Safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: A randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging Phase 2b study.

Background Safety findings from a Phase 2b study of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, for prevention of migraine (NCT02163993) are reported here. Methods Patients aged 18-65 years with episodic migraine were evaluated in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. After randomization, 410 patients were administered 5, 50, 120 or 300 mg of galcanezumab or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by a post-treatment off-drug period lasting 12 weeks. Results Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were primarily rated as mild to moderate. Serious adverse events reported in galcanezumab dose groups were appendicitis, Crohn's disease, suicidal ideation, and congenital ankyloglossia in an infant of a paternal pregnancy; each of these were reported by one patient. Adverse events leading to discontinuation with galcanezumab treatment were abdominal pain, visual impairment, and upper limb fracture, each reported by one patient. Treatment-emergent injection-site reactions were reported significantly more frequently ( p = 0.013) with galcanezumab (13.9%) than with placebo (5.8%). Injection-site pain was the most common injection-site reaction (galcanezumab 11.4%; placebo 2.9%, p = 0.004). Upper respiratory tract infection (galcanezumab 10.0%; placebo 8.8%) and nasopharyngitis (galcanezumab 7.0%; placebo 2.2%) also occurred more frequently with galcanezumab treatment. Potential hypersensitivity events were reported at similar frequencies in galcanezumab (3.3%) and placebo (5.1%) groups. Incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies in galcanezumab dose groups (4.6% of patients during treatment period) did not appear to have any meaningful effects on safety, the pharmacokinetics of galcanezumab, or its ability to bind to the target ligand. Conclusion The results from this 3-month Phase 2b study support the initiation of larger Phase 3 trials of longer duration.

Preventing Episodic Migraine With Caloric Vestibular Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel solid-state, caloric vestibular stimulation (CVS) device to provide adjuvant therapy for the prevention of episodic migraine in adult migraineurs. BACKGROUND: Migraine causes significant disability in ∼12% of the world population. No current migraine preventive treatment provides full clinical relief, and many exhibit high rates of discontinuation due to adverse events. Thus, new therapeutic options are needed. CVS may be an effective and safe adjuvant-therapy for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: In a multicenter, parallel-arm, block-randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01899040), subjects completed a 3-month treatment with the TNM™ device for CVS (refer to Fig. 2 for patient enrollment and allocation). The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days from baseline to the third treatment month. Secondary endpoints were 50% responder rates, change in prescription analgesic usage and difference in total subjective headache-related pain scores. Device safety assessments included evaluation of any impact on mood, cognition, or balance. RESULTS: Per-protocol, active-arm subjects showed immediate and continued steady declines in migraine frequency over the treatment period. After 3 months of treatment, active-arm subjects exhibited significantly fewer migraine days (-3.9 ± 0.6 from a baseline burden of 7.7 ± 0.5 migraine days). These improvements were significantly greater than those observed in control subjects (-1.1 ± 0.6 from a baseline burden = 6.9 ± 0.7 migraine days) and represented a therapeutic gain of -2.8 migraine days, CI = -0.9 to -4.7, P = .012. Active arm subjects also reported greater reductions in acute medication usage and monthly pain scores compared to controls. No adverse effects on mood, cognition, or balance were reported. Subjects completed the trial with an average rate of 90% treatment adherence. No serious or unexpected adverse events were recorded. The rate of expected adverse events was similar across the active and the placebo groups, and evaluation confirmed that subject blinding remained intact. CONCLUSION: The TNM™ device for CVS appears to provide a clinically efficacious and highly tolerable adjuvant therapy for the prevention of episodic migraine.

