Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes strategies for the preventive treatment of migraine including the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies and introduces novel paradigms for the preventive treatment of migraine. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS: Multiple migraine medications targeting CGRP have been introduced since 2018, including injectable monoclonal antibodies (ie, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (ie, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, and zavegepant). With the exceptions of ubrogepant and zavegepant, which are approved only as acute treatments, all of these agents have demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of migraine; the monoclonal antibodies and atogepant have evidence of effectiveness in adults with either episodic or chronic migraine. The safety and tolerability profiles of CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine are favorable. ESSENTIAL POINTS: The goals of preventive migraine therapy include reducing the frequency, severity, duration, and disability associated with attacks, reducing the need for acute treatment and the risk of medication overuse, enhancing self-efficacy and health-related quality of life, and reducing headache-related distress and interictal burden. Six drugs targeting CGRP (four monoclonal antibodies and two gepants) are now available for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. The efficacy of CGRP-targeted medications in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, together with good safety and tolerability, has led to the emergence of new approaches to preventive treatment.

A comparative study on prophylactic efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in childhood migraine: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric migraine prophylaxis is indicated when headaches are frequent and/or disabling. We aimed to conduct a study to compare the efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in pediatric migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 4-17 years with migraine who were eligible for prophylaxis enrolled. The primary outcome was a reduction response rate of ≥50% with p < 0.005 with respect to headache characteristics. The secondary outcome was migraine disability assessment. We evaluated patients every four weeks for three months: T1: week 4, T2: week 8 and T3: week 12. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to each group. However, 43 patients completed the trial. Headache frequency decreased in amitriptyline group more effectively in T1 (p = 0.004). Amitriptyline was more successful in reducing the headache duration in all three periods (p < 0.005). There was no significant difference in severity improvement and reducing disability score between the two groups (p > 0.005). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both medications are effective in ameliorating migraine headaches and related disabilities. However, amitriptyline appears be a preferable option over cinnarizine, given its faster onset of action, efficacy in reducing headache duration and longer-lasting effects.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the code IRCT-20191112045413N1.

Rationale and design of the SPRING trail: effectivity and safety of Pfo closuRe vs medIcine in alleviatiNg migraine, a multicenter, randomized and open-label trail.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Several retrospective studies have suggested that the closure of the Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) may provide relief from migraines. However, three randomized controlled trials did not meet their primary endpoints regarding migraine cessation, reduction in monthly migraine days, and responder rates. METHODS: The SPRING study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, and open-label trial designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure versus medication in the relief of migraines. The primary endpoint is the total cessation of migraines, as recorded in patient headache diaries during the follow-up period. Additional diagnostic tools include echocardiography with agitated saline contrast, transcranial Doppler, and routine laboratory measurements. CONCLUSION: The SPRING trial aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure versus medication in mitigating migraines in real-world settings. (Clinical Trails ID: NCT04946734).

Medication "underuse" headache.

BACKGROUND: Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification. METHODS: Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication. RESULTS: The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun. CONCLUSIONS: The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Pharmacogenomic study-A pilot study of the effect of pharmacogenomic phenotypes on the adequate dosing of verapamil for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes. BACKGROUND: Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the doses of verapamil for migraine prevention were assessed. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 33 migraine patients (82% with aura). The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses of verapamil were 178.2(20-320) mg and 227.9(20-480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

Unsatisfactory response to acute medications does not affect the medication overuse headache development in pediatric chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) negatively impacts the quality of life of 2 to 4% of pediatric patients. In adults, CM is frequently linked to medication overuse headache (MOH), but there is a much lower prevalence of MOH in children. A suboptimal response to acute therapies may lead to their reduced use, thus preventing MOH development in children and adolescents. The frequency of patients with CM who do not respond to acute therapies was examined in the present study. We investigated whether the prevalence of MOH was different between responders and non-responders. We also examined whether patients receiving prophylactic therapy had an improved response to acute therapy. Finally, we investigated if there was a difference in the frequency of psychiatric comorbidities between responders and non-responders. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed clinical data of all chronic pediatric migraineurs under the age of 18 referred to the Headache Centre at Bambino Gesù Children Hospital in June 2021 and February 2023. ICHD3 criteria were used to diagnose CM and MOH. We collected demographic data, including the age at onset of migraine and the age of the CM course. At baseline and after 3 months of preventive treatment, we evaluated the response to acute medications. Neuropsychiatric comorbidities were referred by the children's parents during the first attendance evaluation. RESULTS: Seventy patients with CM were assessed during the chosen period. Paracetamol was tried by 41 patients (58.5%), NSAIDs by 56 patients (80.0%), and triptans by 1 patient (1.4%). Fifty-one participants (73%) were non-responder to the abortive treatment. The presence of MOH was detected in 27.1% of the whole populations. Regarding our primary aim, MOH was diagnosed in 29% of non-responder patients and 22% of responders (p > 0.05). All patients received preventative treatment. After 3 months of preventive pharmacological therapy, 65.4% of patients who did not respond to acute medications achieved a response, while 34.6% of patients who were non-responder remain non-responder (p < 0.05). Prophylactic therapy was also effective in 69% of patients who responded to acute medication (p < 0.05). Psychiatric comorbidities were detected in 68.6% of patients, with no difference between responders and non-responders (72.2% vs. 67.3%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high prevalence of unresponsiveness to acute therapies in pediatric CM, it does not act as a protective factor for MOH. Moreover, responsiveness to acute drugs is improved by pharmacological preventive treatment and it is not affected by concomitant psychiatric comorbidities.

