Situational prevention: Pharmacotherapy during periods of increased risk for migraine attacks.

The small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication-overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo-controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy.

Injection technique of the upper face with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to review the technique of onabotulinumtoxinA injection treatment in the glabellar and frontal regions using the PREEMPT (Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy) paradigm, with review of the aesthetic issues related to the procedure. OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective medication for the prevention of chronic migraine. The PREEMPT injection paradigm has been validated in randomized clinical trials and real-world settings. This treatment includes injections in the forehead and glabella area. In addition, for aesthetic uses, glabella onabotulinumtoxinA injections are done in similar muscles specifically the procerus, corrugator supercilii, and frontalis muscles. Often patients who have been injected with onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine have concerns about their appearance and will ask if they can see an aesthetic injector to improve this. This is a difficult issue as onabotulinumtoxinA should be injected with an interval of 10-12 weeks to avoid development of antibodies against onabotulinumtoxinA, so all injections (migraine and aesthetic) should ideally be done close together; however, if an aesthetic injection is done on the same day as a PREEMPT injection, the effect of the PREEMPT injection will not yet be visible as it takes time for onabotulinumtoxinA effects to be seen. Thus, there is a risk of a potential overdose in a particular area if aesthetic injections are done without input from the PREEMPT injector. METHODS: This is a narrative review supported by photographic documentation showing the technique of onabotulinumtoxinA injection of the upper face, considering anatomical differences between patients, and combining the needs in neurology and aesthetic medicine fields. RESULTS: Practitioners treating chronic migraine often modify some of the principles of the PREEMPT paradigm. Many practitioners are unsure about injections in the glabellar and frontal areas. The authors present a technique for using the PREEMPT protocol and adapting this to the individual patient's anatomy to prevent an unsightly appearance or ptosis. In addition, sites are provided where an aesthetic injector could inject to improve the patient's appearance without overlapping with the PREEMPT injection sites. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the PREEMPT injection protocol provides an evidence-based approach to achieving clinical benefit for patients with chronic migraine. Aesthetic elements of the treatment of the glabella and forehead require additional attention. The authors provide practical considerations and recommendations regarding this.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. METHODS: A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination. CONCLUSION: The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Once-daily oral atogepant for the long-term preventive treatment of migraine: Findings from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of once-daily oral atogepant 60 mg in adults with migraine. BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of adults (18-80 years) with migraine. Lead-in trial completers or newly enrolled participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were enrolled and randomized (5:2) to atogepant 60 mg once daily or oral standard care (SC) migraine preventive medication. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atogepant; safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory evaluations, vital signs, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores. Efficacy assessments (atogepant only) included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) and the proportion of participants with reductions from baseline of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% in MMDs. RESULTS: The trial included 744 participants randomized to atogepant 60 mg (n = 546) or SC (n = 198). The atogepant safety population was 88.2% female (n = 479/543) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 42.5 (12.0) years. TEAEs occurred in 67.0% (n = 364/543) of participants treated with atogepant 60 mg. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥5%) were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%; 56/543), constipation (7.2%; 39/543), nausea (6.3%; 34/543), and urinary tract infection (5.2%; 28/543). Serious TEAEs were reported in 4.4% (24/543) for atogepant. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs for atogepant was -3.8 (0.1) for weeks 1-4 and -5.2 (0.2) at weeks 49-52. Similarly, the proportion of participants with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions in MMDs increased from 60.4% (310/513), 37.2% (191/513), and 20.7% (106/513) at weeks 1-4 to 84.2% (282/335), 69.9% (234/335), and 48.4% (162/335), at weeks 49-52. CONCLUSION: Daily use of oral atogepant 60 mg for preventive treatment of migraine during this 1-year, open-label trial was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle.

