Search

Background: Most real-world data on CGRP mAbs have been published from high-income countries such as the USA, Western countries, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. However, data from low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia is lacking. This is the first real-world study from Thailand to describe the efficacy of CGRP mAbs therapy in migraine patients and to analyze the response trends between episodic migraine and chronic migraine. Methods: We conducted a single-center, real-world retrospective chart review study with an observation period of 6 months after CGRP mAbs initiation. We aim to compare treatment responses to CGRP mAbs between EM and CM patients. Results: A total of 47 Thai patients were enrolled (median [IQR] age 37.2 [28.6–50.4] years; 85.1%F, 44.7% EM; 70.2% galcanezumab). There was no difference in baseline characteristics and migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) between EM and CM. The overall ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% monthly migraine day reduction rates at 6 months were 89.0%, 71.6%, and 58.5% with higher responders in EM. There was a significant decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs) over time (adjusted β = -0.42, p < 0.001) and a significant decrease in MIDAS score over time after the initiation of CGRP mAbs (adjusted β = -1.12, p = 0.003). However, there were no differences between the two diagnoses. There was no significant decrease in the number of abortive medication pills used over time after the initiation of CGRP mAbs. CM had a significantly steeper trend compared to those with EM. Conclusion: The first real-world study in Thailand demonstrated that CGRP mAbs therapy had efficacy for migraine treatment, as evidenced by a reduction in MHDs, decreased disability, and reduced use of abortive medications. Additionally, the response pattern to CGRP mAbs therapy was similar between EM and CM in terms of MHDs reduction and MIDAS score improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are novel high-cost treatments for the prevention of migraine. This study presents data on utilization, expenditure, and treatment patterns with CGRP mAbs available under a managed access protocol in Ireland, to a cohort of treatment refractory patients (failed 3 or more previous treatments) with chronic migraine. Data were extracted from the Primary Care Reimbursement Service High Tech claims database and special drug request online system and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Treatment persistence was evaluated by refill patterns, and adherence was evaluated using the proportion of days covered method. Expenditure data were extracted directly from the database. Between September 1, 2021 and April 30, 2023, 1517 applications for reimbursement approval for a CGRP mAb were received; 1458 (96.1%) were approved for reimbursement. Total expenditure on CGRP mAbs in year 1 (September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022) was €3.2 million. The majority of patients initiated treatment with fremanezumab (60.8%) or erenumab (37.1%). Almost 90% of patients were considered adherent, and treatment persistence was high, with more than 75% of patients receiving more than 12 months of treatment in our 18-month study time frame. This study demonstrates the importance of active health technology management, after reimbursement, in enabling cost-effective use of high-cost treatments while providing budget certainty for the healthcare payer. High levels of adherence and persistence suggest that treatment is successfully targeted in situations which unmet clinical need is greatest. • Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies are novel, high-cost treatments for the prevention of migraine. • In 1 year of reimbursement in Ireland, the total expenditure on calcitonin gene-related peptide was €3.2 million, with the majority of approved patients being highly treatment adherent. • Health technology management can ensure cost containment while maintaining access to treatment in situations which unmet clinical need is greatest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Most real-world data on CGRP mAbs have been published from high-income countries such as the USA, Western countries, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. However, data from low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia is lacking. This is the first real-world study from Thailand to describe the efficacy of CGRP mAbs therapy in migraine patients and to analyze the response trends between episodic migraine and chronic migraine. Methods We conducted a single-center, real-world retrospective chart review study with an observation period of 6 months after CGRP mAbs initiation. We aim to compare treatment responses to CGRP mAbs between EM and CM patients. Results A total of 47 Thai patients were enrolled (median [IQR] age 37.2 [28.6–50.4] years; 85.1%F, 44.7% EM; 70.2% galcanezumab). There was no difference in baseline characteristics and migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) between EM and CM. The overall ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% monthly migraine day reduction rates at 6 months were 89.0%, 71.6%, and 58.5% with higher responders in EM. There was a significant decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs) over time (adjusted β = -0.42, p

Abstract 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.

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]

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]