The effectiveness of agomelatine on headache severity and frequency in episodic migraine without aura; a parallel randomized controlled trial study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a headache disorder that affects public health and reduces the patient's quality of life. Preventive medication is necessary to prevent acute attacks and medication overuse headaches (MOH). Agomelatine is a melatonin antagonist. AIMS: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of agomelatine on the severity and frequency of migraine attacks. METHODS: The study is a parallel randomized controlled trial with two groups of intervention and control. 400 patients were evaluated. Eligible individuals, including those with episodic migraine headaches without aura between the ages of 18 and 60 years who did not receive preventive treatment beforehand, were enrolled. Also, patients did not receive any specific medications for other diseases. Among these, 100 people met the inclusion criteria and entered the study. These subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group received 25 mg of agomelatine daily and the control group received B1. In this study, the effect of agomelatine on the frequency and severity of attacks, mean monthly migraine days (MMD), and migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), were assessed. The study was triple-blind and after three months, a post-test was performed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomly assigned to either intervention or control groups. The prescriber physician and the data collector did not know about the allocation of patients to groups. Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the headache frequency per month (t=-0.182, df = 98, p = 0.85), mean MMD (p = 0.17), headache severity (p = 0.076), and MIDAS (p = 0.091). After the study, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the headache frequency per month (p = 0.009), and mean of MMD (p = 0.025). There was also a significant difference between pretest and posttest in two groups in the headache severity (p < 0.001) and MIDAS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Agomelatine can be used as a preventive medication for migraine without aura. It is suggested that agomelatine be studied in comparison with other preventive drugs for patients with migraine. TRIAL RETROSPECTIVELY REGISTRATION: Trial Retrospectively registration= IRCT20230303057599N1. Date: 2023-5-24 The present study is a residency thesis approved by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Eptinezumab for preventing migraine

Evidence-based recommendations on eptinezumab (VYEPTI) for preventing migraine in adults. Commercial arrangement There is a simple discount patient access scheme for eptinezumab. NHS organisations can get details on the Commercial Access and Pricing (CAP) Portal. Non-NHS organisations can contact United_kingdom@lundbeck.com for details.

Effect of Propranolol Prophylaxis on Headache Frequency in Children with Migraine Without Aura: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of propranolol prophylaxis with placebo on headache frequency in children with migraine over the 3-mo follow-up. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial children aged 6-12 y with newly diagnosed migraine without aura as per the International Classification for Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria were enroled. They were randomized to the intervention group receiving oral propranolol (1-3 mg/kg/d, BID) and the control group receiving a similar looking, inert, oral placebo for migraine prophylaxis for 3 mo. The number of migraine attacks over the 3-mo follow-up (using a headache diary) was the primary outcome. Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (PedMIDAS) was used for assessing disability and Visual analogue scale was used for assessing headache severity. Analysis was done on intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Twenty children (10 in each group) completed the study. The two groups were similar at baseline. Both the study drugs produced significant reduction of headache frequency after the study intervention (p = 0.002). However, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to either the median (IQR) number of headache attacks [22 (20, 25) vs. 14 (10, 20); p = 0.05], headache severity [1 (0, 1) vs. 0.5 (0, 1); p = 0.48] or migraine disability [39.5 (28, 44) vs. 35 (22, 38); p = 0.27]. Adverse effects were higher in the intervention group (p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Propranolol was effective for migraine prophylaxis in children but the effect was not higher than placebo. Larger placebo-controlled trials of propranolol need to be conducted to decide its place in migraine prophylaxis in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thailand Clinical Trials Registry; TCTR20200621001.

