"Code Headache": Development of a protocol for optimizing headache management in the emergency room.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients presenting at the emergency room (ER) with headache often encounter a hostile atmosphere and experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to design a protocol for the ER with the goal of optimizing the care of patients with urgent headache to facilitate diagnosis and expedite treatment. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted via a MEDLINE search in October 2021. The "Code Headache" protocol was then developed considering the available characteristics and resources of the ER at a tertiary care center within the Spanish National Public Health system. RESULTS: The Code Headache protocol comprises three assessments: two scales and one checklist. The assessments identify known red flags and stratify patients based on suspected primary/secondary headaches and the need for pain treatment. Initial assessments, performed by the triage nurse, aim to first exclude potentially high morbidity and mortality etiologies (HEAD1 scale) and then expedite appropriate pain management (HEAD2 scale) based on scoring criteria. HEAD1 evaluates vital signs and symptoms of secondary serious headache disorders that can most benefit from earlier identification and treatment, while HEAD2 assesses symptoms indicative of status migrainosus, pain intensity, and vital signs. Subsequently, ER physicians employ a third assessment that reviews red flags for secondary headaches (grouped under the acronym 'PEACE') to guide the selection of complementary tests and aid diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The Code Headache protocol is a much needed tool to facilitate quick clinical assessment and improve patient care in the ER. Further validation through comparison with standard clinical practice is warranted.

Are we closer to achieving precision medicine for migraine treatment? A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The term 'precision medicine' encompasses strategies to optimize diagnosis and outcome prediction and to tailor treatment for individual patients, in consideration of their unique characteristics. The greater availability of multifaceted datasets and strategies to model such data have made precision medicine increasingly possible in recent years. Precision medicine is especially needed in the migraine field since the response to migraine treatments is not universal amongst all individuals with migraine. OBJECTIVE: To provide a narrative review describing contributions to achieving precision medicine for migraine treatment. METHODS: A search of PubMed for English language articles of human participants published from 2005 to January 2024 was conducted to identify articles that reported research contributing to precision medicine for migraine treatment. The published literature was categorized and summarized according to the type of data that were included: clinical phenotypes, genomics, proteomics, physiologic measures, and brain imaging. RESULTS: Published studies have investigated characteristics associated with acute and preventive treatment responses, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, onabotulinumtoxinA, and anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. There is evidence that clinical, genetic, epigenetic, proteomic, physiologic, and brain imaging features might associate with migraine treatment outcomes, although inconsistencies for such findings clearly exist. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature suggests that there are clinical and biological features which associate with, and might be useful for predicting, migraine treatment responses. To achieve precision medicine for migraine treatment, further research is needed that validates and expands on existing findings and tests the accuracy and value of migraine treatment prediction models in clinical settings.

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.

International Headache Society global practice recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. METHODS: An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. RESULTS: A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. CONCLUSION: Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.

Migraine is the most disabling neurological disease among children and adolescents, and second after stroke among adults: A call to action.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is pivotal in shaping health policies by providing comprehensive data on mortality and disability. An updated GBD2021 analysis, published in Lancet Neurology on 14 March 2024, expands the scope of neurological disorders to include 37 conditions, revealing their significant impact on global health. Neurological disorders affect 3.4 billion people, or 43.1% of the global population, making them the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2021, with an 18.2% increase since 1990. The top three causes of DALYs in this category are stroke, neonatal encephalopathy and migraine. Migraine, affecting 1.16 billion people, ranks first among children and adolescents and second among adults aged under 60 years. Despite its substantial impact, migraine often lacks proper attention because of its non-fatal nature, invisibility and historical neglect of neurological disorders. The International Headache Society calls for recognizing migraine as a serious medical condition, promoting research and integrating migraine management into public health strategies. Effective interventions include raising awareness, improving access to treatment, adding migraine to the epidemiological surveillance agenda and exploring new treatment strategies. A coordinated effort among stakeholders is essential to alleviate the burden of migraine on individuals and society.

Insights from 25 years of onabotulinumtoxinA in migraine - mechanisms and management.

