Search

Galcanezumab; Chronic migraine; Preventive treatment Galcanezumab; Migraña crónica; Tratamiento preventivo Galcanezumab; Migranya crònica; Tractament preventiu Background Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, was found to be safe and efficacious for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine based on the randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind period of the REGAIN study. Long-term safety and efficacy were assessed in an open-label extension. Methods Patients 18–65 years old with chronic migraine completing the 3-month double-blind period of REGAIN could enter a 9-month open-label extension (OLE; months 4–12). Upon entering the OLE, patients received a 240-mg galcanezumab loading dose, then 120 mg at the next month, with flexible dosing thereafter (120 or 240 mg/month). The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the number of monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12. Other endpoints included response rates (based on percent reduction in monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12), safety and tolerability. Results Of patients who completed double-blind treatment, 1022 (99%) entered the OLE, with 81% completing month 12. From a baseline of 19.4 monthly migraine headache days at the beginning of the double-blind period, patients at month 12 in the previous placebo, 120-mg, and 240-mg galcanezumab groups had a mean change of −8.5, −9.0, and −8.0, respectively (SE = 0.43 to 0.55, within-group p’s < .001). At month 12, the percentage of patients with ≥50% response was 57%, 57%, and 53%, respectively. Percentage with ≥75% response was 32%, 31%, and 30%, respectively. Percentage with 100% response was 8%, 6%, and 6%, respectively. There were no significant new safety findings during the open-label period. The incidence of discontinuation from the OLE due to adverse events was 5%. Conclusion Galcanezumab was effective, safe, and well-tolerated, with high adherence, for up to 12 months of treatment in patients with chronic migraine.

Migranya crònica; Diferència de gènere; OnabotulinumtoxinA Migraña crónica; Diferencia de género, OnabotulinumtoxinA Chronic migraine; Gender difference; OnabotulinumtoxinA Introduction Migraine is mostly a female disorder because of its lower prevalence in men. Less than 20% of patients included in the available studies on migraine treatments are men; hence, the evidence on migraine treatments might not apply to men. The aims of the present study were to provide reliable information on the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) for chronic migraine in men and to compare clinical benefits between men and women. Methods We performed a pooled patient-level gender-specific analysis of real-life data on BT-A for chronic migraine of patients followed-up to 9 months. We reported the 50% responder rates during each BT-A cycle, defined as percentage of reduction in monthly headache days (MHDs) compared to baseline, along with 75% and 30% responder rates. We also reported the mean decrease in MHDs and in days of acute medication use (DAMs) during each BT-A cycle as compared to baseline. We also evaluated the reasons for stopping the treatment within the third cycle. Results We included an overall cohort of 2879 patients, 522 of whom (18.1%) were men. In men, 50% responder rates were 27.7% during the first BT-A cycle, 29.2% during the second, and 35.6% during the third cycle; in women, the corresponding rates were 26.6%, 33.5%, and 41.0%. In the overall cohort, responder rates did not differ between men and women during the first two cycles; during the third cycle, the distribution was different (P