Assessment of Erenumab Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Migraine With and Without Aura: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Migraine with aura may respond differently to therapies than migraine without aura. Individuals with migraine with aura have an elevated vascular risk, necessitating a safety assessment of migraine preventive treatments in this patient subgroup. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety profiles of erenumab in patients with migraine with aura. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc secondary analysis evaluated 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that were conducted in treatment centers in North America, Europe, Russia, and Turkey between August 6, 2013, and November 12, 2019. Participants were adults aged 18 to 65 years with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and were randomized to receive either erenumab or placebo. Interventions: One or more dose of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg once per month) or placebo was administered by subcutaneous injection in the double-blind treatment phase and open-label or dose-blinded active treatment, and erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg, was administered once per month by subcutaneous injection during extension phases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy assessments included change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) and monthly acute migraine-specific medication (AMSM) days. Safety end points included patient incidences of adverse events. Subgroups of patients were categorized according to their history of aura. Results: Of the 2682 patients who were randomized in the 4 trials, 1400 (52.2%) received 1 or more dose of erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg, and 1043 (38.9%) received placebo. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 41.7 (11.2) years and were predominantly women (n = 2055 [84.1%]). Reductions from baseline MMDs and AMSM days were greater in the erenumab than placebo groups in patients with and without a history of aura during the double-blind treatment phase, and these reductions were maintained throughout the extension phases. In patients with episodic migraine and a history of aura, least-squares mean differences in change from baseline MMDs at week 12 were -1.1 (95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) in those who received erenumab, 70 mg, and -0.9 (95% CI, -1.6 to -0.2) in those who received erenumab, 140 mg, compared with placebo. In patients with chronic migraine with a history of aura, the least-squares mean differences from placebo treatment were -2.1 (95% CI, -3.8 to -0.5) in those who received erenumab, 70 mg, and -3.1 (95% CI, -4.8 to -1.4) in those who received erenumab, 140 mg. Overall safety profiles were similar across treatment groups regardless of aura history and were comparable to that of placebo over 12 weeks, with no increased emergence of adverse events over time. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this secondary analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials showed reduced migraine frequency and AMSM days with erenumab treatment in patients with migraine with and without a history of aura. The findings support the efficacy and safety of using erenumab in this patient population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01952574, NCT02456740, NCT02483585, NTCT02066415, and NCT02174861.

La llegada de los inhibidores biológicos para la prevención de la migraña / The arrival of biological inhibitors for preventing migraine

