RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) migraine preventives in a real-world community cohort of persons living with migraine and to identify clinical and genetic characteristics associated with efficacious response. BACKGROUND: Erenumab-aooeb, fremanezumab-vrfm, and galcanezumab-gnlm target CGRP or its receptor; however, many patients are non-responsive. METHODS: In this retrospective clinical and genetic study, we identified 1077 adult patients who satisfied the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine without aura, migraine with aura, or chronic migraine and who were prescribed an anti-CGRP migraine preventive between May 2018 and May 2021. Screening of 558 patients identified 289 with data at baseline and first follow-up visits; data were available for 161 patients at a second follow-up visit. The primary outcome was migraine days per month (MDM). In 198 genotyped patients, we evaluated associations between responders (i.e., patients with ≥50% reduction in MDM at follow-up) and genes involved in CGRP signaling or pharmacological response, and genetic and polygenic risk scores. RESULTS: The median time to first follow-up was 4.4 (0.9-22) months after preventive start. At the second follow-up, 5.7 (0.9-13) months later, 145 patients had continued on the same preventive. Preventives had strong, persistent effects in reducing MDM in responders (follow-up 1: η2 = 0.26, follow-up 2: η2 = 0.22). At the first but not second follow-up: galcanezumab had a larger effect than erenumab, while no difference was seen at either follow-up between galcanezumab and fremanezumab or fremanezumab and erenumab. The decrease in MDM at follow-up was generally proportional to baseline MDM, larger in females, and increased with months on medication. At the first follow-up only, patients with prior hospitalization for migraine or who had not responded to more preventive regimens had a smaller decrease in MDM. Reasons for stopping or switching a preventive varied between medications and were often related to cost and insurance coverage. At both follow-ups, patient tolerance (1: 92.2% [262/284]; 2: 95.2% [141/145]) and continued use (1: 77.5% [224/289]; 2: 80.6% [116/145]) were high and similar across preventives. Response consistency (always non-responders: 31.7% [46/145]; always responders: 56.5% [82/145], and one-time only responders: 11.7% [17/145]) was also similar across preventives. Non-responder status had nominally significant associations with rs12615320-G in RAMP1 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.7 [1.5, 14.7]), and rs4680-A in COMT (0.6[0.4, 0.9]). Non-responders had a lower mean genetic risk score than responders (1.0 vs. 1.1; t(df) = -1.75(174.84), p = 0.041), and the fraction of responders increased with genetic and polygenic risk score percentile. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world setting, anti-CGRP preventives reduced MDM persistently and had similar and large effect sizes on MDM reduction; however, clinical and genetic factors influenced response.
