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.

Migraine-Related Stigma and Its Relationship to Disability, Interictal Burden, and Quality of Life: Results of the OVERCOME (US) Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This population-based analysis characterizes the relative frequency of migraine-related stigma and its cross-sectional relationship to migraine outcomes. We hypothesized that migraine-related stigma would be inversely associated with favorable migraine outcomes across headache day categories. METHODS: OVERCOME (US) is a web-based observational study that annually recruited a demographically representative US sample and then identified people with active migraine using a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire. It also assessed how frequently respondents experienced migraine-related stigma using a novel 12-item questionnaire (Migraine-Related Stigma, MiRS) that contained 2 factors; feeling that others viewed migraine as being used for Secondary Gain (8 items, α = 0.92) and feeling that others were Minimizing disease Burden (4 items, α = 0.86). We defined 5 groups: (1) MiRS-Both (Secondary Gain and Minimizing Burden often/very often; (2) MiRS-SG (Secondary Gain often/very often); (3) MiRS-MB (Minimizing Burden often/very often); (4) MiRS-Rarely/Sometimes; (5) MiRS-Never. Using MiRS group as the independent variable, we modeled its cross-sectional relationship to disability (Migraine Disability Assessment, MIDAS), interictal burden (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4), and migraine-specific quality of life (Migraine Specific Quality of Life v2.1 Role Function-Restrictive) while controlling for sociodemographics, clinical features, and monthly headache day categories. RESULTS: Among this population-based sample with active migraine (n = 59,001), mean age was 41.3 years and respondents predominantly identified as female (74.9%) and as White (70.1%). Among respondents, 41.1% reported experiencing, on average, ≥4 monthly headache days and 31.7% experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often; the proportion experiencing migraine-related stigma often/very often increased from 25.5% among those with <4 monthly headache days to 47.5% among those with ≥15 monthly headache days. The risk for increased disability (MIDAS score) was significant for each MiRS group compared with the MiRS-Never group; the risk more than doubled for the MiRS-Both group (rate ratio 2.68, 95% CI 2.56-2.80). For disability, interictal burden, and migraine-specific quality of life, increased migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disease burden across all monthly headache day categories. DISCUSSION: OVERCOME (US) found that 31.7% of people with migraine experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often and was associated with more disability, greater interictal burden, and reduced quality of life.

Investigation of the Effect of Lasmiditan on the Pharmacokinetics of P-Glycoprotein and Breast Cancer Resistance Protein Substrates.

Lasmiditan is an in vitro inhibitor of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) efflux transporters. We aimed to confirm predictions from physiologically based pharmacokinetic models of lasmiditan, and assess the safety and tolerability of rosuvastatin and dabigatran co-administered with lasmiditan. In this open-label, post-marketing drug-drug interaction, phase 1 clinical trial, eligible participants were adults aged 21-70 years with a body mass index of 18.5-35.0 kg/m2 . Part 1 (P-gp, 150 mg dabigatran etexilate with 200 mg lasmiditan) and part 2 (BCRP, 10 mg rosuvastatin with 200 mg lasmiditan) employed similar designs: a single dose of probe substrate administered on day -2 with pharmacokinetic evaluation; 1-week washout; lasmiditan administered on days 8 and 9 alone; lasmiditan co-administered with a single dose of probe substrate on day 10, with pharmacokinetic evaluation of probe substrate and lasmiditan. Sixty-six participants were included in part 1 and 30 participants were included in part 2. Following dabigatran co-administration with lasmiditan, versus dabigatran alone, 90% confidence intervals for geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratios of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) and maximum observed drug concentration (Cmax ) were not contained within the non-effect boundaries (0.80 to 1.25). Dabigatran AUC0-∞ increased by 25% and Cmax increased by 22%. The median time of maximum observed drug concentration (tmax ) for dabigatran was 2.0 to 3.0 hours. Following rosuvastatin co-administration with lasmiditan, versus rosuvastatin alone, 90%CIs for geometric LS mean ratios of AUC0-∞ and Cmax were contained within non-effect boundaries (0.80-1.25). Rosuvastatin AUC0-∞ increased by 15% and Cmax increased by 7%. The median tmax for rosuvastatin was 4.0 hours. Results suggest that lasmiditan has a weak effect on P-gp substrates and no clinically relevant effect on BCRP substrates.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months. RESULTS: Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Galcanezumab and rimegepant are preventive treatments for episodic migraine. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of galcanezumab and rimegepant in reducing the number of monthly migraine headaches and to determine if galcanezumab was better than rimegepant. The study provides important information to doctors and their patients when making treatment decisions.People with episodic migraine were assigned to the galcanezumab (given as an injection under the skin) or rimegepant (given as a tablet that dissolves in the mouth) group and treated for 3 months. The doctor and the patient did not know which group they were assigned to, and to keep it unknown to both, people in the galcanezumab group got an injection with real medicine and a fake tablet, and people in the rimegepant group got a tablet with real medicine and a fake injection. The researchers wanted to know how many people in each group had at least a 50% reduction in their monthly migraine headaches.Of the 580 people in the study, 287 were assigned to galcanezumab and 293 to rimegepant. In both groups, most were female and white. After 3 months of treatment, 62% of the people in the galcanezumab group and 61% of people in the rimegepant group had at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headaches. Both treatments were effective, but galcanezumab was not better than rimegepant. About 20% of the people in each treatment group had a side effect from the medication, and most were mild or moderate in severity.

Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

OBJECTIVE: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care of MigrainE (OVERCOME; United States) study is a multicohort, longitudinal web survey that assesses symptomatology, consulting, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of migraine in the United States. BACKGROUND: Regularly updating population-based views of migraine in the United States provides a method for assessing the quality of ongoing migraine care and identifying unmet needs. METHODS: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 migraine cohort involved: (I) creating a demographically representative sample of US adults using quota sampling (n = 97,478), (II) identifying people with active migraine in the past year via a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine (n = 24,272), and (III) assessing consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of migraine (n = 21,143). The current manuscript evaluated whether those with low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 0-3 monthly headache days) differed from other categories on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among the migraine cohort (n = 21,143), 19,888 (94.1%) met our International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition-based case definition of migraine and 12,905 (61.0%) self-reported a medical diagnosis of migraine. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 42.2 (15.0) years; 15,697 (74.2%) were women. Having at least moderate disability was common (n = 8965; 42.4%) and around half (n = 10,783; 51.0%) had consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year. Only 4792 (22.7%) of respondents were currently using a triptan. Overall, 8539 (40.4%) were eligible for migraine preventive medication and 3555 (16.8%) were currently using migraine preventive medication. Those with LFEM differed from moderate and high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine on nearly all measures of consulting, diagnosis, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort revealed slow but steady progress in diagnosis and preventive treatment of migraine. However, despite significant impact among the population, many with migraine have unmet needs related to consulting for migraine, migraine diagnosis, and getting potentially beneficial migraine treatment. Moreover, it demonstrated the heterogeneity and varying unmet needs within episodic migraine.

A close association of freedom from pain, migraine-related functional disability, and other outcomes: results of a post hoc analysis of randomized lasmiditan studies SAMURAI and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: While pain freedom at 2 h is a key primary outcome for current trials for acute treatment of migraine, the relationship between the degree of head pain and other efficacy measures at 2 h has rarely been explored. Following lasmiditan treatment of a migraine attack with moderate or severe head pain, we contrast those who achieve pain freedom with those who achieve mild pain but not pain freedom 2 h post dosing. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled across studies and treatment arms from two Phase 3 trials comparing lasmiditan and placebo, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. This post hoc analysis assessed freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS), freedom from migraine-related functional disability (disability), and improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) in patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom compared to those who experienced 2 h mild pain. Mild pain differs from pain relief which is defined as either mild pain or pain freedom. RESULTS: Patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom (N = 913), in comparison with those with 2 h mild pain (N = 864), were significantly more likely to experience MBS freedom (91.9% vs. 44.9%), disability freedom (87.1% and 13.4%), and improved PGIC (86.5% and 31.5%) (p < 0.001 for all combinations). In addition, more patients who were pain free experienced both 2 h MBS freedom and 2 h functional disability freedom (83.6%) compared to those with mild pain (10.8%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with pain freedom who did not achieve either MBS or disability freedom (4.6%) was lower than in patients with mild pain (52.4%). Lastly, 55.2% of patients experienced mild pain before disability freedom compared to 72.1% who experienced pain freedom and disability freedom at the same time. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, at 2 h post treatment, patients who were pain free were more likely to achieve other outcomes including freedom from their MBS, freedom from migraine-related functional disability, and improved PGIC compared to those with mild pain, confirming that 2 h pain freedom is more robustly associated with other clinical outcomes than the 2 h mild pain endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ); SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ).

