Search

Background: Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown clinical effectiveness and safety in randomized clinical studies. However, long-term studies in clinical practice remain limited. Aim: To assess the long-term effectiveness, clinical predictors and safety of three anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) in resistant migraine patients. Method: A single-center retrospective study was conducted from December 2019 to June 2023 involving 120 resistant migraine patients who received at least a month of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment. Patients completed a headache diary that included monthly acute medication intake (MAM), monthly migraine days (MMD), adverse events as well as completed Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires (MIDAS [Migraine Disability Assessment] and Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6]). The number of patients achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was determined and classified as ≥ 50% responders, and baseline parameters and logistic regression between responders and non-responders were analyzed to identify potential predictors of response. Adverse events were registered in every follow-up. Results: Treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs led to reductions in MIDAS, HIT-6, MMD and MAM from baseline to 6–24 months. At 6–12 months, responders (61% and 57%, respectively) exhibited lower baseline MMD and MAM. Medication overuse was associated with non-responders from 6 to 24 months and it was identified as a negative predictor of treatment effectiveness (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.74; p = 0.014). Conclusion: Anti-CGRP mAbs prove effectiveness and safety over a 24-month period in a RM population. Patients with no medication overuse and lower basal MMDs and MAM may respond better to anti-CGRP mAbs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To provide real-world insights into migraine patient population in Germany treated with erenumab, focusing on the prescription patterns and reasons for the initial dosage choice. Methods: SPECTRE was an observational, non-interventional, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in patients treated with erenumab according to approved local dose and guidelines. The study enrolled adult patients (n = 571; Germany: 105 sites) with migraine who had received erenumab for not more than 3 months before the start of the study. Results: The mean (standard deviation) patient age was 45.0 (12.3) years, and most patients were female (89.0%), Caucasian (97.6%), and non-smokers (85.1%). The starting dose of erenumab was 70 mg in 68.5% of patients and 140 mg in 31.5%. The proportion of patients with 140 mg as the starting dose was the highest (43.5%) in those aged 30–40 years. The most common reason for starting a higher dose of erenumab 140 mg was severity of migraine (47.4%). During the observational period, the proportion of patients taking erenumab 140 mg increased to 64.6% (visit 5; V5) after 12 months. Due to attrition of patients towards the end of the study (V9: 90 participants), data at V9 must be interpreted with caution. At least one dose change was performed in 45.3% of patients (i.e., erenumab 70 to 140 mg or 140 to 70 mg), 21.2% of patients attempted at least once to discontinue treatment (i.e., period with erenumab discontinuation and no other antibody treatment for migraine prevention), and 15.3% discontinued erenumab treatment, mainly because of no or insufficient treatment response (13.5%). The mean time until the first omission attempt was 332.3 (range 37–633) days. Constipation (12.1%) was the most frequently reported adverse event, in line with the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) of erenumab. Conclusion: Most patients with migraine were prescribed erenumab 70 mg as the starting dose. No new safety signals were observed for erenumab versus the previous trials. Plain Language Summary: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency for the prevention of migraine in adults as a monthly treatment with a 70 mg and 140 mg dose. SPECTRE was a multicenter, open-label, prospective non-interventional observational study in patients treated with erenumab as per local approved dose and clinical practice. The study was aimed at providing real-world insights into migraine patient population in Germany treated with erenumab, focusing on the prescription patterns and reasons for the initial dosage choice. Of the 571 enrolled patients (mean age: 45.0 years; Germany: 105 sites), 556 were included in the full and safety analysis. In the majority of the patients (68.5%) erenumab was initiated using the lower starting dose of 70 mg (erenumab 140 mg: 31.5% of patients). Patients (43.5%) who started with erenumab 140 mg were most frequently 30–40 years old, which represents the second youngest age group in the study. In total, 776 adverse events (AE) were reported in 294 patients (52.9%). According to the Summary of Product Characteristics of erenumab, the most frequent AE was constipation (12.1%). Safety data were in accordance with the known safety profile of erenumab. Data from the SPECTRE study reveal the real-world treatment patterns and disease characteristics of migraine patients in Germany who were treated with erenumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: HER‐MES was the first head‐to‐head study of erenumab against topiramate (standard of care). This post hoc analysis of the HER‐MES study evaluated the effect of erenumab versus topiramate on patient‐reported outcomes at week 24. Methods: Adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine (n = 777) were randomized (1:1) to monthly subcutaneous erenumab (n = 389) or daily oral topiramate (n = 388). Migraine‐related disability, as measured by the Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT‐6) and Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF‐36v2), was analysed in the entire study cohort and true completers. Results: In the erenumab group (vs. topiramate), significant improvements were reported in Headache Impact Test 6 total scores (composite populations, −10.88 vs. −7.72; true completers, −11.92 vs. −10.61) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a ≥5‐point reduction from baseline with erenumab (composite populations, 72.2% vs. 53.9%; true completers, 79.64% vs. 71.43%). The adjusted mean change from baseline in the SF‐36v2 score was greater with erenumab for both physical component summary (composite population, 5.48 vs. 3.63; true completers, 5.95 vs. 5.23) and mental component summary (composite populations, 1.00 vs. −1.18; true completers, 1.74 vs. −0.33). A higher proportion of patients on erenumab versus topiramate had a ≥5‐point improvement in SF‐36v2 for the physical component summary (composite populations, 47.7% vs. 37.4%; true completers, 52.1% vs. 48.9%) and mental component summary (composite populations, 25.3% vs. 16.8%; true completers, 27.3% vs. 17.7%). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrated that patients treated with erenumab had significant improvements in headache impact and quality of life as measured by patient‐reported outcomes versus patients treated with topiramate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The term 'refractory migraine' (RM) is commonly used in clinical settings; however, it is not recognized in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition. A growing need for a shared definition of refractoriness has been highlighted by a multidisciplinary expert group. Although definitions for RM currently exist, the key parameters for the definition of refractoriness (e.g., unresponsiveness to treatment, high frequency, severe disability, or all of these features) remain contentious. Thus, a consensus on the definition of RM is crucial. Methods: Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide that plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology and is a target for migraine preventive therapies. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP (i.e., galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) and its receptor (erenumab) have shown consistent efficacy for migraine prophylaxis with excellent safety profiles. Their effect on refractory cases has also been reported, offering promise to the many patients who have not found relief with existing treatments. Therefore, we anticipate a paradigm shift in migraine treatment. Results: Following the widespread use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP and its receptor, the European Headache Federation proposed a definition for two subsets of difficult‐to‐treat migraine—resistant and refractory migraine—that considers both the frequency and disability caused by single and frequent attacks. Conclusion: We expect that this definition will help resolve previous conflicts that have limited the use of earlier definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the CGRP pathway have revolutionized migraine management due to their improved tolerance and adherence, concerns remain about their potential impact on blood pressure (BP), especially in older patients, due to CGRP-mediated vasodilation blockade. Given the growing use of these therapies in older populations, assessing their cardiovascular (CV) safety is of paramount importance. Methods: This multicentric observational prospective study focused on migraine sufferers aged ≥ 60 who began erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab for prevention. Baseline, three-month, and twelve-month BP measurements were collected. Changes in antihypertensive medication and "Newly or Worsened Hypertensive" patients (NWHP) were assessed. Results: Among 155 patients receiving anti-CGRP mAbs (40 Erenumab, 47 Galcanezumab, 68 Fremanezumab), 42.5% had hypertension history and 39% were on antihypertensive treatment. No significant systolic or diastolic BP changes occurred at any time point compared to baseline (all p > 0.05), with no differences between the three groups. After one year, 20/155 (12.9%) patients were considered NWHP; 11/20 had prior hypertension, and 5/11 adjusted antihypertensive therapy. Among 9/20 newly hypertensive patients, 5/9 had a single measurement above the normal threshold with no requirement for new pharmacological therapy. A higher baseline BP value was associated with increased BP (p = 0.002). Conclusions: The study concludes that treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs over one year does not significantly affect BP in patients aged ≥ 60, nor does it increase the incidence of hypertension compared to general population trends. Nonetheless, continuous monitoring and further long-term studies are necessary to fullya scertain the cardiovascular safety of these medications in the elderly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Erenumab-aooe