En noviembre de 2019, se aprobaron para su financiación, en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, dos nuevos anticuerpos monoclonales para la prevención de la migraña crónica y episódica: el erenumab y el galcanezumab.1 La migraña es una de las enfermedades neurológicas más frecuentes, que produce discapacidad y reducción de la calidad de vida de quien la padece. Actualmente, el tratamiento estándar para su prevención se basa en medicamentos orales (betabloqueantes, topiramato, entre otros), que en su momento fueron desarrollados específicamente para el tratamiento de otras enfermedades (la depresión, la hipertensión y la epilepsia) los cuales pese a ser eficaces, no lo son para una gran proporción de quienes padece migraña. Esto, sumado a los efectos adversos que muchas veces presentan, provoca que haya una baja adherencia al tratamiento.1,2 Por ello, y gracias a nuevas investigaciones centradas en la fisiopatología de la migraña, se ha descubierto que el péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP, por sus siglas en inglés) tiene una función clave en su etiopatogenia. El CGRP, así como su receptor, se expresan tanto a nivel periférico como central, incluyendo la vía trigeminovascular. Durante los episodios de migraña, los niveles de CGRP se encuentran elevados, debido a que estos péptidos son liberados desde las terminaciones nerviosas del trigémino, produciendo vasodilatación de los vasos cerebrales y meníngeos con importante modulación neuronal del dolor. Además, el CGRP también es un potente vasodilatador arterial sistémico.3 Tras el descubrimiento de la importancia de este péptido se empezaron a desarrollar los llamados -gepants, antagonistas de CGRP de molécula pequeña, de administración oral. En un principio parecían cumplir con las expectativas de eficacia, pero empezaron a surgir problemas de hepatotoxicidad y se vieron obligados a interrumpir su desarrollo. Tras muchos años con la investigación y los ensayos clínicos en parada indefinida, actualmente se ha conseguido que las moléculas Rimegepant y Atogepant no muestren dicha hepatotoxicidad y se encuentran en fase 3 de ensayo clínico.4 Posteriormente, se desarrollaron los anti-CGRP, anticuerpos monoclonales dirigidos contra CGRP (galcanezumab, fremanezumab) o contra su receptor (erenumab).5 Erenumab ha demostrado una reducción de 50 por ciento o más del número de días migrañosos al mes en 50 por ciento de pacientes, que recibieron dosis de 140 mg, en comparación con 26,6 por ciento de pacientes del grupo placebo. Galcanezumab, por su parte, ha objetivado una reducción de 50 por ciento o más de días migrañosos en 62,3 por ciento de pacientes, frente al 38,6 por ciento de pacientes del grupo placebo. Como consecuencia, también se ha objetivado una menor necesidad de uso agudo de medicamentos.6,7 En cuanto a la tolerancia y la seguridad, se ha visto que son fármacos seguros, cuyos efectos adversos más frecuentes son los efectos locales, en el lugar de inyección del fármaco (prurito, eritema, dolor), siendo estos leves. También se ha visto que pueden producir nasofaringitis, infecciones de vías respiratorias altas y sinusitis. La frecuencia de estos efectos adversos es similar a la que se produce en el grupo placebo e inferior a la de los tratamientos preventivos convencionales. Además, estos anticuerpos monoclonales no presentan interacciones farmacológicas o hepatotoxicidad y, a diferencia de la mayoría de los anticuerpos, no suprimen la función inmune. Otro dato muy importante que se ha visto reflejado en los resultados es que, para la gran mayoría de los consumidores, el fármaco no produce taquifilaxia. No obstante, dichos efectos adversos pueden surgir con el tiempo y con el uso, debido a que disponemos de una experiencia limitada con estos fármacos y, por tanto, habrá que mantener una vigilancia activa.8 Asimismo, debido a que el CGRP es un vasodilatador arterial y se ve inhibido por los anti-CGRP, se podría ver afectado el sistema cardiovascular, provocando hipertensión arterial. Esto podría aumentar los factores de riesgo cardiovascular, aunque se ha informado que estos fármacos no son vasoconstrictores per se. Para observar y notificar esta posible variable, se está desarrollando un estudio de 5 años de duración, durante los cuales se cuantificará este riesgo cardiovascular y se observará si aumenta con el tratamiento a largo plazo con Erenumab. Con Galcanezumab no se ha realizado ningún estudio de esta índole, si bien sí se han realizado este tipo de estudios a menor escala y con menor duración, sin que se hayan notificado problemas cardiovasculares. Este posible efecto adverso deberá ser estudiado con mayor profundidad en el futuro.9 Estos anticuerpos monoclonales están indicados tanto en la migraña episódica como en la crónica, si hay fracaso de 3 o más tratamientos preventivos. Este tratamiento tendrá impacto en la mejora de la calidad de vida de aquella población refractaria y que no dispone de más opciones. Sobre todo, en los pacientes con migraña episódica de alta frecuencia, los cuales, en caso de fracaso del tratamiento preventivo, no pueden beneficiarse de la toxina botulínica, como así lo hacen los que padecen de migraña crónica.10,11 Ambos fármacos (galcanezumab y erenumab) se administran por vía subcutánea; de esta forma, aumenta la adherencia al tratamiento al ser administrada de forma mensual, estos anticuerpos tienen una vida media larga. También aumenta la adherencia al tratamiento el hecho de que haya una rápida respuesta a la terapia. En caso de pacientes que no respondan al tratamiento, si no se observa una reducción de la frecuencia y la gravedad de los síntomas entre 1 a 3 meses tras el inicio, la terapia debe suspenderse.12 El desarrollo de estos nuevos fármacos supone un antes y un después en el tratamiento de la migraña, se trata de los primeros fármacos que fijan la diana terapéutica en una de las claves de la fisiopatología de esta enfermedad. Debido a ello, existe una eficacia científicamente demostrada superior a la del tratamiento convencional. No obstante, como problema, tenemos el elevado precio de costo de los medicamentos, que supone el principal impedimento en su indicación como primera o segunda línea de prevención, debiendo cumplir con los criterios anteriormente descritos.13 Con la llegada de los inhibidores del CGRP se abren las puertas a continuar la investigación y comprensión de la fisiopatología de la migraña que, en parte, aún es desconocida para, si cabe, mejorar aún más la vida de cientos de millones de personas en el mundo que padecen esta incapacitante enfermedad(AU)

