User login
Occipital nerve stimulation offers relief for patients with intractable chronic cluster headache
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
Occipital nerve stimulation may help safely prevent attacks of medically intractable chronic cluster headache, according to a new study.
Medically intractable chronic cluster headaches are unilateral headaches that cause excruciating pain during attacks, which may happen as frequently as eight times per day. They are refractory to, or intolerant of, preventive medications typically used in chronic cluster headaches.
“ONS was associated with a major, rapid, and sustained improvement of severe and long-lasting medically intractable chronic cluster headache, both at high and low intensity,” Leopoldine A. Wilbrink, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Centre, and coauthors wrote in their paper.
The findings were published online.
The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial was carried out at seven hospitals in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Hungary. A total of 150 patients with suspected medically intractable chronic cluster headache were enrolled between October 2010 and December 2017, and observed for 12 weeks at baseline. Of those initially enrolled, 131 patients with at least four medically intractable chronic cluster headache attacks per week and a history of nonresponsiveness to at least three standard preventive medications were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Sixty-five patients received 24 weeks of ONS at high intensity (100% intensity, or the intensity 10% below the threshold of discomfort as reported by the patient) while 66 received low-intensity (30%) ONS. At 25-48 weeks, the patients received open-label ONS.
Safe and well tolerated
“Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy,” wrote Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues.
From baseline to weeks 21-24, the median weekly mean attack frequencies decreased to 7.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-18.5, P < .0001). A median decrease in 5.21 attacks per week (–11.18 to –0.19, P < .0001) was observed.
The 100% ONS group saw a decrease in mean attack frequency from 17.58 at baseline (range, 9.83-29.33) to 9.5 (3-21.25) at 21-24 weeks with a median change of –4.08 (–11.92 to –0.25). In the 30% ONS group, the mean attack frequency decreased from 15 (9.25 to 22.33) to 6.75 (1.5-16.5) with a median change of –6.5 (–10.83 to –0.08).
At weeks 21-24, the difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between the groups was –2.42 (–5.17 to 3.33).
The authors stated that, in both groups, ONS was “safe and well tolerated.” A total of 129 adverse events were reported in the 100% ONS group and 95 in the 30% ONS group, of which 17 and 9 were considered serious, respectively. The serious adverse events required a short hospital stay to resolve minor hardware issues. The adverse events most frequently observed were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.
Low intensity stimulation may be best
“The main limitation of the study comes from the difficulty in defining the electrical dose, which was not constant across patients within each group, but individually adjusted depending on the perception of the ONS-induced paraesthesia,” Denys Fontaine, MD, and Michel Lanteri-Minet, MD, both from Université Cote D’Azur in France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Given that the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, the editorialists stated that “the lowest stimulation intensity that induces paraesthesia is sufficient to obtain an effect in the patients who respond. Increasing the electrical dose or intensity does not seem to bring better efficacy and might even induce discomfort (painful paraesthesia or shock-like sensations) that might substantially reduce the tolerance of this approach.”
While the trial did not provide convincing evidence of high intensity ONS in medically intractable chronic cluster headache, the editorialists are otherwise optimistic about the findings: “… considering the significant difference between baseline and the end of the randomised stimulation phase in both groups (about half of the patients showed a 50% decrease in attack frequency), the findings of this study support the favourable results of previous real-world studies, and indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with intractable chronic cluster headache, although not all, could have their condition substantially improved by ONS.” Dr. Fontaine and Dr. Lanteri-Minet added that they hope that “these data will help health authorities to recognise the efficacy of ONS and consider its approval for use in patients with intractable chronic cluster headache.”
Priorities for future research in this area should “focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action,” Dr. Wilbrink and colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Spinoza 2009 Lifetime Scientific Research Achievement Premium, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health (as part of a national provisional reimbursement program for promising new treatments), the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and an unrestricted grant from Medtronic, all to Dr. Ferrari.
FROM LANCET NEUROLOGY
Updated consensus statement assesses new migraine treatments
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.
To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
New migraine treatment
Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.
Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”
The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.
More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.
Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.
Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
Initiating treatment
When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.
The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.
From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.
The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
Not everyone agrees
Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:
1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment
2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”
Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”
Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”
They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”
Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”
Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”
Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
Suggested reading
Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.
Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.
Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.
FROM HEADACHE
Understanding the pathophysiology of medication overuse headache
Last month’s column focused on medication overuse headache and pointed out an excellent review article by Sun-Edelstein and colleagues. Another fascinating topic also covered within that paper that warrants closer examination is pathogenesis. Developing a thorough knowledge of the pathophysiology of medication overuse headache and its underlying mechanisms positions clinicians to help patients better understand and manage this disorder.
Mechanisms impacting primary headaches
Let us start by detailing the various causes of primary headaches. Activation of the trigeminal nociceptive pathway is the last common step in headache generation. Peripheral sensitization exacerbates intracranial headache pain and leads to the pulsating nature of migraine pain. This severe discomfort is triggered by physical activity and movement. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Increased sensitivity of central trigeminal neurons leads to central sensitization and causes scalp and forehead allodynia typically seen during a migraine attack. Sensitization of trigeminothalamic neurons is thought to be responsible for extensive cutaneous allodynia involving extracephalic regions, like face, arm, and leg.
Clinical clues
The pathogenesis of medication overuse headache includes chronic medication intake impacting an individual’s hypersensitive trigeminovascular nociceptive system. Physicians should be aware of the 4 factors required for this disorder to develop:
- Baseline activation of the trigeminovascular nociceptive pathways can cause migraine or tension-type headaches to transform into medication-induced headaches. This transformation typically develops in headaches with an accompanying inflammatory component, which might be related to mast cells in the dura.
- The discontinuation of acute care headache medication leads first to a worsening and then to an improvement in headaches. Interestingly, the regular use of analgesics for non-headache conditions is not linked to chronic headache development. Non-headache patients who take chronic opiates for cancer do not develop medication overuse headache. This suggests a cause-and-effect relationship, indicating that medication use causes transformation to medication overuse headache in patients with preexisting headache disorders—and is not the result of it. Culprits include migraine-specific drugs, such as triptans or ergots, or medications that are not migraine-specific, such as opioids, non-opioid analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lengthy exposure to these medications impacts a central pathway that controls nociceptive perception, thus causing medication overuse headache. It is important for patients to understand this paradoxical effect to break the cycle of medication overuse.
- The efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of medication overuse headache is better than that of the older preventive medication. As noted in the last installment, this class of drug is effective in patients with medication overuse headache who have not yet been weaned from the offending medication. The effect is thought to be a result of the decrease of nociception at peripheral perivascular areas, because anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies do not cross the blood-brain barrier. It is known that CGRP increases transmission of pain signals and is also a vasodilator.
- The higher prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, including depression, anxiety disorders, sleep disturbance, and non-cephalic body pain, suggest that they may either be causative or just comorbid. Additionally, individuals with medication overuse headache tend to experience poor general health and quality of life. This suggests that there is also an underlying alteration in neural pathways. Since brainstem aminergic systems are known to modulate mood, it is plausible that these systems impact medication overuse headache. The decrease in serotonin in these patients probably interferes with the brainstem’s descending antinociceptive system or diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC). Increased risk of suicidal ideation is also seen in these individuals. Recently-published research shows that among 603 individuals with chronic migraine headache, the presence of medication overuse headache increased the risk of suicidal ideation by 75% and odds of previous suicide attempt by 88%, even after controlling for demographics, headache profile, disabilities, depression and anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality.
The bottom line: For medication overuse headache to develop, clinicians should see an underlying primary headache worsen with frequent acute care medication use as well as peripheral trigeminal nociceptor activation.
The role of low serotonin levels
Serotonin plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine headache. Research shows that in individuals who experience medication overuse headache, platelet serotonin is decreased and the density of serotonin receptors on platelets is increased, implying suppressed serotonin function, as mentioned above.
A recent study showed that individuals with medication overuse headache had higher intensity dependence of auditory evoked potentials (IDAP) levels than controls who did not suffer from headache. Investigators assessed 17 women who suffered from chronic migraine headache (12 of whom experienced medication overuse headache) and 19 healthy individuals as part of a study evaluating efficacy of bilateral betamethasone-lidocaine greater occipital nerve block (GON-B). At baseline, participants were assessed for habituation of visual evoked potentials (VEP) and IDAP. While baseline VEP habituation was similar in both groups, this was not the case for IDAP. Those values were significantly higher in headache sufferers, which implies lower serotonin levels.
Additionally, researchers found that IDAP was normalized in headache sufferers via the use of GON-B, and clinical improvement was seen. They concluded that altered serotonin levels and incoming trigeminal nociceptive input are important components of the pathogenesis of medication overuse headache.
The ‘2-hit model’
Though preliminary, an animal study lends credence to the so-called 2-hit model of medication overuse headache pathogenesis. Researchers hypothesized that abortive treatment, in the form of either migraine-specific medications or analgesics, can serve as a priming mechanism—a so-called first hit that facilitates central sensitization and increases responses to subsequent stimuli. Thus, the second hit occurs via enhancement of net descending facilitation in central pain modulatory pathways.