Galcanezumab Provides Consistent Efficacy Throughout the Dosing Interval Among Patients with Episodic and Chronic Migraine: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The consistency of the treatment effect of galcanezumab throughout the dosing interval is examined in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from episodic (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; both 6-month duration) and chronic (REGAIN; 3-month duration) migraine double-blind trials evaluating the efficacy of a once-monthly injection of galcanezumab 120 mg relative to placebo. Adults with episodic (placebo, n = 894; galcanezumab, n = 444) or chronic migraine (placebo, n = 558; galcanezumab, n = 278) were included. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine headache days, averaged across all months for each week of the dosing interval, was compared between groups and within the galcanezumab group during weeks 1 and 4. Additional analyses examined the mean difference from placebo in weekly migraine headache days and a day-by-day analysis. RESULTS: Weekly migraine headache day reduction was significantly greater with galcanezumab relative to placebo every week (P < 0.001) and did not differ during weeks 1 and 4 for those with episodic (P = 0.740) or chronic migraine (P = 0.231) taking galcanezumab. Estimated probabilities of migraine on day 2 and day 30 did not differ for those with episodic (P = 0.61) or chronic migraine (P = 0.616) taking galcanezumab. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates once monthly galcanezumab exhibits consistent efficacy throughout the dosing interval among the population of patients with migraine in three clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of galcanezumab. There is no evidence from these trials that the effect of galcanezumab "wears off" at the end of the dosing interval. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: EVOLVE-1 (NCT02614183); EVOLVE-2 (NCT02614196); REGAIN (NCT02614261).

Onset, Maintenance, and Cessation of Effect of Galcanezumab for Prevention of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Three Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. It is self-administered once monthly as a subcutaneous injection. This paper describes the time course of effect of galcanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: Data were based on three double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies. Patients (1773 episodic and 1113 chronic) were randomized (2:1:1) to monthly doses of placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg with a 240 mg loading dose, or galcanezumab 240 mg (January 2016-March 2017). Onset of effect was determined using a sequential analysis approach based on earliest time point at which galcanezumab achieved and subsequently maintained statistical superiority to placebo. Maintenance of effect was a comparison of the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients with maintenance of at least 50% response at the individual patient level. Cessation of effect was determined during a 4-month post-treatment period on the basis of change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. RESULTS: Galcanezumab led to a lower percentage of patients who had a migraine headache on the first day after injection, provided maintenance of effect throughout the duration of the double-blind treatment period, and gradually lost effect without signs of rebound headache throughout the post-treatment period in most patients with episodic and chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab is a novel preventive therapeutic option for adult patients with migraine that has early onset of action, maintenance of effect, and gradual reduction of effect upon treatment cessation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02614183 (EVOLVE-1); NCT02614196 (EVOLVE-2); NCT02614261 (REGAIN).

Medication overuse in a subgroup analysis of phase 3 placebo-controlled studies of galcanezumab in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Acute medication overuse is prevalent in patients with migraine. METHODS: In three phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, patients with episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) or chronic migraine (REGAIN) were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab 120 or 240 mg for 3 or 6 months. This subgroup analysis evaluated mean changes in the number of monthly migraine headache days in each treatment among patients with versus without baseline acute medication overuse via mixing modelling with repeated measures. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with baseline medication overuse in placebo, galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg groups, respectively, were 19.4%, 17.3%, and 19.3% for EVOLVE-1/-2 (pooled; post hoc), and 63.4%, 64.3%, and 64.1% for REGAIN (a priori). Both galcanezumab doses demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo for overall least squares mean change in monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse in both the episodic and chronic migraine studies (p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, both galcanezumab doses reduced average monthly medication overuse rates compared to placebo (p < 0.001) in both patient populations with medication overuse at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab appears to be effective for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in patients who overuse acute medications.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02614183, NCT02614196, and NCT02614261.

