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.).

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with diagnosed medication overuse headache and potential acute medication overuse in individuals with migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate health care resource utilization and costs associated with medication overuse headache and potential acute medication overuse. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted with Clinformatics Data Mart data (1 January 2019-31 December 2019) that included continuously enrolled commercially insured adults with migraine (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] code G43.xxx). Medication overuse headache was defined as ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient claims with an ICD-10-CM code G44.41/40 (drug-induced headache). Potential acute medication overuse was defined as possessing sufficient medication for >10 mean treatment days/month for ergots, triptans, opioids, or combination analgesics or >15 mean cumulative days/month for simple prescription analgesics (e.g., acetaminophen, aspirin, other non-opioid analgesics) for >6 consecutive months. All-cause and migraine-related health care resource utilization and costs were compared after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 90,017 individuals with migraine, the frequency of medication overuse headache/potential acute medication overuse was 12.6% (diagnosed medication overuse headache: 0.6%; potential acute medication overuse: 12.1%). Adjusted all-cause total costs ($31,235 vs $21,486; difference: $9,749 [P < 0.001]) and adjusted migraine-related total costs ($9,770 vs $6,207; difference: $3,563 [P < 0.001]) were higher in the medication overuse headache/potential acute medication overuse group versus those without medication overuse headache/potential acute medication overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with diagnosed medication overuse headache/potential acute medication overuse had higher all-cause and migraine-related health care resource utilization and costs versus individuals without medication overuse headache/potential acute medication overuse, suggesting that improved migraine management is needed to reduce associated costs.

Evaluation of outcomes of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting therapies for acute and preventive migraine treatment based on patient sex.

BACKGROUND: Women show increased prevalence and severity of migraine compared to men. Whether small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRP-R) antagonists (i.e., gepants) and monoclonal antibodies targeting either the CGRP-R or the CGRP peptide might show sexually dimorphic outcomes for acute and preventive therapy has not been established. METHODS: We conducted a subpopulation analysis of available published data from FDA reviews to evaluate potential sex differences in the response rates of ubrogepant, rimegepant and zavegepant for acute migraine therapy. Available data from FDA reviews of erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab, approved CGRP-R and CGRP monoclonal antibodies and of atogepant were examined for prevention outcomes based on patient sex. Preventive outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine. RESULTS: In women, the three approved gepants produced statistically significant drug effects regardless of dose tested on the FDA mandated co-primary endpoints, the proportion of patients achieving two-hour pain-freedom and the proportion of patients free of their most bothersome symptom at two hours post-dose. In women, the average placebo-subtracted two-hour pain-freedom proportion was 9.5% (CI: 7.4 to 11.6) and the average numbers needed to treat was 11. The free from most bothersome symptom at two hours outcomes were also significant in women. The gepant drugs did not reach statistically significant effects on the two-hour pain-freedom endpoint in the men, with an average drug effect of 2.8% (CI: -2.5 to 8.2) and an average number needed to treat of 36. For freedom from most bothersome symptom at two hours post-dose endpoint, differences were not significant in male patients. The treatment effect in each of the gepant studies was always numerically greater in women than in men. In evaluation of prevention outcomes with the antibodies or atogepant using the change from the specified primary endpoint (e.g., monthly migraine days), the observed treatment effect for episodic migraine patients almost always favored drug over placebo in both women and men. For chronic migraine patients the treatment effects of antibodies were similar in men and women and always favored the drug treated group.Conclusion/Interpretation: Small molecule CGRP-R antagonists are effective in acute migraine therapy in women but available data do not demonstrate effectiveness in men. CGRP-targeting therapies are effective for migraine prevention in both male and female episodic migraine patients but possible sex differences remain uncertain. In male and female chronic migraine patients, CGRP/CGRP-R antibodies were similarly effective. The data highlight possible differential effects of CGRP targeted therapies in different patient populations and the need for increased understanding of CGRP neurobiology in men and women.