Efficacy; Eptinezumab; Prevention Eficacia; Eptinezumab; Prevención Eficàcia; Eptinezumab; Prevenció Background Monthly headache frequency directly correlates with personal/societal burden and impacts severity and preventive treatment decisions. This post hoc analysis identified shifts from higher to lower frequency headache categories over 6 months in patients with migraine participating in the PROMISE clinical trials receiving two eptinezumab doses. Methods Headache frequency at baseline and over study months 1–6 was categorized into 4 groups: chronic migraine (CM; ≥ 15 monthly headache days [MHDs]), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM; 10–14 MHDs), low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 4–9 MHDs), and ≤ 3 MHDs. Outcomes included the percentage of patients within each MHD category, the percentage of patients improving by ≥ 1 MHD category, and the number of months with reduction of ≥ 1 MHD category. Data from patients who received approved eptinezumab doses (100 mg or 300 mg) or placebo were included. Results Mean headache frequency at baseline in PROMISE-1 was 10 MHDs; most patients were classified as having HFEM (48.6%) or LFEM (43.9%). At Month 1, 62/221 (28.1%), 75/222 (33.8%), and 45/222 (20.3%) patients who received eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, and placebo had ≤ 3 MHDs, with 97/221 (43.9%), 108/222 (48.6%), and 84/222 (37.8%), respectively, falling below the diagnostic EM threshold at Month 6. More than one-third (79/221 [35.7%], 83/222 [37.4%], and 68/222 [30.6%] of patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively), had 6 months of reduction of ≥ 1 frequency category. At baseline in PROMISE-2, mean headache frequency was 20.5 MHDs. All patients (100%) in the eptinezumab 100 mg and placebo groups had CM, as did 99.4% of patients receiving eptinezumab 300 mg. At Month 1, 209/356 (58.7%), 216/350 (61.7%), and 167/366 (45.6%) patients treated with eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, and placebo had ≤ 14 MHDs, with 240/356 (67.4%), 249/350 (71.1%), and 221/366 (60.4%), respectively, falling below CM threshold at Month 6. Additionally, 153/356 (43.0%), 169/350 (48.3%), and 116/366 (31.7%) patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively, had 6 months of reduction of ≥ 1 frequency category. Conclusion In the PROMISE studies, episodic and chronic migraine patients treated with eptinezumab were more likely to reduce their headache frequency versus placebo, which directly and in a sustained way improved their diagnostic category classification. The PROMISE trials were funded by Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., Bothell, WA, USA. The sponsor participated in the design and conduct of the study; data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation; and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. All statistical analyses were performed by a contracted research organization and were directed or designed by Pacific Northwest Statistical Consulting under contractual agreement with Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. All authors and H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Seattle BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. prepared, reviewed, and approved the manuscript and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Editorial support for the development of this manuscript was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S.

Headache; Lifestyle and behavior; Migraine Dolor de cabeza; Estilo de vida y comportamiento; Migraña Mal de cap; Estil de vida i comportament; Migranya YW received research funding from the NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), NIH (National Institutes of Health) (1K01NS124911-01). MV-P is a recipient of a Sara Borrell contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (CD20/00019).

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

Migranya crònica; Estudi multicèntric; Evidència de la vida real Migraña crónica; Estudio multicéntrico; Evidencia de la vida real Chronic migraine; Multicenter study; Real-life evidence Introduction OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) quarterly was the first treatment approved specifically for chronic migraine (CM). It is unclear whether three cycles are better than two to assess early BT-A response. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis on real-life prospectively collected data in 16 European headache centers. All the centers provided data on patients treated with BT-A for CM over the first three cycles of treatment. For each treatment cycle we defined patients as “good responders” if reporting a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days compared with the three months before starting BT-A, “partial responders” if reporting a 30–49% reduction in monthly headache days, and “non-responders” if reporting a

Chronic migraine; Episodic migraine; Eptinezumab Migraña crónica; Migraña episódica; Eptinezumab Migranya crònica; Migranya episòdica; Eptinezumab Background Migraine is a disabling neurological disease adversely affecting many aspects of life. Most patients are still required to have failed several older oral preventive therapies before being reimbursed for a preventive, migraine-specific anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment. In the 24-week placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER, eptinezumab was shown to reduce migraine frequency and resulted in higher migraine responder rates compared with placebo in patients with two to four previous preventive treatment failures. This subgroup analysis assessed if demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with differences in preventive benefits. Methods Migraine frequency reductions and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients reaching a ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days relative to baseline) were determined in the total population and predefined subgroups by sex, age, migraine frequency (chronic migraine, episodic migraine, high-frequency episodic migraine, low-frequency episodic migraine), medication overuse, medication-overuse headache, and previous preventive treatment failures (2, >2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1–12. Results Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo over weeks 1–12 (−4.8 and −5.3 vs –2.1, respectively; p

Background Several novel treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed for migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of these medications, including atogepant, rimegepant, erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab, for the prevention of migraine via network meta-analysis. Methods Databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central, were systematically reviewed, and all eligible phase 3 randomised controlled trials were included. Results Nineteen studies (n = 14,584 participants) were included. Studies included episodic (n = 11) and chronic (n = 4) migraine or both (n = 4). All interventions, except for eptinzumab 30 mg, significantly reduced mean monthly migraine days compared to placebo. All medications had a higher ≥50% responder rate than placebo and results were statistically significant in those with the subcutaneous or intravenous route of administrations, but not with the oral one. All medications significantly reduced mean monthly headache days, although no data for this outcome was available for rimegepant, and mean monthly acute medication days, with no data for eptinezumab. Conclusion The results show that medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide were effective in preventing migraine compared to placebo. Considering limitations of single studies, different populations such as episodic and chronic migraine, and the absence of head-to-head trials, all novel treatments decreased mean monthly migraine and headache days, and showed higher 50%, 75% and 100% responder rates than placebo. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42022310579

