Migraine ICYMI

Key clinical point: Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is an effective therapeutic option for preventing migraine.

Main finding: nVNS led to a greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline (3.12 days vs. 2.29 days; P = .2329) and a higher percentage of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in the number of migraine days (44.87% vs. 26.81%; P = .0481) compared to sham stimulation.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter PREMIUM II trial wherein 231 adults with episodic or chronic migraine (with or without aura) were randomly assigned to receive nVNS (n = 114) or sham stimulation (n = 117) over 12 weeks. Of these, 113 (nVNS, n = 56; sham, n = 57) constituted the modified intention-to-treat population.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by electroCore, Inc. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported serving as a consultant/advisor/speaker for and receiving research grants from various organizations, including electroCore. E Liebler is an employee and stockholder of electroCore.

Source: Najib U et al. Cephalalgia. 2022  (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211068813.

Key clinical point: Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is an effective therapeutic option for preventing migraine.

Main finding: nVNS led to a greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline (3.12 days vs. 2.29 days; P = .2329) and a higher percentage of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in the number of migraine days (44.87% vs. 26.81%; P = .0481) compared to sham stimulation.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter PREMIUM II trial wherein 231 adults with episodic or chronic migraine (with or without aura) were randomly assigned to receive nVNS (n = 114) or sham stimulation (n = 117) over 12 weeks. Of these, 113 (nVNS, n = 56; sham, n = 57) constituted the modified intention-to-treat population.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by electroCore, Inc. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported serving as a consultant/advisor/speaker for and receiving research grants from various organizations, including electroCore. E Liebler is an employee and stockholder of electroCore.

Source: Najib U et al. Cephalalgia. 2022  (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211068813.

Key clinical point: Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is an effective therapeutic option for preventing migraine.

Main finding: nVNS led to a greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline (3.12 days vs. 2.29 days; P = .2329) and a higher percentage of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in the number of migraine days (44.87% vs. 26.81%; P = .0481) compared to sham stimulation.

Study details: Findings are from the multicenter PREMIUM II trial wherein 231 adults with episodic or chronic migraine (with or without aura) were randomly assigned to receive nVNS (n = 114) or sham stimulation (n = 117) over 12 weeks. Of these, 113 (nVNS, n = 56; sham, n = 57) constituted the modified intention-to-treat population.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by electroCore, Inc. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported serving as a consultant/advisor/speaker for and receiving research grants from various organizations, including electroCore. E Liebler is an employee and stockholder of electroCore.

Source: Najib U et al. Cephalalgia. 2022  (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024211068813.

Key clinical point: Erenumab led to decreased migraine frequency in patients with migraine with a history of aura.

Main finding: Compared with placebo, the change in monthly migraine days at week 12 was greater with 70 mg and 140 mg of erenumab in patients with episodic (least-squares mean differences [LSM] −1.1; 95% CI –1.7 to –0.6 and −0.9; 95% CI –1.6 to –0.2; respectively) and chronic (LSM −2.1; 95% CI –3.8 to –0.5 and −3.1; 95% CI –4.8 to –1.4, respectively) migraine with aura.

Study details: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of 4 double-blind randomized clinical trials involving 2,443 adults with chronic or episodic migraine who received either erenumab (70 or 140 mg; n = 1,400) or placebo (n = 1,043).

Disclosures: Amgen Inc. sponsored the study. M Ashina reported being a principal investigator for ongoing trials for various sources including Amgen and, along with some co-authors, receiving speaking/teaching honoraria, advisory/consultation fees, or research grants from; or being a board member of, various companies. A few authors served as employees and stockholders of Amgen during the study period. Amgen and Novartis have co-developed erenumab.

Source: Ashina M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2021 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4678.

Key clinical point: Erenumab led to decreased migraine frequency in patients with migraine with a history of aura.

Main finding: Compared with placebo, the change in monthly migraine days at week 12 was greater with 70 mg and 140 mg of erenumab in patients with episodic (least-squares mean differences [LSM] −1.1; 95% CI –1.7 to –0.6 and −0.9; 95% CI –1.6 to –0.2; respectively) and chronic (LSM −2.1; 95% CI –3.8 to –0.5 and −3.1; 95% CI –4.8 to –1.4, respectively) migraine with aura.