is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Recent publications have evaluated migraine medication use during the 6 months after starting erenumab, but longer-term follow-up data are limited. The objective of this study was to describe 12-month medication use and changes in healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated direct costs among patients initiating erenumab. Methods: We identified adult patients with an erenumab claim in the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases from May 2018 through September 2019. Eligible patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous medical and pharmacy coverage before (pre-index period) and after (post-index period) the index date (first erenumab claim) in addition to pre-index evidence of migraine. Patients were stratified by post-index-period adherence to erenumab, defined as ≥ 80% of days covered (adherent) or < 80% of days covered (non-adherent). Outcomes were measured pre- and post-index, and differences between these periods were described. Results: Among 7528 eligible patients, the mean (standard deviation) age was 45.1 (11.4) years and 85.4% were female; 38.5% of patients were adherent to erenumab. Most patients used acute or traditional migraine-preventive medications pre-index, with reductions in use observed post-index (acute medication was used by 95.6% of patients pre-index, compared to 92.3% post-index; traditional preventive medication was used by 89.6% of patients pre-index, compared to 81.9% post-index). Reductions were observed for HRU of emergency room visits (− 3.8%) and brain- and other head-imaging studies (− 7.5%). Overall costs associated with acute and traditional preventive medications were reduced (− $764), but costs for HRU increased slightly ($76). When stratifying by adherence and combining costs for acute and traditional preventive medications and HRU, adherent patients had cost decreases (− $1947), while non-adherent patients had cost increases ($101). Conclusion: Most patients initiating erenumab had prior use of acute and traditional migraine-preventive therapies. The reduction in acute and traditional migraine-preventive medication use and HRU over the 12-month follow-up supports the long-term clinical benefits of erenumab in the real-world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Migraine is a chronic neurological disorder affecting approximately 14% of the global population. Beyond physical pain, migraines significantly impact individuals' quality of life, influencing education, employment, and income levels. Topiramate, a second-generation antiepileptic medication, has demonstrated notable efficacy in reducing the occurrence of chronic migraine. Over the past three decades, extensive research has implicated the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine pathogenesis. Erenumab, the first FDA-approved CGRP inhibitor, received approval in 2018. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of Erenumab and Topiramate for migraine prevention. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with episodic or chronic migraine over a 12-month period, comparing Erenumab (n = 52) and Topiramate (n = 56). Outcomes assessed included changes in the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores from baseline over the last three months of treatment and the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in MIDAS scores by the end of the study. Results: The Erenumab group showed significant improvement, with nearly 79% of patients achieving a 50% reduction in their MIDAS score, with a mean reduction of 3.76. Notably, only two patients (3.8.5) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. In contrast, the Topiramate group had over 15% of patients achieve a 50% reduction in MIDAS scores, with a mean reduction of 5.89, and a had discontinuation rate of 14.2% due to adverse events. Conclusions: Both Topiramate and Erenumab are effective for migraine prevention. However, Topiramate has lower tolerability and more side effects, while Erenumab offers better tolerability and safety at a higher cost. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on patient needs, efficacy, safety, and cost considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efficacy and safety of human monoclonal antibody erenumab used for migraine prophylaxis have been shown in clinical studies. APOLLON is an open-label, multi-center, single arm study, which permits dose adjustments of erenumab and includes an option for a drug holiday. The findings contribute to the accumulating long-term evidence regarding erenumab's tolerability and safety profile in individuals experiencing episodic and chronic migraines. Methods: The study population consisted of adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who had successfully completed the HER-MES study (NCT03828539). Patients were treated with erenumab for 128 weeks at a flexible dose of either 70 mg or 140 mg. Treatment discontinuation attempts were allowed as voluntary single treatment interruption ('drug holiday') of up to 24 weeks. Results: 701 patients were enrolled in APOLLON. The exposure associated incidence rate (EAIR) of adverse events (AEs) (N = 601) per 100 subject years was 101.71 (95% CI [92.28; 111.14]) meaning a patient could expect having about one adverse event per each year of treatment. EAIR was higher in females (n = 524, EAIR: 104.40, 95% CI [93.93; 114.86]) than in males (n = 77, EAIR: 86.55, 95% CI [65.39; 107.71]) and increased with initial monthly migraine days (MMD) and prior prophylactic treatment failures. A total of 155 patients discontinued erenumab treatment during open-label treatment phase. Of these, 29 were due to AEs (4.1% of total cohort) and out of these 65.5% (N = 19) were considered treatment-related. Safety parameters were in line with HER-MES data and did not reveal new safety signals. Drug holidays were realized by 108 patients (15.4%), of which 64.8% (N = 70) returned to treatment. The mean number of monthly headache days (MHDs), MMDs, and days with acute headache medication significantly increased during drug holiday. After resumption of erenumab treatment, a rapid reduction of the migraine parameters was observed. Conclusions: APOLLON provides long-term safety and tolerability data confirming the beneficial safety profile of erenumab over a period of 128 weeks. In addition, reversibility of migraine deterioration during drug holiday was shown and most patients returned to their treatment with similar response rates compared to initial treatment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04084314 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04084314), First submitted: 2019-09-06. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The advent of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway has transformed the management of migraine, offering newfound optimism for clinicians and individuals with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided crucial insights into the effectiveness and safety profiles of these treatments, their translation into real-world clinical practice remains a challenge. Objective: This review aims to conduct a comprehensive assessment of real-world studies, offering valuable insights tailored for practical application in clinical settings. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE for real-life studies on erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab. Abstracts underwent rigorous screening by two reviewers for relevance. Data extraction from selected articles was performed using a standardized form, with verification by a second reviewer. Data synthesis was narrative, following PRISMA guidelines. Results: Our search included 61 pertinent studies conducted between 2019 and 1 March 2024. Real-world study designs demonstrated notable variability in the selection and inclusion of migraine patients, influenced by factors such as attack frequency, data collection criteria, and primary/secondary objectives. Key findings commonly reported considerable improvements in efficacy outcomes (migraine frequency, analgesic use, pain severity, and disability), high responder rates, and optimal safety and tolerability profiles. Conclusions: Real-world evidence underscores the role of anti-CGRP mAbs as targeted therapies for both CM and EM patients. The overall results indicate that the effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP mAbs in real-world applications may exceed those observed in RCTs, an extraordinary finding in clinical neurology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), who were treated with anti-CGRP antibodies, showed a reversal from medication overuse (MO) or medication overuse headache (MOH) status at their baseline to non-overuse status. Furthermore, this study aimed to establish which acute headache medication (AHM) categories responded more effectively to anti-CGRP antibodies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database for relevant studies from January 2013 to September 2023. We included phase three randomized controlled trials to examine the role of anti-CGRP antibodies in patients with EM or CM and their MO status. A meta-analysis was conducted to find the association between anti-CGRP antibodies and the number of EM and CM patients with MO or MOH at baseline that reverted to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold. Results: The initial search yielded a total of 345 studies. After removing duplicates and screening with inclusion criteria, 5 studies fulfilled our conditions. Each study reviewed the response to changes in the MO status of patients after receiving anti-CGRP antibodies, including eptinezumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, compared to placebo. Our study analyzed three AHM categories: triptans, simple analgesics, and multiple drugs. The overall relative risk (RR) was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.31 to 1.59; p < 0.001). The RRs for triptans, simple analgesics, and multi-drug groups were 1.71 (95% CI, 1.53 to 1.91; p < 0.001), 1.10 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.47; p = 0.5), and 1.29 (95%CI 1.14 to 1.46; p < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion: The meta-analysis has shown that anti-CGRP antibodies were statistically significant in transitioning from MO or MOH status to non-MO status or below the MOH threshold (RR = 1.44) for all included studies and all AHM categories except for simple analgesics. Patients from the triptan group had the highest RR of 1.71 with a p-value < 0.001, while the simple analgesics group had an RR of 1.10, however, with a p-value > 0.05. Interestingly, this analysis can be interpreted as that anti-CGRP antibodies might not be effective in reducing simple analgesics use in EM or CM patients. Further studies are needed to investigate these matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are limited real-world data in Switzerland examining the impact of erenumab, a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor, on migraine-related quality of life. Objective: This 18-month interim analysis of 172 patients with episodic or chronic migraine from the SQUARE study provides first prospective insights on the impact of mandatory erenumab treatment interruption, following Swiss-reimbursement requirements, in a real-world clinical setting in Switzerland. Findings: Recruited patients receiving 70 or 140 mg erenumab underwent treatment interruption on average 11.2 months after therapy onset with a mean duration of 4 months. There were sustained improvements in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) and migraine disability (mMIDAS) during initial treatment with erenumab. Treatment interruption was associated with a temporary worsening of condition. Symptoms ameliorated upon therapy reuptake reaching improvements similar to pre-break within 3 months. Conclusions: Treatment interruption was associated with a temporary worsening of condition, which improved again after therapy restart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine is a prevalent headache disorder with a significant impact on the quality of life. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab, mAb targeting the CGRP receptor, in treating chronic (CM) and episodic (EM) migraine in clinical practice Kuwait, providing region-specific insights to treatment options. This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with EM or CM treated with erenumab. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in monthly mean migraine days, and several changes including the mean number of monthly migraine days, the frequency of analgesic use, attack severity, AEs, and QoL. The study included 151 patients with a mean age of 44.0±11.4 years, and 81.9% female. The primary outcome was achieved in 74.2% of patients, with a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in headache frequency, pain severity, analgesic use, and improvement in QoL. Age and duration of migraine were significant predictors of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency after therapy (OR = 0.955; p = 0.009) and (OR = 0.965; p = 0.025), respectively. Treatment compliance was observed in 76.2% of patients, and 24.5% discontinued treatment. Constipation was the most commonly reported AEs (6.0%), and conservative management was the most common approach to managing AEs. Erenumab was effective in reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks and improving QoL, and safe with manageable AEs in a real-world setting in Kuwait. Further research is needed to better understand erenumab's effectiveness and safety in different populations and settings, as well as to compare it with other migraine prophylactic treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This preliminary retrospective cohort study investigates the potential additive prophylactic effect of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, in combination with ongoing onabotulinumtoxin A (onaBoNT-A) treatment in patients suffering from chronic migraine. Methods: The study included 218 patients and investigated the effects of adding erenumab to the existing treatment regimen. The primary outcome was the MIDAS (Migraine Disability Assessment) score assessed 3 months after the introduction of erenumab. Results: The results indicated a significant improvement of the MIDAS score, suggesting a reduction in migraine-related disability following the addition of erenumab to onaBoNT-A. In the inter group comparison, dual therapy showed a significantly greater reduction of the MIDAS when compared to a switch from onaBoNT-A to erenumab monotherapy, but not compared to initiation of onaBoNT-A monotherapy. It is hypothesized that the observed additive effects are due to the independent modes of action of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxin A. Conclusion: This study suggests that the combination of erenumab with onaBoNT-A may offer an improved approach for the treatment of chronic migraine in selected patients. However, the results highlight the need for prospective, controlled studies to validate these findings and determine the optimal combination of treatments tailored to the individual patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Management of patients with migraine who have concomitant medication overuse (MO) or medication overuse headache (MOH) is a major problem in clinical practice. Detoxification of acute analgesics before or during initiation of prophylactic therapy has long been recommended although this concept has recently been questioned. Additionally, relapse after detoxification is a common problem. This real-world study analyses the initial and sustained effectiveness of prophylactic migraine therapy with CGRP (receptor) antibodies without prior detoxification in patients with comorbid MO or MOH for up to one year. Methods: A retrospective real-world analysis was performed on 291 patients (episodic migraine (EM) with MO (EM-MO; n = 35), EM without MO (EM-noMO; n = 77), chronic migraine (CM) with MOH (CM-MOH; n = 109), CM without MOH (CM-noMOH; n = 70). All patients began treatment with either erenumab (n = 173), fremanezumab (n = 70) or galcanezumab (n = 48) without prior detoxification. Data were available for up to 12 months of treatment. Responder rates for monthly headache days (MHD), monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly acute medication intake (AMD) were analysed. Results: All groups showed a significant reduction in MHD, MMD and AMD at the last observed time point compared to baseline. In patients with CM and MOH, 60.6% (66/109) no longer fulfilled the definition of MO or MOH and a further 13.8% (15/109) had only EM-MO. In the EM cohort, 89% (31/35) of MO patients lost their MO during therapy. MHD and AMD 30% responder rates were comparable for CM-MOH and CM-noMOH (MHD: CM-MOH: 56.0% vs. CM-noMOH: 41.4%, p = 0.058, AMD: CM-MOH: 66.1% vs. CM-noMOH: 52.9%, p = 0.077). MMD responder rate did not differ significantly (after Bonferroni adjustment) (CM-MOH: 62.4% vs. CM-noMOH: 47.1%, p = 0.045, α = 0.017). After successful initiation of therapy, 15.4% of the initial CM-MOH patients relapsed and met the criterion for CM-MOH at the end of follow-up. There were no antibody specific differences in response to therapy. Conclusions: Our data confirms the effectiveness of CGRP antibody treatment in migraine patients with additional MOH or MO in a real-world setting. Low relapse rates after initial successful therapy support an early start of CGRP antibody treatment in patients with MOH or MO. Trial registration: No registration, retrospective analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Multiple drugs targeting the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor have been developed for migraine treatment. Here, the effect of the monoclonal antibody erenumab on CGRP‐induced vasorelaxation was investigated in human isolated blood vessels, as well as the effect of combining erenumab with the small molecule drugs, namely rimegepant, olcegepant, or sumatriptan. Experimental Approach: Concentration–response curves to CGRP, adrenomedullin or pramlintide were constructed in human coronary artery (HCA) and human middle meningeal artery (HMMA) segments, incubated with or without erenumab and/or olcegepant. pA2 or pKb values were calculated to determine the potency of erenumab in both tissues. To study whether acutely acting antimigraine drugs exerted additional CGRP‐blocking effects on top of erenumab, HCA segments were incubated with a maximally effective concentration of erenumab (3 μM), precontracted with KCl and exposed to CGRP, followed by rimegepant, olcegepant, or sumatriptan in increasing concentrations. Key Results: Erenumab shifted the concentration‐response curve to CGRP in both vascular tissues. However, in HCA, the Schild plot slope was significantly smaller than unity, whereas this was not the case in HMMA, indicating different CGRP receptor mechanisms in these tissues. In HCA, rimegepant, olcegepant and sumatriptan exerted additional effects on CGRP on top of a maximal effect of erenumab. Conclusions and Implications: Gepants have additional effects on top of erenumab for CGRP‐induced relaxation and could be effective in treating migraine attacks in patients already using erenumab as prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine lacks biomarkers that can trace the biological pathways of the disease and predict the effectiveness of treatments. Monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway – including erenumab – offer the opportunity of investigating potential migraine biomarkers due to their specific mechanism of action in preventing both episodic (EM) and chronic (CM) migraine. Our study aims at evaluating the expression levels of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) according to migraine type, before and after treatment with erenumab and based on treatment response, in order to identify miRNAs with potential role as epigenetic biomarkers. Methods: The study included women aged 25–50 years with EM or CM treated with erenumab according to clinical indications. MiRNAs expression levels were assessed before (baseline) and after a 16-week treatment with erenumab, 140 mg every four weeks (post-treatment). An extensive miRNAs profiling was performed by qRT-PCR in small, pooled groups of ≤ 8 women each, classified according to migraine frequency (EM and CM) and the degree of response to erenumab. The expression levels of selected miRNAs were also validated using single miRNA assays in each woman with EM and CM. Results: During the study, 36 women with migraine (19 with EM and 17 with CM) out of 40 who were initially screened, performed the assessment of miRNA expression at baseline and post-treatment, Erenumab treatment significantly improved migraine burden in both EM and CM. MiRNA profiling revealed differential expression levels of a wide set of miRNAs (hsa-let-7d-3p, hsa-miR-106b-3p, hsa-miR-122-5p, hsa-miR-143-3p, hsa-miR-144-3p, hsa-miR-16-5p, hsa-miR-181a-5p, hsa-miR-221-3p, hsa-miR-25-3p, hsa-miR-29b-2-5p, hsa-miR-326, miR-363-3p, hsa-miR-424-5p, hsa-miR-485-3p, hsa-miR-532-5p, hsa-miR-543, hsa-miR-629-5p, hsa-miR-660-5p, hsa-miR-92a-3p) depending on treatment response. Among them, single miRNA assays confirmed the progressive decrease of hsa-miR-143-3p expression levels in relation to increasing response to erenumab in women with EM (7 with low, 6 with medium, and 6 with high response; p = 0.02). Additionally, single assays showed higher hsa-miR-34a-5p and hsa-miR-382-5p expression levels at baseline in women with CM compared with those with EM (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0007, respectively), as well as their expression level decrease in women with CM from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Our study suggests that targeting the CGRP pathway in migraine changes the expression levels of certain miRNAs. These miRNA levels are linked to the levels of response to CGRP receptor blockage. Future research challenges include assigning specific functions to the modulated miRNAs to unravel pathways modulated by the disease and the treatment. Trial registration: The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov with code NCT04659226 and in the Novartis database with code CAMG334AIT05T. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Remedia is the property of Medical Tribune CZ, s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are vulnerable to many types of bias beyond randomization. Insights into the reporting quality of RCTs involving migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide system (anti-CGRP MAbs) are currently lacking. Our aim was to analyze the reporting quality of phase II/III RCTs involving migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the PubMed and EMBASE databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, for relevant RCTs in either episodic or chronic migraine prevention. Additionally, an adapted version of the 2010 CONSORT statement checklist was utilized. The ROBvis online tool was used to document the risk of bias. Results: From the initially identified 179 articles, we finally found 31 RCTs that were eligible for evaluation. The average CONSORT compliance was 88.7% (69.7–100%), while 93.5% (N = 29) of the articles had a compliance greater than 75%. Twenty-eight CONSORT items were reported in more than 75% of the articles. The average compliance of the analyzed RCTs was 93.9% for Galcanezumab, 91.3% for Fremanezumab, followed by 85.4% for Erenumab and Eptinezumab studies. Implementation of the ROB2 tool showed some concerning "missing information" arising from the inadequate reporting. Specifically, 50% of the studies (N = 16) were categorized as having inadequate information regarding the randomization process. Conclusions: Adequate reporting quality was disclosed in the evaluated RCTs with anti-CGRP MAbs in migraine prevention. However, some methodological issues need to be highlighted to be addressed in future studies assessing the efficacy of new molecules targeting CGRP or other candidate pathways implicated in migraine pathophysiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is the most common monogenic form of cerebral small vessel disease, caused by a mutation in the NOTCH3 gene on chromosome 19. The main clinical features include migraine (often with aura), early onset, recurrent subcortical ischemic strokes, mood disturbances, and cognitive impairment, frequently leading to dementia and disability with a reduction in life expectancy. Cerebral chronic global hypoperfusion, due to impaired cerebrovascular reactivity, seems to play a primary role in CADASIL. Migraine is the most common early feature of the disease, and to date, there are no consensus guidelines for treatment. Given the vasomodulatory influence of many antimigraine drugs, there is concern about their use in this disease. In particular, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system serves as a vasodilatory protective mechanism during cerebral and cardiac ischemia. Blocking this system could exacerbate ischemic events. Herein, we describe two CADASIL patients who were treated with the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist erenumab for chronic migraine, reporting a significant reduction in the frequency of attacks and intensity of pain, and an improvement in quality of life without adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling and hard-to-treat condition, associated with high disability and high cost. Among the preventive treatments, botulinum toxin A (BoNT-a) and monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related protein (anti-CGRP mAbs) are the only disease-specific ones. The assessment of the disease burden is complex, and among others, tools such as the allodynia symptoms checklist (ASC-12) and headache impact test (HIT-6) are very useful. This exploratory study analysed the impact of these two therapies on migraine burden. Methods: The RAMO study was a multicentre, observational, retrospective investigation conducted in two headache centres: the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (Milan) and the Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico (Rome). This study involved patients with chronic migraine treated with mAbs or BoNT-A. We conducted a subgroup exploratory analysis on HIT-6 and ASC-12 scores in the two groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were performed. Results: Of 126 patients, 36 on mAbs and 90 on BoNT-A had at least one available follow-up. mAbs resulted in a mean reduction of −11.1 and −11.4 points, respectively, in the HIT-6 at 6 and 12 months, while BoNT-A was reduced −3.2 and −3.6 points, respectively; the mAbs arm resulted in mean reductions in ASC-12 at 6 and 12 months of follow-up of −5.2 and −6.0 points, respectively, while BoNT-A showed lesser mean changes of −0.5 and −0.9 points, respectively. The adjusted analysis confirmed our results. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, anti-CGRP mAbs showed superior effectiveness for HIT-6 and ASC12 compared to BoNT-A. Reductions in terms of month headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and migraine acute medications (MAM) were clinically relevant for both treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: About 15% to one third of migraineurs experience aura symptoms. Aura is a reversible focal neurological phenomenon involving visual, sensory, speech, and motor symptoms that usually precede migraine pain. Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin-related peptide (anti- CGRP mAbs) are effective in preventing chronic and episodic migraine, but little is known about their effectiveness on specifically preventing migraine with aura. Methods: This is a pilot prospective observational cohort study, aiming at evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Erenumab, Fremanezumab or Galcanezumab for the treatment of migraine aura. We enrolled 14 patients at the Headache Centre of University Federico II of Naples. Duration of follow-up was 12 months. We assessed mean monthly days with aura symptoms, with or without subsequent headache, as well as mean monthly days with headache and mean monthly MIDAS score, by reviewing standardized paper patient headache diaries every three months. Results: A significant decrease in mean monthly aura days was observed throughout the observation period (median baseline: 13, interquartile range: 4–16; after 12 months: 1, interquartile range: 0–3, p < 0.001). We observed a statistically significant decrease in mean monthly headache days as well (median baseline 21, interquartile range: 16–30; after 12 months: 5, interquartile range: 4–7, p < 0.001). During the 12-month treatment period, none of the 14 patients reported mild or serious adverse events. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective in migraine with aura, both in reducing mean monthly aura days and mean monthly days with headache. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the rate of hypertension incoming in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide. Background: The monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide are unquestionable effective in the prevention of migraine. Despite this, the development of hypertension has been detected in some patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Modena. Patients were visited quarterly up to 1 year. Results: Globally, no significant increase in the blood pressure was detected. The 5.7% of the patients developed a significant increase in their blood pressure. In particular, patients with a pre-existing hypertension were more likely to have a significant increase in the blood pressure. Conclusion: The risk of developing hypertension during a treatment with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies seems low. Anyway, patients with a pre-existing hypertension should be cautiously monitored because they are more likely to develop hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The introduction of clacitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has revolutionized the treatment of migraines. In clinical practice gepants might be considered as a valid option to treat acute attacks in patients with migraine who are treated with mAbs. However, the safety and tolerability of such a combination is not well addressed in the real-world setting. We designed this study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of combining CGRP mAbs with gepants in the management of migraines. Methods: This was a retrospective, real-world, exploratory study. The participants included within the study were adult (≥ 18 years) patients diagnosed with migraine. Screening for patients who were treated with at least one GCRP mAbs was done. Data was collected from one site, the American Center for Psychiatry and Neurology, Abu Dhabi UAE. A total of 516 patients taking CGRP mAbs were identified. Extracted data from patients' electronic medical records included patient demographics, migraine characteristics, prescribed treatments, and adverse events (AEs). The tolerability and safety of the combination therapy was evaluated on the basis of documented AEs. Results: Among the identified 516 patients, 234 were administered gepants in addition to the CRGP mAb (215, rimegepant; 19, ubrogepant). Eleven of the 234 patients switched from rimegepant to urogepant as a result of lack of efficacy; one patient switched from urogepant to zolmitriptan because of the lack of insurance coverage of the former medication. Among all the patients included in this study, three AEs were documented. These AEs were generally mild and transient and hence did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. Moreover, 42 of the 234 (17.9%) patients were switched from one class of CGRP mAbs to another at least once while continuing treatment with the assigned gepants. Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that combining CGRP mAbs with gepants is a safe and well-tolerated treatment approach for migraine. Future studies are warranted to further validate these findings and explore long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data. This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 − March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts. The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p <.001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p <.001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p <.001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p =.016). Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up. Only few patients (3 − 13%) with migraine, who qualify for preventive treatment, are using them. Conventional preventive treatments have not been developed specifically for migraine treatment, and more than half of the patients stop using them prematurely. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies such as galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab are newer treatments that provide migraine-specific preventive treatment. Prior studies have compared 6- to 12-month migraine medication use by patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting traditional standard of care (SOC) migraine preventive medications. We compared long-term (24-month) migraine medication use in patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting SOC migraine preventive medications to confirm if the results are sustained over a longer period. Over 24 months, patients who used galcanezumab followed the prescribed treatment regimen to a greater extent compared with those who used SOC medications (48% vs. 38%, respectively). Additionally, patients using galcanezumab continued treatment for a longer time compared with those using SOC. Over 24 months, about 85% of patients stopped taking SOC medications, while around 80% of patients stopped taking galcanezumab. Our findings indicate that patients with migraine are more likely to continue using galcanezumab as a preventive treatment for a longer period compared with SOC medications. This study helps identify gaps in the preventive treatment of migraine and provides insights on how they are not being used enough. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies selective for the calcitonin gene-related peptide and its ligand (anti-CGRP mAbs) have been marketed both in the USA and EU based on the positive efficacy results in the prevention of migraine. This search has been carried out with the aim of collecting real-world evidence on the effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs, performing a cost-savings analysis, and comparing performances among anti-CGRP mAbs medicines marketed in the American and European market. Methods: The literature review has been performed in PubMed database on 31 December 2022; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-CGRP mAbs has been extracted consulting an American national database. Results: The results confirm efficacy and good tolerability of anti-CGRP mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. In fact, all extracted studies showed a protective risk factor exposure in monthly migraine days reduction for all the anti-CGRP mAbs, whereas the cost analysis showed that using eptinezumab, in a quarter there is a cost saving of at least $425 per patient, compared with the other anti-CGRP mAbs. Conclusions: With equal efficacy and equal safety, anti-CGRP mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the healthcare services resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. Results: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). Conclusions: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor, is efficacious and safe for prevention of attacks of migraine in adults. This phase I, randomized, open‐label, multiple‐dose study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of erenumab in children and adolescents with migraine. The initial treatment phase lasted 12 weeks, followed by an optional 40‐week extension phase for adolescents. Primary end points were PK of erenumab, incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and changes in clinical and laboratory assessments. Participants received erenumab 35 mg (n = 4), 70 mg (n = 17), or 140 mg (n = 32) q4w. The mean age was 14.1 years. Of the 53 participants, 48 (90.6%) completed the initial treatment phase and 36 (67.9%) received erenumab during the extension phase. Mean exposures to erenumab based on the maximum observed concentration and the area under the drug concentration–time curve during the dosing interval increased approximately dose‐proportionally. A total of 42 participants (79.2%) reported TEAEs (307.2 per 100 participant‐years); and four (7.5%) reported serious TEAEs not considered treatment‐related. The most common TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and vomiting. No clinically significant changes were reported in vital signs, electrocardiograms, and laboratory and neurological assessments. Overall, the observed PK profile of erenumab in children and adolescents with migraine is consistent with that in adults when body weight differences are taken into consideration. The safety profile of erenumab in children and adolescents is consistent with that in adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature. Methodology: We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references. Results: By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions. Conclusion: Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by attacks of head pain with prevalent unilateral localization, moderate to high intensity and specifically associated accompanying symptoms. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed data regarding 209 patients who had previously been diagnosed with migraine and who were prescribed, between 2019 and 2022, subcutaneous injections of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) fremanezumab or galcanezumab or anti-CGRP receptors mAb erenumab regardless of the concomitant assumption of any other acute-phase or prophylactic migraine medication. Results: Regarding efficacy, in the 205 analyzed patients, the change from baseline in terms of MIDAS, HIT-6, MMDs and MAD scores was statistically significant for erenumab and galcanezumab, while for fremanezumab a statistical significance was not achieved likely due to the small sample size. In the treated population, 36 patients (17.5%) reported AEs (pain during injection, transient injection site erythema, nausea, constipation and fatigue). Only 5 patients (2.4%) discontinued the treatment for AEs while 15 patients (7.3%) left for lack of efficacy. Conclusions: this retrospective study comes out in favor of both significant efficacy and safety of anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP receptors mAbs in migraine patients. Further methodologically stronger studies are necessary to validate our observation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The aim was to evaluate the effect of anti‐calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies on depressive symptoms in subjects with migraine and to determine whether depressive symptoms predict treatment response. Methods: Patients with migraine treated with erenumab and fremanezumab at the Leiden Headache Centre completed daily E‐headache diaries. A control group was included. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) questionnaires at baseline (T0) and after 3 months (T1). First, the effect of treatment on the reduction in HADS‐D and CES‐D scores was assessed, with reduction in depression scores as the dependent variable and reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) and treatment with anti‐CGRP medication as independent variables. Second, depression as a predictor of treatment response was investigated, using the absolute reduction in MMD as a dependent variable and age, gender, MMD, active depression, impact, stress and locus of control scores as independent variables. Results: In total, n = 108 patients were treated with erenumab, n = 90 with fremanezumab and n = 68 were without active treatment. Treatment with anti‐CGRP medication was positively associated with a reduction in the HADS‐D (β = 1.65, p = 0.01) compared to control, independent of MMD reduction. However, the same effect was not found for the CES‐D (β = 2.15, p = 0.21). Active depression predicted poorer response to erenumab (p = 0.02) but not to fremanezumab (p = 0.09). Conclusion: Anti‐CGRP (ligand or receptor) monoclonals lead to improvement of depressive symptoms in individuals with migraine, independent of migraine reduction. Depression may predict treatment response to erenumab but not to fremanezumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Limited clinical evidence is available regarding the potential effectiveness of anti‐CGRP monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine with aura. Aim of the Study: This observational study involved a series of migraine patients affected by either migraine with or without aura, who were investigated for any changes in their frequencies and their migraine aura attack characteristics observed during treatment with anti‐CGRP Mabs over a 1‐year period. Patients and Methods: Twelve migraine patients were included, seven of whom were treated with erenumab, 2 with fremanezumab, and 3 with galcanezumab. Clinical data were collected at baseline, which were defined as 3 months prior to the initiation of treatment, and thereafter at each trimester, over the 1‐year treatment period. The parameters included the number of headache and migraine days/month, the frequency of aura episodes, the number of days with acute drug intakes/month, and the scores from the migraine disability status scale (MIDAS), and the Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT‐6). Results: Anti‐CGRP Mbs antibodies induced significant decreases in mean headache and migraine without aura days per month, the number of days with medication intake, as well as MIDAS and HIT‐6 scores (p < 0.0001). In contrast, the anti‐CGRP Mab treatment did not appear to impact the frequency of migraine with aura attacks but seemed to reduce both the intensity and the duration of headache phases of migraine aura. Furthermore, some migraine patients referred to having aura attacks without headache over the course of the treatment period. Conclusions: Based on the above findings, we hypothesize that anti‐CGRP Mabs did not influence neuronal and vascular events related to cortical spreading depression (CSD) which is considered the pathophysiological substrate of aura. Conversely, these antibodies are able to counteract, via their peripheral mechanisms of action, the sensitization of the trigemino‐vascular pathway which is triggered by CSD. This aforementioned might explain why in our patients, migraine aura attacks remained unchanged in their frequencies, but the headache phases were either reduced or absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling condition with high prevalence in the general population. Until the recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (Anti-CGRP mAbs), OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was the only treatment specifically approved for CM prophylaxis. Direct comparisons between the two treatments are not available so far. Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study in Italy to compare the real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A. Patients with CM who had received either treatment according to Italian prescribing regulations were extracted from available clinical databases. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in monthly headache days (MHD), MIgraine Disability ASsessment test (MIDAS), and monthly acute medications (MAM) evaluated at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was MHD change from baseline at 12 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAE) and treatment discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted models were used for the analyses. Results: Two hundred sixteen potentially eligible patients were screened; 183 (86 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 97 BoNT-A) were included. One hundred seventy-one (80 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 91 BoNT-A) and 154 (69 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 85 BoNT-A) patients were included in the efficacy analysis at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A both resulted in a mean MHD reduction at 6 (-11.5 and -7.2 days, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.3; 95%CI -6.6 to -2.0; p = 0.0003) and 12 months (-11.9 and -7.6, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.4; 95%CI -6.8 to -2.0; p = 0.0002) of follow-up. Similar results were observed after adjusting for baseline confounders. Anti-CGRP mAbs showed a significant MIDAS (-31.7 and -19.2 points, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0296, respectively) and MAM reduction (-5.1 and -3.1 administrations, p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0574, respectively) compared to BoNT-A at 6 and 12 months. No SAEs were reported. One patient receiving fremanezumab discontinued treatment due to arthralgia. Treatment discontinuations, mainly for inefficacy, were comparable. Conclusion: Both Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A were effective in CM patients with Anti-CGRP mAbs presenting higher effect magnitude, with comparable safety. Still, BoNT-A remains a valuable option for CM patients with contraindications to Anti-CGRP mAbs or for frail categories who are candidates to local therapy with limited risk of systemic administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have shown promising effectiveness in migraine management compared to other preventative treatment options. Many questions remain regarding switching between antibody classes as a treatment option in patients with migraine headaches. This preliminary retrospective real-world study explored the treatment response of patients who switched between CGRP mAb classes due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability. A total of 53 patients with migraine headache switched between three of the CGRP mAbs types due to lack of efficacy of the original prescribed CGRP mAbs, specifically eptinezumab, erenumab, and galcanezumab. Fremanezumab was not included due to unavailability in the UAE. Galcanezumab and eptinezumab target the CGRP ligand (CGRP/L), while erenumab targets CGRP receptors (CGRP/R). The analysis of efficacy demonstrated that some improvements were seen in both class switch cohorts (CGRP/R to CGRP/L and CGRP/L to CGRP/R). The safety of switching between CGRP classes was well observed, as any adverse events presented before the class switch did not lead to the discontinuation of treatment following the later switch. The findings of this study suggest that switching between different classes of CGRP mAbs is a potentially safe and clinically viable practice that may have some applications for those experiencing side effects on their current CGRP mAb or those witnessing suboptimal response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anti-Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown significant efficacy in preventing migraine. However, there have been limited reports of adverse events (AEs) after marketing, particularly for eptinezumab launched in 2020. The study aimed to mine and analyze the AE signals with four anti-CGRP mAbs from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to gain insights into the safety profile of these medications post-marketing. Methods: All AE reports on the four anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) were retrieved from the FAERS database from the first quarter (Q1) of 2018 to Q1 of 2023. Disproportionality analysis was measured by reporting odd ratio (ROR) and Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) to identify potential AE signals. Comparisons were made between the four drugs in terms of AEs. Results: A total of 38,515 reports of erenumab, 19,485 reports of galcanezumab, 5,332 reports of fremanezumab, and 2,460 reports of eptinezumab were obtained, mostly reported in the second to third year after launch in the market. The common AEs to erenumab included constipation (17.93%), injection site pain (14.08%), and alopecia (7.23%). The AEs that occurred more frequently with galcanezumab included injection site pain (24.37%), injection site erythema (5.35%), and injection site haemorrhage (4.97%). Common AEs related to fremanezumab were injection site pain (13.10%), injection site erythema (7.02%), and injection site pruritus (5.47%). Fatigue (13.54%), throat irritation (9.02%), and pruritus (8.20%) were the most common AEs with eptinezumab. In addition, there are new AEs that were not listed in the drug instructions but occurred concurrently with multiple drugs, such as Raynaud's phenomenon, weight increase, menstrual disorders, throat tightness, and paraesthesia oral. Conclusion: Common AE signals of the four anti-CGRP mAbs and new AE signals were found to provide a reference for clinical drug selection in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine. Methods: This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3. Results: Sixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: This real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the treatment patterns among patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab.Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients with one or more claims for a self-injectable CGRP mAb (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or erenumab), with continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months pre-index and 6 and 12 months post-index using MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases from May 2017 through March 2021. Propensity-score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), medication-possession ratio (MPR), persistence (≤ 60-day gap), treatment discontinuation, and switch to a non-index drug. Descriptive X2 and t-test analyses were conducted.Results: At the 12-month follow-up, matched galcanezumab and fremanezumab cohorts each comprised 2674 patients and the galcanezumab and erenumab cohorts 3503 each. The mean (SD) PDC and MPR were both 0.6 (0.3) across all cohorts. Based on PDC ≥ 0.80 and MPR ≥ 0.80, a greater proportion of galcanezumab vs fremanezumab (46.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.053; 46.8% vs 44.3%, p=0.053) and galcanezumab vs erenumab (46.2% vs 44%, p=0.156; 46.7% vs 44.5%, p=0.262), respectively, initiators were adherent. Compared to galcanezumab, fremanezumab (248.0 days vs 236.5 days, p=0.001), and erenumab (247.8 days vs 241.7 days, p=0.061) initiators had lower mean persistence. Galcanezumab initiators were less likely to discontinue treatment than fremanezumab (47.8% vs 51.7%, p=0.005) and erenumab (47.7% vs 50.2%, p=0.040) initiators. Across cohorts, most switchers initiated onabotulinum toxin A as subsequent treatment. Similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts.Conclusion: Patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab showed higher persistence and lower treatment discontinuation rates than those initiating either fremanezumab or erenumab.Plain Language Summary: What was known before? Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are medicines developed for migraine prevention. CGRP mAbs bind to the CGRP ligand or receptor and limit pain associated with migraine attacks. Currently, three self-injectable CGRP mAbs are approved for prevention: erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab. Use of erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab can slow or stop migraine-related symptoms and reduce migraine-related disability.What does this study add? This study describes how migraine medications are used in the US by patients with migraine who started using galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or erenumab for migraine treatment. Over a period of 12 months, patients who started treatment for migraine with galcanezumab were more likely to continue their treatment than those who started using either fremanezumab or erenumab. At 12 months, fewer patients who started galcanezumab were likely to discontinue their treatment than patients who started using either fremanezumab or erenumab. Among patients who discontinued and switched, most patients switched to Botox A, a non-CGRP treatment. Among patients who switched to a different CGRP mAb, most patients in the fremanezumab and erenumab groups switched to galcanezumab, while most patients in the galcanezumab group switched to erenumab.Interpretation: These findings suggest that patients remained on galcanezumab longer and were less likely to discontinue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) is involved in migraine pathophysiology. CGRP can signal through two receptors. The canonical CGRP receptor comprises the calcitonin receptor‐like receptor and receptor activity‐modifying protein 1 (RAMP1); the AMY1 receptor comprises the calcitonin receptor with RAMP1. Drugs that reduce CGRP activity, such as receptor antagonists, are approved for the treatment and prevention of migraine. Despite being designed to target the canonical CGRP receptor, emerging evidence suggests that these antagonists, including erenumab (a monoclonal antibody antagonist) can also antagonise the AMY1 receptor. However, it is difficult to estimate its selectivity because direct comparisons between receptors under matched conditions have not been made. We therefore characterised erenumab at both CGRP‐responsive receptors with multiple ligands, including αCGRP and βCGRP. Experimental Approach: Erenumab antagonism was quantified through IC50 and pKB experiments, measuring cAMP production. We used SK‐N‐MC cells which endogenously express the human CGRP receptor, and HEK293S and Cos7 cells transiently transfected to express either human CGRP or AMY1 receptors. Key Results: Erenumab antagonised both the CGRP and AMY1 receptors with an ~20–120‐fold preference for the CGRP receptor, depending on the cells, agonist, analytical approach and/or assay format. Erenumab antagonised both forms of CGRP