Pathophysiology of Migraine: A Disorder of Sensory Processing.

Plaguing humans for more than two millennia, manifest on every continent studied, and with more than one billion patients having an attack in any year, migraine stands as the sixth most common cause of disability on the planet. The pathophysiology of migraine has emerged from a historical consideration of the "humors" through mid-20th century distraction of the now defunct Vascular Theory to a clear place as a neurological disorder. It could be said there are three questions: why, how, and when? Why: migraine is largely accepted to be an inherited tendency for the brain to lose control of its inputs. How: the now classical trigeminal durovascular afferent pathway has been explored in laboratory and clinic; interrogated with immunohistochemistry to functional brain imaging to offer a roadmap of the attack. When: migraine attacks emerge due to a disorder of brain sensory processing that itself likely cycles, influenced by genetics and the environment. In the first, premonitory, phase that precedes headache, brain stem and diencephalic systems modulating afferent signals, light-photophobia or sound-phonophobia, begin to dysfunction and eventually to evolve to the pain phase and with time the resolution or postdromal phase. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful bench-based research has led to major classes of therapeutics being identified: triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists; gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists; ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, CGRP mechanisms monoclonal antibodies; and glurants, mGlu5 modulators; with the promise of more to come. Investment in understanding migraine has been very successful and leaves us at a new dawn, able to transform its impact on a global scale, as well as understand fundamental aspects of human biology.

Vestibular migraine: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We performed a narrative review of the recent findings in epidemiology, clinical presentation, mechanisms and treatment of vestibular migraine. RECENT FINDINGS: Vestibular migraine is an underdiagnosed condition that has a high prevalence among general, headache and neuro-otology clinics. Vestibular migraine has a bimodal presentation probably associated with a hormonal component in women. These patients could have a complex clinical phenotype including concomitant autonomic, inflammatory or connective tissue conditions that have a higher prevalence of psychological symptoms, which may mistakenly lead to a diagnosis of a functional neurological disorder. A high proportion of patients with postural perceptual persistent dizziness have a migraine phenotype. Independently of the clinical presentation and past medical history, patients with the vestibular migraine phenotype can respond to regular migraine preventive treatments, including those targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathways. SUMMARY: Vestibular migraine is an underdiagnosed migraine phenotype that shares the pathophysiological mechanisms of migraine, with growing interest in recent years. A thorough anamnesis is essential to increase sensitivity in patients with unknown cause of dizziness and migraine treatment should be considered (see supplemental video-abstract).

What visuospatial perception has taught us about the pathophysiology of vestibular migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A decade has passed since vestibular migraine (VM) was formally established as a clinical entity. During this time, VM has emerged amongst the most common cause of episodic vertigo. Like all forms of migraine, VM symptoms are most prominent during individual attacks, however many patients may also develop persistent symptoms that are less prominent and can still interfere with daily activities. RECENT FINDINGS: Vestibular inputs are strongly multimodal, and because of extensive convergence with other sensory information, they do not result in a distinct conscious sensation. Here we review experimental evidence that supports VM symptoms are linked to multisensory mechanisms that control body motion and position in space. SUMMARY: Multisensory integration is a key concept for understanding migraine. In this context, VM pathophysiology may involve multisensory processes critical for motion perception, spatial orientation, visuospatial attention, and spatial awareness.

Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine attacks during the prodrome: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist that is approved for acute treatment of migraine. The prodrome is the earliest phase of a migraine attack and is characterised by non-aura symptoms that precede headache onset. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 100 mg compared with placebo for the acute treatment of migraine when administered during the prodrome. METHODS: This PRODROME trial was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of ubrogepant 100 mg conducted at 75 research centres and headache clinics in the USA. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-75 years who had at least a 1-year history of migraine with or without aura and a history of two to eight migraine attacks per month with moderate to severe headache in each of the 3 months before screening. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either receive placebo to treat the first qualifying prodrome event and ubrogepant 100 mg to treat the second qualifying prodrome event or to receive ubrogepant 100 mg to treat the first qualifying prodrome event and placebo to treat the second qualifying prodrome event. An automated interactive web-response system used permuted blocks of four to manage randomisation. All people giving interventions and assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment during the study. People doing data analysis, which occurred after study completion, were not masked to group assignment. During the double-blind treatment period, each participant was instructed to orally take two tablets of the study drug at the onset of each qualifying prodrome event. The primary endpoint was absence of moderate or severe intensity headache within 24 h after study-drug dose; efficacy analyses were conducted with the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as all randomly assigned participants with at least one headache assessment within 24 h after taking the study drug during the treatment period. The safety population included all treated participants who took at least one administration of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04492020). FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2020, and April 19, 2022, 518 participants were randomly assigned to double-blind crossover treatment. The safety population included 480 participants and the mITT population included 477 participants; 421 (88%) of 480 participants were female and 59 (12%) were male. Absence of moderate or severe headache within 24 h after a dose occurred after 190 (46%) of 418 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with ubrogepant and after 121 (29%) of 423 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with placebo (odds ratio 2·09, 95% CI 1·63-2·69; p<0·0001). Adverse events that occurred within 48 h after study-drug administration were reported after 77 (17%) of 456 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with ubrogepant and after 55 (12%) of 462 events that had been treated with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Ubrogepant was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of migraine attacks when taken during the prodrome. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137). FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. FUNDING: Allergan (now AbbVie).

Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is being investigated for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with 4 to 14 migraine days per month in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean number of migraine days per month across the 12 weeks. Secondary end points included headache days per month, a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the 3-month average of migraine days per month, quality of life, and scores on the Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D). RESULTS: A total of 2270 participants were screened, 910 were enrolled, and 873 were included in the efficacy analysis; 214 were assigned to the 10-mg atogepant group, 223 to the 30-mg atogepant group, 222 to the 60-mg atogepant group, and 214 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 in the four groups. The changes from baseline across 12 weeks were -3.7 days with 10-mg atogepant, -3.9 days with 30-mg atogepant, -4.2 days with 60-mg atogepant, and -2.5 days with placebo. The mean differences from placebo in the change from baseline were -1.2 days with 10-mg atogepant (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.6), -1.4 days with 30-mg atogepant (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.8), and -1.7 days with 60-mg atogepant (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Results for the secondary end points favored atogepant over placebo with the exceptions of the AIM-D Performance of Daily Activities score and the AIM-D Physical Impairment score for the 10-mg dose. The most common adverse events were constipation (6.9 to 7.7% across atogepant doses) and nausea (4.4 to 6.1% across atogepant doses). Serious adverse events included one case each of asthma and optic neuritis in the 10-mg atogepant group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral atogepant once daily was effective in reducing the number of migraine days and headache days over a period of 12 weeks. Adverse events included constipation and nausea. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of atogepant for migraine prevention. (Funded by Allergan; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03777059.).

Biomarkers of Migraine and Cluster Headache: Differences and Similarities.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to identify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers that differentiate migraine from cluster headache patients and imaging features that are shared. METHODS: Clinical, functional, and structural MRI data were obtained from 20 migraineurs, 20 cluster headache patients, and 15 healthy controls. Support vector machine algorithms and a stepwise removal process were used to discriminate headache patients from controls, and subgroups of patients. Regional between-group differences and association between imaging features and patients' clinical characteristics were also investigated. RESULTS: The accuracy for classifying headache patients from controls was 80%. The classification accuracy for discrimination between migraine and controls was 89%, and for cluster headache and controls it was 98%. For distinguishing cluster headache from migraine patients, the MRI classifier yielded an accuracy of 78%, whereas MRI-clinical combined classification model achieved an accuracy of 99%. Bilateral hypothalamic and periaqueductal gray (PAG) functional networks were the most important MRI features in classifying migraine and cluster headache patients from controls. The left thalamic network was the most discriminative MRI feature in classifying migraine from cluster headache patients. Compared to migraine, cluster headache patients showed decreased functional interaction between the left thalamus and cortical areas mediating interoception and sensory integration. The presence of restlessness was the most important clinical feature in discriminating the two groups of patients. INTERPRETATION: Functional biomarkers, including the hypothalamic and PAG networks, are shared by migraine and cluster headache patients. The thalamocortical pathway may be the neural substrate that differentiates migraine from cluster headache attacks with their distinct clinical features. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:729-742.