To test their hypothesis, investigators primed rats through continuous infusion of morphine or sumatriptan and assessed DNIC 7 days later and again 2 weeks after that, when sensory thresholds returned to baseline levels. Morphine-primed rats showed opioid-induced hyperalgesia and a loss of diffuse noxious inhibitory control on day 7, whereas sumatriptan-primed rats did not. Researchers concluded that acute nociceptive stimulation causes alterations in descending pain modulation that can last for long periods. Morphine’s detrimental effect reflects the clinical experience of higher medication overuse headache risk in individuals who use opioids for headache treatment. Thus, the authors noted, migraine medications along with repeated bouts of pain can amplify the consequences of nociceptor activation and increase the odds of future migraine attacks and risk of medication overuse headache. Clinically we see overuse of opioids causing more MOH than overuse of triptans, which can still cause MOH.
In a related animal study, rats underwent a similar priming process and were exposed to migraine triggers in the presence or absence of a humanized CGRP monoclonal antibody. The antibody significantly inhibited cutaneous allodynia in rats that had previously been primed with morphine or sumatriptan. A control protein that does not bind CGRP was ineffective. The authors concluded that acute migraine medications may promote medication overuse headache in susceptible headache sufferers via CGRP-driven mechanisms. Further, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies appear to be useful in the treatment of medication overuse headache.
Pain processing and addiction
A recent narrative review of imaging research studies revealed that medication overuse headache is linked with unusual structure and function of brain regions that process pain and other regions normally linked with addiction. Investigators looked at studies that evaluated abnormal structure and pain processing functionality in individuals with medication overuse headache. In addition to their primary findings regarding brain regions, researchers noted that several of the studies showed a return to normal structure and pain processing functionality after discontinuing overused medication; medication overuse headache resolved. Clinically we see this in patients that are detoxified from the offending overused medication. Interestingly, abnormalities in regions typically linked with addiction persisted, even after medication discontinuation. This suggests that individuals with medication overuse headache might have a brain trait that predisposes them to overuse medication.
Another study found that certain brain metabolites in key regions of the thalamocortical pathways differed between chronic migraine sufferers with and without medication overuse headache. Investigators conducted magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging to map metabolites in specific regions of the brains of 48 participants: 16 migraine sufferers with medication overuse headache; 16 without overuse; and 16 healthy controls.
In patients with medication overuse headache, glutamate and glutamine levels were significantly higher in the right midcingulate cortex, and myo-inositol levels were significantly higher in the left anterior cingulate cortex, relative to those without medication overuse headache. These levels were similar to those seen in healthy controls. Additionally, in both groups of migraine sufferers, researchers observed a negative association between myo-inositol laterality index in the anterior cingulate cortices and the number of days per month with acute medication use. They concluded that individuals with medication overuse headache had a distinct concentration of myo-inositol in the anterior cingulate cortices that may be a result of medication overuse and might lead to the development of medication overuse headache.
Clinical implications
An understanding of these very complex pathophysiological findings in medication overuse headache serves as a foundation for neurologists and headache specialists. From there, evaluating the frequency, duration, and quantity of analgesic use in individuals with headache is an important and necessary next step. The time-tested treatment for medication overuse headache has always been patient education, detoxification, and starting preventive medications, which in the past have caused lots of side effects and not always been effective. Today, minimal education and starting a patient on a monoclonal antibody against CGRP is often quite effective, even without detoxification.
It should be noted that there is a new class of drug called the gepants, which block the CGRP receptor peripherally; 2 such gepants are approved by the FDA and are used as acute care medication (rimegepant and ubrogepant). They do not appear to cause medication overuse headache; one of them, rimegepant, was just approved by the FDA as the first headache medication to be used both as an acute treatment and a preventive treatment for migraine. Medication overuse headache understanding and treatment is changing right before our eyes.
Last month’s column focused on medication overuse headache and pointed out an excellent review article by Sun-Edelstein and colleagues. Another fascinating topic also covered within that paper that warrants closer examination is pathogenesis. Developing a thorough knowledge of the pathophysiology of medication overuse headache and its underlying mechanisms positions clinicians to help patients better understand and manage this disorder.
Mechanisms impacting primary headaches
Let us start by detailing the various causes of primary headaches. Activation of the trigeminal nociceptive pathway is the last common step in headache generation. Peripheral sensitization exacerbates intracranial headache pain and leads to the pulsating nature of migraine pain. This severe discomfort is triggered by physical activity and movement. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Increased sensitivity of central trigeminal neurons leads to central sensitization and causes scalp and forehead allodynia typically seen during a migraine attack. Sensitization of trigeminothalamic neurons is thought to be responsible for extensive cutaneous allodynia involving extracephalic regions, like face, arm, and leg.
Clinical clues
The pathogenesis of medication overuse headache includes chronic medication intake impacting an individual’s hypersensitive trigeminovascular nociceptive system. Physicians should be aware of the 4 factors required for this disorder to develop:
- Baseline activation of the trigeminovascular nociceptive pathways can cause migraine or tension-type headaches to transform into medication-induced headaches. This transformation typically develops in headaches with an accompanying inflammatory component, which might be related to mast cells in the dura.
- The discontinuation of acute care headache medication leads first to a worsening and then to an improvement in headaches. Interestingly, the regular use of analgesics for non-headache conditions is not linked to chronic headache development. Non-headache patients who take chronic opiates for cancer do not develop medication overuse headache. This suggests a cause-and-effect relationship, indicating that medication use causes transformation to medication overuse headache in patients with preexisting headache disorders—and is not the result of it. Culprits include migraine-specific drugs, such as triptans or ergots, or medications that are not migraine-specific, such as opioids, non-opioid analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lengthy exposure to these medications impacts a central pathway that controls nociceptive perception, thus causing medication overuse headache. It is important for patients to understand this paradoxical effect to break the cycle of medication overuse.
- The efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of medication overuse headache is better than that of the older preventive medication. As noted in the last installment, this class of drug is effective in patients with medication overuse headache who have not yet been weaned from the offending medication. The effect is thought to be a result of the decrease of nociception at peripheral perivascular areas, because anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies do not cross the blood-brain barrier. It is known that CGRP increases transmission of pain signals and is also a vasodilator.
- The higher prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, including depression, anxiety disorders, sleep disturbance, and non-cephalic body pain, suggest that they may either be causative or just comorbid. Additionally, individuals with medication overuse headache tend to experience poor general health and quality of life. This suggests that there is also an underlying alteration in neural pathways. Since brainstem aminergic systems are known to modulate mood, it is plausible that these systems impact medication overuse headache. The decrease in serotonin in these patients probably interferes with the brainstem’s descending antinociceptive system or diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC). Increased risk of suicidal ideation is also seen in these individuals. Recently-published research shows that among 603 individuals with chronic migraine headache, the presence of medication overuse headache increased the risk of suicidal ideation by 75% and odds of previous suicide attempt by 88%, even after controlling for demographics, headache profile, disabilities, depression and anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality.
The bottom line: For medication overuse headache to develop, clinicians should see an underlying primary headache worsen with frequent acute care medication use as well as peripheral trigeminal nociceptor activation.
The role of low serotonin levels
Serotonin plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine headache. Research shows that in individuals who experience medication overuse headache, platelet serotonin is decreased and the density of serotonin receptors on platelets is increased, implying suppressed serotonin function, as mentioned above.
A recent study showed that individuals with medication overuse headache had higher intensity dependence of auditory evoked potentials (IDAP) levels than controls who did not suffer from headache. Investigators assessed 17 women who suffered from chronic migraine headache (12 of whom experienced medication overuse headache) and 19 healthy individuals as part of a study evaluating efficacy of bilateral betamethasone-lidocaine greater occipital nerve block (GON-B). At baseline, participants were assessed for habituation of visual evoked potentials (VEP) and IDAP. While baseline VEP habituation was similar in both groups, this was not the case for IDAP. Those values were significantly higher in headache sufferers, which implies lower serotonin levels.
Additionally, researchers found that IDAP was normalized in headache sufferers via the use of GON-B, and clinical improvement was seen. They concluded that altered serotonin levels and incoming trigeminal nociceptive input are important components of the pathogenesis of medication overuse headache.
The ‘2-hit model’
Though preliminary, an animal study lends credence to the so-called 2-hit model of medication overuse headache pathogenesis. Researchers hypothesized that abortive treatment, in the form of either migraine-specific medications or analgesics, can serve as a priming mechanism—a so-called first hit that facilitates central sensitization and increases responses to subsequent stimuli. Thus, the second hit occurs via enhancement of net descending facilitation in central pain modulatory pathways.
To test their hypothesis, investigators primed rats through continuous infusion of morphine or sumatriptan and assessed DNIC 7 days later and again 2 weeks after that, when sensory thresholds returned to baseline levels. Morphine-primed rats showed opioid-induced hyperalgesia and a loss of diffuse noxious inhibitory control on day 7, whereas sumatriptan-primed rats did not. Researchers concluded that acute nociceptive stimulation causes alterations in descending pain modulation that can last for long periods. Morphine’s detrimental effect reflects the clinical experience of higher medication overuse headache risk in individuals who use opioids for headache treatment. Thus, the authors noted, migraine medications along with repeated bouts of pain can amplify the consequences of nociceptor activation and increase the odds of future migraine attacks and risk of medication overuse headache. Clinically we see overuse of opioids causing more MOH than overuse of triptans, which can still cause MOH.