Study details: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of 4 double-blind randomized clinical trials involving 2,443 adults with chronic or episodic migraine who received either erenumab (70 or 140 mg; n = 1,400) or placebo (n = 1,043).

Disclosures: Amgen Inc. sponsored the study. M Ashina reported being a principal investigator for ongoing trials for various sources including Amgen and, along with some co-authors, receiving speaking/teaching honoraria, advisory/consultation fees, or research grants from; or being a board member of, various companies. A few authors served as employees and stockholders of Amgen during the study period. Amgen and Novartis have co-developed erenumab.

Source: Ashina M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2021 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4678.

Key clinical point: Erenumab led to decreased migraine frequency in patients with migraine with a history of aura.

Main finding: Compared with placebo, the change in monthly migraine days at week 12 was greater with 70 mg and 140 mg of erenumab in patients with episodic (least-squares mean differences [LSM] −1.1; 95% CI –1.7 to –0.6 and −0.9; 95% CI –1.6 to –0.2; respectively) and chronic (LSM −2.1; 95% CI –3.8 to –0.5 and −3.1; 95% CI –4.8 to –1.4, respectively) migraine with aura.

Study details: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of 4 double-blind randomized clinical trials involving 2,443 adults with chronic or episodic migraine who received either erenumab (70 or 140 mg; n = 1,400) or placebo (n = 1,043).

Disclosures: Amgen Inc. sponsored the study. M Ashina reported being a principal investigator for ongoing trials for various sources including Amgen and, along with some co-authors, receiving speaking/teaching honoraria, advisory/consultation fees, or research grants from; or being a board member of, various companies. A few authors served as employees and stockholders of Amgen during the study period. Amgen and Novartis have co-developed erenumab.

Source: Ashina M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2021 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4678.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Intranasal ketamine may be a viable treatment option for acute cluster headache attacks, a pilot study has found, though it did not reduce pain intensity as quickly as initially anticipated.

“In clinical practice, intranasal ketamine might be a valuable tool for severely affected patients with insufficient response or intolerance to current first-line treatment,” wrote Anja S. Petersen, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at Rigshospitalet-Glostrup (Denmark) and her coauthors. The study was published online ahead of print in Headache.

To assess ketamine’s safety and efficacy in treating cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a single-center, open-label, proof-of-concept study of 23 Danish patients with chronic cluster headache. Their average age was 51, 70% were males, and their mean disease duration was 18 years. Twenty of the participants suffered a spontaneous attack while under in-hospital observation and were treated with 15 mg of intranasal ketamine every 6 minutes to a maximum of five times.

Fifteen minutes after ketamine was administered, mean pain intensity (±SD) was reduced from 7.2 (±1.3) to 6.1 (±3.1) on an 11-point numeric rating scale, equivalent to a 15% reduction and well below the primary endpoint of a 50% or greater reduction. Only 4 of the 20 participants had a reduction of 50% or more, and 4 patients chose rescue medication at 15 minutes. However, at 30 minutes pain intensity was reduced by 59% (mean difference 4.3, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.2, P > 0.001), with 11 out of 16 participants scoring a 4 or below.

Eight of the 20 participants reported feeling complete relief from the ketamine nasal spray, while 6 participants reported feeling no effects. Half of the patients said they preferred ketamine to oxygen and/or sumatriptan injection. Seventeen patients (83%) reported side effects, but 12 of them classified their side effects as “few.” No serious adverse events were identified, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea/vomiting, and paresthesia.
 

Debating ketamine’s potential for cluster headache patients

“I’m not crazy about the prospects,” said Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., in an interview. “It was an admirable proof-of-concept trial, and well worth doing. These are desperate patients. But if the aim was to decrease pain intensity within 15 minutes for cluster patients without side effects, this clearly did not do that,” Dr. Tepper said.

“In a sense, this study was to evaluate whether glutamate might be a target for chronic cluster headache, to determine if blocking NMDA glutamate receptors by ketamine would be effective,” Dr. Tepper said. “And I must say, I’m not very impressed.”

He noted his concerns about the study – including 30 minutes being an “unacceptable” wait for patients undergoing a cluster attack, the 20% of patients who required a rescue at 15 minutes, and the various side effects that come with ketamine in nasal form – and said the results did not sway him to consider ketamine a practical option for cluster headache patients.