Non-Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the ACute Treatment of Cluster Headache: Findings From the Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled ACT1 Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as an acute cluster headache (CH) treatment. BACKGROUND: Many patients with CH experience excruciating attacks at a frequency that is not sufficiently addressed by current symptomatic treatments. METHODS: One hundred fifty subjects were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham treatment for ≤1 month during a double-blind phase; completers could enter a 3-month nVNS open-label phase. The primary end point was response rate, defined as the proportion of subjects who achieved pain relief (pain intensity of 0 or 1) at 15 minutes after treatment initiation for the first CH attack without rescue medication use through 60 minutes. Secondary end points included the sustained response rate (15-60 minutes). Subanalyses of episodic cluster headache (eCH) and chronic cluster headache (cCH) cohorts were prespecified. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 133 subjects: 60 nVNS-treated (eCH, n = 38; cCH, n = 22) and 73 sham-treated (eCH, n = 47; cCH, n = 26). A response was achieved in 26.7% of nVNS-treated subjects and 15.1% of sham-treated subjects (P = .1). Response rates were significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the eCH cohort (nVNS, 34.2%; sham, 10.6%; P = .008) but not the cCH cohort (nVNS, 13.6%; sham, 23.1%; P = .48). Sustained response rates were significantly higher with nVNS for the eCH cohort (P = .008) and total population (P = .04). Adverse device effects (ADEs) were reported by 35/150 (nVNS, 11; sham, 24) subjects in the double-blind phase and 18/128 subjects in the open-label phase. No serious ADEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest randomized sham-controlled studies for acute CH treatment, the response rate was not significantly different (vs sham) for the total population; nVNS provided significant, clinically meaningful, rapid, and sustained benefits for eCH but not for cCH, which affected results in the total population. This safe and well-tolerated treatment represents a novel and promising option for eCH. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792817.

Chronic migraine headache prevention with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation: The EVENT study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the prevention of chronic migraine (CM) attacks. METHODS: In this first prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study of nVNS in CM prophylaxis, adults with CM (≥15 headache d/mo) entered the baseline phase (1 month) and were subsequently randomized to nVNS or sham treatment (2 months) before receiving open-label nVNS treatment (6 months). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Efficacy endpoints in the intent-to-treat population included change in the number of headache days per 28 days and acute medication use. RESULTS: Fifty-nine participants (mean age, 39.2 years; mean headache frequency, 21.5 d/mo) were enrolled. During the randomized phase, tolerability was similar for nVNS (n = 30) and sham treatment (n = 29). Most adverse events were mild/moderate and transient. Mean changes in the number of headache days were -1.4 (nVNS) and -0.2 (sham) (Δ = 1.2; p = 0.56). Twenty-seven participants completed the open-label phase. For the 15 completers initially assigned to nVNS, the mean change from baseline in headache days after 8 months of treatment was -7.9 (95% confidence interval -11.9 to -3.8; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with nVNS was well-tolerated with no safety issues. Persistent prophylactic use may reduce the number of headache days in CM; larger sham-controlled studies are needed. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01667250. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, nVNS is safe, is well-tolerated, and did not significantly change the number of headache days. This pilot study lacked the precision to exclude important safety issues or benefits of nVNS.

Medication overuse headache: history, features, prevention and management strategies.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a daily, or almost daily, headache form that arises from overuse of one or more classes of migraine-abortive or analgesic medication. The main classes of drugs that cause MOH are opioids, butalbital-containing mixed analgesics, triptans, ergotamine tartrate derivatives, simple analgesics (except for plain aspirin), and perhaps non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. MOH can be debilitating and results from biochemical and functional brain changes induced by certain medications taken too frequently. At this time, migraine and other primary headache disorders in which migraine or migraine-like elements occur seem exclusively vulnerable to the development of MOH. Other primary headache disorders are not currently believed to be vulnerable. The treatment of MOH consists of discontinuation of the offending drug(s), acute treatment of the withdrawal symptoms and escalating pain, establishing a preventive treatment when necessary, and the implementation of educational and behavioral programs to prevent recidivism. In most patients, MOH can be treated in the outpatient setting but, for the most difficult cases, including those with opioid or butalbital overuse, or in patients with serious medical or behavioral disturbances, effective treatment requires a multidisciplinary, comprehensive headache program, either day-hospital with infusion or an inpatient hospital setting.