Erenumab does not alter cerebral hemodynamics and endothelial function in migraine without aura.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether erenumab influences cerebral vasomotor reactivity and flow-mediated dilation in migraine patients. METHODS: Consecutive migraineurs prescribed erenumab at our Headache Centre and age and sex-matching controls were invited to participate in this observational longitudinal study. Patients were evaluated for cerebral vasomotor reactivity to hypercapnia (breath-holding index) in middle and posterior cerebral arteries and for brachial corrected flow mediated dilation at baseline (T0), after 2 weeks from the first erenumab injection (T2) and after 2 weeks from the fourth Erenumab injection (T18). Patients displaying a reduction of at least 50% in monthly migraine days after completing the fourth month of therapy were classified as responders. RESULTS: Sixty patients and 25 controls agreed to participate. Middle and posterior cerebral artery mean flow velocities, breath-holding index and flow-mediated dilation did not differ at T0 and from T0 to T2 in patients and controls. In patients, we neither observed a variation of the explored variables from T0 to T18 nor an interaction between evaluation times (T0-T2 or T0-T18) and chronic condition at T0, responder state or erenumab fourth dose. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that erenumab preserves cerebral vasomotor reactivity and flow-mediated dilation in migraineurs without aura.

Erenumab and OnabotulinumtoxinA Combination Therapy for the Prevention of Intractable Chronic Migraine without Aura: A Retrospective Analysis.

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that mediates calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP), a pro-inflammatory polypeptide implicated in migraine pathology, by targeting its receptor. To date, no clinical trial has evaluated combination therapy with both erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA therapy for the treatment of chronic migraine. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 78 patients to investigate if the addition of erenumab to patients with chronic migraines receiving onabotulinumtoxinA had a decrease in their total monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMD). At baseline, while on onabotulinumtoxinA, mean MHDs were 22.5 ± 8.7 and mean MMDs were 15.8 ± 8.3, and 65 patients (83.3%) failed at least three preventative therapies. Our results demonstrated a significant reduction in MHDs and MMDs at 30- (-6.8 MHDs; p < 0.001, -7.0 MMDs; p < 0.001), 60- (-7.2 MHDs; p < 0.001, -6.7 MMDs; p < 0.001), and 90 days (-8.1 MHDs; p < 0.001, -7.4 MMDs; p < 0.001). Thus, the results of this study suggest favorable outcomes with the addition of erenumab to patients who were still suffering while receiving onabotulinumtoxinA therapy. Additional investigation is needed to determine if erenumab in combination with onabotulinumtoxinA has an enhanced effect on the modulation of CGRP release from peripheral unmyelinated C fibers while also blocking CGRP receptors in the myelinated A-delta fibers.

Lasmiditan in patients with common migraine comorbidities: a post hoc efficacy and safety analysis of two phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether common migraine comorbidities affect the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor agonist approved in the United States for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: In SPARTAN and SAMURAI (double-blind Phase 3 clinical trials), patients with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Lasmiditan increased the proportion of pain-free and most bothersome symptom (MBS)-free patients at 2 h after dose compared with placebo. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness, paraesthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, muscular weakness, and hypoesthesia. Based upon literature review of common migraine comorbidities, Anxiety, Allergy, Bronchial, Cardiac, Depression, Fatigue, Gastrointestinal, Hormonal, Musculoskeletal/Pain, Neurological, Obesity, Sleep, and Vascular Comorbidity Groups were created. Using pooled results, efficacy and TEAEs were assessed to compare patients with or without a given common migraine comorbidity. To compare treatment groups, p-values were calculated for treatment-by-subgroup interaction, based on logistic regression with treatment-by-comorbidity condition status (Yes/No) as the interaction term; study, treatment group, and comorbidity condition status (Yes/No) were covariates. Differential treatment effect based upon comorbidity status was also examined. Trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). RESULTS: Across all the Comorbidity Groups, with the potential exception of fatigue, treatment-by-subgroup interaction analyses did not provide evidence of a lasmiditan-driven lasmiditan versus placebo differential treatment effect dependent on Yes versus No comorbidity subgroup for either efficacy or TEAE assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for treatment of individual migraine attacks appear to be independent of comorbid conditions.

