Characterizing gaps in the preventive pharmacologic treatment of migraine: Multi-country results from the CaMEO-I study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. METHODS: The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). RESULTS: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. CONCLUSIONS: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen.

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

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

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

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

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Arabic version of HIT-6 questionnaire in patients with migraine indicated for preventive therapy: A multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) is an important patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in migraine prevention trials. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (i) assess the reliability and validity of the Arabic version of HIT-6 in Arabic-speaking patients experiencing migraine, and (ii) evaluate the responsiveness of HIT-6 following migraine preventive therapy. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with migraine (n = 145) were requested to fill out a headache diary, the Arabic version of HIT-6, and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) at two time points (baseline and 3 months after initiation of prophylactic treatment). Some respondents (n = 73) were requested to fill out HIT-6 again 1 week from the baseline for test-retest reliability. The intensity of migraine headache attacks was evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). An anchor-based method was used to establish the minimal important change (MIC) value and responsiveness of HIT-6. RESULTS: The total scores of HIT-6 were significantly correlated to a fair degree with MIDAS (r = 0.41), as well as VAS (r = 0.53), and monthly migraine days (r = 0.38) at the baseline while at the follow-up (after 3 months), the correlations were of moderate degree with MIDAS scores (r = 0.62) and monthly migraine days (r = 0.60; convergent validity). Reliability estimates of the Arabic HIT-6 were excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.91 at baseline and 0.89 at follow-up). The average measure interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value for the test-retest reliability was 0.96 (95% confidence interval = 0.94-0.98, p < 0.001). The HIT-6 total score is sensitive to change, being significantly reduced after prophylactic treatment compared to before (effect size = 1.5, standardized response mean = 1.3). A reduction from baseline of 4.5 on HIT-6 showed the highest responsiveness to predict improvement with an area under the curve equal to 0.66, sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 45%, and significance at 0.021. Changes in the HIT-6 total score were positively correlated with changes in monthly migraine days (r = 0.40) and VAS scores (r = 0.69) but not with changes in the score of MIDAS (r = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of HIT-6 is valid, reliable, and sensitive to detect clinical changes following migraine prophylactic treatment with a MIC of 4.5 points.

An update on migraine: Current and new treatment options.

ABSTRACT: Migraine headache is a common and potentially debilitating disorder often treated by physician associates/assistants (PAs) and other providers. With the recent advances in new drugs and device technology for the treatment of migraine, the American Headache Society has released a consensus statement on both preventive and acute strategies for clinical practice. The US FDA has recently approved various types of medications and devices for the treatment and prevention of migraine attacks including several calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor inhibitors, a selective serotonin receptor agonist (SSRA), noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS), and external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS), among other pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options. This article provides a review of migraine prevention and acute treatment protocol, highlighting new approaches to both.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Participants With Episodic Migraine in Whom 2-4 Prior Preventive Treatments Had Failed: LIBERTY 3-Year Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The LIBERTY study assessed the efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine (EM) and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. The results have been presented after 3 years of erenumab exposure in its open-label extension phase (OLEP). METHODS: Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could enter the OLEP and receive 140 mg of erenumab once monthly for 3 years. The main outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), the mean MMD change from baseline, and tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 240/246 (97.6%) participants entered the OLEP and 168/240 (70.0%) completed the study (85/118 continuing erenumab [n = 1 lost during follow-up]; 83/122 switching from placebo [n = 2 lost during follow-up]). In the overall population, 79/151 participants (52.3%) with valid data points achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs at week 168 (i.e., responders). In the continuous erenumab group, 35/117 participants (29.9%) were ≥50% responders at week 12 of the DBTP and 26/35 (74.3%) remained ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of the 82/117 participants (70.1%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the continuous erenumab group, 17/82 (20.7%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of 103/120 participants (85.8%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the placebo-erenumab group, 42/103 (40.8%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits after switching to erenumab. Overall, the mean (SD) MMD change from baseline showed sustained improvement over 3 years (-4.4 [3.9] days at week 168). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (per 100 person-years) were nasopharyngitis (28.8), influenza (7.5), and back pain (5.8). Overall, 9.6% (3.9 per 100 person-years) and 6.7% (2.7 per 100 person-years) of participants reported events of treatment-emergent hypertension and constipation, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile remained consistent with earlier studies. DISCUSSION: Erenumab (140 mg) showed sustained efficacy over 3 years in participants with EM and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. No new safety signals were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03096834.

Medication "underuse" headache.

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

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

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

Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in Japan: insights from an online survey of physician members of the Japanese headache society.

BACKGROUND: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) have greatly changed migraine treatment options. In Japan, although CGRPmAb guidelines (≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) and ≥ 1 previous preventive failure) are well-acknowledged, the actual use of CGRPmAbs and the circumstances of the related headache care are unknown. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of Japanese Headache Society members, inquiring about the physicians' experience with CGRPmAbs and how they make decisions related to their use. RESULTS: Of the 397 respondents, 320 had prescribed CGRPmAbs. The threshold number of previous preventive failures for recommending a CGRPmAb was two for the majority of the respondents (n = 170, 54.5%), followed by one (n = 64, 20.5%). The MMD threshold was ≥ 4 for 71 respondents (22.8%), ≥ 6 for 68 (21.8%), ≥ 8 for 76 (24.4%), and ≥ 10 for 81 (26.0%). The respondents tended to assess treatment efficacy after 3 months (episodic migraine: n = 217, 69.6%, chronic migraine: n = 188, 60.3%). The cost of CGRPmAbs was described by many respondents in two questions: (i) any request for a CGRPmAb (27.7%), and (ii) the most frequently reported reason for responders to discontinue CGRPmAbs (24.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the respondents recommended CGRPmAbs to patients with ≥ 2 preventive failures, followed by ≥ 1. The MMD threshold ranged mostly from ≥ 4 to ≥ 10. The concern for costs was raised as a major limiting factor for prescribing CGRPmAbs.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

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

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