A multicenter, open-label long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of rimegepant, an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, in people with migraine. METHODS: This multicenter, long-term, open-label safety study included adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 year history of migraine who were sequentially enrolled into three groups: participants in the first two groups had either 2-8 or 9-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and treated as needed (pro re nata [PRN]) with one rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet up to once per calendar day for 52 weeks (PRN 2-8 and PRN 9-14); a third group, included to collect safety data during higher-frequency dosing, had 4-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and who took one rimegepant tablet every other day as scheduled dosing plus PRN dosing of one rimegepant tablet for migraine attacks of any severity on nonscheduled dosing days for 12 weeks (every other day (EOD) + PRN). RESULTS: Overall, 1800 participants self-administered rimegepant (PRN 2-8: n = 1033; PRN 9-14: n = 481; EOD + PRN: n = 286). The most common on-treatment adverse events (AEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%) and sinusitis (5.1%). Most AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to rimegepant. Serious AEs considered possibly (n = 1) or unlikely (n = 9) related to rimegepant were reported in ten (0.6%) participants. No signal of drug-induced liver injury because of rimegepant was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg up to once per day as EOD + PRN for 12 weeks or PRN for up to 52 weeks was safe and well tolerated. No signal of hepatotoxicity, potential drug abuse, or medication-overuse headache was identified.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

Bioequivalence of rimegepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, administered as an oral tablet, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, and a supralingual orally disintegrating tablet: two phase 1 randomized studies in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Rimegepant is an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: Two single-center, phase 1, open-label, randomized bioequivalence studies were conducted in healthy adult non-smokers, aged 18-55 years. One study compared the rate and extent of absorption of the marketed formulation of rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) administered sublingually with rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet, an earlier development formulation; the second compared the rate and extent of absorption of 75 mg rimegepant ODT administered supralingually with rimegepant oral tablet. RESULTS: The ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last available concentration time point (time t) (AUC0-t), AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf), and maximum observed concentration (Cmax) of sublingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 97, 97, and 105%, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were all within the predefined range (80-125%) for bioequivalence. The ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of supralingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 98%, the 90% CIs were within the predefined range (80-125%), and the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was 103% with the 95% upper confidence bound for the scaled average bioequivalence criterion of -0.0575 (within-participant coefficient of variation for the reference for Cmax > 30%) for bioequivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg ODT, administered sublingually or supralingually, and rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet were bioequivalent.

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.

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.

A randomized, open-label, 5-period crossover study evaluating the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of intranasal dihydroergotamine (DHE) powder (STS101), intramuscular DHE mesylate, and liquid nasal spray DHE in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of dihydroergotamine (DHE) after administration of intranasal DHE powder (STS101), liquid nasal spray (LNS) DHE mesylate, and intramuscular (IM) DHE mesylate injection in healthy participants. BACKGROUND: DHE is an effective acute migraine treatment; however, self-administration difficulties have prevented its broader role in the management of migraine. METHODS: This randomized, active-controlled, five-period crossover study was conducted over 5 weeks separated by 1-week washout periods. Three STS101 dosage strengths (5.2, 7.0, 8.6 mg), and one dose each of LNS DHE 2.0 mg, and IM DHE 1.0 mg, were administered to 36 healthy participants. Liquid chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry was used to determine DHE (including its 8'OH-DHE metabolite) plasma levels and to calculate PK parameters (Cmax , Tmax , AUC0-2h , AUC0-last , AUC0-inf , and t1/2 ). Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiograms, nasal examinations, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants (mean age 36 years; 19% Hispanic Black and 81% Hispanic White) were enrolled. DHE plasma concentrations rose rapidly after STS101 5.2, 7.0, and 8.6 mg and IM DHE injection, with mean concentrations greater than 2000 pg/mL for all STS101 dose strengths at 20 min. All STS101 dose strengths showed approximately 3-fold higher Cmax , AUC0-2h , and AUC0-inf , than the LNS DHE. The mean AUC0-inf of STS101 7.0 and 8.6 mg were comparable to IM DHE (12,600 and 13,200 vs. 13,400 h × pg/mL). All STS101 dose strengths showed substantially lower variability (CV%) compared to LNS DHE for Cmax (35%-41% vs. 87%), and AUC0-inf (37%-46% vs. 65%). STS101 was well tolerated, and all treatment-emergent AEs were mild and transient. CONCLUSION: STS101 showed rapid absorption and was well tolerated with mild and transient treatment-emergent AEs. Achieving effective DHE plasma concentrations within 10 min, STS101 displayed a favorable PK profile relative to the LNS with higher Cmax , AUC0-2h , and AUC0inf , and with greater response consistency. The AUC0-inf was comparable to IM DHE.

