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.

Introduction Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for acute treatment of migraine that can be used to treat breakthrough attacks in individuals taking preventive treatment for migraine. We evaluated the impact of preventive medication use on the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods This was an analysis of pooled efficacy data from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials, in which efficacy of ubrogepant was assessed at 2 h after taking study medication for pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom (MBS), and pain relief. In addition, a long-term safety (LTS) extension trial was completed where safety was assessed on the basis of incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were compared between participants with or without prior (within 6 months) preventive medication use (anticonvulsants, beta blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA). For efficacy analyses, data were pooled across ACHIEVE trials for the 50 mg and placebo groups; for safety analyses, data for all dose groups (50 mg and 100 mg) in the LTS trial were pooled. Results Preventive treatments were used by 417 of 2247 (18.6%) participants analyzed in the ACHIEVE trials and by 143 of 813 (17.5%) participants in the LTS trial. Responder rates for all outcomes were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment within each dose group (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted across the different preventive medications. Rates and types of TEAEs were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. Conclusion Efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were similar between participants with or without prior or current use of concomitant preventive medication. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), and NCT02873221 (long-term safety trial). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01923-3.

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.

Migraine; Atogepant; Adults Migraña; Atogepant; Adultos Migranya; Atogepant; Adults Importance Some patients with migraine, particularly those in primary care, require effective, well-tolerated, migraine-specific oral preventive treatments. Objective To examine the efficacy of atogepant, an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist, using 4 levels of mean monthly migraine-day (MMD) responder rates. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary analysis of a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine from December 14, 2018, to June 19, 2020, in adults with 4 to 14 migraine-days per month at 128 sites in the US. Interventions Patients were administered 10 mg of atogepant (n = 222), 30 mg of atogepant (n = 230), 60 mg of atogepant (n = 235), or placebo (n = 223) once daily in a 1:1:1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures These analyses evaluated treatment responder rates, defined as participants achieving 50% or greater (α-controlled, secondary end point) and 25% or greater, 75% or greater, and 100% (prespecified additional end points) reductions in mean MMDs during the 12-week blinded treatment period. Results Of 902 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.6 [12.3] years; 801 [88.8%] female; 752 [83.4%] White; 825 [91.5%] non-Hispanic), 873 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (placebo, 214; 10 mg of atogepant, 214; 30 mg of atogepant, 223; and 60 mg of atogepant, 222). For the secondary end point, a 50% or greater reduction in the 12-week mean of MMDs was achieved by 119 of 214 participants (55.6%) treated with 10 mg of atogepant (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.1-4.6), 131 of 223 participants (58.7%) treated with 30 mg atogepant (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3), 135 of 222 participants (60.8%) treated with 60 mg of atogepant (odds ratio, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.6-5.7), and 62 of 214 participants (29.0%) given placebo (P

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.

The authors have requested that this preprint be removed from Research Square.

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

Introduction OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved in the USA for the prevention of headache in adults with chronic migraine, a debilitating neurologic disease characterized by headaches occurring on ≥ 15 days per month for > 3 months and including migraine features on ≥ 8 days per month. Objective The COMPEL Study (NCT01516892), a 108-week, multi-center, open-label study, evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults with chronic migraine. The objective of this subanalysis was to examine the safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA after each of nine treatment cycles. Methods OnabotulinumtoxinA 155 U was administered every 12 weeks. Safety and tolerability, overall and by treatment cycle, were assessed. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported between successive treatments were attributed to the preceding treatment. The safety population received one or more doses of onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary efficacy outcome was the reduction in headache days at week 108 compared with baseline. Results Of 716 patients enrolled, 373 patients (52.1%) completed the study and 343 (47.9%) withdrew; 481 patients (67.2%) received 60 weeks of treatment and 402 (56.1%) received 108 weeks of treatment. In total, 436 (60.9%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild/moderate in severity. Thirty-two patients (4.5%) discontinued the study after experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events typically decreased with repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatment: first cycle, 24.2%; fourth cycle, 18.4%; ninth cycle, 12.2%. Neck pain (2.7%), eyelid ptosis (1.8%), musculoskeletal stiffness (1.4%), injection-site pain (1.3%), and headache (1.3%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events after the first cycle. Seventy-five patients (10.5%) reported serious treatment-emergent adverse events, 13 (1.8%) withdrew. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 131 patients (18.3%), one was considered serious. OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced headache day frequency by 10.7 (6.4) days per 28-day period (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

Introduction/Objective: Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic burden, but many people with CM are underdiagnosed and do not receive appropriate preventive treatment. OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate have demonstrated efficacy (treatment benefit under ideal conditions) for the prevention of headaches in people with CM in clinical trials, but real-world studies suggest markedly different clinical effectiveness (treatment benefit based on a blend of efficacy and tolerability). This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate immediate release for people with CM. Methods: FORWARD was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 4 study comparing onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks with topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day for ≤36 weeks in people with CM. PROs measured included the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire Quick Depression Assessment (PHQ-9), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire (FIMQ). Results: A total of 282 patients were randomized and treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 140) or topiramate (n = 142). From baseline to week 30, mean HIT-6 test scores improved significantly in patients taking onabotulinumtoxinA compared with topiramate ( P Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment had more favorable real-world effectiveness than topiramate on depression, headache impact, functioning and daily living, activity, and work productivity. The overall study results suggest that the beneficial effects on a range of PROs are the result of improved effectiveness when onabotulinumtoxinA is used as preventive treatment for CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02191579; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02191579

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.

Background Adults with migraine experience substantial reductions in quality of life during and in-between migraine attacks. Clinical and regulatory guidelines encourage the inclusion of patient reported outcomes for the evaluation of benefits of interventions for migraine. Methods The conceptual framework and items for a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), were developed using scientific methods recommended to ensure content validity of PRO instruments. The MPFID was developed to measure the impact of migraine on physical functioning based on themes raised in concept elicitation (CE) interviews (conducted previously) with adults with migraine. Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults with migraine to further explore content validity. The instrument was modified following an interim analysis of a first round of cognitive interviews, to assess comprehensiveness and clarity of items, instructions, and response options. Refinements were subsequently tested in additional cognitive interviews. Results The conceptual framework included impacts on physical functioning experienced by most adults with migraine and deemed clinically relevant for measuring the outcome of an intervention for migraine. Concepts in the framework included the impact of migraine on physical impairments (acts) and ability to complete day-to-day activities and perform everyday activities (tasks). MPFID items were generated to evaluate functioning over the past 24 h and to collect data daily, to capture experiences on days with migraine as well as the days in-between migraines. Items asked about needing to rest or lie down; ability to get out of bed, stand up, bend over, walk, perform household chores, do tasks outside the home, keep routines or schedules, get ready for the day, do activities that require concentration or clear thinking; difficulty moving head and body, doing activities requiring physical effort; avoiding interacting with others. Initial modifications based on the first round of cognitive interviews (n = 8) included clarifying instructions, updating three items to enhance specificity and clarity, and revising one item to include gender-neutral language. The second round of interviews (n = 9) confirmed acceptability of revisions and supported content validity. Conclusions The results provide qualitative evidence supporting the content validity of the MPFID for evaluating outcomes of interventions for migraine. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-017-0799-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.