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

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

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with migraine treated with erenumab: A retrospective, non-interventional study using claims data from the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients who newly initiated erenumab in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective, non-interventional analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) newly initiating erenumab and who had three consecutive monthly claims for erenumab (11/1/2017-9/1/2019) from the Komodo Health database. Outcomes included migraine-related and all-cause costs, use of other preventive/acute migraine medications, and HCRU. All outcomes were compared during the 180-day pre- versus the 180-day post-index periods. Cost outcomes were also assessed for longer periods including post-index Days 91-270 and monthly mean post-index costs for the longest time of continuous insurance enrollment. RESULTS: Overall, 1839 patients with migraine were included for analysis. Compared to the 180-day pre-index period, an increase in total migraine-related costs (+$2639; p < 0.0001), migraine-related prescription costs (+$3435, p < 0.0001), all-cause total costs (+$2977; p < 0.001), and all-cause prescription costs (+$4102; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-day post-index period after adjusting for covariates. Conversely, reduction in migraine-related medical costs (-$896; p < 0.0001), and significantly lower odds of migraine-related emergency room visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001), migraine-related office visits (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.64; p < 0.0001), and migraine-related neurologist visits (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.75; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-days post-index period. There were significant decreases in the odds of having overall preventive migraine medications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87; p < 0.0001), acute-migraine medications (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00; p = 0.038), and triptan (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85; p < 0.0001) during the 180-day post-index period. Sensitivity analyses on cost outcomes found no statistically significant differences in pre-index migraine-related costs compared to post-index migraine-related costs when assessing longer post-index follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: Initiation of therapy with a novel treatment is often associated with an increase in overall healthcare costs due to the entrance costs associated with novel therapy. For a chronic condition such as migraine, cost versus health benefits should be evaluated over a long period (e.g., ≥2 years) to better understand the true benefits of therapy. Data from this study suggest that the entrance cost for erenumab, the primary driver of the high post-index prescription costs gets mitigated by reduced medical costs over long-term follow-up. The results indicate better disease management in adult patients with migraine, which should be an important consideration for both patients and payors, as these findings have shown an offset between migraine-related prescription and medical costs.

Real-world treatment satisfaction with erenumab in migraine: analysis of the US National Health and Wellness Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment landscape for the prevention of migraine has rapidly evolved in recent years with the advent of calcitonin gene-related peptide therapy, including erenumab. The objective of this study was to assess patient-reported treatment satisfaction among erenumab users. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey collected during March-July 2019. Respondents self-reporting physician-diagnosed migraine and currently using erenumab were analyzed. Treatment satisfaction was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Data were further reported by the duration of erenumab treatment. Data on respondents' socio-demographic characteristics and treatment patterns were also collected. RESULTS: Overall, 67 respondents using erenumab with or without other migraine preventives for up to 1 year were included in the analysis. The mean (standard deviation) age was 46.7 (12.9) years. Most of the respondents were women (86.6%), White (74.6%), and commercially-insured (67.2%). Notably, 40.3% had ≥1 comorbidity per the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Approximately half of the respondents were college graduates and employed (49.3% each). Among the 67 respondents, 46 received erenumab exclusively. Across both cohorts, the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with erenumab treatment was slightly higher among those with a longer treatment duration (overall erenumab cohort: 63.6%, 69.6%, and 75.8% for 0-<3, 3-<6, and 6-12 months, respectively; erenumab monotherapy cohort: 62.5%, 71.4%, and 87.5% for 0-<3, 3-<6, and 6-12 months, respectively). Treatment patterns before switching to erenumab revealed that most respondents had used ≥1 preventive treatment for migraine (80.6%; 54/67), over two-thirds (33/54) of whom had ≥2 treatment failures owing to nonresponse. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction was high among long-term erenumab users, indicating that those using erenumab for a longer duration are more satisfied. Furthermore, this study provided insights on the basic socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and health behaviors of erenumab users as well as their treatment patterns before switching to erenumab.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data. METHODS: We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs. RESULTS: Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