Neuromodulación; Estimulación; Migraña Neuromodulació; Estimulació; Migranya Neuromodulation; Stimulation; Migraine Introducción En los últimos años han surgido numerosos dispositivos de neuromodulación, invasivos y no invasivos, que se han aplicado en pacientes con cefaleas y neuralgias sin que exista una revisión actualizada de su eficacia y seguridad, ni recomendaciones de ninguna institución sanitaria sobre su uso específico en cada entidad nosológica. Métodos Neurólogos del Grupo de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología (SEN) y neurocirujanos expertos en neurocirugía funcional seleccionados por la Sociedad Española de Neurocirugía (SENEC), hemos realizado una revisión exhaustiva en el sistema Medline sobre neuromodulación en cefaleas y neuralgias. Resultados Presentamos una revisión actualizada y establecemos por primera vez unas recomendaciones consensuadas entre la SEN y la SENEC sobre el uso de la neuromodulación en cefaleas y neuralgias, adjudicando niveles de evidencia sobre su eficacia actual, específicamente en cada entidad nosológica. Conclusiones Los resultados actuales de los estudios proporcionan evidencias para la indicación de técnicas de neuromodulación en casos refractarios de cefaleas y neuralgias (sobre todo en migraña, cefalea en racimos y neuralgia del trigémino), seleccionados por neurólogos expertos en cefaleas, tras comprobar el agotamiento de las opciones farmacológicas. Adicionalmente, en el caso de la neuromodulación invasiva, se recomienda que los casos sean debatidos en comités multidisciplinarios y la cirugía sea realizada por equipos de neurocirujanos expertos en neurocirugía funcional y con una morbimortalidad aceptable. Introduction Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions. Methods Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia. Results We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition. Conclusions Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality. Esta guía no ha recibido ningún tipo de financiación pública ni privada.

Farmacologia; Medicaments biològics; Profilaxi de la migranya Farmacologia; Medicamentos biológicos; Profilaxis de la migraña Pharmacology; Biological drugs; Migraine prophylaxis Aquest document és un article científic que tracta sobre els anticossos monoclonals biològics autoritzats per a la profilaxi de la migranya en adults (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab). Este documento es un artículo científico que trata sobre los anticuerpos monoclonales biológicos autorizados para la profilaxis de la migraña en adultos (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab).

BackgroundTriptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder.Main bodyThe Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics.ConclusionsThe novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care. Background: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. Main body: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. Conclusions: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Chronic migraine; OnabotulinumtoxinA; Predictors of response Migraña crónica; OnabotulinumtoxinA; Predictores de respuesta Migranya crònica; OnabotulinumtoxinA; Predictors de resposta The identification of patients who can benefit the most from the available preventive treatments is important in chronic migraine. We explored the rate of excellent responders to onabotulinumtoxinA in a multicenter European study and explored the predictors of such response, according to different definitions. A pooled analysis on chronic migraineurs treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and followed-up for, at least, 9 months was performed. Excellent responders were defined either as patients with a ≥75% decrease in monthly headache days (percent-based excellent responders) or as patients with

Background: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) targeted therapies are an important breakthrough in migraine prevention. Randomized clinical trials, post-hoc analyses, and phase IV studies have demonstrated their efficacy and safety in chronic migraine patients, including those with concomitant medication-overuse and medication-overuse headache. Real world evidence studies support these findings and provide realistic endpoints for estimation of effect. Methods and results We have performed a narrative review including results from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and real-world evidence studies regarding efficacy of the CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies and CGRP-receptor antagonists (gepants) in patients with chronic migraine with concomitant medication overuse (headache). We have included patient profiles and main efficacy endpoints (monthly migraine days, monthly headache days, monthly acute medication days and percentage responder rates). Conclusion The results of this review show that CGRP monoclonal antibodies are effective in chronic migraine patients, also in those with medication overuse (headache). At the time of this review, atogepant clinical trials in chronic migraine have not been communicated. Direct comparative studies are needed for comparison with other treatment options.

