Search

To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant.Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks.A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study.Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination.The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Numerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults.A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data ( 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months.Substantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years.While substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle.We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle.In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles).There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response.No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Migraine involves brain hypersensitivity with episodic dysfunction triggered by behavioral or physiological stressors. During an acute migraine attack the trigeminal nerve is activated (peripheral sensitization). This leads to central sensitization with activation of the central pathways including the trigeminal nucleus caudalis, the trigemino-thalamic tract, and the thalamus. In episodic migraine the sensitization process ends with the individual act, but with chronic migraine central sensitization may continue interictally. Increased allostatic load, the consequence of chronic, repeated exposure to stressors, leads to central sensitization, lowering the threshold for future neuronal activation (hypervigilance). Ostensibly innocuous stressors are then sufficient to trigger an attack. Medications that reduce sensitization may help patients who are hypervigilant and help to balance allostatic load. Acute treatments and drugs for migraine prevention have traditionally been used to reduce attack duration and frequency. However, since many patients do not fully respond, an unmet treatment need remains. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a vasoactive neuropeptide involved in nociception and in the sensitization of peripheral and central neurons of the trigeminovascular system, which is implicated in migraine pathophysiology. Elevated CGRP levels are associated with dysregulated signaling in the trigeminovascular system, leading to maladaptive responses to behavioral or physiological stressors. CGRP may, therefore, play a key role in the underlying pathophysiology of migraine. Increased understanding of the role of CGRP in migraine led to the development of small-molecule antagonists (gepants) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target either CGRP or the receptor (CGRP-R) to restore homeostasis, reducing the frequency, duration, and severity of attacks. In clinical trials, US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-CGRP-R/CGRP mAbs were well tolerated and effective as preventive migraine treatments. Here, we explore the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology and the use of gepants or mAbs to suppress CGRP-R signaling via inhibition of the CGRP ligand or receptor. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00250-7., Plain Language Summary Migraine is a neurological disease affecting one in eight people. Symptoms include nausea and/or sensitivity to light and sound, and a throbbing headache. Although certain genes may increase the likelihood of migraine, environmental stimuli and molecules that increase the sensitivity of brain blood vessels and their innervations also play a role. During a migraine attack, nerves in the brain are activated, leading to increased sensitivity to stimuli, lowering the future threshold for activation, and making patients hypervigilant. Chronic, repeated exposure to certain stimuli can also lower this activation threshold, such that relatively innocuous stimuli can trigger an attack. Excessive use of certain migraine treatments can increase headache frequency over time and produce unwanted side effects; thus, selective agents are needed that specifically target the systems and pathways affected in migraine pathophysiology. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), produced and released by nerve cells, is important in migraine pathophysiology. CGRP binds smooth muscle cell receptors, dilating blood vessels supplying the brain, and also binds to peripheral nerve cells that transmit pain signals to the spinal cord and brain. CGRP levels are elevated during a migraine attack. Medications targeting the CGRP pathway may decrease sensitivity and potentially normalize responses in hypervigilant patients. Two commercially available oral drugs that block CGRP receptors (‘gepants’) have reduced symptoms during migraine attacks in clinical trials. Four monoclonal antibodies (proteins that bind a specific molecule) have also been developed that target CGRP or the receptor and have been shown to significantly reduce the number of migraine days per month. Role of CGRP in Migraine Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00250-7.

Introduction Combination use of onabotulinumtoxinA and calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has the potential to be more effective than either therapy alone for migraine prevention. Methods This retrospective, longitudinal chart review included adults with chronic migraine treated at one clinical site with ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA and ≥ 1 month of subsequent combination treatment with CGRP mAbs. Charts at time of mAb prescription (baseline) and up to four visits ~ 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-baseline were reviewed for safety, tolerability, and outcome measures (monthly headache days [MHDs], headache intensity, and migraine-related disability [MIDAS]). Results Of 300 charts reviewed, 257 patients met eligibility criteria (mean age: 50 years; 82% women). Average headache frequency was 21.5 MHDs before initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA and 12.1 MHDs before adding CGRP mAb therapy. Prescribed mAbs were erenumab (78%), fremanezumab (6%), and galcanezumab (16%). Over the entire study, patients discontinued CGRP mAb more frequently than onabotulinumtoxinA (23 vs. 3%). Adverse events occurred in 28% of patients, most commonly constipation (9%). Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA alone (baseline), MHDs decreased significantly at all visits (mean decrease: 3.5–4.0 MHDs over ~ 6–12 months of combination treatment); 45.1% of patients had clinically meaningful improvement in migraine-related disability (≥ 5-point reduction in MIDAS score) after ~ 6 months. Conclusions In this real-world study, combination treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP mAbs was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified, and was associated with additional clinically meaningful benefits. More real-world and controlled trials should be considered to further assess safety and potential benefits of combination treatment. Video abstract: Real-world data suggests that CGRP inhibitors improve onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy for chronic migraine (MP4 20,067 kb) Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00264-x.

Objective To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories. Methods ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom. Results Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes. Conclusion The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified. Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709

Objective To evaluate the impact of two calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP)‐targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), erenumab and galcanezumab, on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant. Background People taking CGRP‐targeted mAbs for migraine prevention sometimes take ubrogepant, an oral small‐molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, for acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. Design In this two‐arm, multicenter, open‐label, phase 1b trial, adults with migraine were randomized to arm 1 (ubrogepant ± erenumab) or arm 2 (ubrogepant ± galcanezumab). The PK profile of ubrogepant was characterized for administration before and 4 days after CGRP‐targeted mAb injection. Participants received single‐dose ubrogepant 100 mg on day 1, subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg (arm 1) or galcanezumab 240 mg (arm 2) on day 8, and ubrogepant 100 mg once daily on days 12–15. In each study arm, serial blood samples were drawn on days 1 and 12 for measurement of plasma ubrogepant concentrations. The primary outcomes were area under the plasma ubrogepant concentration–time curve (AUC) from time 0 to t post‐dose (AUC0– t) and from time 0 to infinity (AUC0–inf), and maximum plasma concentration (C max) of ubrogepant when ubrogepant was administered before or after a single dose of erenumab or galcanezumab. Vital signs and laboratory parameters were monitored. Results Forty participants enrolled (20 per arm; mean [standard deviation] ages, 32.2 [8.9] and 38.4 [8.8] years; 50% [10/20] and 60% [12/20] female in arms 1 and 2, respectively). There were no significant differences in ubrogepant C max after versus before erenumab administration (geometric least‐squares mean [LSM] ratio, 1.04 [90% CI, 0.93–1.16]), and no significant differences in AUC0– t (1.06 [0.96–1.16]) or AUC0–inf (1.05 [0.96–1.15]). Similarly, ubrogepant C max (1.00 [90% CI, 0.82–1.20]), AUC0– t (1.05 [0.90–1.23]), and AUC0–inf (1.05 [0.90–1.22]) geometric LSM ratios were statistically equivalent after galcanezumab versus ubrogepant alone. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those reported with each treatment alone. No serious TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, or clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters or vital signs were reported. Conclusions The PK profile of ubrogepant was not significantly changed and no safety concerns were identified when ubrogepant was coadministered with erenumab or galcanezumab.

