Sequential administration of peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders-A retrospective tolerability and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Pharmacogenomic study-A pilot study of the effect of pharmacogenomic phenotypes on the adequate dosing of verapamil for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes. BACKGROUND: Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the doses of verapamil for migraine prevention were assessed. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 33 migraine patients (82% with aura). The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses of verapamil were 178.2(20-320) mg and 227.9(20-480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

Neuromodulation in migraine.

The International Neuromodulation Society defines therapeutic neuromodulation as the alteration of nerve activity through targeted delivery of a stimulus, such as electrical stimulation or chemical agents, to specific neurological sites in the body. Neuromodulation for the treatment of migraine is an evolving field offering further insight into the pathophysiology of migraine as well as advanced therapeutics. Central and peripheral neuronal targets have been explored in the efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of attacks. Invasive and noninvasive techniques have been developed, targeting either the central or peripheral nervous system. Noninvasive central neuromodulation techniques have the benefit of a low side effect profile in addition to higher level of evidence for use thanks to sham-controlled trials; however, these modalities are less clinically available for use. Noninvasive transcutaneous neuromodulation techniques that target the peripheral nervous system have provided devices that are available over the counter or by prescription. Several of these devices are effective for abortive and preventive treatment of migraine. Invasive techniques such as cranial nerve stimulation with implanted stimulator devices or spinal cord stimulation may be used for more aggressive management in patients refractory to other treatments. Overall, neuromodulation techniques can be particularly beneficial for medically complex or refractory patients, those that prefer nonmedication options, and those that have experienced adverse effects from medications.

Harris Poll Migraine Report Card: population-based examination of high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use. METHODS: An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment. RESULTS: Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous). CONCLUSION: Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden.

Long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures: extension of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures in the placebo-controlled phase of the DELIVER clinical trial; its long-term effectiveness in this population has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in a migraine patient population during the 48-week extension phase of DELIVER. METHODS: DELIVER was conducted June 1, 2020 to September 15, 2022. 865 adults with migraine, with documented evidence of 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures and with completion of the 24-week placebo-controlled period of DELIVER received eptinezumab (100 or 300 mg) during the dose-blinded extension, either continuing their randomized dose or, if originally receiving placebo, were randomized 1:1 to an eptinezumab dose (100 or 300 mg). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate changes from baseline in the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs). RESULTS: Of 865 patients entering the extension (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 433; 300 mg, n = 432), 782 (90.4%) completed and 11 (1.3%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Eptinezumab was associated with early and sustained reductions in migraine frequency. Mean MMDs at baseline were approximately 14 days across groups. Mean (standard error) change from baseline in MMDs over the final dosing interval (weeks 61-72) was -6.4 (0.50) with placebo/eptinezumab 100 mg, -7.3 (0.49) with placebo/eptinezumab 300 mg, -7.1 (0.39) with eptinezumab 100 mg, and -7.0 (0.39) with eptinezumab 300 mg. During weeks 61-72, 63-70% of patients demonstrated ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs, and 36-45% demonstrated ≥ 75% reduction. Headache severity and acute medication use reductions, and patient-reported improvements in most bothersome symptom, disease status, quality of life, and work productivity, were observed. Adverse events were generally mild, transient, and similar in frequency/type to previous eptinezumab trials. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures was demonstrated by high completion rates and migraine-preventive benefits sustained for up to 18 months, implying that eptinezumab is a viable long-term treatment option for patients still seeking successful migraine treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765; URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

INP104: a drug evaluation of a nonoral product for the acute treatment of migraine.

Migraine is a highly prevalent, disabling neurological disorder that is also associated with gastrointestinal symptoms, autonomic dysfunction and allodynia. Despite the availability of multiple acute agents for migraine, an unmet need remains for effective, well-tolerated drugs that are nonoral and noninvasive. Here, we provide a drug evaluation of INP104, a novel drug-device combination product of dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate - a molecule with a long history of efficacy familiar to headache specialists - which is delivered to the difficult-to-reach upper nasal space where it is rapidly and consistently absorbed via Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD®). In clinical trials, INP104 exhibited favorable pharmacokinetics, a well-tolerated safety profile, and rapid symptom relief, highlighting its potential as a suitable acute therapy for migraine.