Migraña; Fracaso del tratamiento; Productividad laboral Migraine; Treatment failure; Work productivity Migranya; Fracàs del tractament; Productivitat laboral Introduction Migraine is consistently ranked as one of the most disabling neurological conditions in the world, often causing a substantial impairment of daily activities and quality of life. It also carries a high economic burden of direct and indirect healthcare costs. Patients with difficult-to-treat migraine often cycle through different preventive therapies, but real-world prospective evidence describing the burden of migraine in patients with prior preventive treatment failure (PPTF) in Europe is limited. In BECOME, we aimed to characterize and assess the prevalence and burden of migraine in patients with PPTF attending specialist headache centers in Europe and Israel. Furthermore, we assessed this burden in pre-specified subgroups based on the frequency of monthly migraine days (MMD) and number of PPTFs. Methods BECOME was a prospective, non-interventional study conducted in two concurrent parts across 17 countries in Europe and Israel. In part 1, patients visiting the centers over a 3-month period were screened for frequency of PPTF, MMD, and other characteristics. In part 2, patients from part 1 with ≥ 1 PPTF and ≥ 4 MMD were enrolled, and impact of migraine on patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) were examined. Results In part 1 (n = 20,837), 62.2% of patients reported ≥ 1 PPTF. In part 2 (n = 2419), 15.3% of patients reported ≥ 4 PPTF. In part 2, the migraine burden measured by the EuroQoL 5 dimensions 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire indicated an impact of at least moderate severity in performing usual activities in 26.5% of patients, pain/discomfort in 51.2%, and 26.1% reported being at least moderately anxious/depressed. Most patients reported a severe impact on daily activities and disability due to migraine. Abnormal Hospital Anxiety and Depression subscale scores of ≥ 11 were observed in 29% (anxiety) and 19.8% (depression) of the population. In part 2, analysis of HRU showed 21.2% patients visited an emergency department and 8.4% were hospitalized for headache/migraine in the past year. Conclusions This study provides real-world evidence of the high personal, social, and HRU burden of migraine in Europe and Israel. This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The study sponsor participated in the study design, data collection, data review, data analysis and writing of the report. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Anticuerpos monoclonales; Migraña Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Anticossos monoclonals; Migranya Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Monoclonal antibodies; Migraine Background and objective CGRP, a neuropeptide involved in migraine pathophysiology, is also known to play a role in the respiratory system and in immunological conditions such as sepsis. We analyzed the impact of the use of CGRP antagonists in patients with migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Methods This is a multicentre cross-sectional study. From May to November 2020, through a national survey distributed by the Spanish Society of Neurology, we collected data about the presence of COVID-19 symptoms including headache and their characteristics and severity in patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and compared them with patients with migraine not receiving this treatment. We also conducted a subanalysis of patients with COVID-19 symptoms. Results We recruited 300 patients with migraine: 51.7% (155/300) were taking anti-CGRP mAbs; 87.3% were women (262/300). Mean age (standard deviation) was 47.1 years (11.6). Forty-one patients (13.7%) met diagnostic criteria for COVID-19, with no statistically significant difference between patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment (16.1% vs 11.0%, respectively; P = .320). Of the patients with COVID-19, 48.8% (20/41) visited the emergency department and 12.2% (5/41) were hospitalised. Likewise, no clinical differences were found between the groups of patients with and without anti-CGRP mAb treatment. Conclusion Anti-CGRP mAbs may be safe in clinical practice, presenting no association with increased risk of COVID-19. Antecedentes y objetivo El péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP, por sus siglas en inglés), es un neuropéptido involucrado en la fisiopatología de la migraña, que también es conocido por participar en la regulación del sistema respiratorio y en algunas enfermedades inmunológicas como la sepsis. Hemos analizado el impacto del uso de los antagonistas de CGRP en pacientes con migraña durante la pandemia de COVID-19, causada por el coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Métodos Estudio transversal multicéntrico desarrollado entre mayo y noviembre de 2020, en el que la Sociedad Española de Neurología distribuyó a nivel nacional una encuesta de la que recogimos datos sobre la presencia, las características y la gravedad de síntomas de COVID-19, entre los que se encontraba la cefalea, en pacientes con migraña tratados con anticuerpos monoclonales (AcM) anti-CGRP, y los comparamos con los de pacientes con migraña que no recibían dicho tratamiento. También realizamos un subanálisis de los pacientes con síntomas de COVID-19. Resultados Identificamos 300 pacientes con migraña: 51,7% (155/300) recibían AcM anti-CGRP; el 87,3% eran mujeres (262/300) y la edad media (desviación estándar) de la muestra fue de 47,1 (11,6) años. Un total de 41 pacientes (13,7%) cumplían los criterios diagnósticos de COVID-19, sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los pacientes que recibían tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP y los que no (16,1% y 11,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,320). De los pacientes con COVID-19, el 48,8% (20/41) acudieron a urgencias y el 12,2% (5/41) fueron hospitalizados. Igualmente, no se detectaron diferencias clínicas entre los pacientes que recibían dicho tratamiento y los que no. Conclusión El tratamiento con AcM anti-CGRP parece un recurso seguro en la práctica clínica, y no se asocia a un mayor riesgo de COVID-19. No funding was received for this study.