Real-world migraine-related healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine: a panel-based chart review in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine. METHODS: This was a follow-up to a retrospective, panel-based chart review conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain among a panel of physicians (neurologists, headache specialists, and pain specialists) who agreed to participate in patient studies and had treated ≥10 migraine patients in 2017. Eligible physicians extracted data for up to five adults with ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) who initiated a preventive treatment on or after 1 January 2013 and received physician care for ≥6 months after the date of the most recent preventive treatment initiation (index date). Based on the trajectory of migraine severity from the 1-month pre-index period to the 6-month post-index period, cohorts were classified as improved (converting from chronic to episodic or from chronic/episodic to <4 MMDs) or stable/worsened (remaining chronic/episodic or transforming from episodic to chronic) migraine. Migraine-related HRU and costs (2017 €) during the 6-month post-index period were compared between patients with improved vs. stable/worsened migraine. RESULTS: Overall, 470 patient charts were analyzed, with 339 classified as improved migraine and 131 classified as stable/worsened migraine. After adjusting for within-physician correlation, country, sex, and presence of comorbidities before the index date, the improved migraine cohort had significantly fewer migraine-related physician office visits (-0.81; p < .001), emergency room/accident & emergency (ER/A&E) visits (-0.67; p < .001), and hospitalizations (-0.12; p < .001) in the 6-month post-index period vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. Consistent with HRU patterns, the adjusted migraine-related costs for physician office visits (-€42.23; p < .05), hospitalizations (-€215.56; p < .05), and total costs (-€396.81; p < .01) in the 6-month post-index period were significantly reduced for the improved migraine cohort vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 6-month period following initiation of preventive migraine treatment, patients with improved migraine had significantly lower migraine-related HRU and costs than those with stable/worsened migraine.

Effectiveness of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization as migraine prevention in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that can have a substantial impact on patients' lives and on society. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was specifically developed for migraine prevention. The efficacy of erenumab has been established in several clinical trials; however, the real-world comparative effectiveness of erenumab has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective US claims analysis (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) evaluated patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab or onabotulinumtoxinA between May 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (index date: first erenumab/onabotulinumtoxinA claim). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method (greedy match with caliper = 0.1). Stratification was performed based on gender, chronic migraine without aura diagnosis, onabotulinumtoxinA use, and acute/preventive drug use. The impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and HCRU was assessed in the 6-month post-index period. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on a composite endpoint of: (1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, (2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or (3) emergency department visit with a primary migraine diagnosis. PS-matched data were used for comparative analyses; logistic regression with covariate adjustment was used for dichotomous variables, and a negative binomial model was used for count variables, with odds ratios or rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs calculated. RESULTS: Following stratified PS matching, 1,338 patients were included in both cohorts. At 6 months, the adjusted average number of claims per person for any acute medication was significantly lower in the erenumab cohort (1.13 vs 1.29 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.80-0.96; P = 0.0069), although the difference in the number of claims for triptans and barbiturates was statistically nonsignificant. The adjusted average number of all-cause and migraine-specific visits per person to health care providers was generally lower in the erenumab cohort compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort. Patients in the erenumab cohort had a significantly lower number of composite events (0.44 vs 0.69 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of patients with any of the 3 composite events was lower in the erenumab cohort (31.7% vs 44.3% in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.49-0.70; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective claims analysis study, erenumab significantly reduced acute medication usage (opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; any acute medication when analyzed together) and HCRU to a greater extent than onabotulinumtoxinA. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis employees contributed to the study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Fang, Abdrabboh, Glassberg, Vo, and Ferraris are employed by Novartis. Zhou and Shen are employed by KMK Consulting, Inc., which received funding from Novartis to conduct the study. Tepper reports grants from Allergan, Amgen, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Neurolief, Novartis, Satsuma, and Zosano, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, American Headache Society, Thomas Jefferson University, Aeon, Align Strategies, Allergan/AbbVie, Alphasights, Amgen, Aperture Venture Partners, Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada, Axsome Therapeutics, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, ClearView Healthcare Partners, CoolTech, CRG, Currax, Decision Resources, DeepBench, DRG, Eli Lilly, Equinox, ExpertConnect, GLG, Guidepoint Global Healthcare Consultancy Group, Health Science Communications, HMP Communications, Impel, InteractiveForums, M3 Global Research, Magellan Rx Management, Medicxi, Navigant Consulting, Neurorelief, Nordic BioTech, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Reckner Healthcare, Relevale, SAI MedPartners, Satsuma, Slingshot Insights, Spherix Global Insights, Sudler and Hennessey, Synapse Medical Communications, System Analytic, Teva, Theranica, Thought Leader Select, Trinity Partners, XOC, Zosano, Krog and Partners, and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work; and CME honoraria from American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Diamond Headache Clinic, Elsevier, Forefront Collaborative, Hamilton General Hospital, Ontario, Canada, Headache Cooperative of New England, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Inova, Medical Learning Institute PeerView, Medical Education Speakers Network, Miller Medical Communications, North American Center for CME, Physicians' Education Resource, Rockpointe, ScientiaCME, WebMD/Medscape. The abstract and poster of these results were presented at The Migraine Trust Virtual Symposium (MTIS), October 3-9, 2020.