Abnormal Glutamatergic and Serotonergic Connectivity in Visual Snow Syndrome and Migraine with Aura.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropharmacological changes in visual snow syndrome (VSS) are poorly understood. We aimed to use receptor target maps combined with resting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to identify which neurotransmitters might modulate brain circuits involved in VSS. METHODS: We used Receptor-Enriched Analysis of Functional Connectivity by Targets (REACT) to estimate and compare the molecular-enriched functional networks related to 5 neurotransmitter systems of patients with VSS (n = 24), healthy controls (HCs; n = 24), and migraine patients ([MIG], n = 25, 15 of whom had migraine with aura [MwA]). For REACT we used receptor density templates for the transporters of noradrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin, GABA-A and NMDA receptors, as well as 5HT1B and 5HT2A receptors, and estimated the subject-specific voxel-wise maps of functional connectivity (FC). We then performed voxel-wise comparisons of these maps among HCs, MIG, and VSS. RESULTS: Patients with VSS had reduced FC in glutamatergic networks localized in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) compared to HCs and patients with migraine, and reduced FC in serotoninergic networks localized in the insula, temporal pole, and orbitofrontal cortex compared to controls, similar to patients with migraine with aura. Patients with VSS also showed reduced FC in 5HT2A -enriched networks, largely localized in occipito-temporo-parietal association cortices. As revealed by subgroup analyses, these changes were independent of, and analogous to, those found in patients with migraine with aura. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that glutamate and serotonin are involved in brain connectivity alterations in areas of the visual, salience, and limbic systems in VSS. Importantly, altered serotonergic connectivity is independent of migraine in VSS, and simultaneously comparable to that of migraine with aura, highlighting a shared biology between the disorders. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:873-884.

Pathophysiology of cluster headache: From the trigeminovascular system to the cerebral networks.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in neuroimaging and electrophysiology, cluster headache's pathogenesis remains unclear. This review will examine clinical neurophysiology studies, including electrophysiological and functional neuroimaging, to determine if they might help us construct a neurophysiological model of cluster headache. RESULTS: Clinical, biochemical, and electrophysiological research have implicated the trigeminal-parasympathetic system in cluster headache pain generation, although the order in which these two systems are activated, which may be somewhat independent, is unknown. Electrophysiology and neuroimaging have found one or more central factors that may cause seasonal and circadian attacks. The well-known posterior hypothalamus, with its primary circadian pacemaker suprachiasmatic nucleus, the brainstem monoaminergic systems, the midbrain, with an emphasis on the dopaminergic system, especially when cluster headache is chronic, and the descending pain control systems appear to be involved. Functional connection investigations have verified electrophysiological evidence of functional changes in distant brain regions connecting to wide cerebral networks other than pain. CONCLUSION: We propose that under the impact of external time, an inherited misalignment between the primary circadian pacemaker suprachiasmatic nucleus and other secondary extra- suprachiasmatic nucleus clocks may promote disturbance of the body's internal physiological clock, lowering the threshold for bout recurrence.

Melatonin in hemicrania continua and paroxysmal hemicrania.

BACKGROUND: Hemicrania continua (HC) and paroxysmal hemicrania (PH) belong to a group of primary headache disorders called trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. One of the diagnostic criteria for both HC and PH is the absolute response to the therapeutic dose of indomethacin. However, indomethacin is discontinued in many patients as a result of intolerance to its side effects. Melatonin, a pineal hormone, which shares similar chemical structure to indomethacin, has been reported to have some efficacy for HC in previous case reports and series. To our knowledge, there is no literature regarding the use of melatonin in PH. We aimed to describe the clinical use of melatonin in the preventive management of HC and PH. METHODS: Patient level data were extracted as an audit from routinely collected clinical records in consecutive patients seen in outpatient neurology clinic at King's College Hospital, London, UK, from September 2014 to April 2023. Our cohort of patients were identified through a search using the keywords: hemicrania continua, paroxysmal hemicrania, melatonin and indomethacin. Descriptive statistics including absolute and relative frequencies, mean ± SD, median and interquartile range (IQR) were used. RESULTS: Fifty-six HC patients were included with a mean ± SD age of 52 ± 16 years; 43 of 56 (77%) patients were female. Melatonin was taken by 23 (41%) patients. Of these 23 patients, 19 (83%) stopped indomethacin because of different side effects. The doses of melatonin used ranged from 0.5 mg to 21 mg, with a median dose of 10 mg (IQR = 6-13 mg). Fourteen (61%) patients reported positive relief for headache, whereas the remaining nine (39%) patients reported no headache preventive effect. None of the patients reported that they were completely pain free. Two patients continued indomethacin and melatonin concurrently for better symptom relief. Eight patients continued melatonin as the single preventive treatment. Side effects from melatonin were rare. Twenty-two PH patients were included with mean ± SD age of 50 ± 17 years; 17 of 22 (77%) patients were female. Melatonin was given to six (27%) patients. The median dose of melatonin used was 8 mg (IQR = 6-10 mg). Three (50%) patients responded to melatonin treatment. One of them used melatonin as adjunctive treatment with indomethacin. CONCLUSIONS: Melatonin showed some efficacy in the treatment of HC and PH with a well-tolerated side effect profile. It does not have the same absolute responsiveness as indomethacin, at the doses used, although it does offer a well-tolerated option that can have significant ameliorating effects in a substantial cohort of patients.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches. METHODS: Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. RESULTS: The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare. CONCLUSION: The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Management of cervical CSF-venous fistula causing acute cognitive impairment and coma.

