Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2. METHODS: PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1-24). RESULTS: A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1-24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1-24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153 . Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Likelihood of response with subsequent dosing for patients with migraine and initial suboptimal response with eptinezumab: A post hoc analysis of two placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a multivariable model assessing factors predicting a second-dose response to eptinezumab treatment over weeks 13-24 in patients with migraine initially reporting a suboptimal response over weeks 1-12. BACKGROUND: Eptinezumab is a monoclonal antibody used for migraine prevention, administered every 12 weeks. In the PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 studies, the first-dose response to eptinezumab treatment (≥50% monthly migraine day [MMD] reduction over weeks 1-12) occurred in ~50-60% of patients with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), respectively. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included patients with suboptimal first-dose response (<50% MMD reduction over weeks 1-12) with EM and CM, with patient-reported outcome data at weeks 12 and 24. Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg doses were pooled. RESULTS: The analysis included 416/888 patients (46.8%) from PROMISE-1 and 479/1072 patients (44.7%) from PROMISE-2 with suboptimal first-dose response. The proportion of suboptimal first-dose responders who were second-dose responders was 37.0% (71/192; eptinezumab) and 33.9% (42/124; placebo) in PROMISE-1 and 28.8% (79/274) and 18.5% (38/205) in PROMISE-2. Significant first-dose predictors of second-dose response were percent change in MMDs across weeks 1-12 (PROMISE-1, odds ratio [OR]: 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 0.98, p = 0.0001; PROMISE-2, OR: 0.94, CI: 0.92, 0.96, p < 0.0001) and change in 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) total score (PROMISE-2 only, OR: 0.92; CI: 0.87, 0.98; p = 0.027). In PROMISE-1, the probability of second-dose response ranged from 21.7% in patients with first-dose 0% MMD change to 56.0% in patients with first-dose 45% MMD reduction. In PROMISE-2, depending on HIT-6 total score, probability of second-dose response ranged from 5.9-12.1% in patients with first-dose 0% MMD change to 54.2%-72.3% in patients with first-dose 45.0% MMD reduction. CONCLUSION: Individuals with migraine not experiencing ≥50% MMD response to their first dose of eptinezumab may benefit from a second dose.

Safety and efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation for the acute treatment of chronic migraine: an open-label study.

INTRODUCTION: Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is an acute treatment of migraine. The results from several studies in patients with episodic migraine suggest that REN is an effective and safe acute treatment of migraine. A recent pilot study provided initial support that REN is effective in patients with chronic migraine as well. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to validate and provide further evidence for the safety and efficacy of REN in a large sample of patients impacted by chronic migraine. METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm study, patients with chronic migraine treated their headaches with the REN device (Nerivio, Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd, Israel) for 4 weeks. Participants used an electronic diary to record their symptoms at treatment initiation, 2 hours after treatment, and 24 hours after treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who achieved pain relief at 2 hours posttreatment. Secondary end points included pain freedom and improvement of associated symptoms and functional disability. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six subjects were enrolled into the study, of which 91 subjects had an evaluable treatment with REN. Pain relief and pain disappearance at 2 hours were achieved by 59.3% (54/91) and 20.9% (19/91) of modified intent-to-treat subjects, respectively (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 54.5% and 19.2%, respectively). Sustained pain relief at 24 hours was observed in 64.4% (29/45) of those who achieved pain relief at 2 hours (with worst-case sensitivity analysis indicating 45.6%). The findings of the study show that REN has a favorable effect on nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia and improves functional ability. One device-related adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Remote electrical neuromodulation treatments results in the relief of migraine headaches and associated symptoms, thus offering a drug-free acute treatment option for people with chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04194008.

Real-World Treatment Profiles, Clinical Outcomes, and Healthcare Resource Utilization of Patients with Migraine Prescribed Erenumab: A Multicenter Chart-Review Study of US Headache Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Erenumab, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the prevention of migraine in adults. There is limited data available on its impact in real-world settings. The study aim was to characterize the real-world treatment profiles, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization of patients prescribed erenumab from select major US headache centers. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with migraine treated with erenumab for at least 3 months across five major headache centers was conducted. Data was collected from patient charts between April 2019 and April 2020 and included patient and clinical characteristics, migraine medication use, and outpatient visits. The date of the first prescription fill of erenumab was defined as the index date. The baseline period comprised the 3 months prior to the index date and the study period comprised the at least 3 months on erenumab treatment. RESULTS: Data from a total of 1034 patients with chronic migraine with a mean of 9.3 months of erenumab treatment were analyzed. Patients were on average 48 years old, 86% were female, and 79% were white. Patients had a mean of 5 preventive treatment failures prior to erenumab initiation. Patients used a mean of 2 preventive treatments (excluding erenumab) and 2 acute treatments during baseline and study periods. Among patients with effectiveness data, 45% of patients had improvement in physician-reported migraine severity and 35% experienced at least 50% reduction in mean headache/migraine days per month. The average number of monthly outpatient visits was 0.43 and 0.30 before and after erenumab initiation, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this predominantly refractory chronic migraine population treated in select headache centers, patients had fewer headache/migraine days per month and outpatient visits after initiating erenumab. However, patients largely continued to be managed via a polypharmacy approach after erenumab initiation.

Real-World Evidence for Control of Chronic Migraine Patients Receiving CGRP Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Added to OnabotulinumtoxinA: A Retrospective Chart Review.