Objective To evaluate whether quarterly or monthly administration of fremanezumab for migraine prevention exhibits a pattern of decreased efficacy toward the end of the dosing interval (wearing-off effect). Background The main goals of migraine preventive treatment are to reduce the frequency, severity, and duration of migraine attacks, and migraine-associated disability. Wearing-off refers to the phenomenon whereby clinical symptoms return or worsen before the next dose of a drug is due and has been reported previously with migraine preventive medications. Design and methods This was a long-term, 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study (NCT02638103) that included chronic (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) patients who rolled over from the 12-week phase 3 HALO CM (NCT02621931) and EM trials (NCT02629861), as well as an additional subset of 312 new patients. Patients with CM or EM received fremanezumab either monthly or quarterly. In this post hoc analysis, for selected months, the difference in the average number of migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 3-4, between weeks 1-3 and week 4, and between weeks 1-2 and weeks 11-12 were calculated. Results A total of 1890 patients (CM, 1110; EM, 780) were enrolled. At months 3, 6, 9, and 15, there were no substantial differences in mean weekly migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 3-4 or between weeks 1-3 and week 4 with quarterly or monthly fremanezumab in the CM or EM subgroups. There were no substantial increases in mean weekly migraine days between weeks 1-2 and weeks 11-12 during the first quarter of treatment (months 1-3) or the second quarter of treatment (months 4-6) with quarterly or monthly fremanezumab in the CM or EM subgroups. Across both dosing subgroups in CM and EM patients, the mean weekly number of migraine days decreased substantially (30%-42%) during the first 2 weeks; decreases in weekly migraine days remained steady during the last 2 weeks of the first quarter, with a similar maintenance of response during the second quarter. Conclusions This analysis of data from a long-term, phase 3 study showed that patients receiving quarterly fremanezumab or monthly fremanezumab did not experience a wearing-off effect toward the end of the dosing interval.

Objective To review the literature on the mechanism of action of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine. Background OnabotulinumtoxinA is a chronic migraine preventive treatment that significantly reduces headache frequency. The traditional mechanism described for onabotulinumtoxinA - reducing muscle contractions - is insufficient to explain its efficacy in migraine, which is primarily a sensory neurological disease. Methods A narrative literature review on the mechanism of action of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine. Results Following injection into tissues, onabotulinumtoxinA inhibits soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion attachment protein receptor (SNARE)-mediated vesicle trafficking by cleaving one of its essential proteins, soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion attachment protein (SNAP-25), which occurs in both motor and sensory nerves. OnabotulinumtoxinA inhibits regulated exocytosis of motor and sensory neurochemicals and proteins, as well as membrane insertion of peripheral receptors that convey pain from the periphery to the brain, because both processes are SNARE dependent. OnabotulinumtoxinA can decrease exocytosis of pro-inflammatory and excitatory neurotransmitters and neuropeptides such as substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, and glutamate from primary afferent fibers that transmit nociceptive pain and participate in the development of peripheral and central sensitization. OnabotulinumtoxinA also decreases the insertion of pain-sensitive ion channels such as transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1) into the membranes of nociceptive neurons; this is likely enhanced in the sensitized neuron. For chronic migraine prevention, onabotulinumtoxinA is injected into 31-39 sites in 7 muscles of the head and neck. Sensory nerve endings of neurons whose cell bodies are located in trigeminal and cervical ganglia are distributed throughout the injected muscles, and are overactive in people with migraine. Through inhibition of these sensory nerve endings, onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number of pain signals that reach the brain and consequently prevents activation and sensitization of central neurons postulated to be involved in migraine chronification. Conclusion OnabotulinumtoxinA likely acts via sensory mechanisms to treat chronic migraine.

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor or its ligand have changed the landscape of treatment options for migraine. Erenumab is the first and only fully human monoclonal antibody designed to target and block the CGRP receptor. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The recommended dose of erenumab is 70 mg monthly, with guidance that some patients may benefit from the 140 mg monthly dose. There is a need for information to guide clinical practice on the comparative efficacy and safety of these two dosing options.To evaluate therapeutic and tolerability differences between erenumab 70 and 140 mg based on evidence from published literature.This narrative review evaluates therapeutic and tolerability differences between erenumab 70 and 140 mg based on a literature search using PubMed interface, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE(R) databases. The key search terms included migraine, AMG 334, AMG334, erenumab, erenumab-aooe, and Aimovig. The search was limited to English language articles or conference abstracts published up to May 2021.From the literature search, we retrieved 23 relevant articles/conference abstracts (19 articles [5 randomized, double-blind studies] and 4 conference abstracts) for inclusion in this narrative review. Although the recommended starting dosage of erenumab is 70 mg, this narrative review of the literature indicates that some patients may benefit from a dosage of 140 mg erenumab once monthly-especially those with difficult-to-treat disease and prior treatment failures. The evidence indicates that erenumab at 140 mg has a numerically better efficacy than 70 mg across a broad spectrum of migraine outcomes, including preventing progression to chronic migraine.Cumulative data from the literature support a therapeutic gain with an increase from erenumab 70 to 140 mg and a rationale for initiating 140 mg in selected patients.

The purpose of this study was to propose a definition of "wearing off" at the individual patient-level and determine the percentage of patients with migraine who experience "wearing off" of efficacy of galcanezumab at the end of a treatment cycle using this predefined threshold.Anecdotal reports suggest that some patients may experience "wearing off" of efficacy during the last week of their calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment cycle. A previous post hoc analysis of galcanezumab demonstrated consistent efficacy at each week throughout all monthly dosing intervals at the population-level, but "wearing off" has not been assessed at the individual patient-level.Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data from four galcanezumab phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in a total of 2680 patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and CONQUER studies) or chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN and CONQUER studies) were conducted. "Wearing off" was defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 2 weekly migraine headache days in the last week of the treatment cycle compared to the second week for at least 2 months. The analyses were conducted (1) in all patients and (2) in patients with a clinically meaningful response to treatment.The percentage of patients meeting the threshold of "wearing off" was not statistically significantly different among the placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups, both in the total population and in patients with a clinically meaningful response (all ≤9.0%). Although the frequency of "wearing off" in patients with CM and prior preventive failures was numerically greater in the galcanezumab groups (8/89 or 9.0%) compared to placebo (3/95 or 3.2%), these differences were not statistically significant.Consistent with previous analyses at the population-level that showed no evidence of decreased efficacy at the end of a treatment cycle, rates of individual patients meeting the threshold of "wearing off" in this analysis were low and similar among placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups.