“You add all of that up, and I would say this was an equivocal study,” he said. “There might be enough there to be worth studying in episodic cluster rather than chronic cluster; there might be enough to consider a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. But it’s not something that I would ring the bell at Wall Street about.”

“The acute treatment of a patient with chronic cluster headache is a real problem for us headache specialists,” added Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society, in an interview. “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain we deal with; women who’ve gone through childbirth say that cluster headache is worse. So it’s very reasonable to have tried.”

“It’s not an impressive finding,” he said, “but it does indicate that there’s some value here. Maybe they need to change the dose; maybe they need to get it in faster by doing something tricky like combining the drug with another substance that will make it attach to the nasal mucosa better. I urge them to study it again, and I hope that they come up with better results the next time, because what they attempted to study is absolutely vital.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a homogeneous patient population and the lack of placebo-controlled verification of effect after 30 minutes. They added, however, that a pilot study like this provides “critical information and paves the way for subsequent placebo-controlled studies.” They also admitted that “daily usage [of ketamine] seems suboptimal” because of the potential of patients becoming addicted.

The study was funded by CCH Pharmaceuticals. Several authors reported receiving speaker’s fees and being subinvestigators in trials run by various pharmaceutical companies, including CCH Pharmaceuticals.

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).

Key clinical point: Ubrogepant was effective and safe in patients with migraine, regardless of prior or concomitant preventive medication use.

Major finding: Ubrogepant vs. placebo was associated with significantly higher responder rates for pain freedom (P £ .005), absence of most bothersome symptom (50 mg ubrogepant vs. placebo; P £ .001), and pain relief (P £ .011) at 2 hours, with the responder rates not being significantly different among patients with vs. without preventive medication use (all P > .05). No serious or treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials (n = 2,247) and the long-term safety extension trial (n = 813) including patients with migraine with or without a history of preventive medication use.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported advising or consulting for; being a speaker, on the board of directors, or a contributing author for; receiving grants, research support, and honoraria from; holding stocks or patents with; or employment with various sources including Allergan and AbbVie.

Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Add Ther. 2021 (Dec 7). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01923-3.

Key clinical point: Ubrogepant was effective and safe in patients with migraine, regardless of prior or concomitant preventive medication use.

Major finding: Ubrogepant vs. placebo was associated with significantly higher responder rates for pain freedom (P £ .005), absence of most bothersome symptom (50 mg ubrogepant vs. placebo; P £ .001), and pain relief (P £ .011) at 2 hours, with the responder rates not being significantly different among patients with vs. without preventive medication use (all P > .05). No serious or treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials (n = 2,247) and the long-term safety extension trial (n = 813) including patients with migraine with or without a history of preventive medication use.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported advising or consulting for; being a speaker, on the board of directors, or a contributing author for; receiving grants, research support, and honoraria from; holding stocks or patents with; or employment with various sources including Allergan and AbbVie.

Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Add Ther. 2021 (Dec 7). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01923-3.

Key clinical point: Ubrogepant was effective and safe in patients with migraine, regardless of prior or concomitant preventive medication use.

Major finding: Ubrogepant vs. placebo was associated with significantly higher responder rates for pain freedom (P £ .005), absence of most bothersome symptom (50 mg ubrogepant vs. placebo; P £ .001), and pain relief (P £ .011) at 2 hours, with the responder rates not being significantly different among patients with vs. without preventive medication use (all P > .05). No serious or treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials (n = 2,247) and the long-term safety extension trial (n = 813) including patients with migraine with or without a history of preventive medication use.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported advising or consulting for; being a speaker, on the board of directors, or a contributing author for; receiving grants, research support, and honoraria from; holding stocks or patents with; or employment with various sources including Allergan and AbbVie.

Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Add Ther. 2021 (Dec 7). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01923-3.

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective and well tolerated over 12 weeks in older patients with chronic or episodic migraine.

Major finding: Quarterly and monthly fremanezumab vs. placebo showed greater reduction in monthly average migraine days (least-squares mean change from baseline [D] −4.3 and −4.6 vs. −2.3), headache days of at least moderate severity (D −3.9 and −4.2 vs. −2.1), and acute medication use (D −3.7 and −4.0 vs. −1.3) over 12 weeks (all P < .05). Adverse events were similar across groups.

