Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders. METHODS: Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24. RESULTS: Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo. CONCLUSION: Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

Psychopathological variables in chronic migraine patients with different therapeutic approach: psychological profile differences and impact on therapeutic efficacy in real life.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition linked to various psychological comorbidities. The aims of our study are: 1) to evaluate potential psychopathological differences between patients in treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (SPECIFIC group) and those with onabotulinumtoxin-A/oral pharmacotherapy (Group NON-SPECIFIC), 2) to compare treatment efficacy over time between groups, and examined whether psychopathological comorbidities can influence it. METHODS: This is a post-hoc ambispective study: a retrospective analysis of patient-level real-life data prospectively collected for clinical evaluation. We enrolled 102 patients with chronic migraine (CM), 64 in treatment with erenumab or galcanezumab, and 38 with botulinum toxin or oral pharmacotherapies. Psychopathological variables are assessed at baseline, whereas clinical factors over time. RESULTS: The NON-SPECIFIC group showed more pronounced emotion regulation difficulties (DERS, p = 0.001), alexithymia (TAS-20, p = 0.012), and impulsiveness (BIS-11, p = 0.002) with respect to the SPECIFIC group. Moreover, treatment efficacy overtime was more pronounced in the group with anti-CGRP treatment with a reduction of migraine frequency overtime, pain intensity, and improved quality of life up to six months post-treatment. Psychopathological comorbidity did not influence treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted more pronounced psychopathological comorbidities in patients in treatment with NON-SPECIFIC therapies in terms of impulsivity, alexithymia, and emotion regulation. Moreover, treatment efficacy overtime was more pronounced and stable over time in the SPECIFIC group, and psychopathological comorbidity did not influence it.

The transition of medication overuse status by acute medication categories in episodic or chronic migraine patients to non-overuse status after receiving anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), who were treated with anti-CGRP antibodies, showed a reversal from medication overuse (MO) or medication overuse headache (MOH) status at their baseline to non-overuse status. Furthermore, this study aimed to establish which acute headache medication (AHM) categories responded more effectively to anti-CGRP antibodies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database for relevant studies from January 2013 to September 2023. We included phase three randomized controlled trials to examine the role of anti-CGRP antibodies in patients with EM or CM and their MO status. A meta-analysis was conducted to find the association between anti-CGRP antibodies and the number of EM and CM patients with MO or MOH at baseline that reverted to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold. RESULTS: The initial search yielded a total of 345 studies. After removing duplicates and screening with inclusion criteria, 5 studies fulfilled our conditions. Each study reviewed the response to changes in the MO status of patients after receiving anti-CGRP antibodies, including eptinezumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, compared to placebo. Our study analyzed three AHM categories: triptans, simple analgesics, and multiple drugs. The overall relative risk (RR) was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.31 to 1.59; p < 0.001). The RRs for triptans, simple analgesics, and multi-drug groups were 1.71 (95% CI, 1.53 to 1.91; p < 0.001), 1.10 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.47; p = 0.5), and 1.29 (95%CI 1.14 to 1.46; p < 0.001) respectively. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis has shown that anti-CGRP antibodies were statistically significant in transitioning from MO or MOH status to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold (RR = 1.44) for all included studies and all AHM categories except for simple analgesics. Patients from the triptan group had the highest RR of 1.71 with a p-value < 0.001, while the simple analgesics group had an RR of 1.10, however, with a p-value > 0.05. Interestingly, this analysis can be interpreted as that anti-CGRP antibodies might not be effective in reducing simple analgesics use in EM or CM patients. Further studies are needed to investigate these matters.

Blood pressure monitoring in elderly migraineurs starting an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody: a real-world prospective study.

