An Investigation into the Prevalence of Migraine and Its Prophylactic Treatment Patterns in the Czech Republic: An Observational Study.

PURPOSE: A national primary and secondary healthcare-level study in the Czech Republic has not yet been conducted to evaluate the prevalence of migraine. We analyzed the current treatment patterns (acute and prophylactic) in migraine patients and the number of migraine patients potentially eligible for treatment with recent calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway-targeted therapies. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized the Ministry of the Interior Health Insurance Fund claims database of the Czech Republic wherein every citizen is insured. Migraine patients with or without aura, and potentially on triptan therapy were included in this study (index years 2012-2016). The prevalence approach included all patients (new and old) present in each index year. Prophylactic therapies were followed f0or three and seven years prior to the index year, including the index year, until 2010. The incidence approach included all patients first diagnosed in each index year. Prophylactic therapies were followed for the next three years, including the index year, until 2017 following incidence approach. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the rate of migraine prevalence and diagnosis for each index year during the period 2012-2016. The study also evaluated prophylactic and acute treatment patterns and comorbidities among patients in 2016. RESULTS: The rate of migraine prevalence was 1% and the rate of diagnosis was 0.2-0.4%. By prevalence approach, approximately 39% of the patients were on prophylactics, and 11.2% and 21.6% of the patient population had two prior treatment failures (three- and seven-year recall period, respectively). Antiepileptics (26%) and beta blockers (15.8%) were the most prescribed prophylactics, and sumatriptan was the predominant triptan used (12%) for acute treatment. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the number of inhabitants in the Czech Republic (10.7 million), there could be up to 23,000 adult patients eligible for novel CGRP therapies.

Newest evidence for tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol oromucosal spray from randomized clinical trials.

Subsequent to EMA approval of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): cannabidiol (CBD) oromucosal spray based on results of various studies, including an enriched-design clinical trial, two newer postapproval randomized trials have confirmed its efficacy and safety for treating resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity, while simultaneously addressing specific authorities' concerns. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IV trial, conducted as part of the EMA's risk management plan, found no effect of THC:CBD spray on cognition and mood after 50 weeks of treatment. In the Sativex® as add-on therapy versus further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT)  study, add-on THC:CBD spray was significantly more effective than readjusting standard antispasticity therapy and provided new evidence of efficacy as requested by German authorities. SAVANT results support practical recommendations for treating resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity in daily practice.

Sativex® as add-on therapy vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial.

Purpose/aim: To evaluate the efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC):cannabidiol (CBD) oromucosal spray (Sativex®) as add-on therapy to optimised standard antispasticity treatment in patients with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity. METHODS: Sativex® as add-on therapy vs. further optimised first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) was a two-phase trial. In Phase A, eligible patients received add-on THC:CBD spray for 4 weeks to identify initial responders [≥20% improvement from baseline in spasticity 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) score]. Following washout, eligible initial responders were randomised to receive THC:CBD spray or placebo for 12 weeks (double-blinded, Phase B). Optimisation of underlying antispasticity medications was permitted in both groups across all study periods. RESULTS: Of 191 patients who entered Phase A, 106 were randomised in Phase B to receive add-on THC:CBD spray (n = 53) or placebo (n = 53). The proportion of clinically relevant responders after 12 weeks (≥30% NRS improvement; primary efficacy endpoint) was significantly greater with THC:CBD spray than placebo (77.4 vs. 32.1%; p < 0.0001). Compared with placebo, THC:CBD spray also significantly improved key secondary endpoints: changes in mean spasticity NRS (p < 0.0001), mean pain NRS (p = 0.0013), and mean modified Ashworth's scale (p = 0.0007) scores from Phase B baseline to week 12. Adverse events, when present, were mild/moderate and without new safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on THC:CBD oromucosal spray provided better and clinically relevant improvement of resistant MS spasticity compared with adjusting first-line antispasticity medication alone.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous sodium valproate in the treatment of acute migraine.

This multicenter study investigated the safety and efficacy of intravenous valproate in acute migraine attacks and the possible impact of prophylactic valproate pre-treatment. Thirty-six patients established on migraine prophylaxis were administered 500 mg sodium valproate intravenously against acute migraine attacks. Pain development was assessed by visual analogue scale up to a 24 hours follow up interview to detect e.g. possible relapse symptoms. A subgroup analysis examined whether prophylactic treatment with valproate affected its acute anti-migraine efficacy. A meaningful headache reduction within two hours was achieved in all 12 patients with and in 20 out of 24 patients without valproate prophylaxis. Headache-associated signs and symptoms were substantially reduced. No serious side-effects were reported. The results confirm the therapeutic value of intravenous valproate in acute migraine attacks described in literature and show a beneficial effect on all investigated efficacy parameters with a trend to even better response in patients receiving valproate prophylaxis.