Migraine is a very common headache disorder that often presents with pain and gastrointestinal symptoms. There are many available treatments for migraine, but some patients still need an option that works well for them, that is noninvasive, or does not need to be taken orally. Here we provide a drug evaluation of INP104, an approved acute treatment for migraine that combines a drug and a device: the medication dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate, which has been used for decades for treating acute symptoms of migraine, and the Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD^®) device, which delivers DHE mesylate to the hard-to-reach upper regions of the nose. Targeting this region helps medication to be absorbed faster and more consistently. In clinical trials, INP104 demonstrated favorable drug properties, came with few adverse events, and provided fast relief from migraine symptoms.

Treatment with eptinezumab for migraine prevention in people with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of three articles describing preventive treatment of migraine in participants with a diagnosis of both chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache in a study called PROMISE-2 (PRevention Of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy-2). People living with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache have one of the most disabling, costly, and difficult-to-treat headache disorders. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: After preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab (trade name Vyepti), participants with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache experienced fewer migraine days, a reduced severity of migraine attacks, and a reduced use of acute medication. More participants receiving eptinezumab treatment no longer met the definition of either chronic migraine or medication-overuse headache throughout the study when compared with those receiving placebo. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Eptinezumab is beneficial for people who often use acute medication(s) due to frequent headache episodes or migraine attacks.

Migraine and the Gender Divide.

Migraine is a global neurologic disease that is highly prevalent, especially in women. Studies have observed a predisposition for the development of migraine in women, although the mechanisms involved have yet to be fully elucidated. This review aimed to summarize the recent evidence regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of migraine and highlight key sex differences. We also identify gaps in care for both women and men living with migraine and discuss the presence of migraine-related stigma and how this may impact the efficacy of clinical care.

Early clinical experience with eptinezumab: results of a retrospective observational study of patient response in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for preventive migraine treatment in adults have been demonstrated in multiple, large-scale clinical trials. This non-interventional, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted to examine patient response to eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg every 12 weeks for 6 months in the clinical setting. METHODS: Eight headache specialists who reported early clinical experience with eptinezumab enrolled the first adults (1-6 adults per clinician; age ≥ 18 years) who met predefined selection criteria (including ≥ 12-month history of migraine, ≥ 4 migraine days/month prior to eptinezumab initiation, receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive eptinezumab doses, and ≥ 12-week follow-up period), and provided detailed patient, disease, treatment, and outcome information via SurveyMonkey and standardized case-report forms. RESULTS: Charts from 31 adults (median age, 49 years) with migraine (93.6% chronic) who received eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine were reviewed. Most patients (26/31 [83.9%]) were initiated at 100 mg. Eptinezumab reduced mean headache frequency (24.3 monthly headache days [MHDs] at baseline; 17.1 MHDs at Month 6); mean migraine frequency (17.3 monthly migraine days [MMDs] at baseline; 9.1 MMDs at Month 6); attack severity (17/31 [54.8%] patients); acute headache medication use (12.5 acute medication days at baseline; 7.4 at Month 6); and patient-reported disability (11/22 [50.0%] severe at baseline; 7/19 [36.8%] at Month 6). More than three-quarters of patients (24/31 [77.4%]) perceived improved disability/function and most (30/31 [96.8%]) perceived eptinezumab to be well tolerated after 6 months. Most of the headache specialists reported that eptinezumab was well tolerated by patients (30/31 [96.8%]) and that the intravenous infusion experience was not challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with migraine who received 6 months of preventive treatment with eptinezumab experienced reductions in migraine and headache frequency, disability, and acute medication use during the course of treatment.

Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of the randomized PROMISE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient-reported outcomes: 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE-2 population [n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT-6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24-week study. Responder rates for individual HIT-6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab-treated patients indicated the PGIC was "much" or "very much" improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI-MBS and SF-36 scores. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Migraine and sleep quality: does the association change in midlife women?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the association between migraine and sleep quality in premenopausal versus perimenopausal women. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis from the Data Registry on the Experiences of Aging, Menopause and Sexuality was conducted using questionnaire data from premenopausal and perimenopausal women seen at women's health clinics at 3 geographic locations from 2015 to 2021. Sleep quality and duration were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Associations between poor sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index >5) and self-reported migraine history (Y/N) were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for body mass index, anxiety, depression, and vasomotor symptoms. RESULTS: Of 2,067 women (mean age 43.2 years) included in the analysis, 594 (28.7%) reported a migraine history. Women were mostly white (92.2%), partnered (75.1%), and educated (86% with at least some college); 46.5% (n = 962) were premenopausal, 53.5% (n = 1,105) were perimenopausal, and 71.2% met the criteria for poor sleep. In univariate analysis, migraine history predicted poor sleep in both premenopausal and perimenopausal women ( P = 0.005 and P = 0.004, respectively). However, in multivariable analysis, migraine history remained associated with poor sleep in premenopausal women ( P = 0.044), but not in perimenopausal women ( P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: A migraine history was associated with poor sleep in premenopausal women. The relationship in perimenopausal women seemed to be influenced by confounding factors that are more prevalent during the menopause transition and are known to affect the frequency of migraine and sleep disturbances, such as anxiety, depression, and vasomotor symptoms. These conditions may need to be the focus of management in migraineurs with sleep disturbances during the menopause transition.

