User login
Drugs to prevent versus those to treat migraine might not share targets
, according to experts attempting to put these puzzle pieces together at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
As the details of the complex chain of molecular events become better understood, there is reason to believe that the targets for aborting events early in the process are not necessarily therapeutic at later stages or vice versa, according to Peter Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute for Health Research and professor of neurology, King’s College, London.
“I think this explains some of the frustration at trigger modulation. I think we are often trying to modulate a process that has already got started,” he said. The analogy might be closing the barn door after the animals have escaped.
Migraine phases might explain pathology
Given the progress in understanding each step that leads from one phase to the next in migraine onset, this premise is not surprising. Increased blood flow, trigeminal activation, and release of calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) are early events in this process, according to Dr. Goadsby, but there is still uncertainty about the triggers of brainstem stimulation and cranial blood flow that precedes these events.
In his talk about the advances that led to the development of CGRP-targeted therapy, Dr. Goadsby explained how and why CGRP inhibition, along with triptans, pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating polypeptide (PACAP) inhibitors, and ditans, have been developed as treatment targets in migraine, while other once-promising targets, such as substance P inhibition and inducible nitric oxide synthase (INOS) inhibition, have not.
Much of this progress has been by trial and error through clinical studies in which efficacy has or has not been seen. Despite the progress in mapping the release of CGRP and its activity, Dr. Goadsby acknowledged that there is still much about its participation in migraine pathophysiology that remains poorly defined.
“Anyone who tells you that they know how CGRP works I think is blowing smoke, frankly,” Dr. Goadsby said. “Clearly these things are complex.”
CGRP is active in the CSF
This includes the site of action. Dr. Goadsby said that it is widely believed that CGRP inhibitors are active in the dura and not in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). However, Dr. Goadsby said that a study undertaken with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP have produced compelling evidence that CGRP is reduced in the CSF.
“They clearly get into the CSF,” said Dr. Goadsby, noting that the barrier between peripheral blood and the CSF “is different from the blood-brain barrier.”
Widely regarded as playing a pivotal role in the development of CGRP as a therapeutic target in migraine, Dr. Goadsby spent some time speculating about its potential for preventing the earliest steps in the process that leads from the premonitory state to allodynia, prodromal symptoms, migraine, and postdromal recovery.
Of triggers, “light is my favorite example,” he said. He noted that many patients are convinced that light initiates the subsequent steps that end in a migraine. This is fair assumption for those who have seen a sequence of events in which light in the absence of any other symptom always precedes prodromal symptoms and migraine.
“Why would you not think that?” he asked. “Unless you point out that the attack had already started and the reason that you are noticing the light is because of photophobia that started during the premonitory phase.”
It is increasingly clear that CGRP inhibition does have clinical benefit when started at early signs of a coming migraine, according to Dr. Goadsby. He cited a phase 3 study published just days before he spoke at the Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Called PRODROME, the study associated the CGRP receptor antagonist ubrogepant, which is already approved for treatment of migraine, with a significant reduction in the risk of moderate to severe headache relative to placebo when measured 24 hours after randomization (46% vs. 29%; P < .0001).
Brain activity monitoring supports phases
Citing imaging studies in his own laboratory, Todd J. Schwedt, MD, chair of neurology research, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, substantiated several of the points made by Dr. Goadsby in a separate talk he made on migraine phases. By monitoring brain activity during each phase of migraine, he suggested his data support the role of CGRP in producing an inflammatory response as well as sensitizing the trigeminal cervical system in steps that appear to be important to the pain process.
Dr. Schwedt showed several pieces of evidence suggesting that CGRP is an early mediator even if it is not necessarily the first step in a process for every patient. However, like Dr. Goadsby, Dr. Schwedt also acknowledged that the interplay between events is complex and might differ between patients.
Yet, he says that brain activity on imaging is not the only evidence of the role of CGRP activation early in the process leading toward migraine.
“I am a little biased towards imaging, but it’s not just about imaging,” Dr. Schwedt said.
“If we look at preictal salivary CGRP levels and then follow them into the headache phase, we see the levels increase, but they go back to normal a couple of hours into the attack and then stay normal, presumably, until the patient gets closer to the next attack,” Dr. Schwedt said.
Despite progress there is more to be done to determine why CGRP is released and whether it can be inhibited early to abort migraine before the headache phase, but both Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt pointed to this as a very early event. This is not to say that others, such as cortical spreading depression, do not have an equally important role in the evolution of migraine, but each expert considers migraine phases to be useful divisions for tracing the sequence of pathogenic events.
The phase of a migraine attack and their corresponding symptoms “can be mapped to altered brain function and release of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters,” Dr. Schwedt said. The implication is that better targets for blocking migraine before it reaches the headache phase might be discovered in these early phases.
Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt listed more than 10 pharmaceutical companies to which they have financial relationships, but both claimed that none of these relationships posed a potential conflict of interest.
, according to experts attempting to put these puzzle pieces together at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
As the details of the complex chain of molecular events become better understood, there is reason to believe that the targets for aborting events early in the process are not necessarily therapeutic at later stages or vice versa, according to Peter Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute for Health Research and professor of neurology, King’s College, London.
“I think this explains some of the frustration at trigger modulation. I think we are often trying to modulate a process that has already got started,” he said. The analogy might be closing the barn door after the animals have escaped.
Migraine phases might explain pathology
Given the progress in understanding each step that leads from one phase to the next in migraine onset, this premise is not surprising. Increased blood flow, trigeminal activation, and release of calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) are early events in this process, according to Dr. Goadsby, but there is still uncertainty about the triggers of brainstem stimulation and cranial blood flow that precedes these events.
In his talk about the advances that led to the development of CGRP-targeted therapy, Dr. Goadsby explained how and why CGRP inhibition, along with triptans, pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating polypeptide (PACAP) inhibitors, and ditans, have been developed as treatment targets in migraine, while other once-promising targets, such as substance P inhibition and inducible nitric oxide synthase (INOS) inhibition, have not.
Much of this progress has been by trial and error through clinical studies in which efficacy has or has not been seen. Despite the progress in mapping the release of CGRP and its activity, Dr. Goadsby acknowledged that there is still much about its participation in migraine pathophysiology that remains poorly defined.
“Anyone who tells you that they know how CGRP works I think is blowing smoke, frankly,” Dr. Goadsby said. “Clearly these things are complex.”
CGRP is active in the CSF
This includes the site of action. Dr. Goadsby said that it is widely believed that CGRP inhibitors are active in the dura and not in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). However, Dr. Goadsby said that a study undertaken with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP have produced compelling evidence that CGRP is reduced in the CSF.
“They clearly get into the CSF,” said Dr. Goadsby, noting that the barrier between peripheral blood and the CSF “is different from the blood-brain barrier.”
Widely regarded as playing a pivotal role in the development of CGRP as a therapeutic target in migraine, Dr. Goadsby spent some time speculating about its potential for preventing the earliest steps in the process that leads from the premonitory state to allodynia, prodromal symptoms, migraine, and postdromal recovery.
Of triggers, “light is my favorite example,” he said. He noted that many patients are convinced that light initiates the subsequent steps that end in a migraine. This is fair assumption for those who have seen a sequence of events in which light in the absence of any other symptom always precedes prodromal symptoms and migraine.
“Why would you not think that?” he asked. “Unless you point out that the attack had already started and the reason that you are noticing the light is because of photophobia that started during the premonitory phase.”
It is increasingly clear that CGRP inhibition does have clinical benefit when started at early signs of a coming migraine, according to Dr. Goadsby. He cited a phase 3 study published just days before he spoke at the Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Called PRODROME, the study associated the CGRP receptor antagonist ubrogepant, which is already approved for treatment of migraine, with a significant reduction in the risk of moderate to severe headache relative to placebo when measured 24 hours after randomization (46% vs. 29%; P < .0001).
Brain activity monitoring supports phases
Citing imaging studies in his own laboratory, Todd J. Schwedt, MD, chair of neurology research, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, substantiated several of the points made by Dr. Goadsby in a separate talk he made on migraine phases. By monitoring brain activity during each phase of migraine, he suggested his data support the role of CGRP in producing an inflammatory response as well as sensitizing the trigeminal cervical system in steps that appear to be important to the pain process.
Dr. Schwedt showed several pieces of evidence suggesting that CGRP is an early mediator even if it is not necessarily the first step in a process for every patient. However, like Dr. Goadsby, Dr. Schwedt also acknowledged that the interplay between events is complex and might differ between patients.
Yet, he says that brain activity on imaging is not the only evidence of the role of CGRP activation early in the process leading toward migraine.
“I am a little biased towards imaging, but it’s not just about imaging,” Dr. Schwedt said.
“If we look at preictal salivary CGRP levels and then follow them into the headache phase, we see the levels increase, but they go back to normal a couple of hours into the attack and then stay normal, presumably, until the patient gets closer to the next attack,” Dr. Schwedt said.
Despite progress there is more to be done to determine why CGRP is released and whether it can be inhibited early to abort migraine before the headache phase, but both Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt pointed to this as a very early event. This is not to say that others, such as cortical spreading depression, do not have an equally important role in the evolution of migraine, but each expert considers migraine phases to be useful divisions for tracing the sequence of pathogenic events.
The phase of a migraine attack and their corresponding symptoms “can be mapped to altered brain function and release of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters,” Dr. Schwedt said. The implication is that better targets for blocking migraine before it reaches the headache phase might be discovered in these early phases.
Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt listed more than 10 pharmaceutical companies to which they have financial relationships, but both claimed that none of these relationships posed a potential conflict of interest.
, according to experts attempting to put these puzzle pieces together at the 2023 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.
As the details of the complex chain of molecular events become better understood, there is reason to believe that the targets for aborting events early in the process are not necessarily therapeutic at later stages or vice versa, according to Peter Goadsby, MBBS, MD, PhD, director of the National Institute for Health Research and professor of neurology, King’s College, London.
“I think this explains some of the frustration at trigger modulation. I think we are often trying to modulate a process that has already got started,” he said. The analogy might be closing the barn door after the animals have escaped.
Migraine phases might explain pathology
Given the progress in understanding each step that leads from one phase to the next in migraine onset, this premise is not surprising. Increased blood flow, trigeminal activation, and release of calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) are early events in this process, according to Dr. Goadsby, but there is still uncertainty about the triggers of brainstem stimulation and cranial blood flow that precedes these events.
In his talk about the advances that led to the development of CGRP-targeted therapy, Dr. Goadsby explained how and why CGRP inhibition, along with triptans, pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating polypeptide (PACAP) inhibitors, and ditans, have been developed as treatment targets in migraine, while other once-promising targets, such as substance P inhibition and inducible nitric oxide synthase (INOS) inhibition, have not.
Much of this progress has been by trial and error through clinical studies in which efficacy has or has not been seen. Despite the progress in mapping the release of CGRP and its activity, Dr. Goadsby acknowledged that there is still much about its participation in migraine pathophysiology that remains poorly defined.
“Anyone who tells you that they know how CGRP works I think is blowing smoke, frankly,” Dr. Goadsby said. “Clearly these things are complex.”
CGRP is active in the CSF
This includes the site of action. Dr. Goadsby said that it is widely believed that CGRP inhibitors are active in the dura and not in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). However, Dr. Goadsby said that a study undertaken with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP have produced compelling evidence that CGRP is reduced in the CSF.
“They clearly get into the CSF,” said Dr. Goadsby, noting that the barrier between peripheral blood and the CSF “is different from the blood-brain barrier.”
Widely regarded as playing a pivotal role in the development of CGRP as a therapeutic target in migraine, Dr. Goadsby spent some time speculating about its potential for preventing the earliest steps in the process that leads from the premonitory state to allodynia, prodromal symptoms, migraine, and postdromal recovery.
Of triggers, “light is my favorite example,” he said. He noted that many patients are convinced that light initiates the subsequent steps that end in a migraine. This is fair assumption for those who have seen a sequence of events in which light in the absence of any other symptom always precedes prodromal symptoms and migraine.
“Why would you not think that?” he asked. “Unless you point out that the attack had already started and the reason that you are noticing the light is because of photophobia that started during the premonitory phase.”
It is increasingly clear that CGRP inhibition does have clinical benefit when started at early signs of a coming migraine, according to Dr. Goadsby. He cited a phase 3 study published just days before he spoke at the Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Called PRODROME, the study associated the CGRP receptor antagonist ubrogepant, which is already approved for treatment of migraine, with a significant reduction in the risk of moderate to severe headache relative to placebo when measured 24 hours after randomization (46% vs. 29%; P < .0001).
Brain activity monitoring supports phases
Citing imaging studies in his own laboratory, Todd J. Schwedt, MD, chair of neurology research, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, substantiated several of the points made by Dr. Goadsby in a separate talk he made on migraine phases. By monitoring brain activity during each phase of migraine, he suggested his data support the role of CGRP in producing an inflammatory response as well as sensitizing the trigeminal cervical system in steps that appear to be important to the pain process.
Dr. Schwedt showed several pieces of evidence suggesting that CGRP is an early mediator even if it is not necessarily the first step in a process for every patient. However, like Dr. Goadsby, Dr. Schwedt also acknowledged that the interplay between events is complex and might differ between patients.
Yet, he says that brain activity on imaging is not the only evidence of the role of CGRP activation early in the process leading toward migraine.
“I am a little biased towards imaging, but it’s not just about imaging,” Dr. Schwedt said.
“If we look at preictal salivary CGRP levels and then follow them into the headache phase, we see the levels increase, but they go back to normal a couple of hours into the attack and then stay normal, presumably, until the patient gets closer to the next attack,” Dr. Schwedt said.
Despite progress there is more to be done to determine why CGRP is released and whether it can be inhibited early to abort migraine before the headache phase, but both Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt pointed to this as a very early event. This is not to say that others, such as cortical spreading depression, do not have an equally important role in the evolution of migraine, but each expert considers migraine phases to be useful divisions for tracing the sequence of pathogenic events.
The phase of a migraine attack and their corresponding symptoms “can be mapped to altered brain function and release of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters,” Dr. Schwedt said. The implication is that better targets for blocking migraine before it reaches the headache phase might be discovered in these early phases.
Dr. Goadsby and Dr. Schwedt listed more than 10 pharmaceutical companies to which they have financial relationships, but both claimed that none of these relationships posed a potential conflict of interest.
FROM THE 2023 SCOTTSDALE HEADACHE SYMPOSIUM
Real-world study confirms benefits of erenumab for migraine prevention
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs.
Major finding: Overall, 52.9%, 58.5%, 57.0%, and 58.8% of patients receiving erenumab achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively, with significant reductions in the proportion of patients with chronic migraine at all time points compared with baseline (P < .001). At month 3, 57.3% of patients changed from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective, real-word study including 140 patients with migraine and previous migraine preventive treatment failures who received ≥1 dose of erenumab.
Disclosures: This study did not receive funding from any source. Several authors declared receiving personal fees for consultancy activities or research support from various sources, and some authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lanteri-Minet M et al. One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: Results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24:152 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01680-4
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs.
Major finding: Overall, 52.9%, 58.5%, 57.0%, and 58.8% of patients receiving erenumab achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively, with significant reductions in the proportion of patients with chronic migraine at all time points compared with baseline (P < .001). At month 3, 57.3% of patients changed from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective, real-word study including 140 patients with migraine and previous migraine preventive treatment failures who received ≥1 dose of erenumab.
Disclosures: This study did not receive funding from any source. Several authors declared receiving personal fees for consultancy activities or research support from various sources, and some authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lanteri-Minet M et al. One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: Results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24:152 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01680-4
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs.
Major finding: Overall, 52.9%, 58.5%, 57.0%, and 58.8% of patients receiving erenumab achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively, with significant reductions in the proportion of patients with chronic migraine at all time points compared with baseline (P < .001). At month 3, 57.3% of patients changed from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective, real-word study including 140 patients with migraine and previous migraine preventive treatment failures who received ≥1 dose of erenumab.
Disclosures: This study did not receive funding from any source. Several authors declared receiving personal fees for consultancy activities or research support from various sources, and some authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Lanteri-Minet M et al. One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: Results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24:152 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01680-4
Heavy secondhand smoke exposure tied to higher risk for severe headaches or migraine
Key clinical point: Heavy secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure was positively associated with a higher risk for severe headaches or migraine in adults who never smoked.
Major finding: Heavy SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 1-10 ng/mL) was positively associated with severe headaches or migraine (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; P = .011). No significant association was observed between low SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 0.05-0.99 ng/mL) and headaches or migraine (P = .226).
Study details: This nationwide cross-sectional study included 4560 adults who had never smoked, of which 20% had severe headaches or migraine.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding from external sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Wu J, Yang P, et al. Association between secondhand smoke exposure and severe headaches or migraine in never-smoking adults. Headache. 2023 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1111/head.14640
Key clinical point: Heavy secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure was positively associated with a higher risk for severe headaches or migraine in adults who never smoked.
Major finding: Heavy SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 1-10 ng/mL) was positively associated with severe headaches or migraine (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; P = .011). No significant association was observed between low SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 0.05-0.99 ng/mL) and headaches or migraine (P = .226).
Study details: This nationwide cross-sectional study included 4560 adults who had never smoked, of which 20% had severe headaches or migraine.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding from external sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Wu J, Yang P, et al. Association between secondhand smoke exposure and severe headaches or migraine in never-smoking adults. Headache. 2023 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1111/head.14640
Key clinical point: Heavy secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure was positively associated with a higher risk for severe headaches or migraine in adults who never smoked.
Major finding: Heavy SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 1-10 ng/mL) was positively associated with severe headaches or migraine (adjusted odds ratio 2.02; P = .011). No significant association was observed between low SHS exposure (serum cotinine level 0.05-0.99 ng/mL) and headaches or migraine (P = .226).
Study details: This nationwide cross-sectional study included 4560 adults who had never smoked, of which 20% had severe headaches or migraine.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding from external sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Wu J, Yang P, et al. Association between secondhand smoke exposure and severe headaches or migraine in never-smoking adults. Headache. 2023 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1111/head.14640
Heart rate variability may help predict treatment response in chronic migraine
Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine have autonomic dysfunction, the extent of which is evaluated using heart rate variability (HRV) analysis, and a preserved function is associated with a superior response to flunarizine preventive treatment.
Major finding: Most heart-rate variability (HRV) parameters, except the ratios of low-frequency (LF) band and LF/high-frequency band, were significantly lower in patients with migraine vs control individuals (P < .001). The response to flunarizine treatment was superior in patients with normal HRV, as exemplified by higher reductions in monthly headache days after 3 months in those with normal vs lower HRV (─9.7 days vs ─6.2 days; P = .026).
Study details: This cross-sectional, prospective study included 81 prophylaxis-naive patients with chronic migraine and 58 age- and gender-matched control individuals. Patients with migraine initiated flunarizine as a preventive treatment for 12 weeks.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and others. SJ Wang declared being a principal investigator and receiving personal fees as an advisor or speaker from various sources.
Source: Chuang CH et al. Abnormal heart rate variability and its application in predicting treatment efficacy in patients with chronic migraine: An exploratory study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 18). doi: 10.1177/03331024231206781
Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine have autonomic dysfunction, the extent of which is evaluated using heart rate variability (HRV) analysis, and a preserved function is associated with a superior response to flunarizine preventive treatment.
Major finding: Most heart-rate variability (HRV) parameters, except the ratios of low-frequency (LF) band and LF/high-frequency band, were significantly lower in patients with migraine vs control individuals (P < .001). The response to flunarizine treatment was superior in patients with normal HRV, as exemplified by higher reductions in monthly headache days after 3 months in those with normal vs lower HRV (─9.7 days vs ─6.2 days; P = .026).
Study details: This cross-sectional, prospective study included 81 prophylaxis-naive patients with chronic migraine and 58 age- and gender-matched control individuals. Patients with migraine initiated flunarizine as a preventive treatment for 12 weeks.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and others. SJ Wang declared being a principal investigator and receiving personal fees as an advisor or speaker from various sources.
Source: Chuang CH et al. Abnormal heart rate variability and its application in predicting treatment efficacy in patients with chronic migraine: An exploratory study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 18). doi: 10.1177/03331024231206781
Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine have autonomic dysfunction, the extent of which is evaluated using heart rate variability (HRV) analysis, and a preserved function is associated with a superior response to flunarizine preventive treatment.
Major finding: Most heart-rate variability (HRV) parameters, except the ratios of low-frequency (LF) band and LF/high-frequency band, were significantly lower in patients with migraine vs control individuals (P < .001). The response to flunarizine treatment was superior in patients with normal HRV, as exemplified by higher reductions in monthly headache days after 3 months in those with normal vs lower HRV (─9.7 days vs ─6.2 days; P = .026).
Study details: This cross-sectional, prospective study included 81 prophylaxis-naive patients with chronic migraine and 58 age- and gender-matched control individuals. Patients with migraine initiated flunarizine as a preventive treatment for 12 weeks.
Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and others. SJ Wang declared being a principal investigator and receiving personal fees as an advisor or speaker from various sources.
Source: Chuang CH et al. Abnormal heart rate variability and its application in predicting treatment efficacy in patients with chronic migraine: An exploratory study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 18). doi: 10.1177/03331024231206781
Remote electrical neuromodulation: A pill-free, needle-free option for long-term migraine management
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for long-term management of acute migraine, thus establishing REN as a valuable comprehensive treatment for this chronic disease.
Major finding: Overall, 74.1% and 26.0% of patients achieved consistent pain relief and pain freedom with REN, respectively, and 70.2% and 33.7% achieved functional disability relief and functional disability freedom, respectively. The incidence of device-related adverse events (dAE) was low, ie, 1.96%, which included 0.49% negligible, 1.22% moderate, and 0.24% mild AE. No severe AE were reported, and all patients continued treatment despite dAE.
Study details: This real-world evidence study included 409 patients with migraine treated for 12 consecutive months with REN, a self-administered device used at the onset of migraine headache or aura for acute treatment.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd. M Weinstein and A Synowiec declared serving as consultants for Theranica. A Stark-Inbar and A Ironi declared being employees of and hold stock options in Theranica. A Mauskop had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Source: Synowiec A et al. One-year consistent safety, utilization, and efficacy assessment of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for migraine treatment. Adv Ther. 2023 (Oct 19). doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02697-6
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for long-term management of acute migraine, thus establishing REN as a valuable comprehensive treatment for this chronic disease.
Major finding: Overall, 74.1% and 26.0% of patients achieved consistent pain relief and pain freedom with REN, respectively, and 70.2% and 33.7% achieved functional disability relief and functional disability freedom, respectively. The incidence of device-related adverse events (dAE) was low, ie, 1.96%, which included 0.49% negligible, 1.22% moderate, and 0.24% mild AE. No severe AE were reported, and all patients continued treatment despite dAE.
Study details: This real-world evidence study included 409 patients with migraine treated for 12 consecutive months with REN, a self-administered device used at the onset of migraine headache or aura for acute treatment.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd. M Weinstein and A Synowiec declared serving as consultants for Theranica. A Stark-Inbar and A Ironi declared being employees of and hold stock options in Theranica. A Mauskop had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Source: Synowiec A et al. One-year consistent safety, utilization, and efficacy assessment of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for migraine treatment. Adv Ther. 2023 (Oct 19). doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02697-6
Key clinical point: This real-world study confirms the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for long-term management of acute migraine, thus establishing REN as a valuable comprehensive treatment for this chronic disease.
Major finding: Overall, 74.1% and 26.0% of patients achieved consistent pain relief and pain freedom with REN, respectively, and 70.2% and 33.7% achieved functional disability relief and functional disability freedom, respectively. The incidence of device-related adverse events (dAE) was low, ie, 1.96%, which included 0.49% negligible, 1.22% moderate, and 0.24% mild AE. No severe AE were reported, and all patients continued treatment despite dAE.
Study details: This real-world evidence study included 409 patients with migraine treated for 12 consecutive months with REN, a self-administered device used at the onset of migraine headache or aura for acute treatment.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd. M Weinstein and A Synowiec declared serving as consultants for Theranica. A Stark-Inbar and A Ironi declared being employees of and hold stock options in Theranica. A Mauskop had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Source: Synowiec A et al. One-year consistent safety, utilization, and efficacy assessment of remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) for migraine treatment. Adv Ther. 2023 (Oct 19). doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02697-6
Ubrogepant and anti-CGRP mAb combo is effective for acute treatment of migraine
Key clinical point: The use of ubrogepant in combination with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) leads to meaningful pain relief (MPR), return to normal function (RNF), treatment satisfaction, and acute treatment optimization in patients with migraine.
Major finding: Following the first treated attack, 61.6% and 80.4% of patients achieved MPR and 34.7% and 55.5% of patients achieved RNF at 2 hours and 4 hours post-dose, respectively, in the ubrogepant plus anti-CGRP mAb arm. Moreover, 72.7% of patients reported being satisfied with ubrogepant when used in combination with anti-CGRP mAb, and 79.7% of patients achieved acute treatment optimization at 30 days.
Study details: Findings are from a prospective, observational study that included 245 patients with migraine who were treated with ubrogepant combined with anti-CGRP mAb, onabotulinumtoxinA, or both, for migraine prevention.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). RB Lipton declared receiving research support, honoraria, and royalties from, and serving as a consultant and advisory board member for various sources, including AbbVie or Allergan.
Source: Lipton RB et al. Real-world use of ubrogepant as acute treatment for migraine with an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody: Results from COURAGE. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Nov 1). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00556-8
Key clinical point: The use of ubrogepant in combination with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) leads to meaningful pain relief (MPR), return to normal function (RNF), treatment satisfaction, and acute treatment optimization in patients with migraine.
Major finding: Following the first treated attack, 61.6% and 80.4% of patients achieved MPR and 34.7% and 55.5% of patients achieved RNF at 2 hours and 4 hours post-dose, respectively, in the ubrogepant plus anti-CGRP mAb arm. Moreover, 72.7% of patients reported being satisfied with ubrogepant when used in combination with anti-CGRP mAb, and 79.7% of patients achieved acute treatment optimization at 30 days.
Study details: Findings are from a prospective, observational study that included 245 patients with migraine who were treated with ubrogepant combined with anti-CGRP mAb, onabotulinumtoxinA, or both, for migraine prevention.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). RB Lipton declared receiving research support, honoraria, and royalties from, and serving as a consultant and advisory board member for various sources, including AbbVie or Allergan.
Source: Lipton RB et al. Real-world use of ubrogepant as acute treatment for migraine with an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody: Results from COURAGE. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Nov 1). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00556-8
Key clinical point: The use of ubrogepant in combination with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) leads to meaningful pain relief (MPR), return to normal function (RNF), treatment satisfaction, and acute treatment optimization in patients with migraine.
Major finding: Following the first treated attack, 61.6% and 80.4% of patients achieved MPR and 34.7% and 55.5% of patients achieved RNF at 2 hours and 4 hours post-dose, respectively, in the ubrogepant plus anti-CGRP mAb arm. Moreover, 72.7% of patients reported being satisfied with ubrogepant when used in combination with anti-CGRP mAb, and 79.7% of patients achieved acute treatment optimization at 30 days.
Study details: Findings are from a prospective, observational study that included 245 patients with migraine who were treated with ubrogepant combined with anti-CGRP mAb, onabotulinumtoxinA, or both, for migraine prevention.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (prior to its acquisition by AbbVie). RB Lipton declared receiving research support, honoraria, and royalties from, and serving as a consultant and advisory board member for various sources, including AbbVie or Allergan.
Source: Lipton RB et al. Real-world use of ubrogepant as acute treatment for migraine with an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody: Results from COURAGE. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Nov 1). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00556-8
Effect of CGRP mAb rollout on prescription patterns of other migraine preventive therapies
Key clinical point: The introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) has led to a reduction in the prescription of other oral preventive therapies for chronic migraine, likely due to the similar efficacy and better safety profile of CGRP mAb.