Objective To compare effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for chronic migraine (CM) prevention. Background The efficacy* of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate has been established in placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trials (*defined as the benefit of treatment under ideal conditions). The effectiveness* of the 2 preventive treatments, however, has not been established (*the benefit of treatment under real‐world conditions, representing a blend of efficacy and tolerability). Methods In this multicenter, randomized, parallel‐group, post‐authorization, open‐label prospective study (FORWARD; http://ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02191579), we randomized adults with CM (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 3 cycles or topiramate “immediate release” 50‐100 mg/day to week 36. Primary outcome measure was proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in headache days (weeks 29‐32). Missing values were imputed using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) methodology. After 12 weeks, patients initially randomized to topiramate could cross over to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. We monitored and recorded all adverse events (AEs). Results We enrolled 282 patients (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 140; topiramate, n = 142) and 148 patients completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 120 [86%]; topiramate, n = 28 [20%]). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 7 [5%]; topiramate, n = 27 [19%]) and AEs (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 5 [4%]; topiramate, n = 72 [51%]). Eighty topiramate patients crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA. In the BOCF analysis, a significantly higher proportion of patients randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA experienced ≥50% reduction in headache frequency compared with those randomized to topiramate (40% [56/140] vs 12% [17/142], respectively; adjusted OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.7‐9.1]; P

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for chronic migraine (CM) on comorbid symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue and poor sleep quality.MethodsThe Chronic Migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open-Label (COMPEL) study is a multicentre, open-label, prospective study assessing the long-term safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U over nine treatments (108 weeks) in adults with CM. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales were used to assess the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on comorbid symptoms of depression and anxiety, respectively. A clinically meaningful improvement was assessed by the percentage of patients experiencing a ≥1 severity category reduction in PHQ-9 and GAD-7. The effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on associated sleep quality and fatigue were assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Fatigue Severity Scale, respectively.ResultsOnabotulinumtoxinA treatment was associated with sustained reduction in headache days and PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores in the analysis population (n=715) over 108 weeks. PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were significantly reduced at all time points in patients with clinically significant symptoms of depression and/or anxiety at baseline. By week 108, 78.0% and 81.5% had clinically meaningful improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Sleep quality and symptoms of fatigue also improved; however, less is understood about clinically meaningful changes in these measures. No new safety concerns were identified.ConclusionIn addition to reducing headache frequency, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for CM was associated with clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety, and improved associated symptoms of poor sleep quality and fatigue.Trial registration numberNCT01516892.

Objective To assess the nocioceptive input of habitual nocturnal jaw clenching that acts as a contributing factor in migraine pathogenesis. Background Habitual nocturnal jaw clenching has been implicated as a trigger, particularly in those whose headaches are present upon waking or shortly thereafter. Nocturnal EMG studies of patients diagnosed with migraine show nearly twice the temporalis clenching EMG levels and double the bite force as matched asymptomatic controls, leading to the speculation that parafunctional clenching activity may have some role in headache pathogenesis. The NTI (Nociceptive Trigeminal Inhibition) oral device is a dental splint designed to reduce nocturnal jaw clenching intensity and is FDA approved for the prevention of medically diagnosed migraine pain based on open label studies. There are no prior placebo-controlled trials to assess the migraine prevention efficacy of the NTI splint. This is the first placebo-controlled cross-over study to assess the efficacy of the NTI splint in patients with Chronic Migraine. Method A placebo controlled, single-blinded cross-over study was done with IRB oversight assessing the efficacy of the NTI splint compared to placebo using the change in the HIT-6 score as the outcome measure. Results 68% of refractory chronic migraine sufferers using the NTI as measured by sequential HIT 6 scores had at least a one-category improvement (severe to substantial, or substantial to some, or some to none) compared to 12% when using a placebo device. 36% of subjects using the NTI device reported a two-category improvement in their HIT-6 score, compared to 0% when using placebo. Conclusion The improvement in HIT-6 scores produced by the NTI device, suggests that patients with Chronic Migraine may have intense nocturnal jaw clenching as a contributing factor to their headache related disability. An NTI device is one method of assessing whether jaw-clenching is a contributing factor to ongoing migraine. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials NCT04871581. 04/05/2021. Retrospectively registered.

Despite guidelines directing against the use of opioids in migraine management, this analysis by Lipton et al.1 reveals that more than 36% of patients surveyed have opioids available to them. These opioid users were more likely to have allodynia and vascular risk factors including diabetes, moderate-to-severe depression, anxiety, obesity, and high MIDAS scores, and they were more likely to be men. The data in this study demonstrate that those who use opioids are worse off in many domains, but the casual directions cannot be determined. Do opioids actually make migraine worse or do the most severe patients get prescribed opioids? Is the increased use of opioids a consequence of increased headache with high MIDAS scores, central sensitization, and allodynia? This leads to a debate on which came first, and it is likely that worsening headache came first,2 leading to initial opioid use. However, did the opioids subsequently worsen and escalate the situation? A controversial concept is whether opioids have a place in migraine treatment at all, given the new treatment options (Gepants and devices) because these have not been identified as causing medication overuse. Is the real issue a lack of education about alternative treatment options, resulting in patients becoming opioid users because of misdiagnosis and poor prescribing of migraine-specific medications?

Introduction Erenumab, a first-in-class monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the prevention of migraine in adults. There is limited data available on its impact in real-world settings. The study aim was to characterize the real-world treatment profiles, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization of patients prescribed erenumab from select major US headache centers. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients with migraine treated with erenumab for at least 3 months across five major headache centers was conducted. Data was collected from patient charts between April 2019 and April 2020 and included patient and clinical characteristics, migraine medication use, and outpatient visits. The date of the first prescription fill of erenumab was defined as the index date. The baseline period comprised the 3 months prior to the index date and the study period comprised the at least 3 months on erenumab treatment. Results Data from a total of 1034 patients with chronic migraine with a mean of 9.3 months of erenumab treatment were analyzed. Patients were on average 48 years old, 86% were female, and 79% were white. Patients had a mean of 5 preventive treatment failures prior to erenumab initiation. Patients used a mean of 2 preventive treatments (excluding erenumab) and 2 acute treatments during baseline and study periods. Among patients with effectiveness data, 45% of patients had improvement in physician-reported migraine severity and 35% experienced at least 50% reduction in mean headache/migraine days per month. The average number of monthly outpatient visits was 0.43 and 0.30 before and after erenumab initiation, respectively. Conclusion In this predominantly refractory chronic migraine population treated in select headache centers, patients had fewer headache/migraine days per month and outpatient visits after initiating erenumab. However, patients largely continued to be managed via a polypharmacy approach after erenumab initiation.