equally, and appeared to act as a competitive reversible antagonist at both receptors. Conclusion and Implications: Despite being designed to target the CGRP receptor, erenumab can antagonise the AMY1 receptor. Its ability to antagonise CGRP activity at both receptors may be useful in better understanding the clinical profile of erenumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become available as a prophylactic treatment for migraine and have shown high efficacy and safety in clinical practice. CGRP mAbs have been reported to be effective not only for migraine but also for other comorbidities, such as psychiatric complications in patients with migraine. However, there are no reports examining the effect of CGRP mAbs on dystonia. We treated a patient with comorbid migraine and focal task‐specific dystonia (writer's cramp) with a CGRP mAb (erenumab) because of an increase in monthly migraine days despite the addition of migraine prophylaxis. In this patient, erenumab treatment for 3 months led to improvements in symptoms of both focal dystonia and migraine, suggesting a role for CGRP in the pathophysiology of both conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Erenumab is a fully human anti‐canonical calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody approved for migraine prevention. The Migraine‐Specific Quality‐of‐Life Questionnaire (MSQ) is a 14‐item patient‐reported outcome instrument that measures the impact of migraine on health‐related quality of life. Erenumab data from four phase II/III clinical trials were used to develop an item response theory (IRT) model within a nonlinear mixed effects framework, (i) evaluate the MSQ item information with respect to patient disability, (ii) characterize the longitudinal progression of the MSQ, and (iii) quantify the effect of erenumab on the MSQ in patients with migraine. The majority (80%) of information was found to be contained in 9 out of 14 items, extending the current knowledge on the reliability of the MSQ as a psychometric tool. Simulations across three MSQ domains show significant improvement from baseline, exceeding minimally important differences. Overall, the IRT model platform developed herein allows for systematic quantification of the effect of erenumab on the MSQ in patients with migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies compare the clinical effectiveness of the three anti-CGRP mAbs. Moreover, no studies compare their efficacy during suspension and reprisal. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of migraine frequency, intensity, and symptomatic medication intake during the first year of therapy, a 1-month suspension period, and a 3-month drug reprisal. Methods: A total of 160 migraineurs (chronic and high-frequency episodic) were treated with anti-CGRP mAbs (49 with fremanezumab, 55 with erenumab, and 55 with galcanezumab) for 12 months. They discontinued the therapy for 1 month and then reprised the therapy. In the three groups, we analyzed and compared the migraine days per month, migraine intensity, and symptomatic medication intake per month at baseline, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. We also compared these variables during the 1-month suspension and 3 months after the reprisal of the therapy. We compared the data and evaluated the response rate (>50% reduction in migraine days per month) at different follow-ups. This comparison was also performed separately for chronic and high-frequency episodic migraineurs. Results: There was no statistical difference in monthly migraine days, intensity, or symptomatic medication intake per month at the different follow-ups. Moreover, there was no difference in the response rate overall. However, in chronic migraineurs treated with galcanezumab, the response rate was higher during the 1-month suspension when compared to fremanezumab and erenumab. In high-frequency episodic migraineurs, fremanezumab had a higher response rate at 12-month follow-up when compared to galcanezumab and erenumab. Conclusions: In our study, the three anti-CGRP mAbs presented a similar response, with no significant differences, during the first year of therapy, the suspension period, and 3 months after the drug reprisal. The response rate during the 1-month suspension period in chronic migraineurs may be higher with galcanezumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are several endogenous molecules that can trigger migraine attacks when administered to humans. Notably, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as a key player in a signalling cascade involved in migraine attacks, acting through the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in various cells, including intracranial vascular smooth muscle cells. However, it remains unclear whether intracellular cAMP signalling requires CGRP receptor activation during a migraine attack in humans. To address this question, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel trial using a human provocation model involving the administration of CGRP and cilostazol in individuals with migraine pretreated with erenumab or placebo. Our study revealed that migraine attacks can be provoked in patients by cAMP-mediated mechanisms using cilostazol, even when the CGRP receptor is blocked by erenumab. Furthermore, the dilation of cranial arteries induced by cilostazol was not influenced by the CGRP receptor blockade. These findings provide clinical evidence that cAMP-evoked migraine attacks do not require CGRP receptor activation. This discovery opens up new possibilities for the development of mechanism-based drugs for the treatment of migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is approved in Japan for the prevention of adult migraine. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of erenumab in Japanese patients with low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) versus those with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). Methods: A pooled analysis of data from the 24-week double-blind treatment phases (DBTPs) of phase 2 and 3 studies evaluated the efficacy of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg in Japanese patients. Patients were categorized into subgroups by monthly migraine days (MMD): LFEM and HFEM/CM. The main efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD), and six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores. Results: Patients with migraine (n = 532) were included in the analysis (LFEM, n = 215; HFEM, n = 215; CM, n = 102). Overall, mean age was 44 years, 86.5% were female, and 63.3–88.2% had used or were taking migraine preventive treatment at baseline. Throughout the DBTP, the placebo-adjusted mean change from baseline in MMD, MSMD, and HIT-6 scores with erenumab was similar across LFEM and HFEM/CM subgroups. The proportion of patients achieving at least 50% or 75% reduction from baseline in MMD and MSMD was similar across migraine frequency groups. Reduction in MMD moderately correlated with improvement in HIT-6 scores in the LFEM and HFEM/CM groups. Furthermore, the proportion of patients converting from HFEM/CM to LFEM during the DBTP was higher in the erenumab group than in the placebo. Conclusion: In Japanese patients with different migraine frequencies, erenumab treatment resulted in significant improvements in MMD, MSMD, and headache impact. This pooled analysis of data from phase 2 and 3 studies increases confidence that erenumab is efficacious in patients with high MMD, which is associated with increased disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment landscape for the prevention of migraine has rapidly evolved in recent years with the advent of calcitonin gene-related peptide therapy, including erenumab. The objective of this study was to assess patient-reported treatment satisfaction among erenumab users. This retrospective, cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey collected during March–July 2019. Respondents self-reporting physician-diagnosed migraine and currently using erenumab were analyzed. Treatment satisfaction was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Data were further reported by the duration of erenumab treatment. Data on respondents' socio-demographic characteristics and treatment patterns were also collected. Overall, 67 respondents using erenumab with or without other migraine preventives for up to 1 year were included in the analysis. The mean (standard deviation) age was 46.7 (12.9) years. Most of the respondents were women (86.6%), White (74.6%), and commercially-insured (67.2%). Notably, 40.3% had ≥1 comorbidity per the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Approximately half of the respondents were college graduates and employed (49.3% each). Among the 67 respondents, 46 received erenumab exclusively. Across both cohorts, the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with erenumab treatment was slightly higher among those with a longer treatment duration (overall erenumab cohort: 63.6%, 69.6%, and 75.8% for 0–<3, 3–<6, and 6–12 months, respectively; erenumab monotherapy cohort: 62.5%, 71.4%, and 87.5% for 0–<3, 3–<6, and 6–12 months, respectively). Treatment patterns before switching to erenumab revealed that most respondents had used ≥1 preventive treatment for migraine (80.6%; 54/67), over two-thirds (33/54) of whom had ≥2 treatment failures owing to nonresponse. Satisfaction was high among long-term erenumab users, indicating that those using erenumab for a longer duration are more satisfied. Furthermore, this study provided insights on the basic socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and health behaviors of erenumab users as well as their treatment patterns before switching to erenumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy and safety of erenumab. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in a real-world setting in French patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs. Methods: This is a one year-prospective real-word study with enrolment of all consecutive adult patients included in the FHU InovPain registry who participated in a compassionate erenumab use program. Results: Of 144 patients included, 140 patients (82.1% female / mean age of 50.9 ± 11.4) received at least one dose of erenumab and were concerned by effectiveness and safety assessment. All patients had failed 11 oral preventive treatments. Most of them suffered from chronic migraine (88.6%) and presented a medication overuse (90.7%) at baseline. Thirty-eight (27.1%) discontinued treatment during the 12-month follow-up, with 22 (15.7%), 11 (7.9%) and 5 (3.6%) patients before 3, 6 or 9 months of treatment. The proportion of ≥ 50% responders at M3, M6, M9 and M12 was 74/140 (52.9%), 69/118 (58.5%), 61/107 (57.0%) and 60/102 (58.8%) respectively. At M3, the rate of reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine was 57.3% and the rate of transition from medication overuse to non-overuse was 46.5%. For monthly migraine days, the median (IQR) was 18.0 (13.0–26.0), 9.0 (5.0–17.0), 7.5 (5.0–14.0), 8.0 (5.0–12.5) and 8.0 (5.0–12.0) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. For HIT-6 score, the median (IQR) was 68.0 (63.8–73.3), 60.0 (54.0–65.0), 60.0 (50.3–53.0), 59.0 (50.0–63.0) and 58.0 (50.0–62.9) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. Fifty-three (37.9%) patients reported at least one of the following adverse events: cutaneous erythema and/or pain at the injection site for 42 (30%) patients, constipation for 22 (15.7%) patients, muscle spasm for 2 (1.4%) patients, alopecia for one (0.7%) patient and blood pressure increase in one (0.7%) patient. There was no serious adverse event. One female patient became pregnant after 5 months of exposure to erenumab with a safe evolution after treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: This first French real-world study related to migraine prevention with CGRP-mAbs confirms effectiveness and safety of erenumab in patients with extreme unmet needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to explore whether erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, could exert a central effect on brain network function in migraine, and investigate the persistence of such an effect following treatment discontinuation. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial with a crossover design performed in adult episodic migraine patients with previous treatment failure. Patients were randomized (1:1) to 12 weeks of erenumab 140 mg or placebo, followed by a 12-week crossover. Resting state (RS) functional connectivity (FC) changes of brain networks involved in migraine were investigated using a seed-based correlation approach. Results: Sixty-one patients were randomized to treatment. In each treatment sequence, 27 patients completed the visit at week 12. Forty-four enrolled patients, 22 in each treatment sequence, completed the study procedures with no major protocol violations. We observed a carry-over effect of erenumab during the placebo treatment and therefore data analysis was performed as a parallel comparison of erenumab vs placebo of the first 12 weeks of treatment. From baseline to week 12, compared to placebo, patients receiving erenumab showed RS FC changes within the cerebellar, thalamic and periaqueductal gray matter networks, significantly associated with clinical improvement. Compared to non-responders, patients achieving a 50% reduction in migraine days had distinct patterns of thalamic and visual network RS FC. Brain RS FC changes reversed when erenumab was stopped. A lower baseline RS FC of the pontine network identified patients responding to erenumab. Conclusion: Erenumab modulates RS FC of networks involved in migraine pathophysiology. In line with clinical response, erenumab-induced brain RS FC changes tend to reverse when treatment is stopped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The outcome of migraine patients retreated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRPr) is not completely known. Methods: This multicentric prospective observational cohort study assessed monthly migraine days (MMDs), migraine acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 at baseline, after 90–112 days (Rev-1), after 84–90 days since Rev-1 (Rev-2) and 30 days after the last injection of anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs (Year-end), in the first and the second year after a discontinuation period. Results: We enrolled 226 patients (79.6% with chronic migraine; 55.3% on erenumab and 44.7% on galcanezumab or fremanezumab). MMDs, MAMI, and HIT-6—did not differ at the respective first and second-year evaluations in the entire cohort, and comparing anti-CGRP with anti-CGRPr Abs. MMDs (18.1 ± 7.8 vs. 3.4 ± 7.8), MAMI (26.7 ± 28.3 vs.17.7 ± 17.2), and HIT-6 scores (63.1 ± 5.9 vs. 67.1 ± 10.3) were lower in the second year than in the pre-treatment baseline (consistently, p < 0.0001). Second-year baseline MMDs were lower in patients on anti-CGRP mAbs (p = 0.001) and with lower pre-treatment baseline MMDs (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs are effective in the second as in the first year. The use of anti-CGRP or CGRPr mAbs influenced the second-year baseline MMDs, but their effectiveness did not differ during the two treatment years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients who newly initiated erenumab in the United States. Methods: This retrospective, non‐interventional analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) newly initiating erenumab and who had three consecutive monthly claims for erenumab (11/1/2017–9/1/2019) from the Komodo Health database. Outcomes included migraine‐related and all‐cause costs, use of other preventive/acute migraine medications, and HCRU. All outcomes were compared during the 180‐day pre‐ versus the 180‐day post‐index periods. Cost outcomes were also assessed for longer periods including post‐index Days 91–270 and monthly mean post‐index costs for the longest time of continuous insurance enrollment. Results: Overall, 1839 patients with migraine were included for analysis. Compared to the 180‐day pre‐index period, an increase in total migraine‐related costs (+$2639; p < 0.0001), migraine‐related prescription costs (+$3435, p < 0.0001), all‐cause total costs (+$2977; p < 0.001), and all‐cause prescription costs (+$4102; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180‐day post‐index period after adjusting for covariates. Conversely, reduction in migraine‐related medical costs (−$896; p < 0.0001), and significantly lower odds of migraine‐related emergency room visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.82; p = 0.001), migraine‐related office visits (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53–0.64; p < 0.0001), and migraine‐related neurologist visits (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63–0.75; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180‐days post‐index period. There were significant decreases in the odds of having overall preventive migraine medications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75–0.87; p < 0.0001), acute‐migraine medications (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85–1.00; p = 0.038), and triptan (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73–0.85; p < 0.0001) during the 180‐day post‐index period. Sensitivity analyses on cost outcomes found no statistically significant differences in pre‐index migraine‐related costs compared to post‐index migraine‐related costs when assessing longer post‐index follow‐up periods. Conclusion: Initiation of therapy with a novel treatment is often associated with an increase in overall healthcare costs due to the entrance costs associated with novel therapy. For a chronic condition such as migraine, cost versus health benefits should be evaluated over a long period (e.g., ≥2 years) to better understand the true benefits of therapy. Data from this study suggest that the entrance cost for erenumab, the primary driver of the high post‐index prescription costs gets mitigated by reduced medical costs over long‐term follow‐up. The results indicate better disease management in adult patients with migraine, which should be an important consideration for both patients and payors, as these findings have shown an offset between migraine‐related prescription and medical costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9–12) of treatment. Results: We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9–12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD. Conclusions: Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is a widespread headache disorder occurring in every age group. It is divided into two types: chronic and episodic migraine. Many medications have been used in its treatment over the years with different degrees of effectiveness. In recent years, more attention has been given to the role of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for treatment, which are CGRP ligand antibodies (fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab) and a CGRP receptor antibody (erenumab). Aim of the study: This study aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of using CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine treatment and discuss CGRP's role in migraine pathogenesis. Both chronic and episodic migraines were subjects of interest. Material and methods: The search was conducted using the PubMed database. We analyzed articles published in the years 2017-2022. The used keywords were "Migraine", "Monoclonal antibodies", "CGRP", and "Calcitonin gene-related peptide". Results: The number of articles found depended on the keyword used ("migraine" - 1875 results, "monoclonal antibodies" - 12173 results, "CGRP" - 352 results, and "calcitonin gene-related peptide" - 461 results). A total of 31 articles were quoted in this review. Positive results for treating migraines with CGRP ligand antibodies (fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab) and CGRP receptor antibody (erenumab) were observed. Conclusions: The use of CGRP ligand and receptor antibodies seems promising for migraine therapy due to their relatively mild side effects and high efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine is one of the most prevalent neurological disorders known to have an immense adverse socio-economic impact. Neurogenic inflammation is thought to mediate migraine, and CGRP is known to be released during acute attacks of migraine that causes vasodilation in extracerebral arteries. Hence, CGRP is believed to play a key role in triggering migraine. Although there are several classes of medications used in the prevention and treatment of migraine pain, targeted therapies are fewer. Therefore, CGRP receptor inhibitors which bind to CGRP receptors in the cranial vasculature have been developed as drugs for migraine therapy. In this review article, we describe the basic pathophysiologic mechanism that causes migraine headaches and the pharmacotherapeutic aspects of CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use. For the purpose of this review, a search was performed on the pharmacological, pharmacokinetic, pharmaceutical, and therapeutic aspects of the FDA-approved CGRP inhibitors viz. erenumab, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in UpToDate database and PubMed beginning year 2000. Based on the data collected, a risk–benefit comparison of different classes of novel CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use is provided. This comparative review may help the healthcare providers in choosing the best pharmacotherapeutic agent for their patients based on patient-specific information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]