PO-76 | Atogepant reduces psychological dependence to acute treatments evaluated with the Leeds dependence questionnaire (LDQ): a prospective observational study

BackgroundMigraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use.MethodsAn online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into “current HFM+AMO” (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or “previous HFM+AMO” (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment.ResultsParticipants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous).ConclusionApart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden.Graphical

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for preventive migraine treatment in adults have been demonstrated in multiple, large-scale clinical trials. This non-interventional, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted to examine patient response to eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg every 12 weeks for 6 months in the clinical setting.MethodsEight headache specialists who reported early clinical experience with eptinezumab enrolled the first adults (1–6 adults per clinician; age ≥ 18 years) who met predefined selection criteria (including ≥ 12-month history of migraine, ≥ 4 migraine days/month prior to eptinezumab initiation, receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive eptinezumab doses, and ≥ 12-week follow-up period), and provided detailed patient, disease, treatment, and outcome information via SurveyMonkey and standardized case-report forms.ResultsCharts from 31 adults (median age, 49 years) with migraine (93.6% chronic) who received eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine were reviewed. Most patients (26/31 [83.9%]) were initiated at 100 mg. Eptinezumab reduced mean headache frequency (24.3 monthly headache days [MHDs] at baseline; 17.1 MHDs at Month 6); mean migraine frequency (17.3 monthly migraine days [MMDs] at baseline; 9.1 MMDs at Month 6); attack severity (17/31 [54.8%] patients); acute headache medication use (12.5 acute medication days at baseline; 7.4 at Month 6); and patient-reported disability (11/22 [50.0%] severe at baseline; 7/19 [36.8%] at Month 6). More than three-quarters of patients (24/31 [77.4%]) perceived improved disability/function and most (30/31 [96.8%]) perceived eptinezumab to be well tolerated after 6 months. Most of the headache specialists reported that eptinezumab was well tolerated by patients (30/31 [96.8%]) and that the intravenous infusion experience was not challenging.ConclusionsPatients with migraine who received 6 months of preventive treatment with eptinezumab experienced reductions in migraine and headache frequency, disability, and acute medication use during the course of treatment.

Aims To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide. Methods Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years. Results At baseline, 63–64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (−4.2 and −4.9) than in placebo (−2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of −6.8 and −7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%. Limitations Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability. Conclusions Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

BackgroundClinical guidelines agree that preventive treatment should be considered in patients with uncontrolled migraine despite acute medications or patients with ≥4 migraine days per month. However, the criteria to define the effectiveness of treatment and the factors that inform the decision to (dis)continue it are not clearly defined in clinical practice.MethodsOverall, 148 healthcare practitioners from five European countries completed a two‐wave questionnaire. The Steering Committee defined a simulated set of 108 migraine patient profiles based on the combination of five factors (frequency of the attacks, intensity of the attacks, use of acute migraine medications, patient perception and presence/absence of tolerable side effects). These profiles were used in a Delphi survey among European neurologists to identify the criteria that should be used to decide treatment response and continuation using a conjoint analysis approach.ResultsConsensus was reached for 82/108 (76%) of profiles regarding treatment response, and for 86/108 (80%) regarding treatment continuation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that a ≥50% reduction in the use of acute migraine medications and positive patient's perception of treatment were the most important factors that lead to the decision of continuing (combined factors, OR = 18.3, 95% CI 13.4–25.05).ConclusionsThis survey identifies two relevant outcome measures: one objective (use of acute migraine treatment medications) and one subjective (positive patient perception) that guide the clinician decision to continue preventive treatment in migraine patients.SignificanceIn clinical practice, criteria to define the effectiveness of migraine preventive treatment and factors that guide treatment stop or continuation are not clearly defined. In this simulated clinical setting study, a reduction in the use of acute migraine medications was the factor associated with preventive treatment effectiveness definition. This study also revealed that factors strongly associated with the decision of treatment continuation in real life are the acute migraine medications use and a positive patient's perception of treatment effectiveness.