ObjectiveEvaluate the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in adults with chronic migraine.MethodsPost-hoc analysis of pooled data from the 24-week, placebo-controlled, PREEMPT (NCT00156910,NCT00168428) and single-arm, 108-week COMPEL (NCT01516892) studies. Percentages of participants meeting responder status at 24, 48, or 108 weeks for clinically meaningful changes in headache days (≥50% reduction), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6; ≥5-point improvement), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive (MSQ-RFR; ≥10.9-point improvement), and either Average Daily Headache Severity (ADHS; ≥1-point improvement; PREEMPT) or Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (≥5-point improvement) were calculated.ResultsParticipants (N=1384) were randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA (n=688) or placebo (n=696) in PREEMPT; 716 participants were enrolled in COMPEL. In PREEMPT, significantly more participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA than placebo met responder criteria for change in headache days (44.8% vs 34.2%), HIT-6 (40.8% vs 25.3%), MSQ-RFR (59.0% vs 40.2%), and ADHS (35.5% vs 22.4%) scores at 24 weeks (allPConclusionsOnabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements across multiple domains in the PREEMPT studies and up to 2 years in COMPEL.Sommer_Kathrine@Allergan.com

Objective To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. Background Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. Methods This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. Results In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. Conclusions Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Background Antibodies to the aquaporin-4 (AQP4) water channel in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) are reported to trigger the complement cascade, which is implicated in astrocyte damage and subsequent neuronal injury. The PREVENT study demonstrated that the terminal complement inhibitor eculizumab reduces adjudicated relapse risk in patients with anti-AQP4 immunoglobulin G-positive (AQP4+) NMOSD. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of eculizumab in reducing relapse risk and its safety in AQP4+ NMOSD across clinically relevant subgroups in PREVENT. Methods In the randomized, double-blind, time-to-event, phase 3 PREVENT trial, 143 adults received eculizumab (maintenance dose, 1200 mg/2 weeks) or placebo (2:1), with stable-dose concomitant immunosuppressive therapy (IST) permitted (except rituximab and mitoxantrone). Post hoc analyses of relapses and adverse events were performed for prespecified and post hoc subgroups based on concomitant IST and prior rituximab use, demographic and disease characteristics, and autoimmune comorbidity. Results The significant reduction in relapse risk observed for eculizumab versus placebo in the overall PREVENT population was consistently maintained across subgroups based on concomitant IST and previous rituximab use, age, sex, region, race, time since clinical onset of NMOSD, historical annualized relapse rate, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale score, and history of another autoimmune disorder. The serious infection rate was lower with eculizumab than placebo regardless of rituximab use in the previous year, concomitant IST use, or history of another autoimmune disorder. Conclusion Across a wide range of clinically relevant AQP4+ NMOSD patient subgroups in PREVENT, eculizumab therapy was consistently effective versus placebo in reducing relapse risk, with no apparent increase in serious infection rate. Trial registration NCT01892345 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but it is still underdiagnosed and undertreated. Research on the pathophysiology of this neurological disease led to the discovery that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key neuropeptide involved in pain signaling during a migraine attack. CGRP-mediated neuronal sensitization and glutamate-based second- and third-order neuronal signaling may be an important component involved in migraine pain. The activation of several serotonergic receptor subtypes can block the release of CGRP, other neuropeptides, and neurotransmitters, and can relieve the symptoms of migraine. Triptans were the first therapeutics developed for the treatment of migraine, working through serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptors. The discovery that the serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) receptor was expressed in the human trigeminal ganglion suggested that this receptor subtype may have a role in the treatment of migraine. The 5-HT1F receptor is found on terminals and cell bodies of trigeminal ganglion neurons and can modulate the release of CGRP from these nerves. Unlike 5-HT1B receptors, the activation of 5-HT1F receptors does not cause vasoconstriction.The potency of different serotonergic agonists towards 5-HT1F was correlated in an animal model of migraine (dural plasma protein extravasation model) leading to the development of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan is a newly approved acute treatment for migraine in the United States and is a lipophilic, highly selective 5-HT1F agonist that can cross the blood-brain barrier and act at peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS) sites.Lasmiditan activation of CNS-located 5-HT1F receptors (e.g., in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis) could potentially block the release of CGRP and the neurotransmitter glutamate, thus preventing and possibly reversing the development of central sensitization. Activation of 5-HT1F receptors in the thalamus can block secondary central sensitization of this region, which is associated with progression of migraine and extracephalic cutaneous allodynia. The 5-HT1F receptors are also elements of descending pain modulation, presenting another site where lasmiditan may alleviate migraine. There is emerging evidence that mitochondrial dysfunction might be implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine, and that 5-HT1F receptors can promote mitochondrial biogenesis. While the exact mechanism is unknown, evidence suggests that lasmiditan can alleviate migraine through 5-HT1F agonist activity that leads to inhibition of neuropeptide and neurotransmitter release and inhibition of PNS trigeminovascular and CNS pain signaling pathways.

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the societal direct and indirect costs of chronic and episodic migraine in the United States. Background Episodic and chronic migraine are distinguished by the frequency of headache-days. Chronic migraine has a greater overall impact on quality of life than does episodic migraine. Individuals with chronic migraine also use more healthcare resources (resulting in higher direct costs) and experience greater decreases in productivity (resulting in higher indirect costs) than those with episodic migraine as shown in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Methods The International Burden of Migraine Study utilized a web-based questionnaire to elicit data on several topics related to the burden of migraine illness, including health resource utilization and productivity losses. Potential survey participants were identified by Synovate Healthcare (Chicago, IL, USA) from a pool of registered panelists from various countries. The panelists were screened online to determine eligibility and to identify individuals with migraine (episodic or chronic), based on reported symptoms. Participants from the United States were divided into episodic and chronic migraine groups, based on reported headache-day per month frequency. Direct and indirect costs were estimated by applying estimated unit costs to reported headache-related productivity losses and resource use. Costs were compared between participants with episodic and chronic migraine. Results Mean [standard deviation] total annual cost of headache among people with chronic migraine ($8243 [$10,646]) was over three times that of episodic migraine ($2649 [$4634], P

Background OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in treating chronic migraine (CM), but there are limited data assessing how allodynia affects preventive treatment responses. This subanalysis of the 108-week, multicenter, open-label COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without allodynia. Methods Patients (n = 715) were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 9 treatment cycles. The Allodynia Symptom Checklist was used to identify patients with allodynia (scores ≥3). The primary outcome for this subanalysis was reduction in monthly headache days from baseline for weeks 105 to 108 in groups with and without allodynia. Other outcomes included assessments of moderate to severe headache days, disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [MSQ] v2). Adverse events and their relation to treatment were recorded. Results OnabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in headache day frequency at week 108 relative to baseline in patients with (n = 289) and without (n = 426) allodynia (− 10.8 [7.1] and − 12.5 [7.4], respectively; both P

