The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs. SUMMARY: The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

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).

Case series on monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine patients during pregnancy: Enhancing safety data.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP-mAbs) are approved for adult migraine prevention but pose safety concerns in pregnancy. We assess the safety of CGRP-mAbs in the periconceptional period through a case series and literature review. METHODS: Six migraine-diagnosed women received CGRP-mAbs; treatment ceased upon pregnancy. We collected data and conducted safety assessments. To provide a comprehensive context, we performed a literature review. RESULTS: The series includes three erenumab, two fremanezumab and one galcanezumab case. A fremanezumab recipient experienced miscarriage; severe perinatal asphyxia linked to dystocia occurred with erenumab (140 mg). Database reviews revealed 63 spontaneous abortions, eight premature births, and seven birth defects among 286 World Health Organization and 65 European Medicines Agency cases. These rates align with untreated population rates. CONCLUSIONS: CGRP-mAbs use in the periconceptional period does not lead to clinically significant increase in pregnancy-related pathology or adverse effects on newborns within our case series and the literature reviewed.

Improvement of migraine depressive symptoms is not related to headache frequency: exploring the impact of anti-CGRP therapies.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to describe the prevalence and evolution of depressive symptoms in a cohort of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: This is an exploratory, prospective, unicentric, one-year longitudinal study. We included migraine patients who started treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Baseline demographic data, medical history, concomitant medication and migraine characteristics were collected. The presence of depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory-II quarterly and treatment response was categorized according to the reduction in monthly headache days. A generalized mixed-effect regression model was used to model depression score over a one-year treatment taking into account frequency response rates. RESULTS: We included 577 patients: 84.2% females; median (range) age 47.0 (39.0-53.0) years, 46.1% (266/577) of them presented depressive symptoms at baseline (16.1% mild, 13.3% moderate and 16.6% severe). After six-month treatment, 47.4% (126/266) reduced headache frequency ≥50% after one year and 63.5% (169/266) achieved a clinically significant improvement in depression symptoms. We observed a 30.8% (-50.0%, -3.2%) main reduction in depression score during the first quarter. The improvement in depression symptoms was independently associated with headache frequency response: non-responders, -25.0% (-43.9%, -1.1%); partial responders, -30.2% (-51.3%, -7.6%); and good responders, -33.3% (-54.6%, -7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP are effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with migraine. The main change of depression score happens during the first three months of treatment. The reduction in depressive symptoms is independent of migraine frequency improvement.

Migraine is the most disabling neurological disease among children and adolescents, and second after stroke among adults: A call to action.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is pivotal in shaping health policies by providing comprehensive data on mortality and disability. An updated GBD2021 analysis, published in Lancet Neurology on 14 March 2024, expands the scope of neurological disorders to include 37 conditions, revealing their significant impact on global health. Neurological disorders affect 3.4 billion people, or 43.1% of the global population, making them the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2021, with an 18.2% increase since 1990. The top three causes of DALYs in this category are stroke, neonatal encephalopathy and migraine. Migraine, affecting 1.16 billion people, ranks first among children and adolescents and second among adults aged under 60 years. Despite its substantial impact, migraine often lacks proper attention because of its non-fatal nature, invisibility and historical neglect of neurological disorders. The International Headache Society calls for recognizing migraine as a serious medical condition, promoting research and integrating migraine management into public health strategies. Effective interventions include raising awareness, improving access to treatment, adding migraine to the epidemiological surveillance agenda and exploring new treatment strategies. A coordinated effort among stakeholders is essential to alleviate the burden of migraine on individuals and society.

High-frequency episodic migraine: Time for its recognition as a migraine subtype?