In a related animal study, rats underwent a similar priming process and were exposed to migraine triggers in the presence or absence of a humanized CGRP monoclonal antibody. The antibody significantly inhibited cutaneous allodynia in rats that had previously been primed with morphine or sumatriptan. A control protein that does not bind CGRP was ineffective. The authors concluded that acute migraine medications may promote medication overuse headache in susceptible headache sufferers via CGRP-driven mechanisms. Further, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies appear to be useful in the treatment of medication overuse headache.
Pain processing and addiction
A recent narrative review of imaging research studies revealed that medication overuse headache is linked with unusual structure and function of brain regions that process pain and other regions normally linked with addiction. Investigators looked at studies that evaluated abnormal structure and pain processing functionality in individuals with medication overuse headache. In addition to their primary findings regarding brain regions, researchers noted that several of the studies showed a return to normal structure and pain processing functionality after discontinuing overused medication; medication overuse headache resolved. Clinically we see this in patients that are detoxified from the offending overused medication. Interestingly, abnormalities in regions typically linked with addiction persisted, even after medication discontinuation. This suggests that individuals with medication overuse headache might have a brain trait that predisposes them to overuse medication.
Another study found that certain brain metabolites in key regions of the thalamocortical pathways differed between chronic migraine sufferers with and without medication overuse headache. Investigators conducted magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging to map metabolites in specific regions of the brains of 48 participants: 16 migraine sufferers with medication overuse headache; 16 without overuse; and 16 healthy controls.
In patients with medication overuse headache, glutamate and glutamine levels were significantly higher in the right midcingulate cortex, and myo-inositol levels were significantly higher in the left anterior cingulate cortex, relative to those without medication overuse headache. These levels were similar to those seen in healthy controls. Additionally, in both groups of migraine sufferers, researchers observed a negative association between myo-inositol laterality index in the anterior cingulate cortices and the number of days per month with acute medication use. They concluded that individuals with medication overuse headache had a distinct concentration of myo-inositol in the anterior cingulate cortices that may be a result of medication overuse and might lead to the development of medication overuse headache.
Clinical implications
An understanding of these very complex pathophysiological findings in medication overuse headache serves as a foundation for neurologists and headache specialists. From there, evaluating the frequency, duration, and quantity of analgesic use in individuals with headache is an important and necessary next step. The time-tested treatment for medication overuse headache has always been patient education, detoxification, and starting preventive medications, which in the past have caused lots of side effects and not always been effective. Today, minimal education and starting a patient on a monoclonal antibody against CGRP is often quite effective, even without detoxification.
It should be noted that there is a new class of drug called the gepants, which block the CGRP receptor peripherally; 2 such gepants are approved by the FDA and are used as acute care medication (rimegepant and ubrogepant). They do not appear to cause medication overuse headache; one of them, rimegepant, was just approved by the FDA as the first headache medication to be used both as an acute treatment and a preventive treatment for migraine. Medication overuse headache understanding and treatment is changing right before our eyes.
Last month’s column focused on medication overuse headache and pointed out an excellent review article by Sun-Edelstein and colleagues. Another fascinating topic also covered within that paper that warrants closer examination is pathogenesis. Developing a thorough knowledge of the pathophysiology of medication overuse headache and its underlying mechanisms positions clinicians to help patients better understand and manage this disorder.
Mechanisms impacting primary headaches
Let us start by detailing the various causes of primary headaches. Activation of the trigeminal nociceptive pathway is the last common step in headache generation. Peripheral sensitization exacerbates intracranial headache pain and leads to the pulsating nature of migraine pain. This severe discomfort is triggered by physical activity and movement. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Increased sensitivity of central trigeminal neurons leads to central sensitization and causes scalp and forehead allodynia typically seen during a migraine attack. Sensitization of trigeminothalamic neurons is thought to be responsible for extensive cutaneous allodynia involving extracephalic regions, like face, arm, and leg.
Clinical clues
The pathogenesis of medication overuse headache includes chronic medication intake impacting an individual’s hypersensitive trigeminovascular nociceptive system. Physicians should be aware of the 4 factors required for this disorder to develop:
- Baseline activation of the trigeminovascular nociceptive pathways can cause migraine or tension-type headaches to transform into medication-induced headaches. This transformation typically develops in headaches with an accompanying inflammatory component, which might be related to mast cells in the dura.
- The discontinuation of acute care headache medication leads first to a worsening and then to an improvement in headaches. Interestingly, the regular use of analgesics for non-headache conditions is not linked to chronic headache development. Non-headache patients who take chronic opiates for cancer do not develop medication overuse headache. This suggests a cause-and-effect relationship, indicating that medication use causes transformation to medication overuse headache in patients with preexisting headache disorders—and is not the result of it. Culprits include migraine-specific drugs, such as triptans or ergots, or medications that are not migraine-specific, such as opioids, non-opioid analgesics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lengthy exposure to these medications impacts a central pathway that controls nociceptive perception, thus causing medication overuse headache. It is important for patients to understand this paradoxical effect to break the cycle of medication overuse.
- The efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of medication overuse headache is better than that of the older preventive medication. As noted in the last installment, this class of drug is effective in patients with medication overuse headache who have not yet been weaned from the offending medication. The effect is thought to be a result of the decrease of nociception at peripheral perivascular areas, because anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies do not cross the blood-brain barrier. It is known that CGRP increases transmission of pain signals and is also a vasodilator.
- The higher prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, including depression, anxiety disorders, sleep disturbance, and non-cephalic body pain, suggest that they may either be causative or just comorbid. Additionally, individuals with medication overuse headache tend to experience poor general health and quality of life. This suggests that there is also an underlying alteration in neural pathways. Since brainstem aminergic systems are known to modulate mood, it is plausible that these systems impact medication overuse headache. The decrease in serotonin in these patients probably interferes with the brainstem’s descending antinociceptive system or diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC). Increased risk of suicidal ideation is also seen in these individuals. Recently-published research shows that among 603 individuals with chronic migraine headache, the presence of medication overuse headache increased the risk of suicidal ideation by 75% and odds of previous suicide attempt by 88%, even after controlling for demographics, headache profile, disabilities, depression and anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality.
The bottom line: For medication overuse headache to develop, clinicians should see an underlying primary headache worsen with frequent acute care medication use as well as peripheral trigeminal nociceptor activation.
The role of low serotonin levels
Serotonin plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine headache. Research shows that in individuals who experience medication overuse headache, platelet serotonin is decreased and the density of serotonin receptors on platelets is increased, implying suppressed serotonin function, as mentioned above.
A recent study showed that individuals with medication overuse headache had higher intensity dependence of auditory evoked potentials (IDAP) levels than controls who did not suffer from headache. Investigators assessed 17 women who suffered from chronic migraine headache (12 of whom experienced medication overuse headache) and 19 healthy individuals as part of a study evaluating efficacy of bilateral betamethasone-lidocaine greater occipital nerve block (GON-B). At baseline, participants were assessed for habituation of visual evoked potentials (VEP) and IDAP. While baseline VEP habituation was similar in both groups, this was not the case for IDAP. Those values were significantly higher in headache sufferers, which implies lower serotonin levels.
Additionally, researchers found that IDAP was normalized in headache sufferers via the use of GON-B, and clinical improvement was seen. They concluded that altered serotonin levels and incoming trigeminal nociceptive input are important components of the pathogenesis of medication overuse headache.
The ‘2-hit model’
Though preliminary, an animal study lends credence to the so-called 2-hit model of medication overuse headache pathogenesis. Researchers hypothesized that abortive treatment, in the form of either migraine-specific medications or analgesics, can serve as a priming mechanism—a so-called first hit that facilitates central sensitization and increases responses to subsequent stimuli. Thus, the second hit occurs via enhancement of net descending facilitation in central pain modulatory pathways.
To test their hypothesis, investigators primed rats through continuous infusion of morphine or sumatriptan and assessed DNIC 7 days later and again 2 weeks after that, when sensory thresholds returned to baseline levels. Morphine-primed rats showed opioid-induced hyperalgesia and a loss of diffuse noxious inhibitory control on day 7, whereas sumatriptan-primed rats did not. Researchers concluded that acute nociceptive stimulation causes alterations in descending pain modulation that can last for long periods. Morphine’s detrimental effect reflects the clinical experience of higher medication overuse headache risk in individuals who use opioids for headache treatment. Thus, the authors noted, migraine medications along with repeated bouts of pain can amplify the consequences of nociceptor activation and increase the odds of future migraine attacks and risk of medication overuse headache. Clinically we see overuse of opioids causing more MOH than overuse of triptans, which can still cause MOH.
In a related animal study, rats underwent a similar priming process and were exposed to migraine triggers in the presence or absence of a humanized CGRP monoclonal antibody. The antibody significantly inhibited cutaneous allodynia in rats that had previously been primed with morphine or sumatriptan. A control protein that does not bind CGRP was ineffective. The authors concluded that acute migraine medications may promote medication overuse headache in susceptible headache sufferers via CGRP-driven mechanisms. Further, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies appear to be useful in the treatment of medication overuse headache.
Pain processing and addiction
A recent narrative review of imaging research studies revealed that medication overuse headache is linked with unusual structure and function of brain regions that process pain and other regions normally linked with addiction. Investigators looked at studies that evaluated abnormal structure and pain processing functionality in individuals with medication overuse headache. In addition to their primary findings regarding brain regions, researchers noted that several of the studies showed a return to normal structure and pain processing functionality after discontinuing overused medication; medication overuse headache resolved. Clinically we see this in patients that are detoxified from the offending overused medication. Interestingly, abnormalities in regions typically linked with addiction persisted, even after medication discontinuation. This suggests that individuals with medication overuse headache might have a brain trait that predisposes them to overuse medication.
Another study found that certain brain metabolites in key regions of the thalamocortical pathways differed between chronic migraine sufferers with and without medication overuse headache. Investigators conducted magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging to map metabolites in specific regions of the brains of 48 participants: 16 migraine sufferers with medication overuse headache; 16 without overuse; and 16 healthy controls.
In patients with medication overuse headache, glutamate and glutamine levels were significantly higher in the right midcingulate cortex, and myo-inositol levels were significantly higher in the left anterior cingulate cortex, relative to those without medication overuse headache. These levels were similar to those seen in healthy controls. Additionally, in both groups of migraine sufferers, researchers observed a negative association between myo-inositol laterality index in the anterior cingulate cortices and the number of days per month with acute medication use. They concluded that individuals with medication overuse headache had a distinct concentration of myo-inositol in the anterior cingulate cortices that may be a result of medication overuse and might lead to the development of medication overuse headache.
Clinical implications
An understanding of these very complex pathophysiological findings in medication overuse headache serves as a foundation for neurologists and headache specialists. From there, evaluating the frequency, duration, and quantity of analgesic use in individuals with headache is an important and necessary next step. The time-tested treatment for medication overuse headache has always been patient education, detoxification, and starting preventive medications, which in the past have caused lots of side effects and not always been effective. Today, minimal education and starting a patient on a monoclonal antibody against CGRP is often quite effective, even without detoxification.
It should be noted that there is a new class of drug called the gepants, which block the CGRP receptor peripherally; 2 such gepants are approved by the FDA and are used as acute care medication (rimegepant and ubrogepant). They do not appear to cause medication overuse headache; one of them, rimegepant, was just approved by the FDA as the first headache medication to be used both as an acute treatment and a preventive treatment for migraine. Medication overuse headache understanding and treatment is changing right before our eyes.
Novel NSAID–triptan drug effectively relieves migraine pain
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AHS 2021
Restricted dietary acid load may reduce odds of migraine
Key clinical point: High dietary acid load was associated with higher odds of migraine. Restricting dietary acid load could therefore reduce the odds of migraine in susceptible patients.
Major finding: The risk for migraine was higher among individuals in highest vs. lowest tertile of dietary acid load measures, including potential renal acid load (odds ratio [OR], 7.208; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.33-15.55), net endogenous acid production (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.92-8.77) scores, and the protein/potassium ratio (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.93-8.81; all Ptrend less than .001).
Study details: Findings are from a case-control study of 1,096 participants including those with migraine (n=514) and healthy volunteers (n=582).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Iranian Centre of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mousavi M et al. Neurol Ther. 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1007/s40120-021-00247-2.
Key clinical point: High dietary acid load was associated with higher odds of migraine. Restricting dietary acid load could therefore reduce the odds of migraine in susceptible patients.
Major finding: The risk for migraine was higher among individuals in highest vs. lowest tertile of dietary acid load measures, including potential renal acid load (odds ratio [OR], 7.208; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.33-15.55), net endogenous acid production (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.92-8.77) scores, and the protein/potassium ratio (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.93-8.81; all Ptrend less than .001).
Study details: Findings are from a case-control study of 1,096 participants including those with migraine (n=514) and healthy volunteers (n=582).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Iranian Centre of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mousavi M et al. Neurol Ther. 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1007/s40120-021-00247-2.
Key clinical point: High dietary acid load was associated with higher odds of migraine. Restricting dietary acid load could therefore reduce the odds of migraine in susceptible patients.
Major finding: The risk for migraine was higher among individuals in highest vs. lowest tertile of dietary acid load measures, including potential renal acid load (odds ratio [OR], 7.208; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.33-15.55), net endogenous acid production (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.92-8.77) scores, and the protein/potassium ratio (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.93-8.81; all Ptrend less than .001).
Study details: Findings are from a case-control study of 1,096 participants including those with migraine (n=514) and healthy volunteers (n=582).
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Iranian Centre of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mousavi M et al. Neurol Ther. 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1007/s40120-021-00247-2.
Migraine linked to increased hypertension risk in menopausal women
Key clinical point: Menopausal women with migraine are at a higher risk for incident hypertension.
Major finding: Migraine was associated with an increased risk for incident hypertension (hazard ratiomigraine, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.35) in menopausal women.
Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal cohort study of 56,202 menopausal women free of hypertension or cardiovascular disease at the age of menopause who participated in the French E3N cohort.
Disclosures: The authors reported no targeted funding. CJ MacDonald and T Kurth received funding and/or honoraria from multiple sources. Other authors had no disclosures relevant to the manuscript.
Source: MacDonald CJ et al. Neurology. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011986.
Key clinical point: Menopausal women with migraine are at a higher risk for incident hypertension.
Major finding: Migraine was associated with an increased risk for incident hypertension (hazard ratiomigraine, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.35) in menopausal women.
Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal cohort study of 56,202 menopausal women free of hypertension or cardiovascular disease at the age of menopause who participated in the French E3N cohort.
Disclosures: The authors reported no targeted funding. CJ MacDonald and T Kurth received funding and/or honoraria from multiple sources. Other authors had no disclosures relevant to the manuscript.
Source: MacDonald CJ et al. Neurology. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011986.
Key clinical point: Menopausal women with migraine are at a higher risk for incident hypertension.
Major finding: Migraine was associated with an increased risk for incident hypertension (hazard ratiomigraine, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.35) in menopausal women.
Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal cohort study of 56,202 menopausal women free of hypertension or cardiovascular disease at the age of menopause who participated in the French E3N cohort.
Disclosures: The authors reported no targeted funding. CJ MacDonald and T Kurth received funding and/or honoraria from multiple sources. Other authors had no disclosures relevant to the manuscript.
Source: MacDonald CJ et al. Neurology. 2021 Apr 21. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011986.
Women with migraine are ‘high-risk’ patients during pregnancy
new research suggests. Although pregnancy is generally considered a “safe period” for women with migraine, “we actually found they have more diabetes, more hypertension, more blood clots, more complications during their delivery, and more postpartum complications,” said study investigator Nirit Lev, MD, PhD, head, department of neurology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
The results highlight the need for clinicians “to take people with migraines seriously” and reinforce the idea that migraine is not “just a headache,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine should be considered high risk and have specialized neurologic follow-up during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Prevalent, disabling
Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurologic disorders. Such disorders are major causes of death and disability.
In childhood, there’s no difference between the sexes in terms of migraine prevalence, but after puberty, migraine is about three times more common in women than men. Fluctuating levels of estrogen and progesterone likely explain these differences, said Dr. Lev.
The prevalence of migraine among females peaks during their reproductive years. Most female migraine patients report an improvement in headache symptoms during pregnancy, with some experiencing a “complete remission.” However, a minority report worsening of migraine when expecting a child, said Dr. Lev.
Some patients have their first aura during pregnancy. The most common migraine aura is visual, a problem with the visual field that can affect motor and sensory functioning, said Dr. Lev.
Managing migraine during pregnancy is “very complicated,” said Dr. Lev. She said the first-line treatment is paracetamol (acetaminophen) and stressed that taking opioids should be avoided.
Retrospective database study
For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed pregnancy and delivery records from a database of Clalit Medical Services, which has more than 4.5 million members and is the largest such database in Israel. They collected demographic data and information on mode of delivery, medical and obstetric complications, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, use of medications, laboratory reports, and medical consultations.
The study included 145,102 women who gave birth from 2014 to 2020.
Of these, 10,646 had migraine without aura, and 1,576 had migraine with aura. The migraine diagnoses, which were based on International Headache Society criteria and diagnostic codes, were made prior to pregnancy.
Dr. Lev noted that the number of patients with migraine is likely an underestimation because migraine is “not always diagnosed.”
Results showed that the risk for obstetric complications was higher among pregnant women with migraine, especially those with aura, in comparison with women without migraine. About 6.9% of patients with migraine without aura were admitted to high-risk hospital departments, compared with 6% of pregnant control patients who did not have migraine (P < .0001). For patients with migraine with aura, the risk for admissions was even higher (8.7%; P < .0001 vs. control patients and P < .03 vs. patients with migraine without aura) and was “very highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine were at significantly increased risk for gestational diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder (all P < .0001). These women were also more likely to experience preeclampsia and blood clots (P < .0001).
Unexpected finding
The finding that the risk for diabetes was higher was “unexpected,” inasmuch as older women with migraine are typically at increased risk for metabolic syndrome and higher body mass index, said Dr. Lev.
Migraine patients had significantly more consultations with family physicians, gynecologists, and neurologists (P < .0001). In addition, they were more likely to utilize emergency services; take more medications, mostly analgesics; and undergo more laboratory studies and brain imaging.
Those with aura had significantly more specialist consultations and took more medications compared with migraine patients without aura.
There was a statistically significant increase in the use of epidural anesthesia for migraine patients (40.5% of women without migraine; 45.7% of those with migraine accompanied by aura; and 47.5% of migraine patients without aura).