Migranya; Estimulació magnètica transcranial; Escorça prefrontal Migraña; Estimulación magnética transcraneal; Corteza prefrontal Migraine; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Prefrontal cortex Background Migraine may lead to a negative impact on the patients’ quality of life with a subsequent substantial burden to society. Therapy options for treatment and prevention of migraine have progressed over the years and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is one of the promising non-pharmacological options. It induces and alters electric current in the brain via repetitive non-invasive brain stimulation in high frequency. In migraine patients, two common stimulation sites are the M1 cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The mechanism on how rTMS exerts therapeutic effects on migraine is not fully established, but the main postulation is that the neuromodulation via high-frequency rTMS (hf-rTMS) might inhibit pain perception. However, evidence from studies has been conflicting, thus the usefulness of hf-rTMS as migraine preventive treatment is still uncertain at this moment. Methods This is a systematic review protocol describing essential reporting items based on the PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) (Registration number: CRD42020220636). We aim to review the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of hf-rTMS at DLPFC in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as migraine prophylactic treatment. We will search Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Biomed Central for relevant articles from randomised controlled clinical trials that used hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for the treatment of migraine. The risk of bias will be assessed using the version 2 “Risk of bias” tool from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. We will investigate the evidence on efficacy, tolerability and safety and we will compare the outcomes between the hf-rTMS intervention and sham groups. Discussion This systematic review will further determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of hf-rTMS applied at DLPFC for migraine prophylaxis. It will provide additional data for health practitioners and policymakers about the usefulness of hf-rTMS for migraine preventive treatment. This work is funded by Research Management Centre of Universiti Putra Malaysia under research grant number GPB/2017/9585500.

Background New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities.

Efficacy; Galcanezumab; Migraine Eficacia; Galcanezumab; Migraña Eficàcia; Galcanezumab; Migranya Introduction The consistency of the treatment effect of galcanezumab throughout the dosing interval is examined in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Methods This study was a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from episodic (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; both 6-month duration) and chronic (REGAIN; 3-month duration) migraine double-blind trials evaluating the efficacy of a once-monthly injection of galcanezumab 120 mg relative to placebo. Adults with episodic (placebo, n = 894; galcanezumab, n = 444) or chronic migraine (placebo, n = 558; galcanezumab, n = 278) were included. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine headache days, averaged across all months for each week of the dosing interval, was compared between groups and within the galcanezumab group during weeks 1 and 4. Additional analyses examined the mean difference from placebo in weekly migraine headache days and a day-by-day analysis. Results Weekly migraine headache day reduction was significantly greater with galcanezumab relative to placebo every week (P