Study details: Findings are pooled subgroup analysis of 3 phase 3 studies (HALO CM, HALO EM, and FOCUS) including 246 participants aged ≥60 years with chronic or episodic migraine with an inadequate response to 2-4 prior migraine preventives. They were randomly assigned to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported participating in clinical trials and receiving honoraria, research support, and legal or personal fees from and being former or current employees of various sources, including Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Nahas SJ et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:141 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01351-2.

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective and well tolerated over 12 weeks in older patients with chronic or episodic migraine.

Major finding: Quarterly and monthly fremanezumab vs. placebo showed greater reduction in monthly average migraine days (least-squares mean change from baseline [D] −4.3 and −4.6 vs. −2.3), headache days of at least moderate severity (D −3.9 and −4.2 vs. −2.1), and acute medication use (D −3.7 and −4.0 vs. −1.3) over 12 weeks (all P < .05). Adverse events were similar across groups.

Study details: Findings are pooled subgroup analysis of 3 phase 3 studies (HALO CM, HALO EM, and FOCUS) including 246 participants aged ≥60 years with chronic or episodic migraine with an inadequate response to 2-4 prior migraine preventives. They were randomly assigned to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported participating in clinical trials and receiving honoraria, research support, and legal or personal fees from and being former or current employees of various sources, including Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Nahas SJ et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:141 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01351-2.

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective and well tolerated over 12 weeks in older patients with chronic or episodic migraine.

Major finding: Quarterly and monthly fremanezumab vs. placebo showed greater reduction in monthly average migraine days (least-squares mean change from baseline [D] −4.3 and −4.6 vs. −2.3), headache days of at least moderate severity (D −3.9 and −4.2 vs. −2.1), and acute medication use (D −3.7 and −4.0 vs. −1.3) over 12 weeks (all P < .05). Adverse events were similar across groups.

Study details: Findings are pooled subgroup analysis of 3 phase 3 studies (HALO CM, HALO EM, and FOCUS) including 246 participants aged ≥60 years with chronic or episodic migraine with an inadequate response to 2-4 prior migraine preventives. They were randomly assigned to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported participating in clinical trials and receiving honoraria, research support, and legal or personal fees from and being former or current employees of various sources, including Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Nahas SJ et al. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:141 (Nov 24). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01351-2.

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine are more likely to suffer from dry eye than patients without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of dry eye was significantly higher in patients with vs. without migraine (odds ratio, 1.55; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 case-control or cross-sectional studies including a total population of 1,033,288 individuals with or without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen H et al. Cornea. 2021 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002851.

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine are more likely to suffer from dry eye than patients without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of dry eye was significantly higher in patients with vs. without migraine (odds ratio, 1.55; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 case-control or cross-sectional studies including a total population of 1,033,288 individuals with or without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen H et al. Cornea. 2021 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002851.

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine are more likely to suffer from dry eye than patients without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of dry eye was significantly higher in patients with vs. without migraine (odds ratio, 1.55; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 case-control or cross-sectional studies including a total population of 1,033,288 individuals with or without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen H et al. Cornea. 2021 (Nov 6). Doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002851.

Key clinical point: Prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with celiac disease (CD) vs. healthy controls, with patients with CD and migraine showing worse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with those without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with vs. without CD (20.7% vs. 11.9%; P < .001). Patients with CD with vs. without migraine headache had a higher prevalence of abdominal pain (80.1% vs. 71.8%; P = .025), constipation (47.8% vs. 35.5%; P = .011), and diarrhea (60.8% vs. 45.9%; P = .002).

Study details: This case-control cross-sectional study included 1,000 adult patients with CD and 1,000 healthy controls.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Fanaeian MM et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0259502 (Nov 17). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0259502.

Key clinical point: Prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with celiac disease (CD) vs. healthy controls, with patients with CD and migraine showing worse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with those without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with vs. without CD (20.7% vs. 11.9%; P < .001). Patients with CD with vs. without migraine headache had a higher prevalence of abdominal pain (80.1% vs. 71.8%; P = .025), constipation (47.8% vs. 35.5%; P = .011), and diarrhea (60.8% vs. 45.9%; P = .002).

Study details: This case-control cross-sectional study included 1,000 adult patients with CD and 1,000 healthy controls.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Fanaeian MM et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0259502 (Nov 17). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0259502.

Key clinical point: Prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with celiac disease (CD) vs. healthy controls, with patients with CD and migraine showing worse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with those without migraine.