Background OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in preventing chronic migraine (CM); however, the benefit of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM with daily headache is unknown because these patients are typically excluded from clinical trials. This subanalysis of the COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without daily headache. Methods In total, 715 patients received onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U with or without concomitant oral preventive treatment. Patients who had complete daily diary records for the 28 days of the baseline period were stratified based on daily headache status. The primary outcome variable was reduction in headache-day frequency per 28-day period at 108 weeks (after 9 treatment cycles) relative to baseline. Exploratory outcomes included moderate to severe headache days, migraine disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire v2 [MSQ]). Adverse events and their relatedness were recorded. Results Overall, 641 patients had complete daily diary records at baseline. In patients with daily headache (n = 138) versus without (n = 503), treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in 28-day headache-day frequency relative to baseline at week 108 (− 10.5 [9.2] vs − 12.2 [6.7], respectively; both P

The purpose of this manuscript is to illuminate the diagnostic challenges in patients who present with both headache and neck pain. The differential diagnosis for headache and neck pain includes many conditions. Furthermore, cervical musculoskeletal abnormalities including head forward posture and myofascial trigger points may play an overlapping role in many of these conditions. Multiple headache disorders may be present within the same patient. A multidisciplinary team approach addressing all components of the headache may lead to better outcomes for these patients.

Background OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved for the prevention of headache in those with chronic migraine (CM); however, more clinical data on the risk-benefit profile for treatment beyond one year is desirable. Methods The Chronic Migraine OnabotulinuMtoxinA Prolonged Efficacy open Label (COMPEL) Study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01516892) is an international, multicenter, open-label long-term prospective study. Adults with CM received 155 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (31 sites in a fixed-site, fixed-dose paradigm across 7 head/neck muscles) every 12 weeks (±7 days) for 9 treatment cycles (108 weeks). The primary outcome was headache day reductions at 108 weeks; secondary outcomes were headache day reductions at 60 weeks and change in the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score. Safety and tolerability were assessed by reviewing the frequency and nature of adverse events (AEs). AEs were determined at each visit through patient self-report, general non-directed and, for specific AEs, directed questioning, and physical examination. Subgroup analyses for safety and efficacy included, but were not limited to, patients with/without concomitant oral preventive treatment and acute medication overuse at baseline. Results Enrolled patients (N = 716) were 18–73 years old and most were female (n = 607, 84.8%). At baseline, patients reported an average 22.0 (SD = 4.8) headache days per month. 52.1% of patients (n = 373) completed the study. By 60 and 108 weeks, a significant reduction in headache days (− 9.2 days and − 10.7 days, respectively, P

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.

Botulinum toxin, a potent muscle relaxant, has been found to have analgesic effects in patients with various pain syndromes. Both in vitro and in vivo studies showed the ability of the toxin to block the release of pain neurotransmitters, such as substance P, glutamate, and calcitonin gene-related peptide. The effect of the toxin, and specifically of one of its serotypes, botulinum neurotoxin type A, on headaches, has been extensively studied. This serotype is available in the United States in 3 forms, including as onabotulinumtoxinA. Data from clinical trials confirmed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA in the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine, the most severe and debilitating type of migraine, in adults. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication in 2010. The drug was not found to be effective for episodic migraine or tension-type headache. Noncontrolled studies suggest the efficacy of the toxin for headache associated with craniocervical dystonia. Proper injection technique and appropriate patient selection are essential for achieving positive results after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. The recommended injection paradigm combines a fixed site/fixed dose and follow the pain approaches, with the toxin injected to multiple sites of the head and neck, at a total dose of 155U-195U. The treatment is given at intervals of 12 weeks on average. The efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA for some headaches, its long duration of action, and its favorable adverse effect profile make it a viable treatment option for the appropriate headache patients. The drug may be particularly suitable for patients who cannot tolerate, or are not compliant with, the daily intake of oral headache preventive drugs.

Objective To describe headache-related health resource usage in chronic and episodic migraine across six countries. Methods A web-based questionnaire eliciting data on several topics, including health resource usage, was administered to panellists with migraine from the USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Australia. Respondents were grouped into episodic and chronic migraine, based on reported headache phenotype and headache-day frequency. ORs were calculated, comparing usage in each country to that in the US, controlling for chronic versus episodic migraine and other factors. Results Relative to the USA, the odds of visiting a provider for headache during the preceding 3 months were significantly higher in all countries, except Germany. Respondents in France were more likely to report having a provider they typically visited for headache-related care. The odds of visiting the emergency department for headache were significantly lower in France, the UK and Germany, and hospitalisation for headache was significantly more frequent in Canada and Australia. Respondents from all countries, except Canada, were more likely to report currently using a prescription-acute treatment, and those from France were more likely to report trying more than three acute treatments. Preventive treatment use did not differ significantly. Conclusions Headache-related resource usage differed significantly between the USA and other countries. US respondents were generally less likely to report recent provider visits and use of prescription-acute treatments. They were more likely to report emergency department visits than in European countries, but less likely to report hospitalisation than in Canada and Australia.

Objective To provide clinically relevant insights on the identification of the muscles and techniques involved in the safe and effective use of onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine prophylaxis. Background Although guidance on the use of onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine is available, based on the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program, clinical experience has shown that insufficient understanding of the anatomy and function of the head and neck muscles may lead to undesirable outcomes and suboptimal efficacy. Design/methods Each muscle involved in the standardized PREEMPT injection paradigm is reviewed with a thorough description of each muscle's anatomy (ie, muscle description and location, innervation, vascular supply) and function. Key insights based on clinical experience are also provided to help improve outcomes. Results The identification of the muscles in the PREEMPT injection paradigm should be based on each patient's unique anatomy and injections should be administered using the advised techniques. A thorough examination of the patient prior to treatment is also critical to determine if any preexisting conditions may increase the risk for unwanted outcomes and appropriate expectations should be communicated. Conclusions Thorough knowledge of the functional anatomy of the muscles involved in the standardized PREEMPT injection paradigm is critical to achieve the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. In addition, it is important to assess a patient's baseline condition to anticipate the risk for unwanted outcomes that may result from treatment.