BACKGROUND: While monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the CGRP pathway have revolutionized migraine management due to their improved tolerance and adherence, concerns remain about their potential impact on blood pressure (BP), especially in older patients, due to CGRP-mediated vasodilation blockade. Given the growing use of these therapies in older populations, assessing their cardiovascular (CV) safety is of paramount importance. METHODS: This multicentric observational prospective study focused on migraine sufferers aged ≥ 60 who began erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab for prevention. Baseline, three-month, and twelve-month BP measurements were collected. Changes in antihypertensive medication and "Newly or Worsened Hypertensive" patients (NWHP) were assessed. RESULTS: Among 155 patients receiving anti-CGRP mAbs (40 Erenumab, 47 Galcanezumab, 68 Fremanezumab), 42.5% had hypertension history and 39% were on antihypertensive treatment. No significant systolic or diastolic BP changes occurred at any time point compared to baseline (all p > 0.05), with no differences between the three groups. After one year, 20/155 (12.9%) patients were considered NWHP; 11/20 had prior hypertension, and 5/11 adjusted antihypertensive therapy. Among 9/20 newly hypertensive patients, 5/9 had a single measurement above the normal threshold with no requirement for new pharmacological therapy. A higher baseline BP value was associated with increased BP (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The study concludes that treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs over one year does not significantly affect BP in patients aged ≥ 60, nor does it increase the incidence of hypertension compared to general population trends. Nonetheless, continuous monitoring and further long-term studies are necessary to fullya scertain the cardiovascular safety of these medications in the elderly.

Comparison of gepant effects at therapeutic plasma concentrations: connecting pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: Orally administered second-generation gepants are effective for the treatment of migraine. The intranasal administration of the third-generation gepant zavegepant might have additional benefits including a rapid onset of action, but it is not clear yet to which extent this has clinical relevance. METHODS: We examined the effect of zavegepant on the relaxations induced by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in human isolated middle meningeal arteries. Furthermore, we connected the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gepants by combining data from clinical and basic research. RESULTS: We showed that 10 nM zavegepant potently antagonized the functional response to CGRP. We also showed that all gepants are effective at inhibiting functional responses to CGRP at their therapeutic plasma concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low predicted potency of zavegepant to inhibit CGRP-induced relaxation at therapeutic systemic plasma concentrations may point to the relevance of local delivery to the trigeminovascular system through intranasal administration. This approach may have additional benefits for various groups of patients, including overweight patients.

CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder. METHODS: We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine. RESULTS: A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine.

Genetic variants associated with response to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody therapy in a chronic migraine Han Chinese population.

BACKGROUND: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies have emerged as promising therapeutic options for the treatment of chronic migraine. However, treatment response varies considerably among individuals, suggesting a potential role for genetic factors. This study aimed to identify genetic variants affecting the efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody therapy in chronic migraine among the Han Chinese population in Taiwan to enhance treatment precision and to understand the genetic architecture of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative trait locus (QTL) association study in patients with chronic migraines from a tertiary medical center in Taiwan using the Taiwan Precision Medicine Array Chip. The patients received fremanezumab or galcanezumab for at least 12 weeks. Treatment efficacy was assessed based on the improvement rate in monthly migraine days. Genetic variants were identified, and their associations with treatment efficacy were examined through quantitative trait loci analysis, linkage disequilibrium studies, and functional annotations using the Gene Ontology database. RESULTS: Six single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) relative variants were significantly associated with anti-CGRP therapy response (p < 1 × 10- 7): rs116870564, rs75244870, rs56216870, rs12938101, rs74655790, and rs149540851. These variants are located in or near genes, including LRRC4C, ATAD2B, and OXR1, which are involved in neuronal development, DNA-dependent ATPase activity, and oxidation-reduction processes, respectively. The rs116870564 variant in LRRC4C showed the strongest association (ß = -0.551, p = 6.65 × 10- 9). The functional impact of these variants is attributed to their regulatory effects on gene expression, which are influenced by intron splicing regulation, transcription factors, and changes in chromatin structure. CONCLUSION: The identification of key genetic markers associated with response to anti-CGRP therapy emphasizes the importance of genetic variability in treatment efficacy. This could lead to more personalized chronic migraine management strategies and tailored therapeutic approaches based on individual genetic profiles. Further research in larger, diverse populations is warranted to validate these findings and refine our understanding of the role of CGRP in chronic migraine pathophysiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

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.

Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients with migraine: results from a retrospective database study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Clinical characteristics and treatment practice of patients with migraine in Japan in real-world setting have not been fully investigated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using claims database to understand the clinical practice of migraine in recent years and to characterize patients potentially not managed well by current treatment options. METHODS: Our study used data from the large claims database maintained by JMDC Inc. Patients with diagnosis of headache or migraine between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2022, were defined as the headache cohort, and those with migraine diagnosis and prescription of migraine treatments among the headache cohort were included in the migraine cohort. In the headache cohort, characteristics of medical facilities and status of imaging tests to distinguish secondary headache were examined. Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients potentially not managed well by acute/preventive treatment were described in migraine cohort. RESULTS: In the headache cohort, 989,514 patients were included with 57.0% females and mean age of 40.3 years; 77.0% patients visited clinics (with ≤ 19 bed capacities) for their primary diagnosis, and 30.3% patients underwent imaging tests (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging). In the migraine cohort, 165,339 patients were included with 65.0% females and mean age of 38.8 years. In the migraine cohort, 95.6% received acute treatment while 20.8% received preventive treatment. Acetaminophen/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were most common (54.8%) as the initial prescription for migraine treatment followed by triptan (51.4%). First treatment prescription included preventive treatment in 15.6%, while the proportion increased to 82.2% in the fourth treatment prescription. Among patients with more than 12 months of follow-up, 3.7% had prescription patterns suggestive of risk of medication-overuse headache, and these patients were characterized by a higher percentage of females and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that approximately one-fifth of the patients with migraine visiting medical facilities use preventive drugs. The presence of potential patients at risk of medication-overuse headache and the role of clinics in migraine treatment were also described.

Anti-CGRP mAbs for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: An Overview Review and a Cost Saving Analysis in the Global Scenario.

Objectives: Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies selective for the calcitonin gene-related peptide and its ligand (anti-CGRP mAbs) have been marketed both in the USA and EU based on the positive efficacy results in the prevention of migraine. This search has been carried out with the aim of collecting real-world evidence on the effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs, performing a cost-savings analysis, and comparing performances among anti-CGRP mAbs medicines marketed in the American and European market. Methods: The literature review has been performed in PubMed database on 31 December 2022; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-CGRP mAbs has been extracted consulting an American national database. Results: The results confirm efficacy and good tolerability of anti-CGRP mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. In fact, all extracted studies showed a protective risk factor exposure in monthly migraine days reduction for all the anti-CGRP mAbs, whereas the cost analysis showed that using eptinezumab, in a quarter there is a cost saving of at least $425 per patient, compared with the other anti-CGRP mAbs. Conclusions: With equal efficacy and equal safety, anti-CGRP mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the healthcare services resources.

Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine accompanying symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of basal accompanying symptoms on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies treatment response and their evolution after six months of treatment in migraine patients. METHODS: Patients with migraine diagnosis seen in the Headache Clinic and treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab were prospectively recruited. They completed a daily eDiary which provided data on headache frequency and the following accompanying symptoms of each day: photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on 50% or greater reduction in headache days per month at month 6 (≥50% response rate). Accompanying symptoms ratios based on headache days per month were assessed per patient at baseline and after three and six months. Comparisons for basal characteristics, basal accompanying symptoms ratios and their evolution after six months between responders and non-responders were performed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included, 44% (69/158) showed ≥50% response rate after six months. A significant reduction in headache days per month in both groups was found at month 6 (-9.4 days/month in ≥50% response rate group; p < 0.001, -2.2 days/month in <50% response rate group; p = 0.004). Additionally, significant decreases in photophobia (-19.5%, p < 0.001), phonophobia (-12.1%, p = 0.010) and aura ratios (-25.1%, p = 0.008) were found in ≥50% response rate group. No statistically significant reductions were found in nausea and dizziness in any group since their reduction was correlated with the decrease in headache days per month. Higher photophobia ratios at baseline were predictive of an increased response between months 3 and 6 (Incidence Risk Ratio = 0.928, p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: The days per month with photophobia, phonophobia and aura decreased at a higher rate than headache days per month after six months in the ≥50% response group. Higher photophobia ratios were associated with higher response rates between three and six months. It could indicate an involvement of peripheral CGRP in photophobia as well as a central modulation of migraine through these treatments which mainly act on the periphery.