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BTX-A) was first linked to beneficial effects in migraine 25 years ago and was approved by the FDA for preventive treatment of chronic migraine in 2010. The treatment has since had a major impact on the well-being of people with chronic migraine. The clinical development programme for BTX-A and research since its approval have provided insights into the neuromodulatory sensory effect of BTX-A, how it can control chronic migraine despite its peripheral action, and the underlying biology of migraine as a disease. In this Review, we consider the impact that BTX-A has had on the management of chronic migraine and on the research field. We discuss the insights provided by clinical research, encompassing the clinical trials and subsequent real-world evidence, and the mechanistic insights provided by preclinical and translational research. We also provide an overview of future directions of research in the field BTX-A in migraine and the clinical translation of this research.

Long-term safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine patients: a five-year retrospective study.

Background: Real-world studies have shown the sustained therapeutic effect and favourable safety profile of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) in the long term and up to 4 years of treatment in chronic migraine (CM). This study aims to assess the safety profile and efficacy of BoNTA in CM after 5 years of treatment in a real-life setting. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with CM in relation to BoNTA treatment for more than 5 years in 19 Spanish headache clinics. We excluded patients who discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability. Results: 489 patients were included [mean age 49, 82.8% women]. The mean age of onset of migraine was 21.8 years; patients had CM with a mean of 6.4 years (20.8% fulfilled the aura criteria). At baseline, patients reported a mean of 24.7 monthly headache days (MHDs) and 15.7 monthly migraine days (MMDs). In relation to effectiveness, the responder rate was 59.1% and the mean reduction in MMDs was 9.4 days (15.7 to 6.3 days; p < 0.001). The MHDs were also reduced by 14.9 days (24.7 to 9.8 days; p < 0.001). Regarding the side effects, 17.5% experienced neck pain, 17.3% headache, 8.5% eyelid ptosis, 7.5% temporal muscle atrophy and 3.2% trapezius muscle atrophy. Furthermore, after longer-term exposure exceeding 5 years, there were no serious adverse events (AE) or treatment discontinuation because of safety or tolerability issues. Conclusion: Treatment with BoNTA led to sustained reductions in migraine frequency, even after long-term exposure exceeding 5 years, with no evidence of new safety concerns.

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment. METHODS: These were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated. RESULTS: In ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8-81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3-61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8-41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSION: Over 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

Effectiveness and Safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Adolescent Patients with Chronic Migraine.

Chronic migraine (CM) significantly affects underage individuals. The study objectives are (1) to analyze the effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (BTX-A) in adolescents with CM; (2) to review the literature on BTX-A use in the pediatric population. This prospective observational study included patients under 18 years old with CM treated with BTX-A (PREEMPT protocol) as compassionate use. Demographic, efficacy (monthly headache days-MHD; monthly migraine days-MMD; acute medication days/month-AMDM) and side effect data were collected. A ≥ 50% reduction in MHD was considered as a response. Effectiveness and safety were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. A systematic review of the use of BTX-A in children/adolescents was conducted in July 2023. In total, 20 patients were included (median age 15 years [14.75-17], 70% (14/20) females). The median basal frequencies were 28.8 [20-28] MHD, 18 [10-28] MMD and 10 [7.5-21.2] AMDM. Compared with baseline, at 6 months (n = 20), 11 patients (55%) were responders, with a median reduction in MHD of -20 days/month (p = 0.001). At 12 months (n = 14), eight patients (57.1%) were responders, with a median reduction in MHD of -17.5 days/month (p = 0.002). No adverse effects were reported. The literature search showed similar results. Our data supports the concept that BTX-A is effective, well tolerated, and safe in adolescents with CM resistant to oral preventatives.

[Migraine treatment consensus document of the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN), Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Society of Primary Care Medicine (SEMERGEN) and Spanish Association of Migraine and Headache (AEMICE) on migraine treatment]. / Documento de consenso de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (SEN), Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria (SEMFYC), Sociedad de Medicina de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN) y Asociación Española de Migraña y Cefalea (AEMICE) sobre el tratamiento de la migraña.

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse.