Background Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) have been developed to numerically quantify disability, impact and quality of life. They have been widely used in migraine clinical trials. However, we still do not know which PRO more accurately reflects preventive treatment response from a patient’s perspective or which one may help us with treatment decisions in clinical practice. They have been used to enforce the efficacy results in clinical trials and real-world evidence so far. The aim of this study was to analyze which PROM is (1) better correlated with all primary efficacy endpoints and (2) which one is better associated with treatment continuation with CGRP-mAbs at week-12, which is usually the moment when this decision is made. Methods Patients with migraine who had received 3 administrations of CGRP-mAbs were evaluated in this prospective cohort study. Primary efficacy outcomes considered: a change in migraine days (MMD), headache days (MHD), pain intensity (INT), acute medication days (AMD) and 50% responder rate. The Spearman coefficient (rs) was the measure used for quantify the strength of the correlation between PROMs and treatment efficacy outcomes changes. A stepwise logistic regression identified which PROM was independently associated with treatment continuation at week-12. Results 263 patients completed 12 weeks of treatment. The efficacy outcomes and PROMs scores were statistically significantly reduced at week-12 for all patients. The role function-restrictive (RFR) domain of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQ) questionnaire was statistically significantly correlated with all primary efficacy outcomes. Relative changes in MSQ total score (OR[95%]: 0.840[0.619-0.973]; p=0.037) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale (OR[95%]: 15.569[6.254-31.533]; p Conclusions Changes in MSQ questionnaire and PGIC scale at week-12 were the PROMs with higher association with CGRP-mAbs response from a patient’s perspective and medical decision-taking.

Background There is currently a wide therapeutic arsenal for migraine patients, without a single first-line preventive drug and we choose the different available alternatives taking into account comorbidities, national guidelines, previous treatments and personal experiences. Our objective was to evaluate the differences in the use of migraine treatments between neurologists from different countries. Methods This is a multi-centre observational study carried out by neurologists from specialized headache units in seven countries, retrospective with consecutive inclusion of all patients presenting with a migraine diagnosis, over a period of three months. Results A total of 734 patients were recruited but only 600 were considered in the analysis in order to homogenize the patient cohorts from countries: 200 Spain (ES), 100 Italy (IT), 85 Russia (RUS), 80 Germany (DE), 60 Portugal (PT), 45 Poland (PL) and 30 Australia (AU). 85.4 % of patients were women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 11.8 years. Considering previous and current preventive treatment, the order of use was: antidepressants (69.3 %), antiepileptic drugs (54.7 %), beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs (49.7 %), OnabotulinumtoxinA (44.0 %) and others (36.2 %). Statistically significant differences were found between all pharmacological classes: antidepressants were commonly used in all countries, with the exception of Poland (AU: 76.7 %, IT: 71.0 %, DE: 60.0 %, PL: 31.1 %, PT: 71.7 %, RUS: 70.6 %, ES: 78.5 %; p p p p p Conclusions There is heterogeneity in the choice of preventive treatment between different countries. Prospective comparative studies of the different oral and subcutaneous alternatives would help to create a global therapeutic algorithm that would guarantee the best option for our patients.

Background Erenumab was approved in Europe for migraine prevention in patients with ≥ 4 monthly migraine days (MMDs). In Spain, Novartis started a personalized managed access program, which allowed free access to erenumab before official reimbursement. The Spanish Neurological Society started a prospective registry to evaluate real-world effectiveness and tolerability, and all Spanish headache experts were invited to participate. We present their first results. Methods Patients fulfilled the ICHD-3 criteria for migraine and had ≥ 4 MMDs. Sociodemographic and clinical data were registered as well as MMDs, monthly headache days, MHDs, prior and concomitant preventive treatment, medication overuse headache (MOH), migraine evolution, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs): headache impact test (HIT-6), migraine disability assessment questionnaire (MIDAS), and patient global improvement change (PGIC). A > 50% reduction of MMDs after 12 weeks was considered as a response. Results We included 210 patients (female 86.7%, mean age 46.4 years old) from 22 Spanish hospitals from February 2019 to June 2020. Most patients (89.5%) suffered from chronic migraine with a mean evolution of 8.6 years. MOH was present in 70% of patients, and 17.1% had migraine with aura. Patients had failed a mean of 7.8 preventive treatments at baseline (botulinum toxin type A—BoNT/A—had been used by 95.2% of patients). Most patients (67.6%) started with erenumab 70 mg. Sixty-one percent of patients were also simultaneously taking oral preventive drugs and 27.6% were getting simultaneous BoNT/A. Responder rate was 37.1% and the mean reduction of MMDs and MHDs was -6.28 and -8.6, respectively. Changes in PROs were: MIDAS: -35 points, HIT-6: -11.6 points, PIGC: 4.7 points. Predictors of good response were prior HIT-6 score p = 0.01), ≤ 5 prior preventive treatment failures (p = 0.026), absence of MOH (p = 0.039), and simultaneous BoNT/A treatment (p Conclusions In real-life, in a personalized managed access program, erenumab shows a good effectiveness profile and an excellent tolerability in migraine prevention in our cohort of refractory patients.