This was an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Lev. “We didn’t know what to expect; people with migraine are used to pain, so the question was, will they tolerate pain better or be more afraid of pain?”
Women with migraine also experienced more assisted deliveries with increased use of vacuums and forceps.
During the 3-month postpartum period, women with migraine sought more medical consultations and used more medications compared with control patients. They also underwent more lab examinations and more brain imaging during this period.
Dr. Lev noted that some of these evaluations may have been postponed because of the pregnancy.
Women with migraine also had a greater risk for postpartum depression, which Dr. Lev found “concerning.” She noted that depression is often underreported but is treatable. Women with migraine should be monitored for depression post partum, she said.
It’s unclear which factors contribute to the increased risk for pregnancy complications in women with migraine. Dr. Lev said she doesn’t believe it’s drug related.
“Although they’re taking more medications than people who don’t have migraine, we still are giving very low doses and only safe medicines, so I don’t think these increased risks are side effects,” she said.
She noted that women with migraine have more cardiovascular complications, including stroke and myocardial infarction, although these generally affect older patients.
Dr. Lev also noted that pain, especially chronic pain, can cause depression. “We know that people with migraine have more depression and anxiety, so maybe that also affects them during their pregnancy and after,” she said.
She suggested that pregnant women with migraine be considered high risk and be managed via specialized clinics.
Room for improvement
Commenting on the research, Lauren Doyle Strauss, DO, associate professor of neurology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who has written about the management of migraine during pregnancy, said studies such as this help raise awareness about pregnancy risks in migraine patients. Dr. Strauss did not attend the live presentation but is aware of the findings.
The increased use of epidurals during delivery among migraine patients in the study makes some sense, said Dr. Strauss. “It kind of shows a comfort level with medicines.”
She expressed concern that such research may be “skewed” because it includes patients with more severe migraine. If less severe cases were included in this research, “maybe there would still be higher risks, but not as high as what we have been finding in some of our studies,” she said.
Dr. Strauss said she feels the medical community should do a better job of identifying and diagnosing migraine. She said she would like to see migraine screening become a routine part of obstetric/gynecologic care. Doctors should counsel migraine patients who wish to become pregnant about potential risks, said Dr. Strauss. “We need to be up front in telling them when to seek care and when to report symptoms and not to wait for it to become super severe,” she said.
She also believes doctors should be “proactive” in helping patients develop a treatment plan before becoming pregnant, because the limited pain control options available for pregnant patients can take time to have an effect.
Also commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study raises “important questions” and has “important aims.”
She believes the study reinforces the importance of collaboration between experts in primary care, obstetrics/gynecology, and neurology. However, she was surprised at some of the investigators’ assertions that there are no differences in migraine among prepubertal children and that the course of migraine for men is stable throughout their life span.
“There is literature that supports the view that the prevalence in boys is higher in prepuberty, and studies do show that migraine prevalence decreases in older adults – men and women,” she said.
There is still not enough evidence to determine that antiemetics and triptans are safe during pregnancy or that pregnant women with migraine should be taking acetylsalicylic acid, said Dr. Riggins.
The investigators, Dr. Strauss, and Dr. Riggins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. Although pregnancy is generally considered a “safe period” for women with migraine, “we actually found they have more diabetes, more hypertension, more blood clots, more complications during their delivery, and more postpartum complications,” said study investigator Nirit Lev, MD, PhD, head, department of neurology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
The results highlight the need for clinicians “to take people with migraines seriously” and reinforce the idea that migraine is not “just a headache,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine should be considered high risk and have specialized neurologic follow-up during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Prevalent, disabling
Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurologic disorders. Such disorders are major causes of death and disability.
In childhood, there’s no difference between the sexes in terms of migraine prevalence, but after puberty, migraine is about three times more common in women than men. Fluctuating levels of estrogen and progesterone likely explain these differences, said Dr. Lev.
The prevalence of migraine among females peaks during their reproductive years. Most female migraine patients report an improvement in headache symptoms during pregnancy, with some experiencing a “complete remission.” However, a minority report worsening of migraine when expecting a child, said Dr. Lev.
Some patients have their first aura during pregnancy. The most common migraine aura is visual, a problem with the visual field that can affect motor and sensory functioning, said Dr. Lev.
Managing migraine during pregnancy is “very complicated,” said Dr. Lev. She said the first-line treatment is paracetamol (acetaminophen) and stressed that taking opioids should be avoided.
Retrospective database study
For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed pregnancy and delivery records from a database of Clalit Medical Services, which has more than 4.5 million members and is the largest such database in Israel. They collected demographic data and information on mode of delivery, medical and obstetric complications, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, use of medications, laboratory reports, and medical consultations.
The study included 145,102 women who gave birth from 2014 to 2020.
Of these, 10,646 had migraine without aura, and 1,576 had migraine with aura. The migraine diagnoses, which were based on International Headache Society criteria and diagnostic codes, were made prior to pregnancy.
Dr. Lev noted that the number of patients with migraine is likely an underestimation because migraine is “not always diagnosed.”
Results showed that the risk for obstetric complications was higher among pregnant women with migraine, especially those with aura, in comparison with women without migraine. About 6.9% of patients with migraine without aura were admitted to high-risk hospital departments, compared with 6% of pregnant control patients who did not have migraine (P < .0001). For patients with migraine with aura, the risk for admissions was even higher (8.7%; P < .0001 vs. control patients and P < .03 vs. patients with migraine without aura) and was “very highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine were at significantly increased risk for gestational diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder (all P < .0001). These women were also more likely to experience preeclampsia and blood clots (P < .0001).
Unexpected finding
The finding that the risk for diabetes was higher was “unexpected,” inasmuch as older women with migraine are typically at increased risk for metabolic syndrome and higher body mass index, said Dr. Lev.
Migraine patients had significantly more consultations with family physicians, gynecologists, and neurologists (P < .0001). In addition, they were more likely to utilize emergency services; take more medications, mostly analgesics; and undergo more laboratory studies and brain imaging.
Those with aura had significantly more specialist consultations and took more medications compared with migraine patients without aura.
There was a statistically significant increase in the use of epidural anesthesia for migraine patients (40.5% of women without migraine; 45.7% of those with migraine accompanied by aura; and 47.5% of migraine patients without aura).
This was an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Lev. “We didn’t know what to expect; people with migraine are used to pain, so the question was, will they tolerate pain better or be more afraid of pain?”
Women with migraine also experienced more assisted deliveries with increased use of vacuums and forceps.
During the 3-month postpartum period, women with migraine sought more medical consultations and used more medications compared with control patients. They also underwent more lab examinations and more brain imaging during this period.
Dr. Lev noted that some of these evaluations may have been postponed because of the pregnancy.
Women with migraine also had a greater risk for postpartum depression, which Dr. Lev found “concerning.” She noted that depression is often underreported but is treatable. Women with migraine should be monitored for depression post partum, she said.
It’s unclear which factors contribute to the increased risk for pregnancy complications in women with migraine. Dr. Lev said she doesn’t believe it’s drug related.
“Although they’re taking more medications than people who don’t have migraine, we still are giving very low doses and only safe medicines, so I don’t think these increased risks are side effects,” she said.
She noted that women with migraine have more cardiovascular complications, including stroke and myocardial infarction, although these generally affect older patients.
Dr. Lev also noted that pain, especially chronic pain, can cause depression. “We know that people with migraine have more depression and anxiety, so maybe that also affects them during their pregnancy and after,” she said.
She suggested that pregnant women with migraine be considered high risk and be managed via specialized clinics.
Room for improvement
Commenting on the research, Lauren Doyle Strauss, DO, associate professor of neurology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who has written about the management of migraine during pregnancy, said studies such as this help raise awareness about pregnancy risks in migraine patients. Dr. Strauss did not attend the live presentation but is aware of the findings.
The increased use of epidurals during delivery among migraine patients in the study makes some sense, said Dr. Strauss. “It kind of shows a comfort level with medicines.”
She expressed concern that such research may be “skewed” because it includes patients with more severe migraine. If less severe cases were included in this research, “maybe there would still be higher risks, but not as high as what we have been finding in some of our studies,” she said.
Dr. Strauss said she feels the medical community should do a better job of identifying and diagnosing migraine. She said she would like to see migraine screening become a routine part of obstetric/gynecologic care. Doctors should counsel migraine patients who wish to become pregnant about potential risks, said Dr. Strauss. “We need to be up front in telling them when to seek care and when to report symptoms and not to wait for it to become super severe,” she said.
She also believes doctors should be “proactive” in helping patients develop a treatment plan before becoming pregnant, because the limited pain control options available for pregnant patients can take time to have an effect.
Also commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study raises “important questions” and has “important aims.”
She believes the study reinforces the importance of collaboration between experts in primary care, obstetrics/gynecology, and neurology. However, she was surprised at some of the investigators’ assertions that there are no differences in migraine among prepubertal children and that the course of migraine for men is stable throughout their life span.
“There is literature that supports the view that the prevalence in boys is higher in prepuberty, and studies do show that migraine prevalence decreases in older adults – men and women,” she said.
There is still not enough evidence to determine that antiemetics and triptans are safe during pregnancy or that pregnant women with migraine should be taking acetylsalicylic acid, said Dr. Riggins.