CSF-venous fistulas (CVFs) are increasingly recognised as a cause of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. They may present atypically including with brain sagging pseudo-dementia. Cervical CVFs are rare and their management can be difficult due to associated eloquent nerve roots. We report the case of a 49-year-old woman who presented with cognitive decline progressing to coma. Brain imaging showed features of spontaneous intracranial hypotension and a right C7 CVF was identified at digital subtraction and CT myelography. Initial treatment with CT-guided injection of fibrin sealant produced temporary improvement in symptoms before surgical treatment resulted in total clinical remission and radiological resolution.

Medication-overuse headache: a narrative review.

Medication-overuse headache (MOH), which potentially involves 1-2% of the population, is defined as a headache, on ≥ 15 days a month affected, along with overuse of one or other acute attack medications. MOH presents with significant challenges in the headache community, particularly in clinical settings raising various questions about its pathophysiology. Through a review of the current literature and our clinical experience, we have explored the mechanisms through which MOH may occur, provide an understanding of the current state of treatment and detail some possible views on the understanding and treatment of this condition. We evaluate the variations in treatment methods offered globally and understanding of the disorder. Above all interventions, patient education is crucial, which is underscored by an analysis of the academic publications. Given the condition is preventable, early intervention is imperative and patient awareness is highlighted as key. Globally, there is no uniform treatment methodology, which may be advantageous as approaches need to take local circumstances into account.

Structural equation modeling for identifying the drivers of health-related quality of life improvement experienced by patients with migraine receiving eptinezumab.