Migraine headache is present in the aura phase: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Migraine aura is commonly considered to be a distinct phase of a migraine attack that precedes headache. The objective of the study was to examine a large number of prospectively recorded attacks of migraine with aura and determine the timing of headache and other migraine symptoms relative to aura. METHODS: As part of a clinical trial we collected prospective data on the time course of headache and other symptoms relative to the aura. Patients (n = 267) were enrolled from 16 centers, and asked to keep a headache diary for 1 month (phase I). They were asked to record headache symptoms as soon as possible after aura began and always within 1 hour of aura onset. A total of 456 attacks were reported during phase I by 201 patients. These patients were then randomized and included in phase II, during which a total of 405 attacks were reported in 164 patients. In total, we present data from 861 attacks of migraine with aura from 201 patients. RESULTS: During the aura phase, the majority of attacks (73%) were associated with headache. Other migraine symptoms were also frequently reported during the aura: nausea (51%), photophobia (88%), and photophobia (73%). During the first 15 minutes within the onset of aura, 54% of patients reported headache fulfilling the criteria for migraine. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that headaches as well as associated migraine symptoms are present early, during the aura phase of the migraine attack in the majority of patients.

Occipital nerve stimulation for the treatment of intractable chronic migraine headache: ONSTIM feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Medically intractable chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling illness characterized by headache ≥15 days per month. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, blinded, controlled feasibility study was conducted to obtain preliminary safety and efficacy data on occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) in CM. Eligible subjects received an occipital nerve block, and responders were randomized to adjustable stimulation (AS), preset stimulation (PS) or medical management (MM) groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five of 110 subjects were assigned to a treatment group; complete diary data were available for 66. A responder was defined as a subject who achieved a 50% or greater reduction in number of headache days per month or a three-point or greater reduction in average overall pain intensity compared with baseline. Three-month responder rates were 39% for AS, 6% for PS and 0% for MM. No unanticipated adverse device events occurred. Lead migration occurred in 12 of 51 (24%) subjects. CONCLUSION: The results of this feasibility study offer promise and should prompt further controlled studies of ONS in CM.

Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant over four migraine attacks.

METHODS: This study evaluated the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist telcagepant (tablet formulation) for treatment of a migraine attack and across four attacks. Adults with migraine were randomized, double-blind, to telcagepant 140 mg, telcagepant 280 mg, or control treatment sequences to treat four moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. Control patients received placebo for three attacks and telcagepant 140 mg for one attack. Efficacy for the first attack (Attack 1) and consistency of efficacy over multiple attacks were assessed. For an individual patient, consistent efficacy was defined as ≥ 3 successes, and lack of consistent efficacy was defined as ≥ 2 failures, in treatment response. A total of 1677 patients treated ≥ 1 attack and 1263 treated all four attacks. RESULTS: Based on Attack 1 data, telcagepant 140 mg and 280 mg were significantly (p < .001) more effective than placebo for 2-hour pain freedom, 2-hour pain relief, 2-hour absence of migraine-associated symptoms (phonophobia, photophobia, nausea), and 2-24 hours sustained pain freedom. The percentage of patients with 2-hour pain freedom consistency and 2-hour pain relief consistency was significantly (p < .001) higher for both telcagepant treatment sequences versus control. Adverse events within 48 hours for telcagepant with an incidence ≥ 2% and twice that of placebo were somnolence (placebo = 2.3%, 140 mg = 5.9%, 280 mg = 5.7%) and vomiting (placebo = 1.4%, 140 mg = 1.0%, 280 mg = 2.9%). CONCLUSION: Telcagepant 140 mg and 280 mg were effective for treatment of a migraine attack and were more consistently effective than control for intermittent treatment of up to four migraine attacks. Telcagepant was generally well tolerated. (Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00483704).

Efficacy and tolerability of a new powdered formulation of diclofenac potassium for oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine: results from the International Migraine Pain Assessment Clinical Trial (IMPACT).

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of diclofenac potassium for oral solution, a novel water-soluble buffered powder formulation, versus placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution has a time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) of 15 minutes, suggesting the potential for a rapid onset of therapeutic effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study conducted in 23 US centers. Adult sufferers with an established migraine diagnosis according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II), treated one moderate or severe attack with 50 mg diclofenac potassium for oral solution (dissolved in approximately 2 ounces of water; N=343) or matching placebo (N=347). Four co-primary endpoints included the percentage of subjects who at two hours post-treatment reported no headache pain, no nausea, no photophobia and/or no phonophobia. RESULTS: Significantly more subjects treated with diclofenac potassium for oral solution (N=343) achieved a two-hour pain-free response (25% vs. 10%, p<.001), no nausea (65% vs. 53%; p=.002), no photophobia (41% vs. 27%; p<.001) and no phonophobia (44% vs. 27%; p<.001) compared to placebo. Pain intensity differences between treatments were significantly lower in the diclofenac potassium oral solution group, starting at 30 minutes post-treatment (p=.013) with significant differences at all time points thereafter (p<.001). Twenty-four-hour sustained pain-free response favored diclofenac potassium oral solution treatment versus placebo (19% vs. 7%, p<.0001). The most common adverse event considered to be treatment related was nausea (diclofenac potassium for oral solution [4.6%]; placebo [4.3%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that this formulation of diclofenac potassium for oral solution is effective in reducing pain intensity within 30 minutes, which may be related to the 15-minute T(max) associated with this formulation. The rapid-onset benefits were sustained through 24 hours post-treatment.

A practice guide for continuous opioid therapy for refractory daily headache: patient selection, physician requirements, and treatment monitoring.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a guide to the use and limitations of continuous opioid therapy (COT, or daily scheduled opioids) for refractory daily headache, based on the best available evidence and expert clinical experience. BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic increase in opioid administration over the past 25 years, with limited evidence of efficacy for either pain reduction or increased function, and increasing evidence of adverse effects, including headache chronification. To date, there has been no consensus on headache-specific guidelines for selecting patients for COT, physician requirements, and treatment monitoring. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee of physicians and allied health professionals with extensive experience and expertise in the administration of opioids to headache patients, undertook a review of the available evidence from the research and clinical literature (using the PubMed database for articles through December 2009) to develop headache-specific treatment recommendations. This guide reflects the opinions of its authors and is not an official document of the American Headache Society. RESULTS: The guide identifies factors that would qualify or disqualify the use of COT, including, determination of intractability prior to initiating COT, requisite experience of the prescriber, and requirements for a formal monitoring system to assess appropriate use, safety, efficacy, and functional impact. An appendix reviews the available evidence for efficacy of COT in chronic headache and noncancer pain, paradoxical effects (opioid-induced hyperalgesia, medication overuse headache, opioid-related reduction in triptan and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy), other adverse effects (nausea and constipation, insomnia and sleep apnea, respiratory depression and sudden cardiac death, reductions in sex hormones, issues during pregnancy, neurocognitive functioning), and issues related to comorbid psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Only a select and very limited group (estimate of 10-20%) of refractory headache patients who meet criteria for COT respond with convincing headache reduction and functional improvement over the long-term. Conservative and empirically based guidelines will help identify those patients for whom a COT trial may be appropriate, while protecting their welfare and safety.

Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation for acute treatment of migraine with aura: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary work suggests that single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) could be effective as a treatment for migraine. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a new portable sTMS device for acute treatment of migraine with aura. METHODS: We undertook a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, two-phase, sham-controlled study at 18 centres in the USA. 267 adults aged 18-68 years were enrolled into phase one. All individuals had to meet international criteria for migraine with aura, with visual aura preceding at least 30% of migraines followed by moderate or severe headache in more than 90% of those attacks. 66 patients dropped out during phase one. In phase two, 201 individuals were randomly allocated by computer to either sham stimulation (n=99) or sTMS (n=102). We instructed participants to treat up to three attacks over 3 months while experiencing aura. The primary outcome was pain-free response 2 h after the first attack, and co-primary outcomes were non-inferiority at 2 h for nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Analyses were modified intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00449540. FINDINGS: 37 patients did not treat a migraine attack and were excluded from outcome analyses. 164 patients treated at least one attack with sTMS (n=82) or sham stimulation (n=82; modified intention-to-treat analysis set). Pain-free response rates after 2 h were significantly higher with sTMS (32/82 [39%]) than with sham stimulation (18/82 [22%]), for a therapeutic gain of 17% (95% CI 3-31%; p=0.0179). Sustained pain-free response rates significantly favoured sTMS at 24 h and 48 h post-treatment. Non-inferiority was shown for nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. No device-related serious adverse events were recorded, and incidence and severity of adverse events were similar between sTMS and sham groups. INTERPRETATION: Early treatment of migraine with aura by sTMS resulted in increased freedom from pain at 2 h compared with sham stimulation, and absence of pain was sustained 24 h and 48 h after treatment. sTMS could be a promising acute treatment for some patients with migraine with aura. FUNDING: Neuralieve.

Comprehensive inpatient treatment of refractory chronic daily headache.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess outcome at discharge for a consecutive series of admissions to a comprehensive, multidisciplinary inpatient headache unit; (2) To identify outcome predictors. BACKGROUND: An evidence-based assessment (2004) concluded that many refractory headache patients appear to benefit from inpatient treatment, underscoring the need for more research, including outcome predictors. METHODS: The authors completed a retrospective chart review of 283 consecutive admissions over 6 months. The inpatient program (mean length of stay = 13.0 days) included intravenous and oral medication protocols, drug withdrawal when indicated, cognitive-behavior therapy, and other services when needed, including anesthesiological intervention. Patient-reported pain levels and consensus of medical staff determined outcome status. RESULTS: The 267 completers (94%) included 212 women and 55 men (mean age = 40.3 years, range = 13-74) from 43 states and Canada. The modal diagnosis was intractable, chronic daily headache (85%), predominantly migraine. Most (59%) had medication overuse headache (MOH), involving opioids (48%), triptans (16%), or butalbital-containing analgesics (10%). Psychiatric diagnoses included stress-related headache (82%), mood disorders (70%), anxiety disorders (49%), and personality disorders (PD, 26%). More patients with a PD (62%) had opioid-related MOH than those with no PD (38%), P < .005. Of the completers, 78% had moderate to significant pain reduction, with comparable improvement in mood, function, and behavior. Clinical factors predicting moderate-significant headache improvement were limited to MOH (84% vs 69%, P < .007) and presence of a PD (68% vs 81%, P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients (78%) improved following aggressive, comprehensive inpatient treatment. Maintenance of improvement is likely to depend on multiple post-discharge factors, including continuity of care, compliance, and home or work environment.

Pearls from an inpatient headache unit.

Much can be learned from treating over 15,000 headache hospitalized patients over the course of 30 years. By the very need to be admitted, these individuals are complicated, both physiologically and often psychologically. Founded in 1978, the Michigan Head Pain and Neurological Institute and its hospital unit developed a set of criteria for admission and a growing staff of professionals to serve this complex population of patients. Experience has taught us many lessons; several are considered in this review. Among the important topics discussed are: admission criteria to the hospital unit; treatment protocols and other hospital-based strategies; integration of behavioral therapy and therapists into the treatment system; diagnostic testing of patients with intractable headache; identifying the "problem patient" and "medication misuse" early in the course of therapy; approaching the headache patient with cluster B personality disorder; and the use of interventional and anesthesiological treatment for intractable headache. Outcome data and a review of recent publications are presented.

