European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Blocking the CGRP Receptor: Differences across Human Vascular Beds.

Multiple drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor have been developed for the treatment of migraine. Here, the effect of the small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist zavegepant (0.1 nM-1 µM) on CGRP-induced relaxation in isolated human coronary arteries (HCAs) was investigated. A Schild plot was constructed and a pA2 value was calculated to determine the potency of zavegepant. The potency and Schild plot slopes of atogepant, olcegepant, rimegepant, telcagepant, ubrogepant and zavegepant in HCAs and human middle meningeal arteries (HMMAs), obtained from our earlier studies, were compared. Zavegepant shifted the concentration-response curve to CGRP in HCAs. The corresponding Schild plot slope was not different from unity, resulting in a pA2 value of 9.92 ± 0.24. No potency difference between HCAs and HMMAs was observed. Interestingly, olcegepant, atogepant and rimegepant, with a Schild plot slope < 1 in HCAs, were all >1 log unit more potent in HMMAs than in HCAs, while telcagepant, ubrogepant and zavegepant, with a Schild plot slope not different from unity, showed similar (<1 log difference) potency across both tissues. As a Schild plot slope < 1 may point to the involvement of multiple receptors, it is important to further identify the receptors involved in the relaxation to CGRP in HCAs, which may be used to improve the cardiovascular safety of future antimigraine drugs.

Future targets for migraine treatment beyond CGRP.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling and chronic neurovascular headache disorder. Trigeminal vascular activation and release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of migraine. This knowledge has led to the development of CGRP(-receptor) therapies. Yet, a substantial proportion of patients do not respond to these treatments. Therefore, alternative targets for future therapies are warranted. The current narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiological role of these possible non-CGRP targets in migraine. FINDINGS: We covered targets of the metabotropic receptors (pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), amylin, and adrenomedullin), intracellular targets (nitric oxide (NO), phosphodiesterase-3 (PDE3) and -5 (PDE5)), and ion channels (potassium, calcium, transient receptor potential (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC)). The majority of non-CGRP targets were able to induce migraine-like attacks, except for (i) calcium channels, as it is not yet possible to directly target channels to elucidate their precise involvement in migraine; (ii) TRP channels, activation of which can induce non-migraine headache; and (iii) ASICs, as their potential in inducing migraine attacks has not been investigated thus far. Drugs that target its receptors exist for PACAP, NO, and the potassium, TRP, and ASIC channels. No selective drugs exist for the other targets, however, some existing (migraine) treatments appear to indirectly antagonize responses to amylin, adrenomedullin, and calcium channels. Drugs against PACAP, NO, potassium channels, TRP channels, and only a PAC1 antibody have been tested for migraine treatment, albeit with ambiguous results. CONCLUSION: While current research on these non-CGRP drug targets has not yet led to the development of efficacious therapies, human provocation studies using these targets have provided valuable insight into underlying mechanisms of migraine headaches and auras. Further studies are needed on these alternative therapies in non-responders of CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies with the ultimate aim to pave the way towards a headache-free future for all migraine patients.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making. METHODS: Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. DISCUSSION: Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

Primary headache epidemiology in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Headache is the most prevalent neurological manifestation in adults and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. In children and adolescents, headaches are arguably responsible for a remarkable impact on physical and psychological issues, yet high-quality evidence is scarce. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched cross-sectional and cohort studies in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 1988 to June 2022 to identify the prevalence of headaches in 8-18 years old individuals. The risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pediatric headache. Subgroup analyses based on headache subtypes were also conducted. RESULTS: Out of 5,486 papers retrieved electronically, we identified 48 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of primary headaches was 11% for migraine overall [95%CI: 9-14%], 8% for migraine without aura (MwoA) [95%CI: 5-12%], 3% for migraine with aura (MwA) [95%CI:2-4%] and 17% for tension-type headache (TTH) [95% CI: 12-23%]. The pooled prevalence of overall primary headache in children and adolescents was 62% [95% CI: 53-70%], with prevalence in females and males of 38% [95% CI: 16-66%] and 27% [95% CI: 11-53%] respectively. After the removal of studies ranked as low-quality according to the JBI scale, prevalence rates were not substantially different. Epidemiological data on less common primary headaches, such as trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, were lacking. CONCLUSION: We found an overall remarkably high prevalence of primary headaches in children and adolescents, even if flawed by a high degree of heterogeneity. Further up-to-date studies are warranted to complete the picture of pediatric headache-related burden to enhance specific public interventions.

