Review on the Burden of Episodic Migraine and Utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Migraine affects a large portion of the world's population. Migraine encompasses a broad range of symptoms, with broad reaching ramifications in the form of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) factors. In our review we sought to understand the aspects encompassing the burden of disease on both an individual and population level. Furthermore, we reviewed the development and incorporation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), questionnaires that assess HRQoL in real time, in how they have been incorporated in clinical research up to now and how they can be utilized in clinical practice moving forward. RECENT FINDINGS: It has been shown that there is much heterogeneity within the field in PROM development processes as well as their utilization in episodic migraine (EM) clinical trials. Furthermore, they are inconsistently used in clinical practice. Among the most commonly used PROMs, the MSQv2.1 is among the most valid and reliable. Beyond that, it also shows promise to help in guidance of clinical management of migraine.

Evaluation of rimegepant utilization patterns and patient characteristics among new users: a United States administrative claims-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess tablet utilization patterns and describe pre-treatment characteristics among new users of rimegepant. BACKGROUND: Rimegepant is the only oral calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist approved in the United States for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of people with migraine who initiated treatment with rimegepant using two US commercial claims databases (MarketScan® and Optum®). Patients (≥18 years old) with migraine who newly initiated rimegepant were included. Patients were stratified into two groups representing acute (quantity = 8) and prevention (quantity = 15 or 16) use cohorts. Baseline characteristics and medication use history were assessed on index and during the 365-day pre-index period. Rimegepant utilization periods were calculated based on days supplied and varying approaches to define use periods. Tablet quantity per 30 days was reported separately for both acute and prevention cohorts. RESULTS: In MarketScan, a total of 14,037 rimegepant users were identified; 11,195 (79.8%) in the acute group and 1,880 (13.4%) in the prevention group. Rimegepant utilization for acute use was 4.9 ± 2.1 tablets per 30 days and for preventive use was 13.1 ± 7.7 tablets per 30 days. There was high baseline prevalence of triptan contraindications, warnings, and high cardiovascular risk, with a combined 46.2% meeting one or more of these criteria. Acute medication overuse was also common (25.1%) prior to rimegepant initiation. Results were consistent in the Optum database. CONCLUSION: Our analysis provides the first real-world data available on tablet utilization and characteristics of new users of rimegepant.

There is little information available on the characteristics of people with migraine who start to use rimegepant, which is the only medicine approved for both the prevention of migraine attacks and the acute treatment of migraine attacks after they have started.Information on new users of rimegepant at least 18 years of age was obtained from two commercial databases of US healthcare claims (MarketScan® and Optum®). The researchers used this information to evaluate people's age, sex, pre-existing illnesses, and prior use of migraine medications at the time they started using rimegepant, and they also used several different methods to estimate how often people used rimegepant after treatment was started.The MarketScan database contained information on 14,037 people with migraine who started using rimegepant, with this group having an average age of 43 years and being comprised mostly of females (88%). Prior to starting rimegepant, almost half (46%) of the people were considered to have high cardiovascular risk and 25% considered at risk of overusing acute migraine medications. Most of the 14,037 people (80%) who started rimegepant used it to treat migraine attacks after they started and this group used approximately 5 tablets every month. The smaller number of people who used rimegepant to prevent migraine attacks used approximately 13 tablets every month. The information obtained from the Optum database was similar to that obtained from the MarketScan database.The researchers' analysis is the first to describe the characteristics of people with migraine who start to use rimegepant outside the setting of a controlled clinical trial. Their results show that new users of rimegepant represent a complex population with a significant profile of pre-existing illness and a diverse treatment history.

Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. BACKGROUND: Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. METHODS: An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

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

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

CGRP Modulating Therapies: An Update.

INTRODUCTION: Calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) is a vasoactive neuropeptide involved in the pathophysiology ofmigraine. CGRP has been targeted for both preventive and acute treatment of migraine. OBJECTIVE: Provide a summary of the most clinically relevant literature surrounding CGRP modulating therapies. METHODS: This update on CGRP modulating therapies includes articles selected as most clinically relevant by theauthors. CONCLUSION: CGRP modulating therapies are an exciting new addition to migraine treatment given their safety andtolerability. Additionally, compared to traditional migraine preventive medication these treatments are migrainespecific.Further real-world and clinical data is ongoing to better understand these treatments that continue to gainfavor in the management of migraine.

