Search

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice. Methods: This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches. Results: Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group. Conclusion: Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment., Results: We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD., Conclusions: Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The medial portrayal of migraine is often stereotypical and inaccurate but reflects how society perceives migraine. The discrepancy between others' views and the reality of affected individuals may negatively affect access to treatment and the disease course of patients with migraine. This study aimed to investigate whether images presented in the media as typical migraine attacks are perceived as realistic and representative by migraine patients in Rostock, a smaller town in rural Germany, and compare the results to those from Berlin, a large metropolis. We performed an online survey in Rostock. Migraine patients were shown ten images of migraine attacks, which were among the most downloaded stock pictures on the internet under the search term "migraine". They rated on a scale of 0-100 to what extent the pictures were realistic for migraine attacks (realism score), representative of their own migraine (representation score), or the society's view of migraine (society score). In addition, we compared our results with a recently published study from the metropolitan region of Berlin. A total of 174 migraine patients completed our survey. Mean (SD) realism, representation, and society scores were 59.9 (17.5), 56.7 (18.3), and 58.4 (17.1) respectively. Images of older patients were perceived as significantly more realistic and representative than those of younger patients (P < .001). Patients in Rostock (rural region) rated the images as significantly more realistic and representative than survey participants in Berlin (metropolis). Migraine patients in a rural region found typical migraine images only moderately realistic and representative but to a higher degree than their counterparts from a metropolis., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TH has nothing to disclose. JBH has nothing to disclose. KSL reports personal fees from Teva. LHO has nothing to disclose. PT has nothing to disclose. FR received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Allergan/Abbvie, Novartis, Teva, Lilly, Ipsen, Lundbeck, Hormosan. He has received royalties from Elsevier. TPJ has served on advisory boards and has received honoraria for lectures from Allergan, Abbvie, Grünenthal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Hormosan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, TEVA. He has received royalties from Elsevier. His research is supported by Grants from the Innovationsfonds/Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss and the European Union (EFRE). PK received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Allergan, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Takeda. UR received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Amgen, Allergan, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, electroCore, Medscape, StreaMedUp, and Teva. UR received research funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and Novartis. BR received honoraria for consulting and lectures from Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva as well as research funding from the German Research Foundation, the German Migraine and Headache Society and Novartis. All financial and non-financial support was received outside of the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Hamann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)