An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease with a substantial societal burden due to lost productivity. From a societal perspective, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: An individual patient simulation of discrete competing events was developed to evaluate eptinezumab cost-effectiveness compared to best supportive care for adults in the United Kingdom with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and prior failure of ≥ 3 preventive migraine treatments. Individuals with sampled baseline characteristics were created to represent this population, which comprised dedicated episodic and chronic migraine subpopulations. Clinical efficacy, utility, and work productivity inputs were based on results from the DELIVER randomised controlled trial (NCT04418765). Timing of natural history events and treatment holidays-informed by the literature-were simulated to unmask any natural improvement of the disease unrelated to treatment. The primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, migraine-associated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit, each evaluated over a 5-year time horizon from 2020. Secondary analyses explored a lifetime horizon and an alternative treatment stopping rule. RESULTS: Treatment with eptinezumab resulted in an average of 0.231 QALYs gained at a saving of £4,894 over 5 years, making eptinezumab dominant over best supportive care (i.e., better health outcomes and less costly). This result was confirmed by the probabilistic analysis and all alternative assumption scenarios under the same societal perspective. Univariate testing of inputs showed net monetary benefit was most sensitive to the number of days of productivity loss, and monthly salary. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation shows that from a societal perspective, eptinezumab is a cost-effective treatment in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and for whom ≥ 3 other preventive migraine treatments have failed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Migraine and the microbiota. Can probiotics be beneficial in its prevention? - a narrative review.

Migraine is a recurrent disease of the central nervous system that affects an increasing number of people worldwide causing a continuous increase in the costs of treatment. The mechanisms underlying migraine are still unclear but recent reports show that people with migraine may have an altered composition of the intestinal microbiota. It is well established that the gut-brain axis is involved in many neurological diseases, and probiotic supplementation may be an interesting treatment option for these conditions. This review collects data on the gastrointestinal and oral microbiota in people suffering from migraine and the use of probiotics as a novel therapeutic approach in its treatment.

Effects of prophylactic drug therapies and anti-calcitonin peptide-related monoclonal antibodies on subjective sleep quality: An Italian multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: sleep alterations strongly influence migraine severity. Prophylactic therapies have a major impact on migraine frequency and associated symptoms. The study purpose was to compare the impact of oral drug therapies or gene-related anti-calcitonin monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) on sleep alterations. We also evaluated which drug therapies are more effective on sleep quality and the different impact on migraine frequency and life quality. PATIENTS/METHODS: this is a multicenter, prospective study conducted in three specialized headache centers (Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona; University of Palermo, Palermo; Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico, Rome). At baseline, we assigned migraine patients to preventive therapy with first-line drugs or anti-CGRP mAbs. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scales were administered. After three months, we re-evaluated the patients with the same scales. RESULTS: 214 patients were enrolled. Any prophylaxis was significantly associated with a reduction in PSQI score (mean difference 1.841; 95%CI:1.413-2.269; p < 0.0001), most significantly in the anti-CGRP mAb group (mean difference 1.49; 95%CI:2.617-0.366; p = 0.010). Anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in significant improvement in migraine severity and MIDAS scores. Among oral therapies, calcium antagonists and antidepressants were the most effective in reducing PSQI score between T0 and T1 (p = 0.042; p = 0.049; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: anti-CGRP mAbs revitalized the management of migraine with stable and well-documented efficacy. Our data also suggest that anti-CGRP mAbs result in a positive effect on sleep quality, with a significant improvement in PSQI scores. Knowing the relevant impact of sleep disruption on migraine severity, these data could help for the management of migraine patients.