BACKGROUND: High-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) has gained attention in the field of headache research and clinical practice. In this narrative review, we analyzed the available literature to assess the evidence that could help decide whether HFEM may represent a distinct clinical and/or biological entity within the migraine spectrum. METHODS: The output of the literature search included 61 papers that were allocated to one of the following topics: (i) socio-demographic features and burden; (ii) clinical and therapeutic aspects; (iii) pathophysiology; and (iv) classification. RESULTS: Multiple features differentiate subjects with HFEM from low-frequency episodic migraine and from chronic migraine: education, employment rates, quality of life, disability and psychiatric comorbidities load. Some evidence also suggests that HFEM bears a specific profile of activation of cortical and spinal pain-related pathways, possibly related to maladaptive plasticity. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with HFEM bear a distinctive clinical and socio-demographic profile within the episodic migraine group, with a higher disease burden and an increased risk of transitioning to chronic migraine. Recognizing HFEM as a distinct entity is an opportunity for the better understanding of migraine and the spectrum of frequency with which it can manifest, as well as for stimulating further research and more adequate public health approaches.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of pharmacological preventive treatment for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache. METHODS: The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

Insights from triggers and prodromal symptoms on how migraine attacks start: The threshold hypothesis.

BACKGROUND: The prodrome or premonitory phase is the initial phase of a migraine attack, and it is considered as a symptomatic phase in which prodromal symptoms may occur. There is evidence that attacks start 24-48 hours before the headache phase. Individuals with migraine also report several potential triggers for their attacks, which may be mistaken for premonitory symptoms and hinder migraine research. METHODS: This review aims to summarize published studies that describe contributions to understanding the fine difference between prodromal/premonitory symptoms and triggers, give insights for research, and propose a way forward to study these phenomena. We finally aim to formulate a theory to unify migraine triggers and prodromal symptoms. For this purpose, a comprehensive narrative review of the published literature on clinical, neurophysiological and imaging evidence on migraine prodromal symptoms and triggers was conducted using the PubMed database. RESULTS: Brain activity and network connectivity changes occur during the prodromal phase. These changes give rise to prodromal/premonitory symptoms in some individuals, which may be falsely interpreted as triggers at the same time as representing the early manifestation of the beginning of the attack. By contrast, certain migraine triggers, such as stress, hormone changes or sleep deprivation, acting as a catalyst in reducing the migraine threshold, might facilitate these changes and increase the chances of a migraine attack. Migraine triggers and prodromal/premonitory symptoms can be confused and have an intertwined relationship with the hypothalamus as the central hub for integrating external and internal body signals. CONCLUSIONS: Differentiating migraine triggers and prodromal symptoms is crucial for shedding light on migraine pathophysiology and improve migraine management.

Quantifying sensory thresholds along the migraine cycle: An exploratory longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To date, a number of studies on migraine have cross-sectionally evaluated sensory sensitivity with aversion thresholds/scores along the migraine cycle, reporting a decreased tolerance to sensory stimuli in different sensory modalities. Our hypothesis was that patients with migraine would exhibit heightened sensitivity to sound, light, touch and smell on days where they reported greater headache intensity. METHODS: This is an exploratory, longitudinal study, carried out over the course of 27 days. Aversion thresholds or scores to sound, light, touch and smell were quantified in six patients with migraine (11.33 ± 6.53 headache days/month). RESULTS: Patients reported an increased sensitivity to light (padj = 0.0297), touch (padj = 0.0077), and smell (padj = 0.0201) on days with higher headache intensity. However, a greater sensitivity to sound on days with higher headache intensity was only reported when anxiety levels were high (padj = 1.4e-06). Interestingly, variable levels of tolerance to bothersome light over time can also influence the correlation between light sensitivity and headache intensity (padj = 1.4e-06). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present findings, future longitudinal studies evaluating sensory threshold changes along the migraine cycle in patients with migraine should account for the increased tolerance to bothersome light over time as well as the effect of anxiety on auditory sensitivity.