The investigators, Dr. Strauss, and Dr. Riggins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. Although pregnancy is generally considered a “safe period” for women with migraine, “we actually found they have more diabetes, more hypertension, more blood clots, more complications during their delivery, and more postpartum complications,” said study investigator Nirit Lev, MD, PhD, head, department of neurology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
The results highlight the need for clinicians “to take people with migraines seriously” and reinforce the idea that migraine is not “just a headache,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine should be considered high risk and have specialized neurologic follow-up during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
Prevalent, disabling
Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurologic disorders. Such disorders are major causes of death and disability.
In childhood, there’s no difference between the sexes in terms of migraine prevalence, but after puberty, migraine is about three times more common in women than men. Fluctuating levels of estrogen and progesterone likely explain these differences, said Dr. Lev.
The prevalence of migraine among females peaks during their reproductive years. Most female migraine patients report an improvement in headache symptoms during pregnancy, with some experiencing a “complete remission.” However, a minority report worsening of migraine when expecting a child, said Dr. Lev.
Some patients have their first aura during pregnancy. The most common migraine aura is visual, a problem with the visual field that can affect motor and sensory functioning, said Dr. Lev.
Managing migraine during pregnancy is “very complicated,” said Dr. Lev. She said the first-line treatment is paracetamol (acetaminophen) and stressed that taking opioids should be avoided.
Retrospective database study
For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed pregnancy and delivery records from a database of Clalit Medical Services, which has more than 4.5 million members and is the largest such database in Israel. They collected demographic data and information on mode of delivery, medical and obstetric complications, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, use of medications, laboratory reports, and medical consultations.
The study included 145,102 women who gave birth from 2014 to 2020.
Of these, 10,646 had migraine without aura, and 1,576 had migraine with aura. The migraine diagnoses, which were based on International Headache Society criteria and diagnostic codes, were made prior to pregnancy.
Dr. Lev noted that the number of patients with migraine is likely an underestimation because migraine is “not always diagnosed.”
Results showed that the risk for obstetric complications was higher among pregnant women with migraine, especially those with aura, in comparison with women without migraine. About 6.9% of patients with migraine without aura were admitted to high-risk hospital departments, compared with 6% of pregnant control patients who did not have migraine (P < .0001). For patients with migraine with aura, the risk for admissions was even higher (8.7%; P < .0001 vs. control patients and P < .03 vs. patients with migraine without aura) and was “very highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Lev.
Pregnant women with migraine were at significantly increased risk for gestational diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder (all P < .0001). These women were also more likely to experience preeclampsia and blood clots (P < .0001).
Unexpected finding
The finding that the risk for diabetes was higher was “unexpected,” inasmuch as older women with migraine are typically at increased risk for metabolic syndrome and higher body mass index, said Dr. Lev.
Migraine patients had significantly more consultations with family physicians, gynecologists, and neurologists (P < .0001). In addition, they were more likely to utilize emergency services; take more medications, mostly analgesics; and undergo more laboratory studies and brain imaging.
Those with aura had significantly more specialist consultations and took more medications compared with migraine patients without aura.
There was a statistically significant increase in the use of epidural anesthesia for migraine patients (40.5% of women without migraine; 45.7% of those with migraine accompanied by aura; and 47.5% of migraine patients without aura).
This was an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Lev. “We didn’t know what to expect; people with migraine are used to pain, so the question was, will they tolerate pain better or be more afraid of pain?”
Women with migraine also experienced more assisted deliveries with increased use of vacuums and forceps.
During the 3-month postpartum period, women with migraine sought more medical consultations and used more medications compared with control patients. They also underwent more lab examinations and more brain imaging during this period.
Dr. Lev noted that some of these evaluations may have been postponed because of the pregnancy.
Women with migraine also had a greater risk for postpartum depression, which Dr. Lev found “concerning.” She noted that depression is often underreported but is treatable. Women with migraine should be monitored for depression post partum, she said.
It’s unclear which factors contribute to the increased risk for pregnancy complications in women with migraine. Dr. Lev said she doesn’t believe it’s drug related.
“Although they’re taking more medications than people who don’t have migraine, we still are giving very low doses and only safe medicines, so I don’t think these increased risks are side effects,” she said.
She noted that women with migraine have more cardiovascular complications, including stroke and myocardial infarction, although these generally affect older patients.
Dr. Lev also noted that pain, especially chronic pain, can cause depression. “We know that people with migraine have more depression and anxiety, so maybe that also affects them during their pregnancy and after,” she said.
She suggested that pregnant women with migraine be considered high risk and be managed via specialized clinics.
Room for improvement
Commenting on the research, Lauren Doyle Strauss, DO, associate professor of neurology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who has written about the management of migraine during pregnancy, said studies such as this help raise awareness about pregnancy risks in migraine patients. Dr. Strauss did not attend the live presentation but is aware of the findings.
The increased use of epidurals during delivery among migraine patients in the study makes some sense, said Dr. Strauss. “It kind of shows a comfort level with medicines.”
She expressed concern that such research may be “skewed” because it includes patients with more severe migraine. If less severe cases were included in this research, “maybe there would still be higher risks, but not as high as what we have been finding in some of our studies,” she said.
Dr. Strauss said she feels the medical community should do a better job of identifying and diagnosing migraine. She said she would like to see migraine screening become a routine part of obstetric/gynecologic care. Doctors should counsel migraine patients who wish to become pregnant about potential risks, said Dr. Strauss. “We need to be up front in telling them when to seek care and when to report symptoms and not to wait for it to become super severe,” she said.
She also believes doctors should be “proactive” in helping patients develop a treatment plan before becoming pregnant, because the limited pain control options available for pregnant patients can take time to have an effect.
Also commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study raises “important questions” and has “important aims.”
She believes the study reinforces the importance of collaboration between experts in primary care, obstetrics/gynecology, and neurology. However, she was surprised at some of the investigators’ assertions that there are no differences in migraine among prepubertal children and that the course of migraine for men is stable throughout their life span.
“There is literature that supports the view that the prevalence in boys is higher in prepuberty, and studies do show that migraine prevalence decreases in older adults – men and women,” she said.
There is still not enough evidence to determine that antiemetics and triptans are safe during pregnancy or that pregnant women with migraine should be taking acetylsalicylic acid, said Dr. Riggins.
The investigators, Dr. Strauss, and Dr. Riggins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From EAN 2021
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients with migraine
according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Amy Gelfand, MD, director of pediatric headache at University of California, San Francisco, reviewed common concerns migraine patients or their clinicians might have related any of the three vaccines, starting with a review of how the vaccines work – by targeting the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
“The vaccines induce response to that protein, but only that protein, so there’s no reason to think they’re going to cause the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against any of our migraine therapeutics,” Dr. Gelfand said. She added that the phase 3 clinical trials included participants from a wide range of ages and comorbidities, so there were likely many people in the trials who have migraine, though no subgroup analyses have been performed for this group or are likely to be performed.
Common questions
The two treatments people have the most questions about concerning the COVID-19 vaccine are onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), likely because both of these are injections, as is the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said. First, she reminded attendees that onabotulinumtoxinA is not a dermal filler, since some reports following administration of the Moderna vaccine suggested that some people with dermal fillers had swelling in those areas after vaccination.
In addition, “there’s no reason to think the onabotulinumtoxinA would influence our body’s immune response to any vaccine, so there’s no need to retime the onabotulinumtoxinA injections around COVID-19 vaccine administration,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Regarding mAbs, she acknowledged that some white blood cells have CGRP receptors, which may have a pro- or anti-inflammatory role, but clinical trials of mAbs did not show any evidence of being immunosuppressive or myelosuppressive.
“The monoclonal antibodies themselves have undergone engineering so that they are just going after their one target,” Dr. Gelfand said. “They’re not going to be expected to bind to anything else outside of their targets, so I don’t think there’s anything there to make us retime the monoclonal antibody administration relative to the COVID-19 vaccine.”
She did note that patients who choose to get mAbs injections in their arm instead of their thigh or abdomen may want to receive it in the opposite arm than they one they have gotten or will get the vaccine in since the vaccine can cause discomfort.
The other common question patients may have is whether taking any NSAIDs or acetaminophen before getting the COVID-19 vaccine will reduce their immune response to the vaccination. This concern arises because of past evidence showing that some infants tended to have lower immunologic responses when they received acetaminophen after their primary vaccines’ series, but the clinical significance of those reduced responses is not clear since they still had strong responses. Further, this effect was not seen with booster shots, suggesting it’s an age-dependent effect.
During the clinical trials of the AstraZeneca vaccine, several sites gave prophylactic paracetamol without any apparent detrimental effect on antibody response, Dr. Gelfand said. Further, the mRNA and adenovirus-vectored vaccines appear to induce antibodies far above what many believe is needed for protection.
“Even if there were a slight decrease, it’s not clear that that would have any kind of clinical significance for that person in terms of their level of protection against COVID-19,” she said. “Bottom line, it’s fine for patients to use either of these after administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend it prophylactically beforehand, but it’s fine to take it for a fever, aches or headache after getting the vaccine.
Migraine or vaccine reaction?
Dr. Gelfand then addressed whether it should affect physicians’ headache differential if seeing a patient who recently received an adenovirus-vectored vaccine, such as the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines. The question relates to the discovery of a very rare potential adverse event from these vaccines: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia and thromboses in other major vessels, together called thrombosis thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). No TTS cases have been reported following mRNA vaccines.