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.

Photophobia is associated with lower sleep quality in individuals with migraine: results from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR).

BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine often have poor sleep quality between and during migraine attacks. Furthermore, extensive research has identified photophobia as the most common and most bothersome symptom in individuals with migraine, second only to headache. Seeking the comfort of darkness is a common strategy for managing pain during an attack and preventing its recurrence between episodes. Given the well-established effects of daily light exposure on circadian activity rhythms and sleep quality, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between photophobia symptoms and sleep quality in a cohort of patients with migraine. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using existing data extracted from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR). Participants with a migraine diagnosis who had completed the baseline questionnaires (Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)), and selected questions of the ARMR Sleep questionnaire were included. Models were created to describe the relationship of photophobia and photophilia with various sleep facets, including sleep quality (SQ), sleep disturbance (SDis), sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep-related impairments (SRI), and insomnia. Each model was controlled for age, sex, headache frequency, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: A total of 852 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis (mean age (SD) = 49.8 (13.9), 86.6% (n = 738) female). Those with photophobia exhibited significantly poorer sleep quality compared to patients without photophobia (p < 0.001). Photophobia scores were associated with SQ (p < 0.001), SDis (p < 0.001), SOL (p = 0.011), SRI (p = 0.020), and insomnia (p = 0.005) after controlling for age, sex, headache frequency, depression, and anxiety, signifying that higher levels of photophobia were associated with worse sleep-related outcomes. Conversely, photophilia scores were associated with better sleep-related outcomes for SQ (p < 0.007), SOL (p = 0.010), and insomnia (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that photophobia is a significant predictor of poor sleep quality and sleep disturbances in migraine. These results underscore the necessity for comprehensive and systematic investigations into the intricate interplay between photophobia and sleep to enhance our understanding and develop tailored solutions for individuals with migraine.

Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders. METHODS: This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM). RESULTS: The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

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.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of perimenstrual migraine attacks: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of perimenstrual migraine (pmM) attacks. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. METHODS: After completing one of two phase 3 trials, participants could enroll in a phase 3, 52-week, open-label, long-term safety extension trial and were re-randomized 1:1:1 to usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of ubrogepant in a subset of women who treated ≥1 pmM or non-pmM attack with ubrogepant. A pmM attack started on or between 2 days before and the first 3 days of menstrual bleeding. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) percentages of ubrogepant-treated attacks achieving 2-h pain freedom and pain relief were reported, with outcomes weighted equally by participant. RESULTS: Of 734 women in the modified intent-to-treat population, 354 reported ≥1 menstrual cycle start date and a ubrogepant-treated headache day in the same month. A qualifying pmM and non-pmM attack was reported by 278 and 716 women, respectively. Pain freedom at 2 h was achieved in a mean (SD) of 28.7% (37.4) of pmM attacks and 22.1% (26.9) of non-pmM attacks treated with ubrogepant 50 mg (p = 0.054) and 29.7% (35.2) versus 25.3% (26.3) of attacks treated with ubrogepant 100 mg (p = 0.757). No difference was found in the mean percentage of ubrogepant-treated pmM and non-pmM attacks that achieved 2-h pain relief with ubrogepant 50 mg (64.8% [39.9] vs. 65.2% [32.4]; p = 0.683) and with 100 mg (67.1% [37.4] vs. 68.4% [30.2]; p = 0.273). Treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 8.8% (12/137) and 12.8% (18/141) in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg pmM subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ubrogepant demonstrated similar efficacy for the treatment of pmM and non-pmM attacks. No new safety signals were identified.

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).