Receptor del pèptid relacionat amb el gen de la calcitonina; Erenumab; Fremanezumab; Galcanezumab; Profilaxi de la migranya Receptor del péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina; Erenumab; Fremanezumab; Galcanezumab; Profilaxis de la migraña Peptide receptor related to the calcitonin gene; Erenumab; Fremanezumab; Galcanezumab; Migraine prophylaxis La migranya és una cefalea primària freqüent i incapacitant que es manifesta amb crisis de 4-72 hores de durada. Les característiques típiques de la cefalea són la localització unilateral, el caràcter pulsatiu, la intensitat moderada o greu, l'empitjorament amb l'activitat física rutinària i l'associació amb nàusees i / o fotofòbia i fonofòbia. El diagnòstic és clínic amb l’aparició d’almenys 5 crisis com a les descrites. Una tercera part dels pacients poden presentar símptomes visuals, sensitius o del sistema nerviós central reversibles (aura) que solen manifestar-se abans de la cefalea, però també poden començar poc després de l’inici de la fase de dolor o continuar durant la cefalea Migraine is a frequent, disabling primary headache that manifests itself with crises lasting 4-72 hours. Typical headache characteristics are unilateral localization, pulsating character, moderate or severe intensity, worsening with routine physical activity, and association with nausea and / or photophobia and phonophobia. The diagnosis is clinical with the appearance of at least 5 seizures as described. One-third of patients may have reversible visual, sensory, or central nervous system (aura) symptoms that usually manifest before headache, but may also begin shortly after the onset of the pain phase or continue during headache. La migraña es una cefalea primaria frecuente e incapacitante que se manifiesta con crisis de 4-72 horas de duración. Las características típicas de la cefalea son la localización unilateral, el carácter pulsátil, la intensidad moderada o grave, el empeoramiento con la actividad física rutinaria y la asociación con náuseas y / o fotofobia y fonofobia. El diagnóstico es clínico con la aparición de al menos 5 crisis como las descritas. Una tercera parte de los pacientes pueden presentar síntomas visuales, sensitivos o del sistema nervioso central reversibles (aura) que suelen manifestarse antes de la cefalea, pero también pueden comenzar poco después del inicio de la fase de dolor o continuar durante la cefalea

Tractament; Migranya; Profilaxi; Treatment; Migraine; Prophylaxis Tratamiento; Migraña; Profilaxis La migranya és una cefalea primària incapacitant que es manifesta amb crisis de 4-72 hores de durada amb localització unilateral, caràcter pulsatiu, intensitat moderada o greu, empitjorament amb l’activitat física rutinària i associació amb nàusees i/o fotofòbia i fonofòbia. En funció de la freqüència de les crisis, es classifica en migranya episòdica o migranya crònica. Té una prevalença del 12,6% entre els adults, afecta el doble de dones que d’homes i disminueix amb l’edat. El tractament de la migranya es fonamenta en el control dels factors desencadenants i dels relacionats amb la cronificació, en el tractament simptomàtic de les crisis i en el tractament preventiu. El tractament simptomàtic s’ha de prescriure a tots els pacients, mentre que el preventiu es reserva per als més greus. Els medicaments que es fan servir per al tractament de la cefalea són el paracetamol, els antiinflamatoris no esteroidals (AINE) i els agonistes del receptor 5-HT1B/1D o triptans. D’altra banda, per al tractament preventiu hi ha disponibles medicaments orals (blocadors adrenèrgics beta, antiepilèptics, blocadors dels canals de calci, antidepressius tricíclics), la toxina botulínica A i els anticossos monoclonals antivia del pèptid relacionat amb el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP).