Increased CX3CL1 in cerebrospinal fluid and ictal serum t-tau elevations in migraine: results from a cross-sectional exploratory case-control study.

BACKGROUND: To date, migraine is diagnosed exclusively based on clinical criteria, but fluid biomarkers are desirable to gain insight into pathophysiological processes and inform clinical management. We investigated the state-dependent profile of fluid biomarkers for neuroaxonal damage and microglial activation as two potentially relevant aspects in human migraine pathophysiology. METHODS: This exploratory study included serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples of patients with migraine during the headache phase (ictally) (n = 23), between attacks (interictally) (n = 16), and age/sex-matched controls (n = 19). Total Tau (t-Tau) protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were measured with the Neurology 4-plex kit on a Single Molecule Array SR-X Analyzer (Simoa® SR-X, Quanterix Corp., Lexington, MA). Markers of microglial activation, C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1 (CX3CL1) and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), were assessed using an immunoassay. RESULTS: Concentrations of CX3CL1 but not sTREM2 were significantly increased both ictally and interictally in CSF but not in serum in comparison to the control cohort (p = 0.039). ROC curve analysis provided an AUC of 0.699 (95% CI 0.563 to 0.813, p = 0.007). T-Tau in serum but not in CSF was significantly increased in samples from patients taken during the headache phase, but not interictally (effect size: η2 = 0.121, p = 0.038). ROC analysis of t-Tau protein in serum between ictal and interictal collected samples provided an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.558 to 0.861, p = 0.006). The other determined biomarkers for axonal damage were not significantly different between the cohorts in either serum or CSF. DISCUSSION: CX3CL1 in CSF is a novel potential fluid biomarker of migraine that is unrelated to the headache status. Serum t-Tau is linked to the headache phase but not interictal migraine. These data need to be confirmed in a larger hypothesis-driven prospective study.

Impact of a reimbursement policy change on treatment with erenumab in migraine - a real-world experience from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment. RESULTS: We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD. CONCLUSIONS: Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

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.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine.

OBJECTIVE: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

Serum tau protein elevation in migraine: a cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disorder associated with neuropeptide release, pain and inflammation. Tau protein has recently been linked to inflammatory diseases and can be influenced by neuropeptides such as CGRP, a key neurotransmitter in migraine. Here, we report serum concentrations of total-tau protein in migraine patients and healthy controls. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, interictal blood samples from n = 92 patients with episodic migraine (EM), n = 93 patients with chronic migraine (CM), and n = 42 healthy matched controls (HC) were studied. We assessed serum total-tau protein (t-tau) and for comparison neurofilament light chain protein (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L (UCH-L1) concentrations using the Neurology 4-plex kit, on a single molecule array HD-X Analyzer (Quanterix Corp Lexington, MA). Matched serum/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were used for post-hoc evaluations of a central nervous system (CNS) source of relevant findings. We applied non-parametric tests to compare groups and assess correlations. RESULTS: Serum t-tau concentrations were elevated in EM [0.320 (0.204 to 0.466) pg/mL] and CM [0.304 (0.158 to 0.406) pg/mL] patients compared to HC [0.200 (0.114 to 0.288) pg/mL] (p = 0.002 vs. EM; p = 0.025 vs. CM). EM with aura [0.291 (0.184 to 0.486 pg/mL); p = 0.013] and EM without aura [0.332 (0.234 to 0.449) pg/mL; p = 0.008] patients had higher t-tau levels than HC but did not differ between each other. Subgroup analysis of CM with/without preventive treatment revealed elevated t-tau levels compared to HC only in the non-prevention group [0.322 (0.181 to 0.463) pg/mL; p = 0.009]. T-tau was elevated in serum (p = 0.028) but not in cerebrospinal fluid (p = 0.760). In contrast to t-tau, all proteins associated with cell damage (NfL, GFAP, and UCH-L1), did not differ between groups. DISCUSSION: Migraine is associated with t-tau elevation in serum but not in the CSF. Our clinical study identifies t-tau as a new target for migraine research.

Perception of typical migraine images on the internet: Comparison between a metropolis and a smaller rural city in Germany.

The medial portrayal of migraine is often stereotypical and inaccurate but reflects how society perceives migraine. The discrepancy between others' views and the reality of affected individuals may negatively affect access to treatment and the disease course of patients with migraine. This study aimed to investigate whether images presented in the media as typical migraine attacks are perceived as realistic and representative by migraine patients in Rostock, a smaller town in rural Germany, and compare the results to those from Berlin, a large metropolis. We performed an online survey in Rostock. Migraine patients were shown ten images of migraine attacks, which were among the most downloaded stock pictures on the internet under the search term "migraine". They rated on a scale of 0-100 to what extent the pictures were realistic for migraine attacks (realism score), representative of their own migraine (representation score), or the society's view of migraine (society score). In addition, we compared our results with a recently published study from the metropolitan region of Berlin. A total of 174 migraine patients completed our survey. Mean (SD) realism, representation, and society scores were 59.9 (17.5), 56.7 (18.3), and 58.4 (17.1) respectively. Images of older patients were perceived as significantly more realistic and representative than those of younger patients (P < .001). Patients in Rostock (rural region) rated the images as significantly more realistic and representative than survey participants in Berlin (metropolis). Migraine patients in a rural region found typical migraine images only moderately realistic and representative but to a higher degree than their counterparts from a metropolis.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

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).

A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies: Predicting Response.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are increasingly being used as preventive treatments for migraine. Their effectiveness and safety were established through numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials and real-world studies, yet a significant proportion of patients do not respond to this treatment, and currently, there is a lack of accepted predictors of response to guide expectations, as data from studies so far are lacking and inconsistent. We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies reporting on predictors of response to CGRP and/or CGRP-receptor (CGRP-R) mAbs, defined as a 30% or 50% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at varying durations of follow-up. Quantitative synthesis was performed where applicable. We found 38 real-world studies that investigated the association between various predictors and response rates. Based on these studies, good response to triptans and unilateral pain with or without unilateral autonomic symptoms are predictors of a good response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Conversely, obesity, interictal allodynia, the presence of daily headaches, a higher number of non-successful previous prophylactic medications, and psychiatric comorbidities including depression are predictive of a poor response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Future studies should confirm these results and help to generate more tailored treatment strategies in patients with migraine.

Near-death experiences are associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions in migraine patients, independent of migraine aura.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Migraine aura, near-death experiences (NDEs), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions might share common mechanisms. Here, we investigated the prevalence of NDEs and REM sleep intrusions in people with migraine. We hypothesized that NDEs and REM sleep intrusions are more prevalent in migraine patients with aura than in those without. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional cohort study at a tertiary headache center, based on a prespecified sample size (n = 808). Migraine patients completed a series of questionnaires, including questions about demographic and headache characteristics, the 16-item Greyson NDE scale, four questions about REM sleep intrusions, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21). RESULTS: Of 808 migraine patients (mean age 44.4 ± 13.3 years, 87.0% women), 353 (43.7%) had a current or previous history of migraine aura. Prevalence of NDE was 2.7% and not different in patients with and without aura (2.8% vs. 2.6%; p > 0.999). REM sleep intrusions were reported by 5.4% of participants and in a similar proportion of patients with and without aura (6.3% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.43). However, participants with REM sleep intrusions had had an NDE more often than participants without REM sleep intrusions (n = 5/44, 11.4% vs. n = 17/754, 2.2%; p = 0.005). Higher DASS-21 scores were associated with REM sleep intrusions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this tertiary center cohort study, the prevalence of NDE and REM sleep intrusions was not influenced by migraine aura status. However, we identified an association between NDE and REM sleep intrusions, which corroborates the notion that they might share pathophysiological mechanisms.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and acute medication overuse: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse. BACKGROUND: Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies. METHODS: This 52-week open-label extension study followed a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline. RESULTS: Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was -9.3 (95% confidence interval: -10.4, -8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -9.3 (-10.1, -8.5 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine-specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine-specific medication days at Week 52 was -7.4 (-8.3, -6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -5.4 (-6.1, -4.7 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non-overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Long-term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

A Retrospective Real-Life Multicenter Study on Concurrent Oral Preventive Treatments in Patients with Chronic Migraine Treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) is a relatively safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine. The local mode of action of BoNTA favors the combination of oral treatments with systemic action. However, little is known about the possible interactions with other preventive treatments. The objective of the study was to describe the use of oral preventive treatments in patients with chronic migraine treated with BoNTA in routine clinical care and discuss the tolerability and efficacy according to the presence or absence of concomitant oral treatments. METHODS: In this multicenter, observational, retrospective, cohort study, we collected data from patients with chronic migraine receiving prophylactic treatment with BoNTA. Patients were eligible if aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with chronic migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition criteria, and treated with BoNTA according to the PREEMPT paradigm. We documented the proportion of patients with at least one concomitant treatment prescribed specifically for migraine (CT+M) and their side effects during four BoNTA treatment cycles. Additionally, we collected monthly headache days and monthly acute medication days from the patients' headache diaries. Patients with CT+M were compared to those without concomitant treatment (CT-) using a nonparametric approach. RESULTS: Our cohort included 181 patients taking BoNTA, of whom 77 (42.5%) received a CT+M. The most frequently prescribed concomitant treatments were antidepressants and antihypertensive drugs. Side effects in the CT+M group occurred in 14 patients (18.2%). Only in three of them (3.9%), the side effects had a significant interference with the patient's functioning (all in topiramate 200-mg/day users). Both CT+M and CT- groups had a significant reduction in monthly headache days of respectively - 6 (95% confidence interval - 9, - 3; p < 0.001; w = 0.200) during cycle 4 compared with baseline versus - 9 (95% confidence interval - 13, -6; p < 0.001; w = 0.469). However, the reduction in monthly headache days was significantly smaller in patients with CT+M after the fourth treatment cycle compared with patients with CT- (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of oral concomitant preventive treatment is common in patients with chronic migraine receiving BoNTA. We did not identify any unexpected safety or tolerability issues in patients receiving BoNTA and a CT+M. However, patients with a CT+M experienced a smaller reduction in monthly headache days when compared with those with CT-, which might be associated with a higher resistance to treatment in that subgroup of patients.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Effect of switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand antibody treatment in migraine: A real-world cohort study.