Continuous opioid therapy (COT) is rarely advisable for refractory chronic daily headache: limited efficacy, risks, and proposed guidelines.

Intractable pain, headache or otherwise, is a devastating and life-controlling experience. The need to effectively and aggressively control pain is a fundamental tenet of clinical care. In the past several years, increasing advocacy for continuous opioid therapy has become an important, if not controversial, theme in the development of treatment guidelines and teaching programs. Ironically, the increasing willingness of physicians to prescribe scheduled opioids for their headache and pain patients has occurred in the absence of compelling data demonstrating efficacy or long-term safety. To the contrary, two meta-analyses on chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and one long-term uncontrolled study on headache patients demonstrate a relatively small number of patients benefiting from the treatment. Recent neuroscience data on the effects of opioids on the brain raise serious concern for long-term safety and also provide the basis for the mechanism by which chronic opioid use might induce progression of headache frequency and severity. Significant adverse effects, including influence on sexual hormonal balances, physical and psychological dependence, the development of opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death that can be seen with standard dosages of methadone, make a strong argument against widespread use of continuous opioid therapy (COT) in otherwise healthy young and middle-aged headache patients. We believe that COT should be used in rare circumstances for chronic headache patients, and propose initial guidelines for selecting patients and monitoring treatment. The physician should be well versed in the details of opioid prescribing, administration, and monitoring, and should be prepared to discontinue opioids when clinical justification, patient behavior, or failure to achieve therapeutic goals make discontinuance necessary.

Chronic daily headache: transformational migraine, chronic migraine, and related disorders.

Chronic daily headache is an important category of headache illness that affects 4% of the general population. Within this classification are four chronic headache entities: chronic migraine/transformational migraine, chronic tension-type headache, hemicrania continua, and new daily persistent headache. Chronic migraine/transformational migraine is the most common of these entities and is frequently accompanied by medication overuse, neurobehavioral comorbidity, and disability. The terminology and classification of this entity continue to be confounding. Current research is directed at identifying factors that might promote the progression of this disorder from episodic migraine to daily or almost daily headache, and at identifying the best approaches to treatment, which include both pharmacotherapeutic and non-medicinal interventions. Patients with intractable cases are often hospitalized as a consequence of the convergence of several factors that make outpatient management unlikely to succeed.

Fifty years of headache care evolution: from a few interested doctors to certified specialists and comprehensive systems.

Headache care has evolved dramatically during the lifetime of the American Headache Society. Dr. Saper charts the most important developments and recognizes those instrumental in influencing current thought and practice.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled comparison of botulinum toxin type a injection sites and doses in the prevention of episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized, controlled studies have reported benefits of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA; Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) over placebo in the treatment of migraine. Some studies reported significant benefits at dosages as low as 16 U, while other studies reported safety, tolerability, and efficacy at dosages up to 260 U. However, the optimal treatment paradigm and patient population have yet to be defined. OBJECTIVE: To compare different injection sites and doses of BoNTA in the prevention of episodic migraine. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 232 patients with a history of four to eight moderate to severe migraines per month, with or without aura. Patients were randomized to placebo or one of four BoNTA groups that received injections into different muscle regions: frontal (10 U), temporal (6 U), glabellar (9 U), or all three areas (total dose 25 U). For 3 months following a single treatment, patients recorded migraine-related variables in a daily diary. RESULTS: BoNTA and placebo produced comparable decreases from baseline in the frequency of migraines (P > or = 0.411). In general, no statistically significant differences were observed for any efficacy variable. The overall rates of adverse events (any type) or treatment-related adverse events were similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study of episodic migraine patients, low-dose injections of BoNTA into the frontal, temporal, and/or glabellar muscle regions were not more effective than placebo. BoNTA was safe and well tolerated. Future studies may examine higher BoNTA doses, flexible injection sites, multiple treatments, and disallow concomitant prophylactic medications.