An Open-Label Study Evaluating the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Diclofenac Potassium for Oral Solution for the Acute Treatment of MWA or MWoA in Pediatric Participants.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a single 50-mg oral dose of diclofenac potassium for oral solution (OS) in a pediatric cohort with a diagnosis of episodic migraine; the 3-month safety trial following an outpatient dosing period was also evaluated. BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents often experience migraine pain that is poorly controlled, which may affect their emotional and psychological well-being. Diclofenac potassium for OS is approved for the treatment of migraine with aura (MWA) or migraine without aura (MWoA) in adults 18 years of age or older. It is formulated in a soluble buffered powder that provides more rapid absorption than the tablet formulations of diclofenac potassium. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, more adult patients were pain-free at 2 hours post-dose following treatment with diclofenac potassium for OS than those who received the diclofenac tablet formulation or placebo. METHODS: This was a Phase 4 open-label study that took place at 2 US sites. Participants 12-17 years of age with a diagnosis of episodic MWA or MWoA for ≥3 months and ≤14 headaches per month were enrolled in the study. Participants received one 50-mg dose of diclofenac potassium for OS under fasted conditions on day 1. Blood samples were collected for PK analysis within 15 minutes pre-dose and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes post-dose, and at 2, 4, and 6 hours post-dose. Safety evaluations were performed after the initial dose and at the end of study on day 90; adverse events were monitored throughout the study. After completing the PK assessments, participants were given a 3-month supply (27 packets) of diclofenac potassium for OS (50-mg doses) for their migraine attacks. Participants were advised to take diclofenac potassium for OS at the onset of a migraine. They were told to take no more than 2 doses daily and not to use it more than 3 days/week. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants completed the study; 84% were females and 96% were white or Caucasian, with a mean age of 15.5 years and a mean weight of 63.1 kg. Diclofenac was rapidly absorbed with a median time to maximum concentration of 15 minutes and a mean peak plasma concentration of 1412 (±846.2) ng/mL. Diclofenac had a half-life of 66.8 (±9.2) minutes. The mean area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last measurable time point was 82,920.0 (±25,327.6) minutes × ng/mL, and the mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity was 84,388.8 (±25,993.6) minutes × ng/mL. Participants took the study drug an average of 10 times over 79 days, with an overall total drug exposure of 506 mg. No deaths or discontinuations due to an AE were reported during the study. The most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events were arthralgia and motion sickness, each of which occurred in 2 (8%) of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Diclofenac potassium for OS exhibited a favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profile in 12- to 17-year-old patients with a diagnosis of episodic MWA or MWoA.

Ischemic Stroke Associated With Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Inhibitor Therapy for Migraine: A Case Report.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is involved in nociception and neurogenic inflammation in migraine, but also serves as a potent vasodilator acting on intracranial arteries. This latter effect raises concern about the possibility of drugs inhibiting CGRP precipitating cerebral ischemia. We describe a 41-year-old woman with migraine without aura who developed a right thalamic infarction following a first dose of erenumab, a CGRP-receptor blocker. Stroke onset occurred during a typical migraine. Imaging demonsrated right posterior cerebral artery near-occlusion initially with normalization of the vessel at follow-up imaging 2 months later, suggesting vasospasm as a possible mechanism. Extensive evaluation revealed no other specific cause of stroke or vascular risk factors aside from long-term use of oral contraceptive pills. CGRP inhibitors might be associated with ischemic stroke due to blockade of normal cerebral vasodilatory regulatory function.

Association Between Sumatriptan Treatment During a Migraine Attack and Central 5-HT1B Receptor Binding.

Importance: Triptans, the most efficient acute treatment for migraine attacks, are 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, but their precise mechanism of action is not completely understood. The extent to which triptans enter the central nervous system and bind to 5-HT1B receptors in the brain is unknown. Objectives: To determine the occupancy of sumatriptan to central 5-HT1B receptors, and to investigate changes in brain serotonin levels during migraine attacks. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study of 8 patients in Denmark used a within-participant design and was conducted from April 20, 2015, to December 5, 2016. Participants were otherwise healthy patients with untreated episodic migraine without aura, aged between 18 and 65 years, and recruited from the general community. Data analysis was performed from January 2017 to April 2018. Interventions: All participants underwent positron emission tomographic scans after injection of [11C]AZ10419369, a specific 5-HT1B receptor radiotracer. All participants were scanned 3 times: (1) during an experimentally induced migraine attack, (2) after a subcutaneous injection of 6-mg subcutaneous sumatriptan, and (3) on a migraine attack-free day. Scans 1 and 2 were conducted on the same study day. Each scan lasted for 90 minutes. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was the nondisplaceable binding potential of [11C]AZ10419369 across 7 brain regions involved in pain modulation. The binding potential reflects receptor density, and changes in binding potential reflects displacement of the radiotracer. The occupancy of sumatriptan was estimated from the 2 scans before and after sumatriptan administration. Results: Eight patients with migraine were included in the study; of these participants, 7 (87%) were women. The mean (SD) age of participants on study day 1 was 29.5 (9.2) years and on study day 2 was 30.0 (8.9) years. Sumatriptan was associated with statistically significantly reduced 5-HT1B receptor binding across pain-modulating regions (mean [SD] binding potential, 1.20 [0.20] vs 1.02 [0.22]; P = .001), corresponding to a mean (SD) drug occupancy rate of 16.0% (5.3%). Furthermore, during migraine attacks, as compared with outside of attacks, 5-HT1B receptor binding was statistically significantly associated with reduced in pain-modulating regions (mean [SD] binding potential, 1.36 [0.22] vs 1.20 [0.20]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with sumatriptan during migraine attacks appeared to be associated with a decrease in 5-HT1B receptor binding, a finding that is most likely associated with the binding of sumatriptan to central 5-HT1B receptors, but the contribution of ongoing cerebral serotonin release to the lower binding cannot be excluded; the migraine attack-associated decrease in binding could indicate that migraine attacks are associated with increases in endogenous serotonin.

Effect of desogestrel 75 µg on headache frequency and intensity in women with migraine: a prospective controlled trial.

Objective: In contrast with combined hormonal contraception, progestin-only contraception is not associated with an increase in venous thromboembolism or stroke. Women with migraine are at increased risk of ischaemic stroke. Several studies have reported a reduction in migraine frequency and intensity with desogestrel 75 µg, a progestin-only pill. At present the quality of data is limited by retrospective study designs, lack of control groups and small sample sizes. We present the first prospective nonrandomised controlled trial. Methods: A total of 150 women with migraine visiting our clinic for contraceptive counselling were screened. The intervention group comprised women who opted for contraception with desogestrel (n = 98); the control group comprised women who continued their usual contraceptive (n = 36). Participants completed daily diaries for 90 days before the intervention and 180 days after the intervention. Results: In the intervention group, we found improvements in migraine frequency (p < .001), migraine intensity (p < .001) and the number of triptans used (p < .001). These improvements were already significant after 90 days of desogestrel use (p < .001). Disability scores also decreased significantly. No improvement was seen in the nonintervention group. Conclusion: These data demonstrate for the first time in a prospective controlled setting that daily use of the progestin desogestrel is associated with a decrease in migraine frequency, migraine intensity and pain medication use in women with migraine, with and without aura, who had previously been experiencing at least three days of migraine per month. Trial registration: The study is registered in the University of Zürich database ( www.research-projects.uzh.ch/unizh.htm ).

Using a Genetic Risk Score Approach to Predict Headache Response to Triptans in Migraine Without Aura.

A large meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies has recently identified a number of risk loci for migraine without aura (MwoA). In this study, we tested the hypothesis that a genetic risk score based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), previously reported to be associated with MwoA at genome-wide significance, may influence headache response to triptans in patients with migraine without aura. Genotyping of rs9349379, rs2078371, rs6478241, rs11172113, rs1024905, and rs6724624 was conducted with a real-time PCR allelic discrimination assay in 172 MwoA patients, of whom 36.6% were inconsistent responders to triptans. Each genetic risk score model was constructed as an unweighted score, calculated by adding the number of risk alleles for MwoA across each SNP at selected loci. The association with headache response to triptans was evaluated by logistic regression analysis adjusted for triptan, and the P values were corrected for the false discovery rate. The genetic risk score including susceptibility risk alleles at TRPM8 rs6724624 and FGF6 rs1024905 was found to be inversely associated with risk of inconsistent response to triptans (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.43-0.89; false discovery rate q value, 0.045). In addition, adding this genetic risk score to the triptan-adjusted logistic regression model significantly improved (P = .037) the discrimination accuracy, from 0.57 (95%CI, 0.50-0.65) to 0.64 (95%CI, 0.57-0.72). A modest but significant effect on risk of inconsistent response to triptans was identified for a genetic risk score model composed of 2 known risk alleles for MwoA, suggesting its potential utility in predicting headache response to triptan therapy.