Efficacy of Galcanezumab for Migraine Prevention in Patients With a Medical History of Anxiety and/or Depression: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled REGAIN, and Pooled EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with and without comorbid anxiety and/or depression. BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine have a higher risk of anxiety and/or depression. Given the high prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and their potential negative prognostic impact, determining the efficacy of migraine treatments in patients with these comorbidities is important. METHODS: The results of 2 phase 3 episodic migraine studies of patients with 4-14 migraine headache days (MHD) per month were pooled. A third chronic migraine study, which was evaluated separately, enrolled patients with ≥15 headache days per month, of which ≥8 had migraine-like features. Patients in all 3 studies were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. The efficacy of galcanezumab on migraine was measured in subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (current or past) and patients without. A repeated measures model was used to compare treatment groups within each subgroup and to test for consistency of treatment effect across the anxiety/depression subgroups (subgroup-by-treatment interaction) during the double-blind treatment phases. RESULTS: Among 1773 intent-to-treat patients with episodic migraine, both doses of galcanezumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements relative to placebo in overall number of MHD for the subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.07 [-2.81, -1.33] for galcanezumab 120 mg [P < .001], -1.91 [-2.78, -1.04] for 240 mg [P < .001]) and without anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-2.36, -1.47] for 120 mg [P < .001], -1.77 [-2.20, -1.33] for 240 mg [P < .001]), as was observed for the secondary outcomes of MHD with acute medication use and functional impairment. Among 1113 intent-to-treat patients with chronic migraine, those with anxiety and/or depression had significant reductions in overall MHD frequency with the 240-mg dose (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-3.52, -0.33]; P = .018), whereas significant reductions were observed at both the 120-mg (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.29 [-3.26, -1.31]; P < .001) and 240-mg (-1.85 [-2.83, -0.87]; P < .001) doses in patients without anxiety and/or depressions. Significant reductions (P < .01) in MHD with acute medication use were observed at both doses within both anxiety/depression subgroups and for overall functional impairment for patients without anxiety and/or depression, though neither dose significantly reduced overall functional impairment beyond placebo in the subgroup with anxiety and/or depression. In the episodic and chronic migraine studies, the subgroup-by-treatment interaction was not statistically significant for MHD, MHD with acute medication use, or functional impairment (chronic study only), suggesting a lack of evidence of differential effect between subgroups. Furthermore, differences between subgroups in the mean change differences from placebo, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals for the subgroups, indicated lack of a clinical or statistical difference between subgroups for these outcome variables. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients with episodic migraine attaining ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions, and a higher percentage of patients with chronic migraine attaining ≥50% and ≥75% reductions from baseline with galcanezumab compared with placebo, regardless of medical history of anxiety and/or depression. CONCLUSIONS: A medical history of anxiety and/or depression does not seem to interfere with response to galcanezumab among patients with episodic migraine, and both doses of galcanezumab appear efficacious for these individuals regardless of this psychiatric history. Among patients with chronic migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression, the 240-mg dose, but not the 120-mg dose, significantly decreased overall MHD, but neither dose resulted in significantly greater functional improvement. Patients with migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression often require additional interventions, and this may be more important in chronic migraine.

Effects of lasmiditan on simulated driving performance: Results of two randomized, blinded, crossover studies with placebo and active controls.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of lasmiditan, an oral, centrally-penetrant, selective serotonin 1F (5-HT1F ) receptor agonist developed for the acute treatment of migraine, on simulated driving. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers enrolled in two randomized, placebo and active comparator-controlled, crossover studies. Study 1 (N = 90) tested lasmiditan (50-, 100-, 200-mg), alprazolam (1-mg), and placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Study 2 (N = 68) tested lasmiditan (100-, 200-mg), diphenhydramine (50-mg, administered 2 hr pre-assessments), and placebo at 8, 12 and 24 hr post-dose. Driving performance was assessed using a validated driving simulator employing a 100 km driving scenario. Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of lane position control, was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Assay sensitivity was confirmed by increased SDLP for active comparators at 1.5- and 8-hr time points. Lasmiditan doses showed significant driving impairment versus placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Lasmiditan doses were non-inferior to placebo at 8 hr. Driving impairment was concentration-dependent at 1.5 hr but not at 8 hr. Common adverse events were central nervous system-related and mild-to-moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was associated with impaired simulated driving performance at 1.5 hr post-dose, but showed no clinically meaningful impairment at 8 hr post-dose.

Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review.

Migraine is a debilitating neurologic disease. People who experience migraine can have substantial disability, impaired functioning and a decreased quality of life (QoL). Expert recommendations suggest that people with frequent migraine attacks or severe impairment related to attacks may benefit from preventive treatment. Despite these recommendations and the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the use of preventive medication, many people who are candidates for preventive therapies do not receive them. Thus, there is still a substantial unmet need for preventive migraine treatment. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Galcanezumab-gnlm (galcanezumab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents binding to its receptor. It is administered as a once-monthly subcutaneous injection. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive overview of the existing short- and long-term efficacy and safety data for galcanezumab in patients with migraine. Data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2 and REGAIN studies show that galcanezumab treatment for 3 or 6 months results in overall reduction in mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with episodic (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) and chronic (REGAIN) migraine. Greater proportions of patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab versus placebo demonstrated a ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response to therapy and reported a lower level of disability and an improvement in functioning and QoL. Similarly, when compared with placebo, greater proportions of patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab demonstrated a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% response and reported improved functioning. A 12-month open-label study demonstrated the continued efficacy of galcanezumab for up to 12 months. In all studies galcanezumab was well tolerated. In conclusion, data from pivotal studies show that galcanezumab may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of patients with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Migraine is a significant contributor to the global burden of disease. Migraine symptoms can lead to substantial disability and can significantly impact an individual's ability to perform everyday tasks and their overall quality of life. While individuals with infrequent migraine attacks might have success with acute treatments alone, those with more frequent attacks or who have severe migraine-related impairment may require preventive treatment. Although recommendations on the use of preventive treatment exist, only about one-third of individuals who qualify for preventive therapy actually receive it, resulting in a substantial unmet need. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in migraine. Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents receptor binding. In clinical trials of patients with ≥ 4 migraine headache days per month, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with a reduction in the average number of migraine headache days per month. The majority of galcanezumab groups had greater responder rates compared with the placebo groups, and levels of disability and daily functioning were generally improved. Galcanezumab was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being injection site reactions. The results from the clinical trials of galcanezumab suggest that this drug may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of individuals with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Assessment of immunogenicity from galcanezumab phase 3 trials in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: This analysis characterizes the immunogenicity profile of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its activity, in phase 3 migraine trials. METHODS: Immunogenicity data were analyzed from baseline and double-blind, placebo-controlled phases of the 3-month chronic migraine study REGAIN, the 6-month episodic migraine studies EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2, and from baseline and open-label phases of the 12-month chronic and episodic migraine Study CGAJ. The incidence of baseline antidrug antibodies, treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies, neutralizing antidrug antibodies, and the effect of antidrug antibody titer on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed. The relationship between antidrug antibody status and efficacy was explored using average change in monthly migraine headache days. Safety analyses assessed the potential relationship between treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies and hypersensitivity events or adverse events related to injection sites. FINDINGS: Across studies, 5.9-11.2% of patients had baseline antidrug antibodies. The incidence of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies was 2.6-12.4% in the galcanezumab group and 0.5-1.7% in the placebo group. The majority of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected approximately 3-6 months after first study drug dose. Overall, the observed antidrug antibody titer did not impact galcanezumab concentrations, calcitonin gene-related peptide concentrations, or galcanezumab efficacy. There was no evidence that hypersensitivity events or adverse events related to injection sites were mediated by treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies. INTERPRETATION: These data showed that immunogenicity did not impact galcanezumab concentrations, calcitonin gene-related peptide concentrations, or the efficacy and hypersensitivity profile of galcanezumab in patients with migraine.

Interim results of a prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study of the long-term safety and efficacy of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine (the GLADIATOR study).

OBJECTIVES: To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186.