TTS’s mechanism appears similar to autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, where the body produces platelet-activating antibodies. TTS currently has three diagnostic criteria: new-onset thrombocytopenia (<150,000/microliter) without evidence of platelet clumping, venous or arterial thrombosis, and absence of prior exposure to heparin.
So far, TTS has been limited only to the vaccines that use an adenovirus vector. One male clinical trial participant experienced CVST with thrombocytopenia in Johnson & Johnson phase 3 trials, and 12 cases out of approximately 8 million Johnson & Johnson doses were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between March 2 and April 21, 2021. Three TTS more cases followed these, resulting in 15 TTS events per 8 million doses.
In terms of clinical features, all 15 cases were females under age 60, mostly white, and all 11 who were tested were positive for the heparin-platelet factor 4 antibody test. TTS occurred 6-15 days after vaccination for these cases, and all but one had a headache. Their platelet count was 9,000-127,000. None were pregnant or postpartum.
“For us, as headache clinicians, the epidemiology of TTS overlaps with the epidemiology of migraine – they’re happening to the same group of patients,” Dr. Gelfand said. Most of the cases occurred in women aged 30-39 years, while the estimated incidence in women aged 50 or older is 0.9 cases per million doses.
The CDC has proceeded with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because a risk-benefit analysis revealed that use of the vaccine will result in fewer hospitalization and deaths from COVID-19, compared with adverse events from the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand explained. However, the CDC notes that “women younger than 50 years old should be made aware of a rare risk of blood clots with low platelets following vaccination and the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines where this risk has not been observed.”
For clinicians, the existence of TTS raises a question when patients with a history of migraine call after having received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said: “How do we know if this is a spontaneous attack, if it’s a headache provoked by receiving the vaccine, or they have one of these rare cases of [TTS]?”
Three things help with this differential, she said: timing, epidemiology, and headache phenotype. Headache after a vaccine is very common, but it usually happens within the first couple of hours or days after the vaccine. By day 4 after vaccination, few people had headaches in the clinical trials. Since TTS requires production of antibodies, a headache within a few hours of vaccination should not raise concerns about TTS. It should be considered, however, for patients who experience a headache within a week or 2 after vaccination.
Then consider the epidemiology: If it’s a woman between ages 18 and49 calling, the risk is higher than if it’s a male over age 50. Then consider whether there are any unusual headache features, positionality, encephalopathy, or clinical features that could suggest clots in other parts of the body, such as abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or pain in the legs.
“At the end of the day, if it’s a person who’s in this epidemiological window and they’re calling a week or 2 out from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, we may just need to work it up and see,” Dr. Gelfand said. Work-up involves a CBC, a platelet count to see if they’re thrombocytopenic, and perhaps imaging, preferentially using MRI/MRV over CT since it’s a younger population. Treatment for CVST with thrombocytopenia is a nonheparin anticoagulant, and platelet transfusion should not occur before consulting with hematology.
Continue to vaccinate
“The big take home is that we should continue to vaccinate patients with migraine and that your current therapies do not interfere with the vaccine working and that the vaccine does not interact with our therapies,” Brian D. Loftus, MD, BSChE, immediate past president of the Southern Headache Society and a neurologist at Bellaire (Pa.) Neurology, said of the presentation. He also felt it was helpful to know that NSAIDs likely have no impact on the vaccines’ effectiveness as well.
“The most important new information for me was that the median onset of the CSVT was 8 days post vaccine,” Dr. Loftus said. “Typically, postvaccine headache is seen much sooner, within 1-2 days, so this is a useful clinical feature to separate out who needs to closer follow-up and possible neuroimaging.”
Given the epidemiology of those most likely to have TTS, Dr. Loftus said he would advise his female patients younger than 60 to simply get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine since they appear safer for this demographic.
Dr. Gelfand is editor of the journal Headache but has no industry disclosures. Her spouse has received clinical trial grant support from Genentech and honoraria for editorial work from Dynamed Plus. Dr. Loftus has received grants or fees from Teva, Amgen, Abbvie, and Biohaven.
according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Amy Gelfand, MD, director of pediatric headache at University of California, San Francisco, reviewed common concerns migraine patients or their clinicians might have related any of the three vaccines, starting with a review of how the vaccines work – by targeting the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
“The vaccines induce response to that protein, but only that protein, so there’s no reason to think they’re going to cause the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against any of our migraine therapeutics,” Dr. Gelfand said. She added that the phase 3 clinical trials included participants from a wide range of ages and comorbidities, so there were likely many people in the trials who have migraine, though no subgroup analyses have been performed for this group or are likely to be performed.
Common questions
The two treatments people have the most questions about concerning the COVID-19 vaccine are onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), likely because both of these are injections, as is the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said. First, she reminded attendees that onabotulinumtoxinA is not a dermal filler, since some reports following administration of the Moderna vaccine suggested that some people with dermal fillers had swelling in those areas after vaccination.
In addition, “there’s no reason to think the onabotulinumtoxinA would influence our body’s immune response to any vaccine, so there’s no need to retime the onabotulinumtoxinA injections around COVID-19 vaccine administration,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Regarding mAbs, she acknowledged that some white blood cells have CGRP receptors, which may have a pro- or anti-inflammatory role, but clinical trials of mAbs did not show any evidence of being immunosuppressive or myelosuppressive.
“The monoclonal antibodies themselves have undergone engineering so that they are just going after their one target,” Dr. Gelfand said. “They’re not going to be expected to bind to anything else outside of their targets, so I don’t think there’s anything there to make us retime the monoclonal antibody administration relative to the COVID-19 vaccine.”
She did note that patients who choose to get mAbs injections in their arm instead of their thigh or abdomen may want to receive it in the opposite arm than they one they have gotten or will get the vaccine in since the vaccine can cause discomfort.
The other common question patients may have is whether taking any NSAIDs or acetaminophen before getting the COVID-19 vaccine will reduce their immune response to the vaccination. This concern arises because of past evidence showing that some infants tended to have lower immunologic responses when they received acetaminophen after their primary vaccines’ series, but the clinical significance of those reduced responses is not clear since they still had strong responses. Further, this effect was not seen with booster shots, suggesting it’s an age-dependent effect.
During the clinical trials of the AstraZeneca vaccine, several sites gave prophylactic paracetamol without any apparent detrimental effect on antibody response, Dr. Gelfand said. Further, the mRNA and adenovirus-vectored vaccines appear to induce antibodies far above what many believe is needed for protection.
“Even if there were a slight decrease, it’s not clear that that would have any kind of clinical significance for that person in terms of their level of protection against COVID-19,” she said. “Bottom line, it’s fine for patients to use either of these after administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend it prophylactically beforehand, but it’s fine to take it for a fever, aches or headache after getting the vaccine.
Migraine or vaccine reaction?
Dr. Gelfand then addressed whether it should affect physicians’ headache differential if seeing a patient who recently received an adenovirus-vectored vaccine, such as the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines. The question relates to the discovery of a very rare potential adverse event from these vaccines: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia and thromboses in other major vessels, together called thrombosis thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). No TTS cases have been reported following mRNA vaccines.
TTS’s mechanism appears similar to autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, where the body produces platelet-activating antibodies. TTS currently has three diagnostic criteria: new-onset thrombocytopenia (<150,000/microliter) without evidence of platelet clumping, venous or arterial thrombosis, and absence of prior exposure to heparin.
So far, TTS has been limited only to the vaccines that use an adenovirus vector. One male clinical trial participant experienced CVST with thrombocytopenia in Johnson & Johnson phase 3 trials, and 12 cases out of approximately 8 million Johnson & Johnson doses were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between March 2 and April 21, 2021. Three TTS more cases followed these, resulting in 15 TTS events per 8 million doses.
In terms of clinical features, all 15 cases were females under age 60, mostly white, and all 11 who were tested were positive for the heparin-platelet factor 4 antibody test. TTS occurred 6-15 days after vaccination for these cases, and all but one had a headache. Their platelet count was 9,000-127,000. None were pregnant or postpartum.
“For us, as headache clinicians, the epidemiology of TTS overlaps with the epidemiology of migraine – they’re happening to the same group of patients,” Dr. Gelfand said. Most of the cases occurred in women aged 30-39 years, while the estimated incidence in women aged 50 or older is 0.9 cases per million doses.
The CDC has proceeded with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because a risk-benefit analysis revealed that use of the vaccine will result in fewer hospitalization and deaths from COVID-19, compared with adverse events from the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand explained. However, the CDC notes that “women younger than 50 years old should be made aware of a rare risk of blood clots with low platelets following vaccination and the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines where this risk has not been observed.”
For clinicians, the existence of TTS raises a question when patients with a history of migraine call after having received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said: “How do we know if this is a spontaneous attack, if it’s a headache provoked by receiving the vaccine, or they have one of these rare cases of [TTS]?”
Three things help with this differential, she said: timing, epidemiology, and headache phenotype. Headache after a vaccine is very common, but it usually happens within the first couple of hours or days after the vaccine. By day 4 after vaccination, few people had headaches in the clinical trials. Since TTS requires production of antibodies, a headache within a few hours of vaccination should not raise concerns about TTS. It should be considered, however, for patients who experience a headache within a week or 2 after vaccination.