Response to erenumab assessed by Headache Impact Test-6 is modulated by genetic factors and arterial hypertension: An explorative cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Response predictors to erenumab (ERE) in migraine patients would benefit their clinical management. We investigate associations between patients' clinical characteristics and polymorphisms at calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CALCRL) and receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1) genes and response to ERE treatment measured as clinically meaningful improvement on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated study involves 110 migraine patients starting ERE 70 mg/month. Demographics, medical history, and migraine-related burden measured by HIT-6 score were collected during 3 months before and after ERE start. Selected polymorphic variants of CALCRL and RAMP1 genes were determined using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Logistic regression models identified independent predictors for response to ERE, defined as HIT-6 score improvement ≥ 8 points (HIT-6 responders [HIT-6 RESP] vs. HIT-6 nonresponders). RESULTS: At Month 3, 58 (52.7%) patients were HIT-6 RESP. Comorbid hypertension predicted a lower probability of being HIT-6 RESP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.160, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.047-0.548, p = 0.003). Compared to major alleles, minor alleles CALCRL rs6710852G and RAMP rs6431564G conferred an increased probability of being HIT-6 RESP (for each G allele: OR = 2.82, 95% CI = 1.03-7.73, p = 0.043; OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.05-4.22, p = 0.037). RAMP1 rs13386048A and RAMP1 rs12465864G decreased this probability (for each rs13386048A, OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.28-0.98, p = 0.042; for each rs12465864G, OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13-0.75, p = 0.009). A genetic risk score based on the presence and number of identified risk alleles was independently associated with HIT-6 RESP (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.33-0.72, p = 0.0003), surviving Bonferroni correction. CONCLUSIONS: Response to ERE was associated with comorbid hypertension and specific allelic variants in CALCRL and RAMP1 genes. Results require confirmation in future studies.

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: For some people with migraine, despite taking greater amounts of acute headache medication (AHM), they develop an increase in monthly headache days. This cycle of increasing headache days, and in turn AHM use, can lead to a secondary headache disorder called medication-overuse headache (MOH). Preventive medications can prevent migraine from occurring and reduce reliance on AHMs, thereby preventing the cycle of MOH. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab to prevent migraine/headache in a mainly Asian patient population with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and MOH. METHODS: SUNLIGHT was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged 18-75 years with ≥ 8 migraine days/month and a diagnosis of MOH were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment groups: eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo. Monthly migraine days (MMDs) were captured using a daily electronic diary; the change from baseline in the number of MMDs over Weeks 1-12 was the primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 93) or placebo (n = 100). Over Weeks 1-12, eptinezumab reduced mean MMDs more than placebo (difference between treatments was -1.2; p = 0.1484). Differences between treatment groups with p-values below 0.05 favoring eptinezumab were observed in 3 out of the 6 key secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: All endpoints numerically favored eptinezumab treatment when compared to placebo; however, this study did not meet its primary endpoint and is therefore negative. No new safety signals were identified in this study, like previous reports that confirmed the safety and tolerability of eptinezumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04772742 (26/02/2021).

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response. METHODS: A total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine. RESULTS: Among the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

Potential Predictors of Response to CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Chronic Migraine: Real-World Data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Real-world data (RWD) has identified potential predictors of response to anti-CGRP therapies in patients with chronic migraine (CM). This review aims to synthesize the most remarkable findings published to date regarding this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Migraine features such as unilateral pain and positive triptan response and chronic features such as daily headache or medication overuse (MO) emerge as predictors of positive outcomes, potentially linked to elevated baseline serum anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) levels. Demographic and baseline characteristics, encompassing obesity, psychiatric comorbidities, and prior refractoriness to prophylactic treatments, are associated with poor responses in both treatment-naïve patients and after-switch scenarios. Nevertheless, the consistency of these predictors across diverse populations requires further investigation. Recent RWD literature highlights emerging predictors of response of different sources among patients with CM receiving anti-CGRP therapies. Comprehending these predictors and identifying novel biomarkers of response hold the potential to refine treatment strategies for CM patients, enhancing their management and therapeutic outcomes.