Major finding: Overall, the percentage of commonly prescribed preventive medications reduced significantly from 46.3% before the introduction of CGRP mAb to 43.1% post introduction (P = .001), including a large decrease in the prescription of verapamil, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and propranolol (all P < .05).
Study details: This retrospective cohort study compared the percentage of patients with chronic migraine who were prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinumtoxinA during the CGRP mAb pre-approval period (2015-2017; n = 3144) and post-approval period (2019-2021; n = 4629).
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Moskatel LS et al. The introduction of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and their effect on the prescription patterns of chronic migraine preventive medications in a tertiary headache center: A retrospective, observational analysis. Headache. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1111/head.14642
Key clinical point: The introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) has led to a reduction in the prescription of other oral preventive therapies for chronic migraine, likely due to the similar efficacy and better safety profile of CGRP mAb.
Major finding: Overall, the percentage of commonly prescribed preventive medications reduced significantly from 46.3% before the introduction of CGRP mAb to 43.1% post introduction (P = .001), including a large decrease in the prescription of verapamil, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and propranolol (all P < .05).
Study details: This retrospective cohort study compared the percentage of patients with chronic migraine who were prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinumtoxinA during the CGRP mAb pre-approval period (2015-2017; n = 3144) and post-approval period (2019-2021; n = 4629).
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Moskatel LS et al. The introduction of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and their effect on the prescription patterns of chronic migraine preventive medications in a tertiary headache center: A retrospective, observational analysis. Headache. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1111/head.14642
Key clinical point: The introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) has led to a reduction in the prescription of other oral preventive therapies for chronic migraine, likely due to the similar efficacy and better safety profile of CGRP mAb.
Major finding: Overall, the percentage of commonly prescribed preventive medications reduced significantly from 46.3% before the introduction of CGRP mAb to 43.1% post introduction (P = .001), including a large decrease in the prescription of verapamil, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and propranolol (all P < .05).
Study details: This retrospective cohort study compared the percentage of patients with chronic migraine who were prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinumtoxinA during the CGRP mAb pre-approval period (2015-2017; n = 3144) and post-approval period (2019-2021; n = 4629).
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Moskatel LS et al. The introduction of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and their effect on the prescription patterns of chronic migraine preventive medications in a tertiary headache center: A retrospective, observational analysis. Headache. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1111/head.14642
BMI and migraine risk in adolescents: What’s the link?
Key clinical point: Adolescents who are underweight or obese are at an increased risk for migraine, with the risk being more pronounced in case of women.
Major finding: Adolescent women who were underweight or obese had 12% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.19) and 38% (aOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.31-1.46) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than women with low-normal body mass index (BMI) values. Men who were underweight or obese had 11% (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.16) and 24% (aOR 1,24; 95% CI 1.19-1.30) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than men with low-normal BMI values.
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cross-sectional study including 2,094,862 adolescents (age 16-19 years), of whom 57,385 had migraine.
Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Zloof Y et al. Body mass index and migraine in adolescence: A nationwide study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1177/03331024231209309
Key clinical point: Adolescents who are underweight or obese are at an increased risk for migraine, with the risk being more pronounced in case of women.
Major finding: Adolescent women who were underweight or obese had 12% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.19) and 38% (aOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.31-1.46) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than women with low-normal body mass index (BMI) values. Men who were underweight or obese had 11% (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.16) and 24% (aOR 1,24; 95% CI 1.19-1.30) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than men with low-normal BMI values.
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cross-sectional study including 2,094,862 adolescents (age 16-19 years), of whom 57,385 had migraine.
Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Zloof Y et al. Body mass index and migraine in adolescence: A nationwide study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1177/03331024231209309
Key clinical point: Adolescents who are underweight or obese are at an increased risk for migraine, with the risk being more pronounced in case of women.
Major finding: Adolescent women who were underweight or obese had 12% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.19) and 38% (aOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.31-1.46) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than women with low-normal body mass index (BMI) values. Men who were underweight or obese had 11% (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.16) and 24% (aOR 1,24; 95% CI 1.19-1.30) higher risks for migraine, respectively, than men with low-normal BMI values.
Study details: The data come from a retrospective cross-sectional study including 2,094,862 adolescents (age 16-19 years), of whom 57,385 had migraine.
Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Zloof Y et al. Body mass index and migraine in adolescence: A nationwide study. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Oct 26). doi: 10.1177/03331024231209309
Anti-CGRP antibodies improve depressive symptoms in migraine
Key clinical point: Treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies for 3 months significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with migraine, independent of the reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD).