Then consider the epidemiology: If it’s a woman between ages 18 and49 calling, the risk is higher than if it’s a male over age 50. Then consider whether there are any unusual headache features, positionality, encephalopathy, or clinical features that could suggest clots in other parts of the body, such as abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or pain in the legs.
“At the end of the day, if it’s a person who’s in this epidemiological window and they’re calling a week or 2 out from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, we may just need to work it up and see,” Dr. Gelfand said. Work-up involves a CBC, a platelet count to see if they’re thrombocytopenic, and perhaps imaging, preferentially using MRI/MRV over CT since it’s a younger population. Treatment for CVST with thrombocytopenia is a nonheparin anticoagulant, and platelet transfusion should not occur before consulting with hematology.
Continue to vaccinate
“The big take home is that we should continue to vaccinate patients with migraine and that your current therapies do not interfere with the vaccine working and that the vaccine does not interact with our therapies,” Brian D. Loftus, MD, BSChE, immediate past president of the Southern Headache Society and a neurologist at Bellaire (Pa.) Neurology, said of the presentation. He also felt it was helpful to know that NSAIDs likely have no impact on the vaccines’ effectiveness as well.
“The most important new information for me was that the median onset of the CSVT was 8 days post vaccine,” Dr. Loftus said. “Typically, postvaccine headache is seen much sooner, within 1-2 days, so this is a useful clinical feature to separate out who needs to closer follow-up and possible neuroimaging.”
Given the epidemiology of those most likely to have TTS, Dr. Loftus said he would advise his female patients younger than 60 to simply get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine since they appear safer for this demographic.
Dr. Gelfand is editor of the journal Headache but has no industry disclosures. Her spouse has received clinical trial grant support from Genentech and honoraria for editorial work from Dynamed Plus. Dr. Loftus has received grants or fees from Teva, Amgen, Abbvie, and Biohaven.
according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Amy Gelfand, MD, director of pediatric headache at University of California, San Francisco, reviewed common concerns migraine patients or their clinicians might have related any of the three vaccines, starting with a review of how the vaccines work – by targeting the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
“The vaccines induce response to that protein, but only that protein, so there’s no reason to think they’re going to cause the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against any of our migraine therapeutics,” Dr. Gelfand said. She added that the phase 3 clinical trials included participants from a wide range of ages and comorbidities, so there were likely many people in the trials who have migraine, though no subgroup analyses have been performed for this group or are likely to be performed.
Common questions
The two treatments people have the most questions about concerning the COVID-19 vaccine are onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), likely because both of these are injections, as is the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said. First, she reminded attendees that onabotulinumtoxinA is not a dermal filler, since some reports following administration of the Moderna vaccine suggested that some people with dermal fillers had swelling in those areas after vaccination.
In addition, “there’s no reason to think the onabotulinumtoxinA would influence our body’s immune response to any vaccine, so there’s no need to retime the onabotulinumtoxinA injections around COVID-19 vaccine administration,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Regarding mAbs, she acknowledged that some white blood cells have CGRP receptors, which may have a pro- or anti-inflammatory role, but clinical trials of mAbs did not show any evidence of being immunosuppressive or myelosuppressive.
“The monoclonal antibodies themselves have undergone engineering so that they are just going after their one target,” Dr. Gelfand said. “They’re not going to be expected to bind to anything else outside of their targets, so I don’t think there’s anything there to make us retime the monoclonal antibody administration relative to the COVID-19 vaccine.”
She did note that patients who choose to get mAbs injections in their arm instead of their thigh or abdomen may want to receive it in the opposite arm than they one they have gotten or will get the vaccine in since the vaccine can cause discomfort.
The other common question patients may have is whether taking any NSAIDs or acetaminophen before getting the COVID-19 vaccine will reduce their immune response to the vaccination. This concern arises because of past evidence showing that some infants tended to have lower immunologic responses when they received acetaminophen after their primary vaccines’ series, but the clinical significance of those reduced responses is not clear since they still had strong responses. Further, this effect was not seen with booster shots, suggesting it’s an age-dependent effect.
During the clinical trials of the AstraZeneca vaccine, several sites gave prophylactic paracetamol without any apparent detrimental effect on antibody response, Dr. Gelfand said. Further, the mRNA and adenovirus-vectored vaccines appear to induce antibodies far above what many believe is needed for protection.
“Even if there were a slight decrease, it’s not clear that that would have any kind of clinical significance for that person in terms of their level of protection against COVID-19,” she said. “Bottom line, it’s fine for patients to use either of these after administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend it prophylactically beforehand, but it’s fine to take it for a fever, aches or headache after getting the vaccine.
Migraine or vaccine reaction?
Dr. Gelfand then addressed whether it should affect physicians’ headache differential if seeing a patient who recently received an adenovirus-vectored vaccine, such as the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines. The question relates to the discovery of a very rare potential adverse event from these vaccines: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia and thromboses in other major vessels, together called thrombosis thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). No TTS cases have been reported following mRNA vaccines.
TTS’s mechanism appears similar to autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, where the body produces platelet-activating antibodies. TTS currently has three diagnostic criteria: new-onset thrombocytopenia (<150,000/microliter) without evidence of platelet clumping, venous or arterial thrombosis, and absence of prior exposure to heparin.
So far, TTS has been limited only to the vaccines that use an adenovirus vector. One male clinical trial participant experienced CVST with thrombocytopenia in Johnson & Johnson phase 3 trials, and 12 cases out of approximately 8 million Johnson & Johnson doses were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between March 2 and April 21, 2021. Three TTS more cases followed these, resulting in 15 TTS events per 8 million doses.
In terms of clinical features, all 15 cases were females under age 60, mostly white, and all 11 who were tested were positive for the heparin-platelet factor 4 antibody test. TTS occurred 6-15 days after vaccination for these cases, and all but one had a headache. Their platelet count was 9,000-127,000. None were pregnant or postpartum.
“For us, as headache clinicians, the epidemiology of TTS overlaps with the epidemiology of migraine – they’re happening to the same group of patients,” Dr. Gelfand said. Most of the cases occurred in women aged 30-39 years, while the estimated incidence in women aged 50 or older is 0.9 cases per million doses.
The CDC has proceeded with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because a risk-benefit analysis revealed that use of the vaccine will result in fewer hospitalization and deaths from COVID-19, compared with adverse events from the vaccine, Dr. Gelfand explained. However, the CDC notes that “women younger than 50 years old should be made aware of a rare risk of blood clots with low platelets following vaccination and the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines where this risk has not been observed.”
For clinicians, the existence of TTS raises a question when patients with a history of migraine call after having received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, Dr. Gelfand said: “How do we know if this is a spontaneous attack, if it’s a headache provoked by receiving the vaccine, or they have one of these rare cases of [TTS]?”
Three things help with this differential, she said: timing, epidemiology, and headache phenotype. Headache after a vaccine is very common, but it usually happens within the first couple of hours or days after the vaccine. By day 4 after vaccination, few people had headaches in the clinical trials. Since TTS requires production of antibodies, a headache within a few hours of vaccination should not raise concerns about TTS. It should be considered, however, for patients who experience a headache within a week or 2 after vaccination.
Then consider the epidemiology: If it’s a woman between ages 18 and49 calling, the risk is higher than if it’s a male over age 50. Then consider whether there are any unusual headache features, positionality, encephalopathy, or clinical features that could suggest clots in other parts of the body, such as abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or pain in the legs.
“At the end of the day, if it’s a person who’s in this epidemiological window and they’re calling a week or 2 out from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, we may just need to work it up and see,” Dr. Gelfand said. Work-up involves a CBC, a platelet count to see if they’re thrombocytopenic, and perhaps imaging, preferentially using MRI/MRV over CT since it’s a younger population. Treatment for CVST with thrombocytopenia is a nonheparin anticoagulant, and platelet transfusion should not occur before consulting with hematology.
Continue to vaccinate
“The big take home is that we should continue to vaccinate patients with migraine and that your current therapies do not interfere with the vaccine working and that the vaccine does not interact with our therapies,” Brian D. Loftus, MD, BSChE, immediate past president of the Southern Headache Society and a neurologist at Bellaire (Pa.) Neurology, said of the presentation. He also felt it was helpful to know that NSAIDs likely have no impact on the vaccines’ effectiveness as well.
“The most important new information for me was that the median onset of the CSVT was 8 days post vaccine,” Dr. Loftus said. “Typically, postvaccine headache is seen much sooner, within 1-2 days, so this is a useful clinical feature to separate out who needs to closer follow-up and possible neuroimaging.”
Given the epidemiology of those most likely to have TTS, Dr. Loftus said he would advise his female patients younger than 60 to simply get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine since they appear safer for this demographic.
Dr. Gelfand is editor of the journal Headache but has no industry disclosures. Her spouse has received clinical trial grant support from Genentech and honoraria for editorial work from Dynamed Plus. Dr. Loftus has received grants or fees from Teva, Amgen, Abbvie, and Biohaven.
FROM AHS 2021
BBB integrity linked to cortical spreading depression
CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.
“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.
“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.
The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model
To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.
ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.
Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
Next steps
The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.
Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.
If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.
CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.
“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.
“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.
The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model
To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.
ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.
Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
Next steps
The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.
Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.
If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.
CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.
“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.
“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.
The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model
To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.
ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.
Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
Next steps
The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.
Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.
If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.
FROM AHS 2021
No increased risk of hypertension with erenumab?
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2021