Static Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) in Patients with Vestibular Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the common causes of episodic dizziness, but it is underdiagnosed and poorly understood. Previous research suggests that otolith reflex pathway performance is often impaired in this patient group, leading to altered perception of roll plane stimuli. Clinically, this perception can be measured with subjective visual vertical (SVV) testing. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare static SVV performance (absolute mean SVV tilt, variance) in a cohort of patients diagnosed with VM to results obtained from clinically derived normative data. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. STUDY SAMPLE: Ninety-four consecutive patients between 18 and 65 years of age diagnosed with VM were included in this comparison to clinically derived normative data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective chart review was completed. Demographic data, symptom report, and vestibular laboratory results were documented. SVV performance was documented in terms of absolute mean SVV tilt and response variance. RESULTS: Abnormal mean SVV tilt was described in 54% (n = 51) of patients with VM. Including abnormal response variance increased those identified with abnormal presentation to 67% (n = 63). Laboratory findings were insignificant for semicircular canal function, but of those with abnormal ocular vestibular myogenic potential results (n = 30), 77% (n = 23) demonstrated both abnormal SVV and utriculo-ocular reflex performance. There were no associations noted for SVV performance and demographic or other self-report variables. CONCLUSION: Absolute mean SVV tilt and response variance are often abnormal in patients diagnosed with VM. These findings support theories suggesting atypical intralabyrinthine integration within the vestibular nuclei and cerebellar nodular pathways.

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1-24). RESULTS: A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1-24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1-24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153 . Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Cutaneous heat and light-induced pain thresholds in post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize cutaneous heat and light-induced pain thresholds in people with post-traumatic headache (PTH) compared with healthy controls (HCs). BACKGROUND: Photophobia and allodynia are common in PTH, and there is emerging evidence to support multimodal sensory dysfunction. METHODS: In this age- and sex-matched cohort study, individuals with PTH (n = 20) and HCs (n = 20), aged 18-65 years, were recruited from an institutional database of research volunteers, from the concussion clinic, and via the use of approved flyers posted on the Mayo Clinic Campus in Scottsdale, Arizona. Participants were assessed using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Quantitative sensory testing quantified heat pain thresholds. A light stimulation device quantified light-induced pain thresholds. Subsequently, heat pain thresholds were obtained immediately, 10, and 40 min after a bright light stressor. RESULTS: The mean photophobia symptom severity score, based on the PAQ, was higher in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 0.62 (SD = 0.25) versus mean 0.24 (SD = 0.24), p < 0.001. Light-induced pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH (median = 90.5 lux and quartiles = 17.8 to 378.5) compared with HCs (median = 863.5 lux and quartiles = 519.9 to 4906.5) and were independent from BDI and STAI (p < 0.001). Allodynia scores did not differ between participants with PTH and HCs after adjusting for BDI and STAI scores. Baseline forehead heat pain thresholds were not different, participants with PTH mean 41.9°C (SD = 0.89) versus HCs mean 44.3°C (SD = 0.89), p = 0.061; however, forearm heat pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 40.8°C (SD = 0.80) versus mean 44.4°C (SD = 0.80), p = 0.002. The forehead heat pain threshold change from baseline post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different immediately (mean -1.2 (SD = 0.53), p = 0.025), 10 min (mean -1.8 (SD = 0.74), p = 0.015), and 40 min (mean -1.8 (SD = 0.88), p = 0.047). The forearm heat pain threshold change immediately post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different, mean -1.9°C (SD = 0.58), p = 0.001, however, not different at 10 and 40 min. CONCLUSIONS: Photophobia is higher and light-induced pain thresholds are lower in participants with PTH. Exposure to a light stressor reduced heat pain thresholds in participants with PTH immediately post bright light stressor, but not in HCs. This study provides evidence for multimodal sensory dysfunction in people with PTH.

Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of e-TNS for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM).