Impact of erenumab on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization among migraine patients: a US claims database study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. This study aimed to evaluate real-world evidence on the impact of erenumab on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among migraine patients. METHODS: This retrospective effectiveness study utilized the US Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart database to identify migraine patients initiating erenumab between May 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. Patients had to be at least 18 years old, with a minimum of three doses for erenumab in the 6-month post-index period and continuous medical/pharmacy coverage in the 12-month pre- and 6-month post-index period. The date of the first claim for erenumab served as the index date. Use of acute medications overall and at different drug class level, and HCRU were compared during the 6-month pre- vs. post-index period. Impact of erenumab on a composite endpoint of three possible events: 1) outpatient visit with a diagnosis of migraine and an associated acute medication claim within 7 days of the visit, 2) hospital admission with a primary diagnosis for migraine, or 3) emergency room visit with a primary diagnosis for migraine (any events that occurred ≤3 days apart were counted only once) was also evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis included 3171 identified patients. At 6 months, following initiation of erenumab, acute medication use including the number of types of acute medication, number of claims of each medication and % of patients who received acute medication, and HCRU were significantly decreased. For the composite outcome, the mean number of events decreased from 1.03 to 0.77 (rate ratio: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.79; P < 0.0001). A decrease in the proportion of patients with any of the three events was also observed (52.7% vs. 39.5%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, erenumab was associated with significantly reduced acute medication use and HCRU in a real-world setting, hence significantly reducing the burden of the disease. A composite endpoint could be used as a proxy to evaluate the burden of migraine attacks; however, further research is needed.

Real-World Trends in Characteristics of Patients with Migraine Newly Initiated on Erenumab in the USA: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective analysis aimed to characterize patients with migraine initiating erenumab and the shifting or trend of patient characteristics over time in a real-world setting. METHODS: Adult patients with at least one erenumab written prescription/administration between May 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019 were identified from the Optum De-identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) database (index date = date of the first erenumab prescription/administration). Patient demographics and characteristics, acute and preventive medications used prior to initiation of erenumab, and the initial prescriber specialty were examined. In addition, the shifting or trends of patient characteristics over time were analyzed among subgroups of patients based on when they initiated erenumab. RESULTS: A total of 14,774 eligible patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Most patients were female (86.4%), average age 46.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.1) years, Caucasian (88.7%), non-Hispanic (91.8%), and commercially insured (59.8%) at the index date. During the 12-month pre-index period, commonly observed selected comorbid conditions included anxiety (30.6%), depression (28.2%), and cardiovascular diseases (26.4%), and the mean (SD) Elixhauser comorbidity score was 1.7 (5.5). The most common provider specialty at erenumab initiation was neurologist/headache specialist (46.5%). Over time, there was a decrease in mean baseline Elixhauser comorbidity score at erenumab initiation, an increase in general practitioners prescribing initial erenumab, and increased utilization in patients with less severe migraine overall (a proxy of the declining trend in chronic migraine and triptan use). CONCLUSION: Early use of erenumab post approval focused on patients with more severe disease and a high comorbidity index rating. Over time, utilization of this preventive medication occurred in a broader population of patients with migraine, with increased use by general practitioners and those outside of headache centers.

Management of Migraine and the Accessibility of Specialist Care: Findings from an Extended Multinational Survey (My Migraine Center Survey).

INTRODUCTION: The parent study was a survey in 28 headache centers (6 countries) which identified five potential root causes for long waiting lists that limit patient access to specialist care. Here we performed an extension of the parent study to increase the panel of centers contacted, the representativeness of the analysis, and the statistical validity of the results, and to explore the role of dedicated headache clinics, triage, and specialized nurses. METHODS: We conducted a 19-question survey using a sample of 239 headache centers (16 countries). The five-area framework identified in the parent study was confirmed and further developed by describing treatment center archetypes according to their setting (general neurology versus dedicated clinic) and resources available within the center (number of healthcare professional [HCPs] full-time-equivalent positions). RESULTS: In total, 474 HCPs were interviewed across 16 countries. The proportion of patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine varied across centers and countries. There was limited access to specialized centers in this enlarged sample; with global average waiting list of 3.7 months for the first visit and 2.5 months for the follow-up visit. Long waiting lists for headache patient care is a major issue in several countries, with the waiting lists for new patient visits extending up to 14 months. The presence of a dedicated nurse was correlated positively with the use of triage for prioritization of patient access (correlation coefficient: 0.85) and completing migraine diary (0.71). CONCLUSION: This study confirmed differences across treatment center archetypes in terms of patients, waiting lists, level of delegation to nurse, and patient education and compliance, and provides support for the potential benefit of dedicated clinical settings for headache patients. The survey highlighted the potential role of nurses in patient education and waiting list prioritization, consequently benefiting headache centers.