Hemiplegic Migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this article, we review recent updates to the epidemiology, diagnostic testing, genetics, pathophysiology, and management of hemiplegic migraine. RECENT FINDINGS: While three genes have been historically associated with hemiplegic migraine, recent studies suggest two additional genes may also be implicated including PPRT2 and SLC1A3. Hemiplegic migraine is a severe subset of migraine with aura with symptoms including reversible hemiparesis in addition to other aura symptoms such as visual, sensory, or speech. The exact pathophysiology of hemiplegic migraine is not clear, but it is thought that this phenomenon is due to neuronal and glial depolarization causing cortical spreading depression. Due to the severity of presentation as well as the numerous mimickers, it is important to know a comprehensive differential and work-up. Given the low prevalence of the disease, most studies regarding treatment are limited to case studies. There is still an important need for further and larger studies regarding management of these cases.

The Safety of Celecoxib as an Acute Treatment for Migraine: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been the first-line choice for the acute treatment of migraine attacks for decades; however, the safety of a particular NSAID is related to its treatment dose, duration, and mechanism of action. Although adverse event (AE) risks differ substantially among individual migraine treatments, increased or prolonged exposure to any NSAID elevates risks and severity of AEs. METHODS: For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of PubMed until July 2022, focusing on the history, mechanism of action, and treatment guidelines informing the safety and efficacy of celecoxib oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. RESULTS: Here we discuss the mechanisms of action of nonselective NSAIDs vs. cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, and how these mechanisms underlie the AEs associated with these treatments. We review the clinical trials that influenced the regulatory history of NSAIDs, specifically COX-2 inhibitors, the role of traditional and new formulations of NSAIDs including celecoxib oral solution, and special considerations in the acute treatment of migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose formulations of NSAIDs, such as celecoxib oral solution, provide acute migraine analgesia with similar or fewer associated cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events than previous formulations.

Evaluation of vascular risk in patients with migraine with and without aura treated with erenumab: Post hoc analysis of pooled long-term clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk. BACKGROUND: Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre-existing CV risk factors. METHODS: Data pooled from four double-blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10-year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no-risk-factors, low-risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate-risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high-risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE). RESULTS: There was no apparent difference between placebo- (N = 1032) and erenumab-treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1-3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long-term analysis. Erenumab-treated patients with high and moderate 10-year CV risk (N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double-blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low-risk erenumab group (N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long-term extensions of up to 5 years (N = 2499; 3482 patient-years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure-adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient-years) for no risk factor (N = 1805), low (N = 492), moderate (N = 121), and high (N = 81) 10-year CV risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10-year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.

Temporomandibular Joint Disorder Comorbidities.

Comorbidity is a distinct additional condition that either existed or exists during the clinical course of a patient afflicted by the condition/entity in question. The clinician attempting to manage temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) and TMD pain must realize that recognition and management of the comorbidities are essential to the successful management of the same with optimal pain control. When TMD presents with multiple comorbidities, the task for the clinician becomes more complex. It is the hope of the authors that this condensed version of TMD-associated comorbidities acts as a primer for understanding the significance of the same in pain management.

Open-label trials for CGRP-targeted drugs in migraine prevention: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted drugs have proven safe and effective for migraine prevention in large randomized-controlled, double-blind trials with an average duration of six months. Open-label studies may provide additional information on the long-term safety and efficacy of these substances. METHODS: We searched PubMed for open-label trials with calcitonin gene-related peptide(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies and calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonists. We summarized and critically analyzed the literature in a narrative way. RESULTS: Overall, 13 open-label trials were included in this review (n = 4 for erenumab, n = 4 for galcanezumab, n = 3 for fremanezumab, n = 1 for eptinezumab, n = 1 for atogepant). Open-label trial duration ranged between 12 and 264 weeks. No safety concerns emerged, and the adverse events profile was similar to the double-blind study phase. Discontinuation rates were generally low with >75% of patients remaining in the trials after one year. Efficacy data showed a sustained reduction of migraine frequency throughout the trials, along with a lasting improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The open-label study program for calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted migraine preventives confirms the favorable safety and efficacy profile of these drugs over time. Treatment adherence appears higher than with previous unspecific migraine preventives. Real-world data and post-marketing surveillance studies may corroborate and complement open-label results.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. METHODS: A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination. CONCLUSION: The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle.

BACKGROUND: Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). RESULTS: There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response. CONCLUSION: No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.