Characterizing gaps in the preventive pharmacologic treatment of migraine: Multi-country results from the CaMEO-I study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. METHODS: The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). RESULTS: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. CONCLUSIONS: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen.

Situational prevention: Pharmacotherapy during periods of increased risk for migraine attacks.

The small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication-overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo-controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy.

Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut-scores. RESULTS: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate-to-severe MIDAS disability (Grades III-IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine-related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation.

Machine learning identifies factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care. METHODS: The web-based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018-2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in-person/telephone/or e-visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care. RESULTS: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4, MIBS-4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine-related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine-related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care-seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits.

The impacts of migraine on functioning: Results from two qualitative studies of people living with migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of migraine on functioning based on comprehensive data collection, analysis, and reporting of patients' experiences. BACKGROUND: Qualitative research conducted to understand patients' perspectives on living with migraine has often focused on narrow topics or specific groups of patients or has been selectively reported. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 71 participants were conducted during two concept elicitation studies as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project, an FDA grant-funded program designed to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Participants self-reported being diagnosed with migraine by a healthcare professional and participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews about their experiences with the symptoms and impacts of migraine. Interview transcripts were coded to identify and define concepts, which were then grouped into broad domains based on conceptual similarities. RESULTS: A total of 66 concepts were identified: 12 for physical functioning, 16 for cognitive functioning, 10 for social role functioning, 19 for emotional and psychological functioning, and 9 related to migraine management. Participants described a complex and varied relationship between migraine attack symptoms and impacts on functioning. Impacts from migraine were further influenced by numerous contextual factors, such as people's individual social environments and the level of day-to-day demand for functioning they face. CONCLUSION: Findings showed that migraine impacted individual functioning in multiple ways and the nature of these impacts was dependent on social-contextual factors. The results are being used in the development of core measures designed to improve our understanding of the burden of migraine and the efficacy of migraine therapies. The results also offer new insights and raise new questions about migraine experience that can be used to guide future research.

Perceived but not objective measures of neighborhood safety and food environments are associated with longitudinal changes in processing speed among urban older adults.

BACKGROUND: Although a growing body of literature documents the importance of neighborhood effects on late-life cognition, little is known about the relative strength of objective and subjective neighborhood measures on late-life cognitive changes. This study examined effects of objective and subjective neighborhood measures in three neighborhood domains (neighborhood safety, physical disorder, food environments) on longitudinal changes in processing speed, an early marker of cognitive aging and impairment. METHODS: The analysis sample included 306 community-dwelling older adults enrolled in the Einstein Aging Study (mean age = 77, age range = 70 to 91; female = 67.7%; non-Hispanic White: 45.1%, non-Hispanic Black: 40.9%). Objective and subjective measures of neighborhood included three neighborhood domains (i.e., neighborhood safety, physical disorder, food environments). Processing speed was assessed using a brief Symbol Match task (unit: second), administered on a smartphone device six times a day for 16 days and repeated annually for up to five years. Years from baseline was used as the within-person time index. RESULTS: Results from mixed effects models showed that subjective neighborhood safety (ß= -0.028) and subjective availability of healthy foods (ß= -0.028) were significantly associated with less cognitive slowing over time. When objective and subjective neighborhood measures were simultaneously examined, subjective availability of healthy foods remained significant (ß= -0.028) after controlling for objective availability of healthy foods. Associations of objective neighborhood crime and physical disorder with processing speed seemed to be confounded by individual-level race and socioeconomic status; after controlling for these confounders, none of objective neighborhood measures showed significant associations with processing speed. CONCLUSION: Subjective neighborhood safety and subjective availability of healthy foods, rather than objective measures, were associated with less cognitive slowing over time over a five-year period. Perception of one's neighborhood may be a more proximal predictor of cognitive health outcomes as it may reflect one's experiences in the environment. It would be important to improve our understanding of both objective and subjective neighborhood factors to improve cognitive health among older adults.