BACKGROUND: As new migraine therapies emerge, it is crucial for measures to capture the complexities of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement beyond improvements in monthly migraine day (MMD) reduction. Investigations into the correlations between MMD reduction, symptom management, and HRQoL are lacking, particularly those that focus on improvements in canonical symptoms and improvement in patient-identified most-bothersome symptoms (PI-MBS), in patients treated with eptinezumab. This exploratory analysis identified efficacy measures mediating the effect of eptinezumab on HRQoL improvements in patients with migraine. METHODS: Data from the DELIVER study of patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures (NCT04418765) were inputted to two structural equation models describing sources of HRQoL improvement via Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) scores. A single latent variable was defined to represent HRQoL and describe the sources of HRQoL in DELIVER. One model included all migraine symptoms while the second model included the PI-MBS as the only migraine symptom. Mediating variables capturing different aspects of efficacy included MMDs, other canonical symptoms, and PI-MBS. RESULTS: In the first model, reductions in MMDs and other canonical symptoms accounted for 35% (standardized effect size [SES] - 0.11) and 25% (SES - 0.08) of HRQoL improvement, respectively, with 41% (SES - 0.13) of improvement comprising "direct treatment effect," i.e., unexplained by mediators. In the second model, substantial HRQoL improvement with eptinezumab (86%; SES - 0.26) is due to MMD reduction (17%; SES - 0.05) and change in PI-MBS (69%; SES - 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in HRQoL experienced by patients treated with eptinezumab can be substantially explained by its effect on migraine frequency and PI-MBS. Therefore, in addition to MMD reduction, healthcare providers should discuss PI-MBS improvements, since this may impact HRQoL. Health technology policymakers should consider implications of these findings in economic evaluation, as they point to alternative measurement of quality-adjusted life years to capture fully treatment benefits in cost-utility analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ; EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease with a substantial societal burden due to lost productivity. From a societal perspective, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: An individual patient simulation of discrete competing events was developed to evaluate eptinezumab cost-effectiveness compared to best supportive care for adults in the United Kingdom with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and prior failure of ≥ 3 preventive migraine treatments. Individuals with sampled baseline characteristics were created to represent this population, which comprised dedicated episodic and chronic migraine subpopulations. Clinical efficacy, utility, and work productivity inputs were based on results from the DELIVER randomised controlled trial (NCT04418765). Timing of natural history events and treatment holidays-informed by the literature-were simulated to unmask any natural improvement of the disease unrelated to treatment. The primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, migraine-associated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit, each evaluated over a 5-year time horizon from 2020. Secondary analyses explored a lifetime horizon and an alternative treatment stopping rule. RESULTS: Treatment with eptinezumab resulted in an average of 0.231 QALYs gained at a saving of £4,894 over 5 years, making eptinezumab dominant over best supportive care (i.e., better health outcomes and less costly). This result was confirmed by the probabilistic analysis and all alternative assumption scenarios under the same societal perspective. Univariate testing of inputs showed net monetary benefit was most sensitive to the number of days of productivity loss, and monthly salary. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation shows that from a societal perspective, eptinezumab is a cost-effective treatment in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and for whom ≥ 3 other preventive migraine treatments have failed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Effectiveness and safety profile of greater occipital nerve blockade in cluster headache: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade is a short-term preventive therapy for cluster headache (CH). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GON blockade in patients with CH. METHODS: On 23 October 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from their inception date. Studies included participants with a CH diagnosis who received corticosteroid and local anaesthetic suboccipital region injections. Outcomes were change in the frequency/severity/duration of attacks; proportion of participants responding to treatment, time to attack freedom from an attack, change in attack bout length and/or the presence of adverse effects after GON blockade. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 (RoB2)/Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS- I) tools and a specific tool for case reports/series. RESULTS: Two RCTs, eight prospective and eight retrospective studies, and four case reports were included in the narrative synthesis. Every effectiveness study found a significant response in one or more of frequency/severity/duration of individual attacks or proportion of patients responding to treatment (47.8%-100.0%). There were five instances of potentially irreversible adverse effects. A higher injectate volume and use of concurrent prophylaxis may be associated with an increased likelihood of response. Methylprednisolone may have the best safety profile of available corticosteroids. DISCUSSION: GON blockade is safe and effective for CH prevention. Higher injectate volumes may improve likelihood of response, and the likelihood of serious adverse events may be reduced by using methylprednisolone. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020208435.

Comorbidity or combination - more evidence for cluster-migraine?

BACKGROUND: While migraine and cluster headache share some clinical features and therapies, they differ considerably in the frequency and duration of the headache, as well as the inter-attack, or inter-bout, pathophysiology. Neither is fully understood, with their shared pathways being of interest. FINDINGS: Five patients for whom it was difficult to distinguish migraine from cluster headache are presented. They had aspects of their phenotypes, which could be attributed to both disorders. Each patient was thoroughly examined, excluding secondary causes of headache, and had been treated with a number of medicines. CONCLUSION: A correct diagnosis is key to the appropriate treatment approach. Especially, if treatment is not successful for the suspected headache type, and enlargement of the diagnostic and therapeutic range, respectively, should be evaluated. Whether in such settings there is shared or different pathophysiology can only be speculated upon.

Alopecia as an emerging adverse event to CGRP monoclonal antibodies: Cases Series, evaluation of FAERS, and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia is associated with erenumab post-marketing, but no cases have been described. METHODS: We describe two patients that reported temporary hair loss and review the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). RESULTS: The first patient experienced alopecia within three months of starting erenumab, which did not improve with ongoing use or transition to fremanezumab. The second patient reported alopecia within two weeks of starting erenumab, which continued after transition to galcanezumab; months later, there was also recurrent hair loss within one month of starting fremanzeumab. According to FAERS (last accessed 18 August 2022), alopecia was reported most with erenumab (1158), followed by galcanezumab (554), fremanezumab (175), eptinezumab (23), rimegepant (26), ubrogepant (4), and atogepant (3). CONCLUSION: Most events were reported in women and non-serious. The potential mechanism of alopecia with drugs targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor possibly includes disruptions in the microvascular circulation and other homeostatic mechanisms.

Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. METHODS: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving n = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan. CONCLUSION: Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself.PROSPERO trial registration: CRD42022308224.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose. RESULTS: In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.