European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. MAIN BODY: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient's well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Parkinson's Disease Drug Development Since 1999: A Story of Repurposing and Relative Success.

BACKGROUND: A global overview of drug development programs in Parkinson's disease over the last few decades is lacking, while such programs are challenging given the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of the disease. OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess drug development programs in Parkinson's disease, exploring some factors associated with compound attrition at different trial phases. METHODS: We assessed all Parkinson's disease trials in the WHO trials portal, from inception (1999) to September 2019. Independent authors selected trials and extracted data. The success rate was the number of compounds that progressed to the next drug development phase divided by the number of compounds in that phase. RESULTS: Overall, 357 trials (studying 152 compounds) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with 62 (17.3%) phase 1 trials, 135 (37.8%) phase 2 trials, 85 (23.8%) phase 3 trials, and 53 (14.8%) phase 4 trials. The success rate was 42.4% from phase 2 to 3. Original compounds received regulatory approval by the FDA in 21.4% of cases, compared with 6.7% of repurposed compounds, representing an overall success rate of 14.9%. We found 172 trials (48.2%) conducted for repurposing previously licensed compounds. These figures were approximately the same regarding approval by the EMA. Most compounds were approved to treat parkinsonism and motor fluctuations. CONCLUSION: We found a moderate-to-high success rate in all phases of drug development. This was largely based on the success of original compounds, despite almost half of the identified trials attempting compound repurposing.

A quantitative neuropathological assessment of translocator protein expression in multiple sclerosis.

The 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) is increasingly used to study brain and spinal cord inflammation in degenerative diseases of the CNS such as multiple sclerosis. The enhanced TSPO PET signal that arises during disease is widely considered to reflect activated pathogenic microglia, although quantitative neuropathological data to support this interpretation have not been available. With the increasing interest in the role of chronic microglial activation in multiple sclerosis, characterising the cellular neuropathology associated with TSPO expression is of clear importance for understanding the cellular and pathological processes on which TSPO PET imaging is reporting. Here we have studied the cellular expression of TSPO and specific binding of two TSPO targeting radioligands (3H-PK11195 and 3H-PBR28) in tissue sections from 42 multiple sclerosis cases and 12 age-matched controls. Markers of homeostatic and reactive microglia, astrocytes, and lymphocytes were used to investigate the phenotypes of cells expressing TSPO. There was an approximate 20-fold increase in cells double positive for TSPO and HLA-DR in active lesions and in the rim of chronic active lesion, relative to normal appearing white matter. TSPO was uniformly expressed across myeloid cells irrespective of their phenotype, rather than being preferentially associated with pro-inflammatory microglia or macrophages. TSPO+ astrocytes were increased up to 7-fold compared to normal-appearing white matter across all lesion subtypes and accounted for 25% of the TSPO+ cells in these lesions. To relate TSPO protein expression to ligand binding, specific binding of the TSPO ligands 3H-PK11195 and 3H-PBR28 was determined in the same lesions. TSPO radioligand binding was increased up to seven times for 3H-PBR28 and up to two times for 3H-PK11195 in active lesions and the centre of chronic active lesions and a strong correlation was found between the radioligand binding signal for both tracers and the number of TSPO+ cells across all of the tissues examined. In summary, in multiple sclerosis, TSPO expression arises from microglia of different phenotypes, rather than being restricted to microglia which express classical pro-inflammatory markers. While the majority of cells expressing TSPO in active lesions or chronic active rims are microglia/macrophages, our findings also emphasize the significant contribution of activated astrocytes, as well as smaller contributions from endothelial cells. These observations establish a quantitative framework for interpretation of TSPO in multiple sclerosis and highlight the need for neuropathological characterization of TSPO expression for the interpretation of TSPO PET in other neurodegenerative disorders.