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of galcanezumab in chronic migraine has been demonstrated in a pivotal Phase 3 study. Here, we assess efficacy in patients who have failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior migraine preventives for efficacy and/or safety reasons, and in those who never failed. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: REGAIN (NCT02614261) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with chronic migraine. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg/240 mg once monthly during a double-blind treatment period lasting three months. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients who failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior preventives and who never failed previously. Outcomes assessed were change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days, proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% response (reduction in monthly migraine headache days), change in number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use and change in patient functioning per Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RF-R) domain score. RESULTS: Treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significant improvements (p < 0.01) in overall reduction (Months 1-3) from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with prior failures (LS mean change [SE]: ≥2 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: -5.35 (0.71); galcanezumab 240 mg: -2.77 (0.66); placebo: -1.01 (0.54); ≥1 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: -5.53 (0.60), galcanezumab 240 mg: -3.53 (0.59); placebo: -2.02 (0.49). Similarly, significant results were seen with galcanezumab versus placebo for ≥50% and ≥75% response rates, reductions in acute medication use and improvements in MSQ RF-R domain score. In the subgroup with no prior preventive failures, results were statistically significant for the 240 mg galcanezumab group versus placebo on all outcome measures, and for the 120 mg group on the reduction in migraine headache days with acute medication use. There was also a higher placebo response observed in the patients with no prior preventive failures. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab is consistently efficacious versus placebo in reducing monthly migraine headache days and several other key outcomes in patients with chronic migraine who have failed ≥2 or ≥1 preventives previously. In the subgroup with no prior failures, greater numerical differences were seen with galcanezumab, but statistical separation from placebo varied by dose and outcome. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NUMBER: NCT02614261.

Topiramate for migraine prevention in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate for the prevention of pediatric migraine with or without aura in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pediatric migraine are currently limited, and no migraine preventive agents are approved for use in children in the United States. Topiramate is an effective migraine preventive therapy in adults, as demonstrated in several large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two children with migraine (age, 6 to 15 years) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive topiramate (n = 112) or placebo (n = 50). This study was designed to ensure that 150 participants were randomized to study medication. An additional 12 qualified patients were randomized because they had successfully completed the screening phase. The double-blind phase of the trial consisted of a titration period and a maintenance period. Topiramate was initiated at 15 mg/day and titrated over 8 weeks to 2 to 3 mg/kg per day, or maximum tolerated dose, whichever was less (maximum allowed dose was 200 mg/day). The target dose was maintained for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in mean number of migraine days per month (28 days) during the double-blind phase relative to the 4-week prospective baseline phase for each treatment group. RESULTS: Topiramate treatment was associated with a mean reduction over the entire double-blind phase of 2.6 migraine days per month, compared with a mean reduction of 2.0 migraine days per month for placebo (P = .061 topiramate vs. placebo). A significantly greater percentage of topiramate patients (32%) experienced a > or = 75% reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo (14%, P = .02). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low: 6.5% for the topiramate group and 4.0% for the placebo group. The adverse events that occurred most commonly in the topiramate group at an incidence rate greater than in the placebo group were: upper respiratory tract infection, anorexia, weight decrease, gastroenteritis, paresthesia, and somnolence. The mean average daily dose of topiramate during the maintenance period was 2.0 mg/kg per day. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that topiramate may be an effective migraine preventive therapy in children. Topiramate was well tolerated in this population. Further randomized studies would be required to definitively establish the efficacy of topiramate for pediatric migraine prevention.

Managing migraine in children and adolescents.

Although migraine is a well recognized phenomenon in adults, it is often overlooked or minimized in children and adolescents. Headache is a common complaint in children, and migraine often has its onset in the first two decades of life. Recognition and appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life for young sufferers and their caregivers and ultimately may affect the course of the illness.

Childhood cerebellar hemangioblastoma does not predict germline or somatic mutations in the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor gene.

Tumor suppressor gene "knockout" models would predict that children who present with hemangioblastoma are likely to harbor germline mutation of the von Hippel-Lindau gene. We screened 6 pediatric patients with cerebellar hemangioblastoma for germline or somatic mutations of the von Hippel-Lindau gene. Two had prior clinical manifestations of von Hippel-Lindau disease and, as expected, had germline von Hippel-Lindau gene mutations. Four children with solitary hemangioblastoma did not have a detectable germline deletion, rearrangement, or point mutation in their von Hippel-Lindau gene, and tumor specimens in 3 of these 4 showed no somatic von Hippel-Lindau allelic loss. Solitary cerebellar hemangioblastoma in children does not predict a germline or somatic mutation in the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor gene. The tumorigenesis of hemangioblastoma in younger patients may differ from that in adults, and may involve a molecular process unrelated to the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor pathway.