Major finding: The proportion of patients with active depression reduced significantly after 3 months of treatment with erenumab and fremanezumab (both P < .001) but not in the group receiving no active treatment. Anti-CGRP medication vs no active medication led to additional reduction in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (β 1.65; P = .01), independent of the reduction in MMD.
Study details: This prospective study included patients with migraine who received erenumab (n = 110), fremanezumab (n = 117), or no active medication (n = 68).
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Three authors declared receiving consultancy support, industry grant, or independent support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Vries Lentsch S, van der Arend BWH, et al. Depression and treatment with anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies for migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1111/ene.16106
Key clinical point: Treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies for 3 months significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with migraine, independent of the reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD).
Major finding: The proportion of patients with active depression reduced significantly after 3 months of treatment with erenumab and fremanezumab (both P < .001) but not in the group receiving no active treatment. Anti-CGRP medication vs no active medication led to additional reduction in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (β 1.65; P = .01), independent of the reduction in MMD.
Study details: This prospective study included patients with migraine who received erenumab (n = 110), fremanezumab (n = 117), or no active medication (n = 68).
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Three authors declared receiving consultancy support, industry grant, or independent support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Vries Lentsch S, van der Arend BWH, et al. Depression and treatment with anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies for migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1111/ene.16106
Key clinical point: Treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies for 3 months significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with migraine, independent of the reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD).
Major finding: The proportion of patients with active depression reduced significantly after 3 months of treatment with erenumab and fremanezumab (both P < .001) but not in the group receiving no active treatment. Anti-CGRP medication vs no active medication led to additional reduction in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (β 1.65; P = .01), independent of the reduction in MMD.
Study details: This prospective study included patients with migraine who received erenumab (n = 110), fremanezumab (n = 117), or no active medication (n = 68).
Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding sources. Three authors declared receiving consultancy support, industry grant, or independent support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Vries Lentsch S, van der Arend BWH, et al. Depression and treatment with anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies for migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1111/ene.16106
Real-world evidence on efficacy of anti-CGRP mAbs in elderly patients with migraine
Key clinical point: This study provides class-III real-world evidence that anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are efficacious and safe in patients with migraine age > 65 years but may take more time to show effect in these patients vs those age < 55 years.
Major finding: A similar proportion of patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years achieved a 50% response rate at 20-24 weeks of initiating anti-CGRP mAb (P = .811). Patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years showed lesser reduction in mean monthly headache days at 10-12 weeks (P = .001) and higher reduction in mean monthly migraine days at 20-24 weeks (P = .04). Both groups had similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
Study details: This multicenter observational case-control study included 114 patients age > 65 years and 114 sex-matched patients age < 55 years with episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, speaker honoraria, or lecture honoraria from or serving on the advisory boards of various sources.
Source: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Effectiveness, tolerability and response predictors of preventive anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients over 65 years old: A multicenter real-world case-control study. Pain Med. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1093/pm/pnad141
Key clinical point: This study provides class-III real-world evidence that anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are efficacious and safe in patients with migraine age > 65 years but may take more time to show effect in these patients vs those age < 55 years.
Major finding: A similar proportion of patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years achieved a 50% response rate at 20-24 weeks of initiating anti-CGRP mAb (P = .811). Patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years showed lesser reduction in mean monthly headache days at 10-12 weeks (P = .001) and higher reduction in mean monthly migraine days at 20-24 weeks (P = .04). Both groups had similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
Study details: This multicenter observational case-control study included 114 patients age > 65 years and 114 sex-matched patients age < 55 years with episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, speaker honoraria, or lecture honoraria from or serving on the advisory boards of various sources.
Source: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Effectiveness, tolerability and response predictors of preventive anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients over 65 years old: A multicenter real-world case-control study. Pain Med. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1093/pm/pnad141
Key clinical point: This study provides class-III real-world evidence that anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are efficacious and safe in patients with migraine age > 65 years but may take more time to show effect in these patients vs those age < 55 years.
Major finding: A similar proportion of patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years achieved a 50% response rate at 20-24 weeks of initiating anti-CGRP mAb (P = .811). Patients age > 65 years vs < 55 years showed lesser reduction in mean monthly headache days at 10-12 weeks (P = .001) and higher reduction in mean monthly migraine days at 20-24 weeks (P = .04). Both groups had similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
Study details: This multicenter observational case-control study included 114 patients age > 65 years and 114 sex-matched patients age < 55 years with episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared receiving research support, speaker honoraria, or lecture honoraria from or serving on the advisory boards of various sources.
Source: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Effectiveness, tolerability and response predictors of preventive anti-CGRP mAbs for migraine in patients over 65 years old: A multicenter real-world case-control study. Pain Med. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1093/pm/pnad141