BACKGROUND: Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). RESULTS: There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response. CONCLUSION: No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Remote electrical neuromodulation for migraine prevention: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), used every other day, for the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: Preventive treatment is key to managing migraine, but it is often underutilized. REN, a non-pharmacological acute treatment for migraine, was evaluated as a method of migraine prevention in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial, with 1:1 ratio. The study consisted of a 4-week baseline observation phase, and an 8-week double-blind intervention phase in which participants used either REN or a placebo stimulation every other day. Throughout the study, participants reported their symptoms daily, via an electronic diary. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomized (128 active, 120 placebo), of which 179 qualified for the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis (95 active; 84 placebo). REN was superior to placebo in the primary endpoint, change in mean number of migraine days per month from baseline, with mean reduction of 4.0 ± SD of 4.0 days (1.3 ± 4.0 in placebo, therapeutic gain = 2.7 [confidence interval -3.9 to -1.5], p < 0.001). The significance was maintained when analyzing the episodic (-3.2 ± 3.4 vs. -1.0 ± 3.6, p = 0.003) and chronic (-4.7 ± 4.4 vs. -1.6 ± 4.4, p = 0.001) migraine subgroups separately. REN was also superior to placebo in reduction of moderate/severe headache days (3.8 ± 3.9 vs. 2.2 ± 3.6, p = 0.005), reduction of headache days of all severities (4.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.8 ± 4.6, p < 0.001), percentage of patients achieving 50% reduction in moderate/severe headache days (51.6% [49/95] vs. 35.7% [30/84], p = 0.033), and reduction in days of acute medication intake (3.5 ± 4.1 vs. 1.4 ± 4.3, p = 0.001). Similar results were obtained in the ITT analysis. No serious device-related adverse events were reported in any group. CONCLUSION: Applied every other day, REN is effective and safe for the prevention of migraine.

Adjunctive treatment of chronic migraine using an oral dental device: overview and results of a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the nocioceptive input of habitual nocturnal jaw clenching that acts as a contributing factor in migraine pathogenesis. BACKGROUND: Habitual nocturnal jaw clenching has been implicated as a trigger, particularly in those whose headaches are present upon waking or shortly thereafter. Nocturnal EMG studies of patients diagnosed with migraine show nearly twice the temporalis clenching EMG levels and double the bite force as matched asymptomatic controls, leading to the speculation that parafunctional clenching activity may have some role in headache pathogenesis. The NTI (Nociceptive Trigeminal Inhibition) oral device is a dental splint designed to reduce nocturnal jaw clenching intensity and is FDA approved for the prevention of medically diagnosed migraine pain based on open label studies. There are no prior placebo-controlled trials to assess the migraine prevention efficacy of the NTI splint. This is the first placebo-controlled cross-over study to assess the efficacy of the NTI splint in patients with Chronic Migraine. METHOD: A placebo controlled, single-blinded cross-over study was done with IRB oversight assessing the efficacy of the NTI splint compared to placebo using the change in the HIT-6 score as the outcome measure. RESULTS: 68% of refractory chronic migraine sufferers using the NTI as measured by sequential HIT 6 scores had at least a one-category improvement (severe to substantial, or substantial to some, or some to none) compared to 12% when using a placebo device. 36% of subjects using the NTI device reported a two-category improvement in their HIT-6 score, compared to 0% when using placebo. CONCLUSION: The improvement in HIT-6 scores produced by the NTI device, suggests that patients with Chronic Migraine may have intense nocturnal jaw clenching as a contributing factor to their headache related disability. An NTI device is one method of assessing whether jaw-clenching is a contributing factor to ongoing migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT04871581. 04/05/2021. Retrospectively registered.

Does "wearing off" of efficacy occur in galcanezumab-treated patients at the end of the monthly treatment cycle? Post hoc analyses of four phase III randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to propose a definition of "wearing off" at the individual patient-level and determine the percentage of patients with migraine who experience "wearing off" of efficacy of galcanezumab at the end of a treatment cycle using this predefined threshold. BACKGROUND: Anecdotal reports suggest that some patients may experience "wearing off" of efficacy during the last week of their calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment cycle. A previous post hoc analysis of galcanezumab demonstrated consistent efficacy at each week throughout all monthly dosing intervals at the population-level, but "wearing off" has not been assessed at the individual patient-level. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data from four galcanezumab phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in a total of 2680 patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and CONQUER studies) or chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN and CONQUER studies) were conducted. "Wearing off" was defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 2 weekly migraine headache days in the last week of the treatment cycle compared to the second week for at least 2 months. The analyses were conducted (1) in all patients and (2) in patients with a clinically meaningful response to treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients meeting the threshold of "wearing off" was not statistically significantly different among the placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups, both in the total population and in patients with a clinically meaningful response (all ≤9.0%). Although the frequency of "wearing off" in patients with CM and prior preventive failures was numerically greater in the galcanezumab groups (8/89 or 9.0%) compared to placebo (3/95 or 3.2%), these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous analyses at the population-level that showed no evidence of decreased efficacy at the end of a treatment cycle, rates of individual patients meeting the threshold of "wearing off" in this analysis were low and similar among placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups.

Erenumab dosage for migraine prevention: An evidence-based narrative review with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor or its ligand have changed the landscape of treatment options for migraine. Erenumab is the first and only fully human monoclonal antibody designed to target and block the CGRP receptor. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The recommended dose of erenumab is 70 mg monthly, with guidance that some patients may benefit from the 140 mg monthly dose. There is a need for information to guide clinical practice on the comparative efficacy and safety of these two dosing options. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate therapeutic and tolerability differences between erenumab 70 and 140 mg based on evidence from published literature. METHODS: This narrative review evaluates therapeutic and tolerability differences between erenumab 70 and 140 mg based on a literature search using PubMed interface, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE(R) databases. The key search terms included migraine, AMG 334, AMG334, erenumab, erenumab-aooe, and Aimovig. The search was limited to English language articles or conference abstracts published up to May 2021. RESULTS: From the literature search, we retrieved 23 relevant articles/conference abstracts (19 articles [5 randomized, double-blind studies] and 4 conference abstracts) for inclusion in this narrative review. Although the recommended starting dosage of erenumab is 70 mg, this narrative review of the literature indicates that some patients may benefit from a dosage of 140 mg erenumab once monthly-especially those with difficult-to-treat disease and prior treatment failures. The evidence indicates that erenumab at 140 mg has a numerically better efficacy than 70 mg across a broad spectrum of migraine outcomes, including preventing progression to chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: Cumulative data from the literature support a therapeutic gain with an increase from erenumab 70 to 140 mg and a rationale for initiating 140 mg in selected patients.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories. METHODS: ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom. RESULTS: Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Time course of efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated. METHODS: ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC90 for nearly 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709).

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. BACKGROUND: Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double-blind, phase 3, single-attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants' historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve, respectively. Response rates on co-primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of ubrogepant when coadministered with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibody migraine preventives in participants with migraine: A randomized phase 1b drug-drug interaction study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of two calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), erenumab and galcanezumab, on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant. BACKGROUND: People taking CGRP-targeted mAbs for migraine prevention sometimes take ubrogepant, an oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, for acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. DESIGN: In this two-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 1b trial, adults with migraine were randomized to arm 1 (ubrogepant ± erenumab) or arm 2 (ubrogepant ± galcanezumab). The PK profile of ubrogepant was characterized for administration before and 4 days after CGRP-targeted mAb injection. Participants received single-dose ubrogepant 100 mg on day 1, subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg (arm 1) or galcanezumab 240 mg (arm 2) on day 8, and ubrogepant 100 mg once daily on days 12-15. In each study arm, serial blood samples were drawn on days 1 and 12 for measurement of plasma ubrogepant concentrations. The primary outcomes were area under the plasma ubrogepant concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to t post-dose (AUC0- t ) and from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf ), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of ubrogepant when ubrogepant was administered before or after a single dose of erenumab or galcanezumab. Vital signs and laboratory parameters were monitored. RESULTS: Forty participants enrolled (20 per arm; mean [standard deviation] ages, 32.2 [8.9] and 38.4 [8.8] years; 50% [10/20] and 60% [12/20] female in arms 1 and 2, respectively). There were no significant differences in ubrogepant Cmax after versus before erenumab administration (geometric least-squares mean [LSM] ratio, 1.04 [90% CI, 0.93-1.16]), and no significant differences in AUC0- t (1.06 [0.96-1.16]) or AUC0-inf (1.05 [0.96-1.15]). Similarly, ubrogepant Cmax (1.00 [90% CI, 0.82-1.20]), AUC0- t (1.05 [0.90-1.23]), and AUC0-inf (1.05 [0.90-1.22]) geometric LSM ratios were statistically equivalent after galcanezumab versus ubrogepant alone. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those reported with each treatment alone. No serious TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, or clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters or vital signs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The PK profile of ubrogepant was not significantly changed and no safety concerns were identified when ubrogepant was coadministered with erenumab or galcanezumab.

Mechanism of Action of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Chronic Migraine: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the mechanism of action of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine. BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is a chronic migraine preventive treatment that significantly reduces headache frequency. The traditional mechanism described for onabotulinumtoxinA - reducing muscle contractions - is insufficient to explain its efficacy in migraine, which is primarily a sensory neurological disease. METHODS: A narrative literature review on the mechanism of action of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine. RESULTS: Following injection into tissues, onabotulinumtoxinA inhibits soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion attachment protein receptor (SNARE)-mediated vesicle trafficking by cleaving one of its essential proteins, soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion attachment protein (SNAP-25), which occurs in both motor and sensory nerves. OnabotulinumtoxinA inhibits regulated exocytosis of motor and sensory neurochemicals and proteins, as well as membrane insertion of peripheral receptors that convey pain from the periphery to the brain, because both processes are SNARE dependent. OnabotulinumtoxinA can decrease exocytosis of pro-inflammatory and excitatory neurotransmitters and neuropeptides such as substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, and glutamate from primary afferent fibers that transmit nociceptive pain and participate in the development of peripheral and central sensitization. OnabotulinumtoxinA also decreases the insertion of pain-sensitive ion channels such as transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1) into the membranes of nociceptive neurons; this is likely enhanced in the sensitized neuron. For chronic migraine prevention, onabotulinumtoxinA is injected into 31-39 sites in 7 muscles of the head and neck. Sensory nerve endings of neurons whose cell bodies are located in trigeminal and cervical ganglia are distributed throughout the injected muscles, and are overactive in people with migraine. Through inhibition of these sensory nerve endings, onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number of pain signals that reach the brain and consequently prevents activation and sensitization of central neurons postulated to be involved in migraine chronification. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA likely acts via sensory mechanisms to treat chronic migraine.

No "Wearing-Off Effect" Seen in Quarterly or Monthly Dosing of Fremanezumab: Subanalysis of a Randomized Long-Term Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether quarterly or monthly administration of fremanezumab for migraine prevention exhibits a pattern of decreased efficacy toward the end of the dosing interval (wearing-off effect). BACKGROUND: The main goals of migraine preventive treatment are to reduce the frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks, and migraine-associated disability. Wearing-off refers to the phenomenon whereby clinical symptoms return or worsen before the next dose of a drug is due and has been reported previously with migraine preventive medications. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a long-term, 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study (NCT02638103) that included chronic (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) patients who rolled over from the 12-week phase 3 HALO CM (NCT02621931) and EM trials (NCT02629861), as well as an additional subset of 312 new patients. Patients with CM or EM received fremanezumab either monthly or quarterly. In this post hoc analysis, for selected months, the difference in the average number of migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 3-4, between weeks 1-3 and week 4, and between weeks 1-2 and weeks 11-12 were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1890 patients (CM, 1110; EM, 780) were enrolled. At months 3, 6, 9, and 15, there were no substantial differences in mean weekly migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 3-4 or between weeks 1-3 and week 4 with quarterly or monthly fremanezumab in the CM or EM subgroups. There were no substantial increases in mean weekly migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 11-12 during the first quarter of treatment (months 1-3) or the second quarter of treatment (months 4-6) with quarterly or monthly fremanezumab in the CM or EM subgroups. Across both dosing subgroups in CM and EM patients, the mean weekly number of migraine days decreased substantially (30%-42%) during the first 2 weeks; decreases in weekly migraine days remained steady during the last 2 weeks of the first quarter, with a similar maintenance of response during the second quarter. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of data from a long-term, phase 3 study showed that patients receiving quarterly fremanezumab or monthly fremanezumab did not experience a wearing-off effect toward the end of the dosing interval.

Lasmiditan mechanism of action - review of a selective 5-HT1F agonist.