Migraine is one of the most common and debilitating neurological disorders worldwide. External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-pharmacological, non-invasive therapeutic alternative for patients with migraine. The TEAM study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, Phase 3 trial for 2-h, continuous, e-TNS treatment of a single moderate or severe migraine attack at home. A total of 538 adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria for 2-8 migraine headache days per month were recruited and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2-h active or sham stimulation. Migraine pain levels and most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBS) were recorded at baseline, 2 h, and 24 h using a paper diary. The primary endpoints for the study were pain freedom at 2 h and freedom from the MBS at 2 h. The secondary endpoints were pain relief at 2 h, absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBSs) at 2 h, acute medication use within 24 h after treatment, sustained pain freedom at 24 h, and sustained pain relief at 24 h. Adverse event data was also collected and compared between groups. Five hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to either the verum (n = 259) or sham (n = 279) group and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The percentage of patients with pain freedom at 2 h was 7.2% higher in verum (25.5%) compared to sham (18.3%; p = 0.043). Resolution of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom was 14.1% higher in verum (56.4%) compared to sham (42.3%; p = 0.001). With regards to secondary outcomes, pain relief at 2 h was 14.3% higher in verum (69.5%) than sham (55.2%; p = 0.001), absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h was 8.4% higher in verum (42.5%) than sham (34.1%; p = 0.044), sustained pain freedom and pain relief at 24 h was 7.0% and 11.5% higher in verum (22.8 and 45.9%) than sham (15.8 and 34.4%; p = 0.039 and .006, respectively). No serious adverse events were reported. Treatment with 2-h e-TNS is a safe and effective, non-invasive, and non-pharmacological alternative for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in an at-home setting.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03465904. Registered 14/03/2018. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03465904 .

Preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab reduced acute headache medication and headache frequency to below diagnostic thresholds in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE-2 study. BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE-2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. METHODS: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders-3ß criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class-specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. RESULTS: In PROMISE-2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1-24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one-fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab in patients with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: Subgroup analysis of PROMISE-2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with the dual diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be effective for treating patients with a dual diagnosis of CM and MOH. METHODS: PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study that comprised a screening visit, a 28-day pretreatment period, and a 32-week study duration. Patients in this exploratory analysis of a prespecified subgroup had confirmed diagnoses of both CM and MOH at screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) during weeks 1-12, migraine responder rates at week 12, and percentages of patients below International Classification of Headache Disorders thresholds for CM and MOH over weeks 1-24. RESULTS: There were 431 patients who were diagnosed with CM and MOH as specified in the protocol and received eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 139), 300 mg (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145). During the baseline period, these patients experienced an average of 16.7 migraine days across treatment arms. Over weeks 1-12, eptinezumab-treated patients experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than placebo patients (100 mg, change from baseline = -8.4, difference from placebo [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -3.0 [-4.56, -1.52], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; 300 mg, change from baseline = -8.6, difference from placebo [95% CI] = -3.2 [-4.66, -1.78], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; placebo, -5.4). Compared with placebo, more eptinezumab-treated patients were ≥50% migraine responders (100 mg, 84/139 [60.4%]; 300 mg, 91/147 [61.9%]; placebo, 50/145 [34.5%]) or ≥75% responders (100 mg, 38/139 [27.3%]; 300 mg, 44/147 [29.9%]; placebo, 21/145 [14.5%]) over weeks 1-12. Therapeutic benefits with eptinezumab were observed from day 1 after dosing, and improvements were sustained with an additional dose. For the full 24-week treatment period, 71/139 (51.1%), 80/147 (54.4%), and 47/145 (32.4%) of 100, 300 mg, and placebo-treated patients, respectively, were below CM thresholds, and of the patients who provided sufficient acute medication data, 47/93 (50.5%), 53/107 (49.5%), and 26/96 (27.1%), respectively, were below medication-overuse thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: In patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH, eptinezumab treatment resulted in greater reductions in MMDs, higher responder rates, and fewer patients meeting CM and MOH criteria, thus demonstrating the efficacy and clinical utility of eptinezumab in this patient population.

Update on Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonism in the Treatment of Migraine.

The discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine has promoted a new era in migraine treatment: CGRP antagonism. Two classes of medications are currently available: small molecules targeting the CGRP receptor and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP receptor or CGRP ligand. The revolution of these medications is represented by blurring the borders between acute and preventive treatments, episodic and chronic migraine, naïve and refractory patients and even between migraine and other headache disorders.