Personality predictors of dementia diagnosis and neuropathological burden: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The extent to which the Big Five personality traits and subjective well-being (SWB) are discriminatory predictors of clinical manifestation of dementia versus dementia-related neuropathology is unclear. METHODS: Using data from eight independent studies (Ntotal = 44,531; Ndementia = 1703; baseline Mage = 49 to 81 years, 26 to 61% female; Mfollow-up range = 3.53 to 21.00 years), Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and SWB differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathological characteristics of dementia. RESULTS: Synthesized and individual study results indicate that high neuroticism and negative affect and low conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were associated with increased risk of long-term dementia diagnosis. There were no consistent associations with neuropathology. DISCUSSION: This multistudy project provides robust, conceptually replicated and extended evidence that psychosocial factors are strong predictors of dementia diagnosis but not consistently associated with neuropathology at autopsy. HIGHLIGHTS: N(+), C(-), E(-), PA(-), and NA(+) were associated with incident diagnosis. Results were consistent despite self-report versus clinical diagnosis of dementia. Psychological factors were not associated with neuropathology at autopsy. Individuals with higher conscientiousness and no diagnosis had less neuropathology. High C individuals may withstand neuropathology for longer before death.

Psychosocial factors associated with 7-year change in cognition among middle-aged and older Hispanics/Latinos: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging (SOL-INCA) and Sociocultural ancillary studies.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined the associations of psychosocial factors with cognitive change in Hispanics/Latinos. METHODS: Data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging (HCHS/SOL INCA) and Sociocultural studies were used (n = 2,155; ages ≥45 years). Psychosocial exposures included intrapersonal (ethnic identity, optimism, purpose in life), interpersonal (family cohesion, familism, social networks, social support), and social factors (ethnic discrimination, loneliness, subjective social status). Survey-linear regression models examined associations between psychosocial exposures and 7-year cognitive change (global cognition [GC], verbal learning, memory, word fluency [WF], and digit symbol substitution [DSS]). RESULTS: Familism predicted decline in GC, verbal learning, and memory; family cohesion predicted DSS decline; and loneliness predicted memory decline. Ethnic identity was protective against decline in GC and memory, optimism and social support were protective against decline in memory, and purpose in life was protective against WF decline. DISCUSSION: Psychosocial factors are differentially related to cognitive changes. Culturally relevant factors should be explored in Hispanic/Latino cognitive aging research. HIGHLIGHTS: Psychosocial factors are differentially related to cognitive changes in Latinos. Role of culturally relevant factors on cognition should be further explored. Familism predicted decline in global cognition, verbal learning, and memory. Ethnic identity predicted increase in global cognition and memory.

Connections between reproductive health and cognitive aging among women enrolled in the HCHS/SOL and SOL-INCA.

INTRODUCTION: Reproductive health history may contribute to cognitive aging and risk for Alzheimer's disease, but this is understudied among Hispanic/Latina women. METHODS: Participants included 2126 Hispanic/Latina postmenopausal women (44 to 75 years) from the Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging. Survey linear regressions separately modeled the associations between reproductive health measures (age at menarche, history of oral contraceptive use, number of pregnancies, number of live births, age at menopause, female hormone use at Visit 1, and reproductive span) with cognitive outcomes at Visit 2 (performance, 7-year change, and mild cognitive impairment [MCI] prevalence). RESULTS: Younger age at menarche, oral contraceptive use, lower pregnancies, lower live births, and older age at menopause were associated with better cognitive performance. Older age at menarche was protective against cognitive change. Hormone use was linked to lower MCI prevalence. DISCUSSION: Several aspects of reproductive health appear to impact cognitive aging among Hispanic/Latina women.

Lifestyle and incident dementia: A COSMIC individual participant data meta­analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The LIfestyle for BRAin Health (LIBRA) index yields a dementia risk score based on modifiable lifestyle factors and is validated in Western samples. We investigated whether the association between LIBRA scores and incident dementia is moderated by geographical location or sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: We combined data from 21 prospective cohorts across six continents (N = 31,680) and conducted cohort-specific Cox proportional hazard regression analyses in a two-step individual participant data meta-analysis. RESULTS: A one-standard-deviation increase in LIBRA score was associated with a 21% higher risk for dementia. The association was stronger for Asian cohorts compared to European cohorts, and for individuals aged ≤75 years (vs older), though only within the first 5 years of follow-up. No interactions with sex, education, or socioeconomic position were observed. DISCUSSION: Modifiable risk and protective factors appear relevant for dementia risk reduction across diverse geographical and sociodemographic groups. HIGHLIGHTS: A two-step individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted. This was done at a global scale using data from 21 ethno-regionally diverse cohorts. The association between a modifiable dementia risk score and dementia was examined. The association was modified by geographical region and age at baseline. Yet, modifiable dementia risk and protective factors appear relevant in all investigated groups and regions.