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but it is still underdiagnosed and undertreated. Research on the pathophysiology of this neurological disease led to the discovery that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key neuropeptide involved in pain signaling during a migraine attack. CGRP-mediated neuronal sensitization and glutamate-based second- and third-order neuronal signaling may be an important component involved in migraine pain. The activation of several serotonergic receptor subtypes can block the release of CGRP, other neuropeptides, and neurotransmitters, and can relieve the symptoms of migraine. Triptans were the first therapeutics developed for the treatment of migraine, working through serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptors. The discovery that the serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) receptor was expressed in the human trigeminal ganglion suggested that this receptor subtype may have a role in the treatment of migraine. The 5-HT1F receptor is found on terminals and cell bodies of trigeminal ganglion neurons and can modulate the release of CGRP from these nerves. Unlike 5-HT1B receptors, the activation of 5-HT1F receptors does not cause vasoconstriction.The potency of different serotonergic agonists towards 5-HT1F was correlated in an animal model of migraine (dural plasma protein extravasation model) leading to the development of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan is a newly approved acute treatment for migraine in the United States and is a lipophilic, highly selective 5-HT1F agonist that can cross the blood-brain barrier and act at peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS) sites.Lasmiditan activation of CNS-located 5-HT1F receptors (e.g., in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis) could potentially block the release of CGRP and the neurotransmitter glutamate, thus preventing and possibly reversing the development of central sensitization. Activation of 5-HT1F receptors in the thalamus can block secondary central sensitization of this region, which is associated with progression of migraine and extracephalic cutaneous allodynia. The 5-HT1F receptors are also elements of descending pain modulation, presenting another site where lasmiditan may alleviate migraine. There is emerging evidence that mitochondrial dysfunction might be implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine, and that 5-HT1F receptors can promote mitochondrial biogenesis. While the exact mechanism is unknown, evidence suggests that lasmiditan can alleviate migraine through 5-HT1F agonist activity that leads to inhibition of neuropeptide and neurotransmitter release and inhibition of PNS trigeminovascular and CNS pain signaling pathways.

Effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for chronic migraine on common comorbidities including depression and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for chronic migraine (CM) on comorbid symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue and poor sleep quality. METHODS: The Chronic Migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open-Label (COMPEL) study is a multicentre, open-label, prospective study assessing the long-term safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U over nine treatments (108 weeks) in adults with CM. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales were used to assess the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on comorbid symptoms of depression and anxiety, respectively. A clinically meaningful improvement was assessed by the percentage of patients experiencing a ≥1 severity category reduction in PHQ-9 and GAD-7. The effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on associated sleep quality and fatigue were assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Fatigue Severity Scale, respectively. RESULTS: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment was associated with sustained reduction in headache days and PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores in the analysis population (n=715) over 108 weeks. PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were significantly reduced at all time points in patients with clinically significant symptoms of depression and/or anxiety at baseline. By week 108, 78.0% and 81.5% had clinically meaningful improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Sleep quality and symptoms of fatigue also improved; however, less is understood about clinically meaningful changes in these measures. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: In addition to reducing headache frequency, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM was associated with clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety, and improved associated symptoms of poor sleep quality and fatigue. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01516892.

FORWARD Study: Evaluating the Comparative Effectiveness of OnabotulinumtoxinA and Topiramate for Headache Prevention in Adults With Chronic Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for chronic migraine (CM) prevention. BACKGROUND: The efficacy* of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate has been established in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (*defined as the benefit of treatment under ideal conditions). The effectiveness* of the 2 preventive treatments, however, has not been established (*the benefit of treatment under real-world conditions, representing a blend of efficacy and tolerability). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, post-authorization, open-label prospective study (FORWARD; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02191579), we randomized adults with CM (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 3 cycles or topiramate "immediate release" 50-100 mg/day to week 36. Primary outcome measure was proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in headache days (weeks 29-32). Missing values were imputed using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) methodology. After 12 weeks, patients initially randomized to topiramate could cross over to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. We monitored and recorded all adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: We enrolled 282 patients (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 140; topiramate, n = 142) and 148 patients completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 120 [86%]; topiramate, n = 28 [20%]). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 7 [5%]; topiramate, n = 27 [19%]) and AEs (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 5 [4%]; topiramate, n = 72 [51%]). Eighty topiramate patients crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA. In the BOCF analysis, a significantly higher proportion of patients randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA experienced ≥50% reduction in headache frequency compared with those randomized to topiramate (40% [56/140] vs 12% [17/142], respectively; adjusted OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.7-9.1]; P < .001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was superior to topiramate in meeting secondary endpoints. In a post hoc analysis using observed data, the 50% responder rates at week 12 were 45.6% for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 125) and 29.4% for topiramate (n = 109) (P = .015). AEs were reported by 48% (105/220) of onabotulinumtoxinA and 79% (112/142) of topiramate patients. Results were similar in those who crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: While using imputation methods of accounting for differences in discontinuation rates, we found onabotulinumtoxinA to have greater clinical utility than topiramate, largely because of tolerability issues associated with the latter and a relatively higher number of onabotulinumtoxinA patients remaining on treatment.

Effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine patients with and without daily headache at baseline: results from the COMPEL Study.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in preventing chronic migraine (CM); however, the benefit of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM with daily headache is unknown because these patients are typically excluded from clinical trials. This subanalysis of the COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without daily headache. METHODS: In total, 715 patients received onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U with or without concomitant oral preventive treatment. Patients who had complete daily diary records for the 28 days of the baseline period were stratified based on daily headache status. The primary outcome variable was reduction in headache-day frequency per 28-day period at 108 weeks (after 9 treatment cycles) relative to baseline. Exploratory outcomes included moderate to severe headache days, migraine disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire v2 [MSQ]). Adverse events and their relatedness were recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 641 patients had complete daily diary records at baseline. In patients with daily headache (n = 138) versus without (n = 503), treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in 28-day headache-day frequency relative to baseline at week 108 (- 10.5 [9.2] vs - 12.2 [6.7], respectively; both P < 0.001) with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.132). The mean (SD) reduction in moderate to severe headache days at week 108 was significant in patients with and without daily headache (- 11.5 [9.4] and - 9.9 [6.4]; P < 0.001) with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.153). Mean (SD) MIDAS scores significantly improved from baseline at week 108 (- 43.3 [73.4] and - 43.6 [46.7]; both P < 0.001), with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.962). Similarly, mean (SD) MSQ subscale scores significantly improved from baseline at week 108 for patients with and without daily headache. OnabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in patients with and without daily headache. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with reductions from baseline in headache-day frequency and improvements in disability and quality of life for up to 108 weeks in people with CM with daily headache; however, a longer duration of treatment was required to fully realize the treatment effect on headache. No new safety concerns were identified.

Effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in patients with and without allodynia: results of the COMPEL study.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in treating chronic migraine (CM), but there are limited data assessing how allodynia affects preventive treatment responses. This subanalysis of the 108-week, multicenter, open-label COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without allodynia. METHODS: Patients (n = 715) were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 9 treatment cycles. The Allodynia Symptom Checklist was used to identify patients with allodynia (scores ≥3). The primary outcome for this subanalysis was reduction in monthly headache days from baseline for weeks 105 to 108 in groups with and without allodynia. Other outcomes included assessments of moderate to severe headache days, disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [MSQ] v2). Adverse events and their relation to treatment were recorded. RESULTS: OnabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in headache day frequency at week 108 relative to baseline in patients with (n = 289) and without (n = 426) allodynia (- 10.8 [7.1] and - 12.5 [7.4], respectively; both P < 0.001) that was significantly greater in patients without allodynia (P = 0.044 between-subgroup comparison). Moderate to severe headache days were significantly reduced at week 108 in patients with and without allodynia (- 9.6 [6.9] and - 10.5 [7.2]; both P < 0.001); reduction was similar between groups. MIDAS scores improved significantly at week 108 (- 53.0 [50.3] and - 37.7 [53.0]; both P < 0.001), with a significant between-group difference in favor of those with allodynia (P = 0.005). Similarly, MSQ subscale scores (Role Function Preventive, Role Function Restrictive, Emotional Function) significantly improved at week 108 for patients with and without allodynia: 20.6 (21.9) and 16.9 (20.7), 28.0 (23.3) and 24.7 (22.7), and 27.6 (26.5) and 24.9 (26.1), respectively (all P < 0.001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in patients with and without allodynia. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with reductions from baseline in multiple efficacy outcomes for up to 108 weeks whether or not allodynia is present. The allodynia group showed a smaller treatment response for reduction in headache days, but a similar or greater treatment response for improvement in other measures. No new safety concerns were identified.