg/day did not appear to offer greater efficacy than 100 mg/day. Treatment was generally well-tolerated, although adverse events were most frequent in the 200 mg/day dose group. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc subset analysis suggests that topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, and possibly 50 mg/day, administered prophylactically for 26 weeks may reduce migraine in adolescents.

Almotriptan in migraine patients who respond poorly to oral sumatriptan: a double-blind, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of almotriptan 12.5 mg in migraine patients who respond poorly to sumatriptan 50 mg. BACKGROUND: Poor response to sumatriptan therapy for acute migraine attacks has been documented in the literature, but few controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of an alternative triptan in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: Patients with an International Headache Society diagnosis of migraine who self-described as experiencing at least two unsatisfactory responses to sumatriptan treated their first migraine attack with open-label sumatriptan 50 mg. Patients who did not achieve 2-hour pain relief (improvement of headache from moderate/severe to mild/no headache) were then randomized to treat their second attack with almotriptan 12.5 mg or placebo under double-blind conditions. RESULTS: In the first attack, 221 of 302 participants (73%) did not achieve 2-hour pain relief with sumatriptan and were randomized to treatment of their second attack with almotriptan 12.5 mg or placebo. Of the 198 sumatriptan nonresponders who treated their second attack (99 almotriptan; 99 placebo), 70% had severe headache pain at baseline. Two-hour pain-relief rates were significantly higher with almotriptan compared to placebo (47.5 vs. 23.2%; p < 0.001). A significant treatment effect for almotriptan was also seen in pain-free rates at 2 h (33.3 vs. 14.1%; p < 0.005) and sustained freedom from pain (20.9 vs. 9.0%; p < 0.05). In the second attack, 7.1% of patients in the almotriptan group experienced adverse events compared to 5.1% in the placebo group (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Almotriptan 12.5 mg is an effective and well-tolerated alternative for patients who respond poorly to sumatriptan 50 mg. A poor response to one triptan does not predict a poor response to other agents in that class.