[Galcanezumab for episodic and chronic cluster headache]. / Galcanezumab bei episodischem und chronischem Clusterkopfschmerz.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a highly debilitating headache disorder characterized by frequent attacks of excruciating unilateral pain accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is implicated in the pathophysiology of CH. OBJECTIVES: Preventive efficacy and tolerability of the anti-CGRP antibody galcanezumab in patients with episodic (eCH) and chronic CH (cCH). Review of the study results and the challenges in developing drugs for the preventive treatment of CH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In two international multicenter phase III trials galcanezumab 300 mg given subcutaneously every 4 weeks was compared with placebo. The double-blind study period (8 weeks in eCH, 12 weeks in cCK) was preceded by a baseline period in both trials. The primary endpoint was the reduction in weekly attack frequency. RESULTS: In the eCH trial, 106 patients were randomized to either galcanezumab (n = 49) or placebo (n = 57). The mean weekly attack frequency during the first 3 weeks decreased by 52% in the galcanezumab group compared with 27% in the placebo group (p = 0.036). In the cCH trial, 237 patients were randomized to galcanezumab (n = 117) or placebo (n = 120). The primary endpoint was not met in this study. The reduction in mean weekly attack rate was 5.4 with galcanezumab versus 4.6 with placebo (p = 0.334). Galcanezumab was well tolerated in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab had a significant effect in the prevention of eCH attacks but not in cCH. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

Trajectory of blood pressure after initiating anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment of migraine: a target trial emulation from the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is involved in migraine pathophysiology and blood pressure regulation. Although clinical trials have established the cardio-cerebrovascular safety profile of anti-CGRP treatment, limited high-quality real-world evidence exists on its long-term effects on blood pressure (BP). To address this gap, we examined the safety of anti-CGRP treatment on BP in patients with migraine headache in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: We emulated a target trial of patients who initiated anti-CGRP treatment or topiramate for migraine prevention between May 17th, 2018 and February 28th, 2023. We calculated stabilized inverse probability weights to balance between groups and then used weighted linear mixed-effect models to estimate the systolic and diastolic BP changes over the study period. For patients without hypertension at baseline, we estimated the cumulative incidence of hypertension using Kaplan-Meier curve. We also used weight mixed-effect Poisson model to estimate the number of antihypertension medications for patients with hypertension at baseline. RESULTS: This analysis included 69,589 patients and 554,437 blood pressure readings. of these, 18,880 patients received anti-CGRP treatment, and they were more likely to be women, have a chronic migraine diagnosis and higher healthcare utilization than those received topiramate. Among patients without hypertension at baseline, we found no significant differences in systolic BP changes over the four-year follow-up between anti-CGRP (slope [standard error, SE] = 0.48[0.06]) and topiramate treated patients (slope[SE] = 0.39[0.04]). The incidence of hypertension was similar for anti-CGRP and topiramate group (4.4 vs 4.3 per 100 person-years). Among patients with hypertension at baseline who initiated anti-CGRP treatment, we found a small but persistent effect on exacerbating hypertension during the first four years of treatment, as evidenced by a significant annual 3.7% increase in the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed (RR = 1.037, 95%CI 1.025-1.048). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that anti-CGRP treatment is safe regarding blood pressure in patients without hypertension. However, for those with baseline hypertension, anti-CGRP treatment resulted in a small but persistent increase in the number of antihypertensives, indicating an exacerbation of hypertension. Future studies are needed to evaluate the cardio-cerebrovascular safety of anti-CGRP treatment beyond the first four years.

Mode and site of action of therapies targeting CGRP signaling.

Targeting CGRP has proved to be efficacious, tolerable, and safe to treat migraine; however, many patients with migraine do not benefit from drugs that antagonize the CGRPergic system. Therefore, this review focuses on summarizing the general pharmacology of the different types of treatments currently available, which target directly or indirectly the CGRP receptor or its ligand. Moreover, the latest evidence regarding the selectivity and site of action of CGRP small molecule antagonists (gepants) and monoclonal antibodies is critically discussed. Finally, the reasons behind non-responders to anti-CGRP drugs and rationale for combining and/or switching between these therapies are addressed.

Is the right way to go in between? : Rimegepant as needed provides preventive benefit. A comment on: monthly migraine days, tablet utilization, and quality of life associated with rimegepant-post hoc results from an open label safety study (BHV3000-201).

In the study by Johnston et al., gepants were meant to be taken to treat emergent migraine. It is tempting to speculate what the effect would be if patients were instructed to take a gepant as needed (PRN) or even prior to headache onset. While the latter sounds irrational at first glance, several studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients are quite proficient in predicting (or simply due to premonitory symptoms noting) their migraine attacks prior to the onset of actual headache. The study by Johnston et al. provides food for thought along these lines and should encourage us to further investigate flexible patient-controlled CGRP blocking as a third, intermediate and potentially cost-effective avenue between acute/rescue treatment and prevention/prophylaxis.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide. MAIN BODY: Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.