INTRODUCTION: Combination use of onabotulinumtoxinA and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has the potential to be more effective than either therapy alone for migraine prevention. METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal chart review included adults with chronic migraine treated at one clinical site with ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA and ≥ 1 month of subsequent combination treatment with CGRP mAbs. Charts at time of mAb prescription (baseline) and up to four visits ~ 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-baseline were reviewed for safety, tolerability, and outcome measures (monthly headache days [MHDs], headache intensity, and migraine-related disability [MIDAS]). RESULTS: Of 300 charts reviewed, 257 patients met eligibility criteria (mean age: 50 years; 82% women). Average headache frequency was 21.5 MHDs before initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA and 12.1 MHDs before adding CGRP mAb therapy. Prescribed mAbs were erenumab (78%), fremanezumab (6%), and galcanezumab (16%). Over the entire study, patients discontinued CGRP mAb more frequently than onabotulinumtoxinA (23 vs. 3%). Adverse events occurred in 28% of patients, most commonly constipation (9%). Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA alone (baseline), MHDs decreased significantly at all visits (mean decrease: 3.5-4.0 MHDs over ~ 6-12 months of combination treatment); 45.1% of patients had clinically meaningful improvement in migraine-related disability (≥ 5-point reduction in MIDAS score) after ~ 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, combination treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP mAbs was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified, and was associated with additional clinically meaningful benefits. More real-world and controlled trials should be considered to further assess safety and potential benefits of combination treatment. Video abstract: Real-world data suggests that CGRP inhibitors improve onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy for chronic migraine (MP4 20,067 kb).

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications. BACKGROUND: While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2 h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: In these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2 h, compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2 h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ≥0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.

Expert consensus recommendations for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks for headaches--a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of headache disorders. BACKGROUND: PNBs have long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice. METHODS: The American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures convened meetings during 2010-2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminal PNBs. A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology. RESULTS: PNB indications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns. PNBs described include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of the PNB should result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication-overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations from the American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures members for PNB methodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.

Pure tension-type headache versus tension-type headache in the migraineur.

Primary headache disorders include tension-type headache and migraine. These headache types can be differentiated based on strict clinical definitions that depend on the patient's signs and symptoms. However, some of the clinical features can overlap, and in addition, the same comorbid conditions can occur in both headache types. Distinction between these headache types on occasion can be difficult due to comorbid conditions such as temporomandibular joint disorders and myofascial pain with forward head posturing, which may be present in both headache disorders, and thus result in similar features in both conditions. Furthermore, chronification, particularly of migraine, leads to a decrease in the associated symptoms of migraine, such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, so that these headaches more closely resemble tension-type headache. Finally, in some patients, both tension-type headache and migraine may occur at different times.

Botulinum toxin type A and divalproex sodium for prophylactic treatment of episodic or chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA; BOTOX: Allergan, Inc.) and divalproex sodium (DVPX; DEPAKOTE: Abbott Laboratories) as prophylaxis in reducing disability and impact associated with migraine. BACKGROUND: There is a need for effective, well-tolerated prophylactic treatment of migraine. DESIGN/METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, single-center prospective study. Fifty-nine patients received either BoNTA 100 U/placebo-DVPX bid or placebo-BoNTA/DVPX 250 mg bid. BoNTA/placebo injections were given at Day 0 and at Month 3. Patients were evaluated at Months 1, 3, 6, and 9. RESULTS: Both treatments showed significant improvements in migraine disability scores and reductions in headache days and headache index. A trend to decreased headache severity was observed with BoNTA. A greater percentage of DVPX patients reported adverse events possibly related to treatment (DVPX 75.8% vs BoNTA 50%, P = .04) and discontinued because of adverse events (DVPX 27.6% vs BoNTA 3.3%, P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Both BoNTA and DVPX significantly reduced disability associated with migraine; BoNTA had a favorable tolerability profile compared with DVPX.

Effect of preventive treatment with botulinum toxin type A on acute headache medication usage in migraine patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of preventive treatment of migraine with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A as BOTOX) on the amount of acute headache medications used. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from four studies of BoNT-A treatment for migraine were pooled for an aggregate analysis. All studies were at least 12 weeks in duration. For each study, the amounts of headache medications used at weeks 8-12 following BoNT-A treatment were compared with pretreatment baseline amounts and expressed preventive headache care considering acute as a percentage change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean value for the reduction in medication usage was calculated by pooling data from the individual studies and weighting the data according to the sample size of each study. RESULTS: Four studies (one published, and three presented as recent meeting abstracts) with a total of 167 patients quantified acute headache medication use before and after BoNT-A treatment. The weighted average reduction in medication usage (primarily triptans) was 57% (range 38-75%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis indicated a 57% reduction in acute headache medication use in the 8- to 12-week period following injection of BoNT-A. A reduction of this magnitude could represent substantial savings in the costs of acute medications. This could help to offset the total cost of treatment and suggests BoNT-A may be a cost-reasonable option for medication offsets alone especially in patients with chronic headache with higher acute medication use. Additional larger controlled efficacy and safety studies must be done to confirm these results since three of the four studies were preliminary research and of different study types. Further prospective studies of direct and indirect costs, including those for disability and lost productivity, are needed to evaluate the overall impact of BoNT-A therapy on the economic, societal, and individual burden of migraine headache.