The burden of migraine significantly impacts the individual sufferer, their families, the workplace, and society. The World Health Organization has identified migraine as an urgent public health priority and has initiated a global initiative to reduce the burden of migraine. Underlying the World Health Organization initiative is the need to discover means of optimizing migraine treatments and make them accessible to the broader portion of the world population. Development of acute migraine medications over the past several decades has largely centered on engineering highly specific receptor molecules that alter migraine pathophysiological mechanisms to abort or reverse the acute attack of migraine. The first product of this line of discovery was sumatriptan and heralded as a landmark therapeutic breakthrough. Sumatriptan is a 5-HT-1B/D receptor agonist considered to activate receptors involved in the pathophysiology specific to migraine. Large-scale regulatory/clinical studies demonstrated statistical superiority for sumatriptan over placebo in reduction or elimination of headache, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Since the introduction of sumatriptan, 6 other triptan products have been released in the United States as acute treatments for migraine, all having the same mechanism of action and similar efficacy. Despite their utility as migraine abortive medications, the triptans do not successfully treat all attacks of migraine or necessarily treat all migraine associated symptoms. In fact, in less than 25% of attacks do subjects obtain and maintain a migraine-free response to treatment for at least beyond 24 hours. A wide range of non-triptan medications also have demonstrated efficacy in acute migraine. These include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, phenothiazines, and valproic acid to name a few. Given the distinctly different mechanisms of actions of these various medications, it is likely that several unique pathophysiological mechanisms are involved in terminating acute episodes of migraine. Clinicians now capitalize on this observation and use migraine medication in combination with another to improve patient outcomes, for example, using an antiemetic with an opioid or a triptan and NSAIDs. More recently, the Food and Drug Adminstration has approved a combination product containing 85mg of sumatriptan plus 500mg of naproxen sodium for acute treatment of migraine. Clinical trials conducted prior to approval demonstrated that the combination of sumatriptan and naproxen was more effective as a migraine abortive than either of its components but that each component and the combination were more effective than placebo. Exactly how sumatriptan and naproxen interact to create therapeutic synergism is unknown though its mere occurrence suggests that models assisting medical understanding and prediction of pharmacological synergism may improve clinical outcome over products acting through a single receptor mechanism. Migraine is a syndrome, meaning it is defined by observed symptoms rather than known pathophysiology. Multiple pathogenic mechanisms are likely involved in generating this diverse array of symptoms understood as the migraine symptom complex. Sumatriptan and naproxen have independent mechanisms of action and target distinct aspects of the vascular and inflammatory processes hypothesized to underlie migraine. Sumatriptan acts on the 5-HT(1B) and 5-HT(1D) receptors, whereas naproxen inhibits the COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. Sumatriptan has vasoconstricting effects as well as effects on neurogenic inflammation by decreasing the release of substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide. In contrast, naproxen affects prostaglandins and other inflammatory mediators. Because sumatriptan and naproxen both relieve migraine yet interact with different cellular targets within the migraine pathway, it is reasonable to assume there is a unique synergy between these medications that improves treatment outcomes. Clinical trials supported this contention by demonstrating the combination of sumatriptan/naproxen alleviated migraine pain quickly (primarily based on the sumatriptan mechanism of action), and sustained the response longer (primarily based on the naproxen mechanism of action) than is possible when either drug is given alone. The working hypothesis is that when sumatriptan and naproxen are given at the same time, they affect different mechanisms of the migraine pathway and produce an enhanced therapeutic effect. The purpose of this article is to apply statistical analyses to data from phase II and phase III studies of the combination of sumatriptan and naproxen to determine if this enhanced therapeutic effect is synergistic. This methodology of accessing synergy can be used in the development of future combination migraine treatments to improve treatment outcomes.

(Headache 2011;51:1058-1077) Objective.— To evaluate and compare healthcare resource use and related costs in chronic migraine and episodic migraine in the USA and Canada. Background.— Migraine is a common neurological disorder that produces substantial disability for sufferers around the world. Several studies have quantified overall costs associated with migraine in general, with recent estimates ranging from $581 to $7089 per year. Although prior studies have characterized the clinical and humanistic burden of chronic migraine relative to episodic migraine, to the best of our knowledge only 1 previous study has compared chronic migraine and episodic migraine healthcare costs. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the direct medical costs of chronic migraine and episodic migraine using medical resource use data collected as part of the International Burden of Migraine Study. Methods.— Cross-sectional data were collected from respondents in 10 countries via a Web-based survey. Respondents were classified as chronic migraine (≥15 headache days/month) or episodic migraine (

Objective: To describe a survey methodology to evaluate headache characteristics and burden and to present baseline characteristics for the international cohort of survey participants. Methods: A targeted, web-based methodology was used to recruit and survey subjects with migraine in 10 countries. Based on reported symptoms, subjects meeting ICHD-2 criteria for migraine were included; eligible subjects were classified as chronic (≥ 15 headache days per month) or episodic ( Results: Of 23,312 survey respondents, 11,897 were eligible and 9715 (81.7%) completed the survey; subjects were 81.5% female; 5.7% ( n = 555) had chronic migraine. Conclusions: This is the first large international cohort of persons with chronic and episodic migraine studied using a web-based approach, a methodology well suited to the study of the burden of migraines.

Chronic migraine (CM) is a prevalent and disabling neurological disorder. Few prophylactic treatments for CM have been investigated. OnabotulinumtoxinA, which inhibits the release of nociceptive mediators, such as glutamate, substance P, and calcitonin gene-related peptide, has been evaluated in randomized, placebo-controlled studies for the preventive treatment of a variety of headache disorders, including CM. These studies have yielded insight into appropriate patient selection, injection sites, dosages, and technique. Initial approaches used a set of fixed sites for the pericranial injections. However, the treatment approach evolved to include other sites that corresponded to the location of pain and tenderness in the individual patient in addition to the fixed sites. The Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) injection paradigm uses both fixed and follow-the-pain sites, with additional specific follow-the-pain sites considered depending on individual symptoms. The PREEMPT paradigm for injecting onabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective in well-designed, controlled clinical trials and is the evidence-based approach recommended to optimize clinical outcomes for patients with CM.

Background: Migraine imposes significant burden on patients, their families and health care systems. In this study, we compared episodic to chronic migraine sufferers to determine if migraine status predicted headache-related disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health care resource utilization. Methods: A Web-based survey was administered to panelists from nine countries. Participants were classified as having chronic migraine (CM), episodic migraine (EM) or neither using a validated questionnaire. Data collected and then analyzed included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, Migraine Disability Assessment, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life v2.1, Patient Health Questionnaire and health care resource utilization. Findings: Of the respondents, 5.7% had CM and 94.3% had EM, with CM patients reporting significantly more severe disability, lower HRQoL, higher levels of anxiety and depression and greater health care resource utilization compared to those with EM. Interpretation: These results provide evidence that will enhance our understanding of the factors driving health care costs and will contribute to development of cost-effective health care strategies.