Major finding: The prevalence of migraine was higher in patients with vs. without CD (20.7% vs. 11.9%; P < .001). Patients with CD with vs. without migraine headache had a higher prevalence of abdominal pain (80.1% vs. 71.8%; P = .025), constipation (47.8% vs. 35.5%; P = .011), and diarrhea (60.8% vs. 45.9%; P = .002).

Study details: This case-control cross-sectional study included 1,000 adult patients with CD and 1,000 healthy controls.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Fanaeian MM et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0259502 (Nov 17). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0259502.

Key clinical point: The frequency of occipital bending (OB) was 2-fold higher in patients with migraine with visual aura than those without visual aura.

Major finding: Overall, the prevalence of OB was 33.3% and was significantly higher in patients with migraine with vs. without visual aura (57.1% vs. 25.4%; odds ratio 3.9; P = .015).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 84 patients with migraine with (n = 21) or without visual aura (n = 63).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Özkan E et al. Headache. 2021 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1111/head.14240.

Key clinical point: The frequency of occipital bending (OB) was 2-fold higher in patients with migraine with visual aura than those without visual aura.

Major finding: Overall, the prevalence of OB was 33.3% and was significantly higher in patients with migraine with vs. without visual aura (57.1% vs. 25.4%; odds ratio 3.9; P = .015).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 84 patients with migraine with (n = 21) or without visual aura (n = 63).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Özkan E et al. Headache. 2021 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1111/head.14240.

Key clinical point: The frequency of occipital bending (OB) was 2-fold higher in patients with migraine with visual aura than those without visual aura.

Major finding: Overall, the prevalence of OB was 33.3% and was significantly higher in patients with migraine with vs. without visual aura (57.1% vs. 25.4%; odds ratio 3.9; P = .015).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 84 patients with migraine with (n = 21) or without visual aura (n = 63).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Özkan E et al. Headache. 2021 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1111/head.14240.

Key clinical point: Unilateral pain, fewer failed preventives, good response to triptans, and medication overuse at baseline were associated with a persistent positive response to galcanezumab during the first 3 months of therapy in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: Overall, 41.7% of patients had a persistent 3-month 50% responder rate in headache days of at least moderate intensity. Responders vs. nonresponders had lower number of failed preventives (odds ratio [OR] 0.733; P = .041), frequent unilateral pain (OR 3.686; P = .041), medication overuse at baseline (OR 4.575; P = .012), and good response to triptans (OR 3.248; P = .028).

Study details: This observational study included 156 adult patients with chronic migraine from the GARLIT study who had a galcanezumab prescription.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Campus Bio-Medico University. Some investigators including the lead author received grants, travel expenses, and honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Vernieri F et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 (Nov 26). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15197.

Key clinical point: Unilateral pain, fewer failed preventives, good response to triptans, and medication overuse at baseline were associated with a persistent positive response to galcanezumab during the first 3 months of therapy in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: Overall, 41.7% of patients had a persistent 3-month 50% responder rate in headache days of at least moderate intensity. Responders vs. nonresponders had lower number of failed preventives (odds ratio [OR] 0.733; P = .041), frequent unilateral pain (OR 3.686; P = .041), medication overuse at baseline (OR 4.575; P = .012), and good response to triptans (OR 3.248; P = .028).

Study details: This observational study included 156 adult patients with chronic migraine from the GARLIT study who had a galcanezumab prescription.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Campus Bio-Medico University. Some investigators including the lead author received grants, travel expenses, and honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Vernieri F et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 (Nov 26). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15197.

Key clinical point: Unilateral pain, fewer failed preventives, good response to triptans, and medication overuse at baseline were associated with a persistent positive response to galcanezumab during the first 3 months of therapy in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: Overall, 41.7% of patients had a persistent 3-month 50% responder rate in headache days of at least moderate intensity. Responders vs. nonresponders had lower number of failed preventives (odds ratio [OR] 0.733; P = .041), frequent unilateral pain (OR 3.686; P = .041), medication overuse at baseline (OR 4.575; P = .012), and good response to triptans (OR 3.248; P = .028).

Study details: This observational study included 156 adult patients with chronic migraine from the GARLIT study who had a galcanezumab prescription.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Campus Bio-Medico University. Some investigators including the lead author received grants, travel expenses, and honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Vernieri F et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 (Nov 26). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15197.