The effect of selenium supplementation on oxidative stress, clinical symptoms and mental health status in patients with migraine: a study protocol for a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a number of recommended strategies, effective treatment of migraine remains elusive. Given the role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of migraine, selenium, as an antioxidant nutrient, may have a beneficial effect on migraine outcomes. However, no study has explored the effects of selenium supplementation on migraine symptoms, oxidative stress biomarkers, and mental health. Therefore, this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial aims to examine the effects of selenium supplementation among migraine patients. METHODS: Seventy-two migraine patients will receive either 200 µg/day selenium supplement (n = 36) or placebo (n = 36) for 12 weeks in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. The severity, frequency, and duration of headaches, mental health indices including depression, anxiety, and distress, and quality of life, as well as biomarkers of oxidative stress such as nitric oxide (NO), malondialdehyde (MDA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), and total oxidant status (TOS), will be measured at the baseline and end of the study. The intention-to-treat (ITT) approach will be used to estimate missing values. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be performed to detect the effect of selenium supplementation on outcome variables. DISCUSSION: Oxidative stress is recognized as a key contributor to migraine pathogenesis. Selenium is an essential trace element with antioxidant properties, capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB), holding promise to alleviate the oxidative stress and neurotoxicity. Thus, selenium may beneficially affect clinical symptoms and oxidative stress as well as the quality of life in migraine patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials ( https://www.irct.ir/ ) on 27 May 2023 with the code number IRCT20121216011763N60.

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.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication.

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group. CONCLUSIONS: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

A 12-week randomized double-blind clinical trial of eicosapentaenoic acid intervention in episodic migraine.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may benefit migraine improvement, though prior studies are inconclusive. This study evaluated the effect of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on episodic migraine (EM) prevention. Seventy individuals with EM participated in a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from March 2020 and May 2022. They were randomly assigned to either the EPA (N = 35, 2 g fish oil with 1.8 g of EPA as a stand-alone treatment daily), or the placebo group (N = 35, 2 g soybean oil daily). Migraine frequency and headache severity were assessed using the monthly migraine days, visual analog scale (VAS), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in comparison to baseline measurements. The EPA group significantly outperformed the placebo in reducing monthly migraine days (-4.4 ± 5.1 days vs. - 0.6 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.001), days using acute headache medication (-1.3 ± 3.0 days vs. 0.1 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.035), improving scores for headache severity (ΔVAS score: -1.3 ± 2.4 vs. 0.0 ± 2.2, p = 0.030), disability (ΔMIDAS score: -13.1 ± 16.2 vs. 2.6 ± 20.2, p = 0.001), anxiety and depression (ΔHADS score: -3.9 ± 9.4 vs. 1.1 ± 9.1, p = 0.025), and quality of life (ΔMSQ score: -11.4 ± 19.0 vs. 3.1 ± 24.6, p = 0.007). Notably, female particularly benefited from EPA, underscoring its potential in migraine management. In conclusion, high-dose EPA has significantly reduced migraine frequency and severity, improved psychological symptoms and quality of life in EM patients, and shown no major adverse events, suggesting its potential as a prophylactic for EM.

Structural equation modeling for identifying the drivers of health-related quality of life improvement experienced by patients with migraine receiving eptinezumab.

BACKGROUND: As new migraine therapies emerge, it is crucial for measures to capture the complexities of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement beyond improvements in monthly migraine day (MMD) reduction. Investigations into the correlations between MMD reduction, symptom management, and HRQoL are lacking, particularly those that focus on improvements in canonical symptoms and improvement in patient-identified most-bothersome symptoms (PI-MBS), in patients treated with eptinezumab. This exploratory analysis identified efficacy measures mediating the effect of eptinezumab on HRQoL improvements in patients with migraine. METHODS: Data from the DELIVER study of patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures (NCT04418765) were inputted to two structural equation models describing sources of HRQoL improvement via Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) scores. A single latent variable was defined to represent HRQoL and describe the sources of HRQoL in DELIVER. One model included all migraine symptoms while the second model included the PI-MBS as the only migraine symptom. Mediating variables capturing different aspects of efficacy included MMDs, other canonical symptoms, and PI-MBS. RESULTS: In the first model, reductions in MMDs and other canonical symptoms accounted for 35% (standardized effect size [SES] - 0.11) and 25% (SES - 0.08) of HRQoL improvement, respectively, with 41% (SES - 0.13) of improvement comprising "direct treatment effect," i.e., unexplained by mediators. In the second model, substantial HRQoL improvement with eptinezumab (86%; SES - 0.26) is due to MMD reduction (17%; SES - 0.05) and change in PI-MBS (69%; SES - 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in HRQoL experienced by patients treated with eptinezumab can be substantially explained by its effect on migraine frequency and PI-MBS. Therefore, in addition to MMD reduction, healthcare providers should discuss PI-MBS improvements, since this may impact HRQoL. Health technology policymakers should consider implications of these findings in economic evaluation, as they point to alternative measurement of quality-adjusted life years to capture fully treatment benefits in cost-utility analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ; EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches. METHODS: Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. RESULTS: The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare. CONCLUSION: The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Efficacy of migraine prophylaxis treatments for treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171843.

How early can we treat migraine attacks? A perspective based on prodrome.

Treating migraine attacks early at the onset of a headache is a common proven strategy. But does this strategy work before headache onset? In the PRODROME trial, Dodick et al. showed that ubrogepant taken during the prodrome can prevent headache attacks and reduce functional disability.1.

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

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