Interventional procedures such as peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) and trigger point injections (TPIs) have long been used in the treatment of various headache disorders. There are, however, little data on their efficacy for the treatment of specific headache syndromes. Moreover, there is no widely accepted agreement among headache specialists as to the optimal technique of injection, type, and doses of the local anesthetics used, and injection regimens. The role of corticosteroids in this setting is also debated. We performed a PubMed search of the literature to find studies on PNBs and TPIs for headache treatment. We classified the abstracted studies based on the procedure performed and the treated condition. We found few controlled studies on the efficacy of PNBs for headaches, and virtually none on the use of TPIs for this indication. The most widely examined procedure in this setting was greater occipital nerve block, with the majority of studies being small and non-controlled. The techniques, as well as the type and doses of local anesthetics used for nerve blockade, varied greatly among studies. The specific conditions treated also varied, and included both primary (eg, migraine, cluster headache) and secondary (eg, cervicogenic, posttraumatic) headache disorders. Trigeminal (eg, supraorbital) nerve blocks were used in few studies. Results were generally positive, but should be taken with reservation given the methodological limitations of the available studies. The procedures were generally well tolerated. Evidently, there is a need to perform more rigorous clinical trials to clarify the role of PNBs and TPIs in the management of various headache disorders, and to aim at standardizing the techniques used for the various procedures in this setting.

(Headache 2010;50:937-942) Background.— Many clinicians use peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) and trigger point injections (TPIs) for the treatment of headaches. Little is known, however, about the patterns of use of these procedures among practitioners in the USA. Objectives.— The aim of this study was to obtain information on patterns of office-based use of peripheral NBs and TPIs by headache practitioners in the USA. Methods.— Using an Internet-based questionnaire, the Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the American Headache Society (AHS) conducted a survey among practitioners who were members of AHS on patterns of use of NBs and TPIs for headache treatment. Results.— Electronic invitations were sent to 1230 AHS members and 161 provided useable data (13.1%). Of the responders, 69% performed NBs and 75% performed TPIs. The most common indications for the use of NBs were occipital neuralgia and chronic migraine (CM), and the most common indications for the use of TPIs were chronic tension-type headache and CM. The most common symptom prompting the clinician to perform these procedures was local tenderness at the intended injection site. The most common local anesthetics used for these procedures were lidocaine and bupivacaine. Dosing regimens, volumes of injection, and injection schedules varied greatly. There was also a wide variation in the use of corticosteroids when performing the injections. Both NBs and TPIs were generally well tolerated. Conclusions.— Nerve blocks and TPIs are commonly used by headache practitioners in the USA for the treatment of various headache disorders, although the patterns of their use vary greatly.

Context.— Headache is a common, disabling disorder that is frequently not well managed in general clinical practice. Objective.— To determine if patients cared for in a coordinated headache management program would achieve reduced headache disability compared with patients in usual care. Design.— A randomized controlled trial of headache management vs usual care. Setting.— Three distinctly different practice sites: an academic internal medicine practice located in a major east coast city, a staff-model managed care organization located in a major west coast city, and a community practice in a medium-sized city in the southeast. Patients.— Individuals 21 years of age or older with chronic tension-type, migraine, or mixed etiology headache and a Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score greater than 5, not receiving treatment from a neurologist or headache clinic currently or within the previous 6 months and with an intention to continue general medical care at their current location and to continue their present health insurance coverage for the next 12 months. Interventions.— Active intervention is a headache management program consisting of: (1) a class specifically designed to inform patients about headache types, triggers, and treatment options; (2) diagnosis and treatment by a professional especially trained in headache care (based on US Headache Consortium guidelines); and (3) proactive follow-up by a case manager. Participation lasted 6 months. Control patients received usual care from their primary care providers. Main Outcome Measures.— The primary efficacy measure reported in this article is a comparison of MIDAS scores of headache disability between the intervention group and the control group at 6 months. Secondary measures were response at 12 months, general health and quality of life, and satisfaction with headache care. Results.— The intervention improved (ie, decreased) MIDAS scores by 7.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 11.1) more than the control (P = .008) at 6 months. The difference was not affected by site (P = .59 for clinic by intervention interaction), and a trend toward persistent benefit at 12 months (mean difference in improvement 6.8 points, 95% confidence interval −.3 to 13.9, P = .06) was observed. Quality of life and satisfaction with headache treatment were similarly improved. Conclusions.— Coordinated headache management significantly improved outcomes for patients who, despite contact with the healthcare system for headache, had substantial unmet needs. The intervention in this trial can be implemented practically in a wide range of settings with the expectation that meaningful improvements will accrue.

The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has attracted the interest of practitioners treating head and face pain for over a century because of its anatomical connections and role in the trigemino-autonomic reflex. In this review, we discuss the anatomy of the SPG, as well as what is known about its role in the pathophysiology of headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. We then address various therapies that target the SPG, including intranasal medication delivery, new SPG blocking catheter devices, neurostimulation, chemical neurolysis, and ablation procedures.

This is a 53-year-old male seen for con-sultation due to headaches since high school, whichhave been almost daily for the past 20 years. Hedescribesathrobbingpainbehindthelefteye,withanintensity of 5-9/10 and posterior cervical pressure,occasionally associated with nausea and vomiting,but no light or sound sensitivity. He takes rizatriptan10 mg daily, and the headache is gone in about1 hour. Every couple of weeks, the headache recursand he takes another dose of rizatriptan. He takeshydrocodone 1-2 tablets every couple of weeks.Alcohol triggers his headaches. Sumatriptaninjections and baclofen did not help. He has triedtopiramate, amitriptyline, divalproex sodium,gabapentin, and propranolol for headache preven-tion,without help.He also tried onabotulinumtoxinAonce, without help. Chiropractic treatment did nothelp. He has not tried acupuncture. Magnetic reso-nance imaging of the brain with and without contrast,done3monthspreviously,wasnegative.Hehasapastmedical history of hyperlipidemia, treated with astatin. Neurological examination was normal. Therewas bilateral greater occipital nerve (GON) tender-ness. Bilateral greater occipital nerve block (GONB)was performed by injection of 3 mL of 1% lidocaine2 cm lateral and 2 cm inferior to the inion on eachside. For headache prevention, he was started onzonisamide 100 mg daily for 2 weeks and then 200 mgdaily. He was informed on the risk of medicationoveruseheadachewithfrequentuseofrizatriptan.Hewas seen in follow-up 2 months later. During the 2weeks after the occipital nerve blocks (ONBs), hehad one headache that was quickly relieved byrizatriptan.For the following 14 days,he experiencedheadaches once every other day, and thereafter hisdaily headache pattern resumed, with prompt reliefby rizatriptan.