Dynamic fluctuations of salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks: association with clinical variables and phenotypic characterization.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a complex neurological disorder with significant heterogeneity in its clinical presentation and molecular mechanisms. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a key player in migraine pathophysiology, but challenges remain in its utilization as a biomarker. This study aimed to investigate salivary CGRP levels during migraine attacks across the frequency spectrum and explore associations with clinical variables. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal pilot study was conducted, recruiting migraine patients from an outpatient headache clinic. Salivary CGRP levels were measured at interictal, onset, post-2 h of onset and end-of-attack. Using generalized linear mixed models, we explored the effect of CGRP changes over the attack in presence of depressive symptoms (DS), acute attack treatment, and after three-months of erenumab treatment. Finally, patients were classified and compared according to their CGRP phenotype. RESULTS: A total of 44 migraine patients were included (90.9% women), with 80 migraine attacks analyzed. Salivary CGRP levels increased at the onset of migraine attacks. We observed statistically significant interactions between DS and both the linear (Est. [SE]: 19.4 [5.8], p = 0.001) and quadratic terms of time (-19.1 [6.0], p = 0.002). Additionally, a significant three-way interaction within the use of acute treated attack (linear-term: -18.5 [6.2], p = 0.005; quadratic-term: 19.2 [6.8], p = 0.005) was also found. Molecular phenotyping revealed that 72.7% (32/44) of patients presented only CGRP-dependent attacks, while 27.3% (12/44) presented non-CGRP-dependent migraine attacks. Patients with only CGRP-dependent attacks were associated with younger age, shorter disease evolution time, a higher proportion of aura, and fewer monthly headache days (p < 0.05). Exploratory analysis of erenumab treatment effects did not result in changes in CGRP levels during migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the dynamic nature of migraine at a molecular level and emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical variables, such as depressive symptoms, in understanding its pathophysiology. The identification of distinct migraine subtypes based on CGRP dependence suggests potential opportunities for personalized treatment approaches.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: a narrative review.

Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), was recently approved in Europe for the prophylactic treatment of migraine in adults who have at least four migraine days a month. Eptinezumab is administered by intravenous infusion every 12 weeks. During recent months, a considerable amount of evidence from eptinezumab trials has been published. The aim of this review is to describe the existing evidence on the tolerability, safety and efficacy of eptinezumab in patients with migraine. Data from randomized (PROMISE-1, PROMISE-2, RELIEF and DELIVER) and open-label (PREVAIL) phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the favorable effect of eptinezumab in migraine symptoms from first day of treatment. These studies showed that eptinezumab results in an overall reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs), increases in the ≥50% and ≥ 75% migraine responder rates (MRRs) and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures in both patients with episodic migraine (EM) and with chronic migraine (CM), including patients who failed previous preventive treatments. The RELIEF trial also showed that eptinezumab, within 2 h of administration, reduced headache pain, migraine-associated symptoms and acute medication use when administered during a migraine attack. Eptinezumab benefits manifested as early as day 1 after dosing and with the subsequent doses lasted up to at least 2 years. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥2% of patients included upper respiratory tract infection and fatigue. Current evidence demonstrates that eptinezumab has a potent, fast-acting, sustained migraine preventive effect in patients with EM and CM. Eptinezumab has also shown to be well tolerated, supporting its use in the treatment of patients with migraine and inclusion in the current migraine therapeutic options.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of pharmacological preventive treatment for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Persistent headache attributed to traumatic injury to the head is divided into two subtypes, one attributed to moderate or severe traumatic injury and another attributed to mild traumatic injury (i.e., concussion). The latter is much more prevalent, in part because more than 90% of cases with traumatic brain injury are classified as mild. The pathophysiology of persistent post-traumatic headache is poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms are likely multifactorial. There is currently no approved treatment specifically for persistent post-traumatic headache, and management strategies rely on medications used for migraine or tension-type headache. Therefore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to support clinical decision-making and optimize management strategies. International guidelines can facilitate appropriate trial design and ensure the acquisition of high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of available and novel pharmacological therapies for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache. METHODS: The development of this guideline was based on a literature review of available studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with a review of previously published guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine. The identified literature was critically appraised, and due to the scarcity of scientific evidence, recommendations were primarily based on the consensus of experts in the field. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of preventive treatments for persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs. SUMMARY: The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden. Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment. Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.