Background: Therapeutic options for migraine prevention in non-responders to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and its receptor are often limited. Real-world data have shown that non-responders to the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab may benefit from switching to a CGRP ligand mAb. However, it remains unclear whether, vice versa, erenumab is effective in non-responders to CGRP ligand mAbs. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of erenumab in patients who have previously failed a CGRP ligand mAb. Methods: This monocentric retrospective cohort study included patients with episodic or chronic migraine in whom a non-response (< 30% reduction of monthly headache days during month 3 of treatment compared to baseline) to the CGRP ligand mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab led to a switch to erenumab, and who had received at least 3 administrations of erenumab. Monthly headache days were retrieved from headache diaries to assess the ≥30% responder rates and the absolute reduction of monthly headache days at 3 and 6 months of treatment with erenumab in this cohort. Results: From May 2019 to July 2022, we identified 20 patients who completed 3 months of treatment with erenumab after non-response to a CGRP ligand mAb. Fourteen patients continued treatment for ≥6 months. The ≥30% responder rate was 35% at 3 months, and 45% at 6 months of treatment with erenumab, respectively. Monthly headache days were reduced from 18.6 ± 5.9 during baseline by 4.1 ± 3.1 days during month 3, and by 7.0 ± 4.8 days during month 6 compared to the month before treatment with erenumab (p < 0.001, respectively). Responders and non-responders to erenumab did not differ with respect to demographic or headache characteristics. Conclusion: Switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand mAb might be beneficial in a subgroup of resistant patients, with increasing responder rates after 6 months of treatment. Larger prospective studies should aim to predict which subgroup of patients benefit from a switch.

Sex Hormones and Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide in Women With Migraine: A Cross-sectional, Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sex hormones may modulate calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) release in the trigeminovascular system. We studied CGRP concentrations in plasma and tear fluid in female participants with episodic migraine (EM) and a regular menstrual cycle (RMC), female participants with EM and combined oral contraception (COC), and female participants with EM in the postmenopause. For control, we analyzed 3 corresponding groups of age-matched female participants without EM. METHODS: Participants with an RMC had 2 visits: during menstruation on menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2 and in the periovulatory period on day 13 ± 2. Participants with COC were examined at day 4 ± 2 of the hormone-free interval (HFI) and between days 7 and 14 of hormone intake (HI). Postmenopausal participants were assessed once at a random time point. Plasma and tear fluid samples were collected at each visit for determination of CGRP levels with an ELISA. RESULTS: A total of 180 female participants (n = 30 per group) completed the study. Participants with migraine and an RMC showed statistically significantly higher CGRP concentrations in plasma and tear fluid during menstruation compared with female participants without migraine (plasma: 5.95 pg/mL [IQR 4.37-10.44] vs 4.61 pg/mL [IQR 2.83-6.92], p = 0.020 [Mann-Whitney U test]; tear fluid: 1.20 ng/mL [IQR 0.36-2.52] vs 0.4 ng/mL [IQR 0.14-1.22], p = 0.005 [Mann-Whitney U test]). In contrast, female participants with COC and in the postmenopause had similar CGRP levels in the migraine and the control groups. In migraine participants with an RMC, tear fluid but not plasma CGRP concentrations during menstruation were statistically significantly higher compared with migraine participants under COC (p = 0.015 vs HFI and p = 0.029 vs HI, Mann-Whitney U test). DISCUSSION: Different sex hormone profiles may influence CGRP concentrations in people, with current or past capacity to menstruate, with migraine. Measurement of CGRP in tear fluid was feasible and warrants further investigation.

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.

New migraine prophylactic drugs: Current evidence and practical suggestions for non-responders to prior therapy.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs) and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are new mechanism-based prophylactic drugs developed to address the unmet needs of pre-existing migraine prophylactic medications. However, several uncertainties remain in their real-world applications. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the literature on the use of CGRP-targeting novel therapeutics in specific situations, including non-responders to prior therapy, combination therapy, switching, and treatment termination. In the case of lack of available literature, we made suggestions based on clinical reasoning. RESULTS: High-quality evidence supports the use of all available anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) in non-responders to prior therapy. There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the efficacy of combining CGRP(-R) mAbs or gepants with oral migraine prophylactic agents or botulinum toxin A. Switching from one CGRP(-R) mAb to another might benefit a fraction of patients. Currently, treatment termination depends on reimbursement policies, and the optimal mode of termination is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: New prophylactic drugs that target the CGRP pathway are promising treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. Individualized approaches using a combination of new substances with oral prophylactic drugs or botulinum toxin A, switching between new drugs, and adjusting treatment duration could enhance excellence in practice.