We examined the effects of multiple treatments with low doses of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA; BOTOX®, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) versus placebo for prophylaxis of episodic migraine. This was a series of 3 sequential, randomized, controlled studies of 418 patients with a history of 4 to 8 moderate to severe migraines per month. In study I, patients were randomized to treatment with placebo or BoNTA (7.5 U, 25 U, or 50 U) in predetermined fixed injection sites on the front and sides of the head only. In study II, patients continued to receive, or were randomized to, 2 consecutive treatments with 25 U or 50 U. In study III, patients were randomized to placebo or continuation of 25 U or 50 U. Injection cycles were each 4 months long. BoNTA and placebo produced comparable decreases from baseline in the frequency of migraines at each time point examined (P ≥ .201). No consistent, statistically significant differences were observed for any efficacy variable. Adverse events were similar among the groups within each study. In these exploratory studies of episodic migraine patients, repeated injections of low doses of BoNTA into fixed frontal, temporal, and glabellar sites were not more effective than placebo. BoNTA was safe and well tolerated. Perspective Beneficial effects of BoNTA in the treatment of migraine have been reported, but positive results are not universal, possibly because the optimal patient population and regimen are not yet definitively established. This study explores the effects of multiple injections of low BoNTA doses into fixed sites for episodic migraine.

Objective.—To assess the current level of headache burden and the headache management needs at three diverse clinical sites. Background.—Headache is a common disabling disorder that is costly for the patient and a management challenge for physicians. The determination of whether and how to intervene to improve headache management depends on both the burden of disease and the characteristics of patients that would likely be targeted. Methods.—Patients from three healthcare organizations were identified by administrative records as having either migraine or tension-type headache and then mailed a survey that addressed demographics, headache type, headache-related disability, depression and anxiety, satisfaction with care, general health, worry about headache, problems with headache management, and healthcare utilization. Comparisons were made across sites and between patients with more and less severe headache-related impairments. Results.—Of the 789 patients contacted, 385 (50%) returned a survey. While the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients were diverse, headache-related characteristics were similar. These patients have significant problems with headache management, disability, pain, worry, and dissatisfaction with care. Patients who described higher headache-related impairment experienced significantly greater problems in these areas, perceived themselves to be in worse general health, and had significantly greater use of medical services than those with lower headache severity. Conclusions.—Despite various elements of heterogeneity, we observed across the sites a consistent need for improvement in headache management. Future efforts should be directed at developing and evaluating methods for effectively improving headache management.

Objective.—To determine the efficacy for migraine prophylaxis of a compound containing a combination of riboflavin, magnesium, and feverfew. Background.—Previous studies of magnesium and feverfew for migraine prophylaxis have found conflicting results, and there has been only a single placebo-controlled trial of riboflavin. Design/Methods.—Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a compound providing a daily dose of riboflavin 400 mg, magnesium 300 mg, and feverfew 100 mg. The placebo contained 25 mg riboflavin. The study included a 1-month run-in phase and 3-month trial. The protocol allowed for 120 patients to be randomized, with a preplanned interim analysis of the data after 48 patients had completed the trial. Results.—Forty-nine patients completed the 3-month trial. For the primary outcome measure, a 50% or greater reduction in migraines, there was no difference between active and “placebo” groups, achieved by 10 (42%) and 11 (44%), respectively (P= .87). Similarly, there was no significant difference in secondary outcome measures, for active versus placebo groups, respectively: 50% or greater reduction in migraine days (33% and 40%, P= .63); or change in mean number of migraines, migraine days, migraine index, or triptan doses. Compared to baseline, however, both groups showed a significant reduction in number of migraines, migraine days, and migraine index. This effect exceeds that reported for placebo agents in previous migraine trials. Conclusion.—Riboflavin 25 mg showed an effect comparable to a combination of riboflavin 400 mg, magnesium 300 mg, and feverfew 100 mg. The placebo response exceeds that reported for any other placebo in trials of migraine prophylaxis, and suggests that riboflavin 25 mg may be an active comparator. There is at present conflicting scientific evidence with regard to the efficacy of these compounds for migraine prophylaxis.

Headache can be debilitating, causing lost productivity at work or school, impaired quality of life, and disruptions in family and social life.1,2 The limited clinical efficacy of current preventive therapies for headache, coupled with the substantial side effects of these treatments, indicate that headache prevention is an area of unmet medical need. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is used to treat a variety of overactive muscle and pain disorders.3-5 Intramuscular injections of BoNT-A may provide an effective, long-lasting, and well-tolerated new approach to headache prevention and management for selected patients. Investigators have used injection techniques with differing anatomical injection sites, doses, and concentrations of BoNT-A. The method of administering BoNT-A for headache therapy will determine, in part, the overall clinical outcome. Optimizing the protocol for clinical use of BoNT-A is, therefore, likely to improve the outcomes of therapy. This article provides a review of current practical procedures for adminis

To assess the efficacy and safety of modafinil for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis (MS).Patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of MS, a stable disability levelor =6 on the Kurtzke extended disability status scale (EDSS), and a mean score4 on the fatigue severity scale (FSS) were eligible for the 9 week, single blind, phase 2, two centre study. Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of narcolepsy, sleep apnoea, or clinically significant major systemic disease and recent use of medications affecting fatigue. All patients, who remained blinded for the treatment regimen, received placebo during weeks 1-2, 200 mg/day modafinil during weeks 3-4, 400 mg/day modafinil during weeks 5-6, and placebo during weeks 7-9. Safety was evaluated by unblinded investigators. Efficacy was evaluated by self rating scales, using the FSS, the modified fatigue impact scale (MFIS), a visual analogue scale for fatigue (VAS-F), and the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS). Adverse events were recorded.Seventy two patients (MS type: 74% relapsing-remitting; 7% primary progressive; 19% secondary progressive) received treatment. After treatment with 200 mg/day modafinil for 2 weeks, a significant improvement in fatigue versus placebo run in was demonstrated. Mean scores after treatment with 200 mg/day modafinil were: FSS, 4.7 versus 5.5 for placebo (p0.001); MFIS, 37.7 versus 44.7 (p0.001); and VAS-F, 5.4 versus 4.5 (p=0.003). Fatigue scores for 400 mg/day modafinil were not significantly improved versus placebo run in. Mean ESS scores were significantly improved (p0.001) with 200 mg/day modafinil (7.2) and 400 mg/day (7.0) versus the score at baseline (9.5). Serious adverse events were not found at either dose. The most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and aesthenia. Sixty five patients (90%) completed the study.These data suggest that 200 mg/day modafinil significantly improves fatigue and is well tolerated in patients with MS.

Acute headache medication overuse (MO) is common in patients with chronic migraine (CM). We evaluated safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA as preventive treatment of headache in CM patients with baseline MO (CM+MO) in a planned secondary analysis from two similarly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, Phase III trials. Patients were randomized to treatment groups (155-195 U of onabotulinumtoxinA or placebo) using MO (patient-reported and diary-captured frequency of intake) as a stratifying variable. Of 1384 patients, 65.3% (n=904) met MO criteria (onabotulinumtoxinA: n=445, placebo: n=459). For the CM+MO subgroup at Week 24, statistically significant between-treatment group mean changes from baseline favoring onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo were observed for headache days (primary endpoint: -8.2 vs. -6.2; p