Are we closer to achieving precision medicine for migraine treatment? A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The term 'precision medicine' encompasses strategies to optimize diagnosis and outcome prediction and to tailor treatment for individual patients, in consideration of their unique characteristics. The greater availability of multifaceted datasets and strategies to model such data have made precision medicine increasingly possible in recent years. Precision medicine is especially needed in the migraine field since the response to migraine treatments is not universal amongst all individuals with migraine. OBJECTIVE: To provide a narrative review describing contributions to achieving precision medicine for migraine treatment. METHODS: A search of PubMed for English language articles of human participants published from 2005 to January 2024 was conducted to identify articles that reported research contributing to precision medicine for migraine treatment. The published literature was categorized and summarized according to the type of data that were included: clinical phenotypes, genomics, proteomics, physiologic measures, and brain imaging. RESULTS: Published studies have investigated characteristics associated with acute and preventive treatment responses, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, onabotulinumtoxinA, and anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. There is evidence that clinical, genetic, epigenetic, proteomic, physiologic, and brain imaging features might associate with migraine treatment outcomes, although inconsistencies for such findings clearly exist. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature suggests that there are clinical and biological features which associate with, and might be useful for predicting, migraine treatment responses. To achieve precision medicine for migraine treatment, further research is needed that validates and expands on existing findings and tests the accuracy and value of migraine treatment prediction models in clinical settings.

International Headache Society global practice recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. METHODS: An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. RESULTS: A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. CONCLUSION: Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.

"Code Headache": Development of a protocol for optimizing headache management in the emergency room.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients presenting at the emergency room (ER) with headache often encounter a hostile atmosphere and experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to design a protocol for the ER with the goal of optimizing the care of patients with urgent headache to facilitate diagnosis and expedite treatment. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted via a MEDLINE search in October 2021. The "Code Headache" protocol was then developed considering the available characteristics and resources of the ER at a tertiary care center within the Spanish National Public Health system. RESULTS: The Code Headache protocol comprises three assessments: two scales and one checklist. The assessments identify known red flags and stratify patients based on suspected primary/secondary headaches and the need for pain treatment. Initial assessments, performed by the triage nurse, aim to first exclude potentially high morbidity and mortality etiologies (HEAD1 scale) and then expedite appropriate pain management (HEAD2 scale) based on scoring criteria. HEAD1 evaluates vital signs and symptoms of secondary serious headache disorders that can most benefit from earlier identification and treatment, while HEAD2 assesses symptoms indicative of status migrainosus, pain intensity, and vital signs. Subsequently, ER physicians employ a third assessment that reviews red flags for secondary headaches (grouped under the acronym 'PEACE') to guide the selection of complementary tests and aid diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The Code Headache protocol is a much needed tool to facilitate quick clinical assessment and improve patient care in the ER. Further validation through comparison with standard clinical practice is warranted.

Headaches and facial pain attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). METHODS: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

The headache research priorities: Research goals from the American Headache Society and an international multistakeholder expert group.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. BACKGROUND: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. METHODS: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health-care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. RESULTS: Twenty-five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non-pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Dynamic fluctuations of salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks: association with clinical variables and phenotypic characterization.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a complex neurological disorder with significant heterogeneity in its clinical presentation and molecular mechanisms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a key player in migraine pathophysiology, but challenges remain in its utilization as a biomarker. This study aimed to investigate salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks across the frequency spectrum and explore associations with clinical variables. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal pilot study was conducted, recruiting migraine patients from an outpatient headache clinic. Salivary CGRP levels were measured at interictal, onset, post-2 h of onset and end-of-attack. Using generalized linear mixed models, we explored the effect of CGRP changes over the attack in presence of depressive symptoms (DS), acute attack treatment, and after three-months of erenumab treatment. Finally, patients were classified and compared according to their CGRP phenotype. RESULTS: A total of 44 migraine patients were included (90.9% women), with 80 migraine attacks analyzed. Salivary CGRP levels increased at the onset of migraine attacks. We observed statistically significant interactions between DS and both the linear (Est. [SE]: 19.4 [5.8], p = 0.001) and quadratic terms of time (-19.1 [6.0], p = 0.002). Additionally, a significant three-way interaction within the use of acute treated attack (linear-term: -18.5 [6.2], p = 0.005; quadratic-term: 19.2 [6.8], p = 0.005) was also found. Molecular phenotyping revealed that 72.7% (32/44) of patients presented only CGRP-dependent attacks, while 27.3% (12/44) presented non-CGRP-dependent migraine attacks. Patients with only CGRP-dependent attacks were associated with younger age, shorter disease evolution time, a higher proportion of aura, and fewer monthly headache days (p < 0.05). Exploratory analysis of erenumab treatment effects did not result in changes in CGRP levels during migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the dynamic nature of migraine at a molecular level and emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical variables, such as depressive symptoms, in understanding its pathophysiology. The identification of distinct migraine subtypes based on CGRP dependence suggests potential opportunities for personalized treatment approaches.

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment. METHODS: These were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated. RESULTS: In ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8-81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3-61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8-41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSION: Over 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

Early and annual projected savings from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention: a cost-benefit analysis in the working-age population.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have proven to be safe and efficacious as preventive migraine treatments. However, their use is restricted in many countries due to their apparently high cost. Cost-benefit studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-benefit of anti-CGRP MAbs in working-age patients with migraine. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of consecutive migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) following National reimbursement policy in a specialized headache clinic. Migraine characteristics and the work impact scale (WPAI) were compared between baseline (M0) and after 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) of treatment. Using WPAI and the municipal average hourly wage, we calculated indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism) at each time point. Direct costs (emergency visits, acute medication use) were also analysed. A cost-benefit study was performed considering the different costs and savings of treating with MAbs. Based on these data an annual projection was conducted. RESULTS: From 256 treated working-age patients, 148 were employed (89.2% women; mean age 48.0 ± 8.5 years), of which 41.2% (61/148) were responders (> 50% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD)). Statistically significant reductions between M0 and M3/M6 were found in absenteeism (p < 0.001) and presenteeism (p < 0.001). Average savings in indirect costs per patient at M3 were absenteeism 105.4 euros/month and presenteeism 394.3 euros/month, similar for M6. Considering the monthly cost of anti-CGRP MAbs, the cost-benefit analysis showed savings of 159.8 euros per patient at M3, with an annual projected savings of 639.2 euros/patient. Both responders and partial responders (30-50% reduction in MHD) presented a positive cost-benefit balance. The overall savings of the cohort at M3/M6 compensated the negative cost-benefit balance for non-responders (< 30% reduction in MHD). CONCLUSION: Anti-CGRP MAbs have a positive impact in the workforce significantly reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In Spain, this benefit overcomes the expenses derived from their use already at 3 months and is potentially sustainable at longer term; also in patients who are only partial responders, prompting reconsideration of current reimbursement criteria and motivating the extension of similar cost-benefit studies in other countries.

Salivary CGRP and Erenumab Treatment Response: Towards Precision Medicine in Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed (1) to analyze salivary calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) levels in patients with migraine, (2) to predict erenumab response from baseline CGRP levels, and (3) to evaluate CGRP change post-treatment. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study that measured salivary CGRP levels in healthy controls (HCs), patients with episodic migraine (EM) and patients with chronic migraine (CM). Participants collected saliva samples at baseline and, the patients who were candidates to receive erenumab, also collected saliva after 3 doses of treatment. We quantified CGRP-like immunoreactivity (CGRP-LI) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and we performed an analysis at baseline and post-treatment through generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: At baseline, a higher headache frequency was associated with higher CGRP levels, those being even higher in the presence of depressive symptoms. A cutoff point (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of 103.93 (95% CI = 103.35-104.51) pg/ml was estimated to differentiate migraine from controls with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC, 95% CI) of 0.801 (95% CI = 0.798-0.804). We also found that higher pretreatment salivary CGRP levels were statistically significantly associated to a higher probability of having 50% or greater reduction in headache frequency in patients with EM, but not in patients with CM. After 12 weeks of treatment with erenumab, salivary CGRP levels from patients within all spectrum of migraine frequency converged to similar CGRP values. In contrast, in patients with concomitant depressive symptoms, this convergence did not happen. INTERPRETATION: Patients with migraine not only have higher CGRP levels compared with HCs, but also the presence of depressive symptoms seems to increase salivary CGRP levels and we have evidence, for the first time, that baseline salivary CGRP concentration is associated with treatment response to erenumab. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:846-859.