BackgroundMigraine is associated with a substantial physical and emotional burden for patients. There is also a large economic burden associated with migraine, in terms of lost productivity and healthcare resource use. By reducing the number of monthly migraine days (MMD) experienced by patients, effective preventive treatments can reduce acute medication use and costs of lost productivity.MethodsPatient level data from three erenumab clinical trials (NCT02456740, NCT02483585 and NCT02066415) were combined and migraine day frequencies were examined. The number of days per month on which patients used acute medication was estimated as a function of MMD. Productivity losses were estimated based on patient responses to the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire. Zero-inflated Poisson regression models were used to predict acute medication use and productivity losses per MMD.ResultsThe results demonstrated that as MMD increased, use of acute medication also increased. Similarly, as MMD increased, loss of productivity (due to absenteeism and presenteeism) also increased. The relationship of MMD to both acute headache medication use and lost productivity was non-linear, with marginal outcomes increasing with frequency.ConclusionsAs MMD increased, acute medication use and productivity loss also increased, but the relationship was non-linear. Therefore, it is important that the distribution of MMD patients is accounted for when estimating the outcomes of migraine patients. By reducing the MMD experienced by patients, effective preventive agents may reduce the requirement for acute medication and also reduce productivity loss, which may translate into potential economic savings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-018-0105-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionTreatment target goals for patients receiving preventive migraine treatment are complicated to assess and not achieved by most patients. A headache “number” could establish an understandable treatment target goal for patients with chronic migraine (CM). This study investigates the clinical impact of reduced headache frequency to ≤ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) as a treatment-related migraine prevention target goal.MethodsAll treatment arms were pooled for analysis from the PROMISE-2 trial evaluating eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of CM. Patients (N = 1072) received eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo. Data for the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and acute medication use days were combined for all post-baseline assessments and analyzed by MHD frequency (≤ 4, 5–9, 10–15, > 15) in the 4 weeks preceding assessment.ResultsBased on pooled data, the percentage of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs associated with “very much improved” PGIC was 40.9% (515/1258) versus 22.9% (324/1415), 10.4% (158/1517), and 3.2% (62/1936) of patient-months with 5–9, 10–15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively. Rates of patient-months with ≥ 10 days of acute medication use were 1.9% (21/1111, ≤ 4 MHDs), 4.9% (63/1267, 5–9 MHDs), 49.5% (670/1351, 10–15 MHDs), and 74.1% (1232/1662, > 15 MHDs). Of patient-months with ≤ 4 MHDs, 37.1% (308/830) were associated with “little to none” HIT-6 impairment versus 19.9% (187/940), 10.1% (101/999), and 3.7% (49/1311) of patient-months with 5–9, 10–15, and > 15 MHDs, respectively.ConclusionParticipants improving to ≤ 4 MHDs reported less acute medication use and improved patient-reported outcomes, suggesting that 4 MHDs may be a useful patient-centric treatment target when treating CM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02974153) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02974153).Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-023-00525-x.

<h3>Objective:</h3> To describe demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns (adherence and persistence) among patients with migraine who concomitantly initiated self-injectable CGRP mAbs and novel acute migraine medications. <h3>Background:</h3> Limited evidence is available on real-world treatment patterns of patients initiating concomitant use of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and novel acute migraine medications. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> This retrospective observational study utilized de-identified patient claims data from Merative MarketScan® Research Databases. Included patients initiated self-injectable CGRP mAbs (galcanezumab/erenumab/fremanezumab) and novel acute migraine medications (lasmiditan/rimegepant/ubrogepant) between May 2018 and February 2021, with an overlap between the two. Overlap was defined as ≥2 fills of the index drug (CGRP mAb or novel acute medication, whichever started first), 2 fills of the second drug (novel acute medication if CGRP mAb was the index drug or vice versa), or ≥1 fill each of the index and second drugs within 3 months of index drug initiation. Index date was the date of CGRP mAb initiation. Adherence to CGRP mAbs was assessed as proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR) over a 12-month post-index period. Persistence was defined as the number of days of continuous preventive therapy from index until the end of post-index period, allowing for a maximum gap between fills of 60 days. <h3>Results:</h3> Of the 4,167 patients identified (mean [SD] age: 43.7 [11.2] years; 89.2% females), 59.7% had chronic migraine and 85.0% had CGRP mAbs as their index drug. Anxiety was the most common comorbidity (41.3%). Mean (SD) PDC was 0.7 (0.3) and 47.1% of patients achieved PDC≥0.8. Mean (SD) MPR was 0.9 (0.1) and 80.1% patients achieved MPR≥0.8. Mean (SD) days of persistence for index drug was 273.4 (115.3). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Understanding treatment patterns among patients initiating concomitant use of CGRP mAbs and novel acute medications may provide valuable insight to providers when evaluating migraine treatment regimens. <b>Disclosure:</b> Miss Varnado has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Miss Varnado has stock in Eli Lilly and Company. Ms. Gulati has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hoyt has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Eli Lilly and Co.. Dr. Hoyt has stock in Eli Lilly and Co.. Dr. Wheeler has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Eli Lilly. Dr. Wheeler has stock in Eli Lilly. Jerry Hall has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Eli Lilly &amp; Co.. Jerry Hall has stock in Eli Lilly &amp; Co..

Background:Migraine inflicts substantial personal, social, and economic tolls on many adults in the United States (US). Acute and preventive medicines can offer some relief, but most patients are untreated or experience treatment failures. How preventive-treatment failures affect outcomes for patients no longer on preventive treatments or for patients with migraine is insufficiently understood.Objective:To measure the patient-reported health and economic burdens associated with increasing preventive-treatment failures among US adults with diagnosed migraine.Design:Retrospective, cross-sectional study.Methods:Data analyzed were from the 2023 US National Health and Wellness Survey. Participants were adults diagnosed with migraine, having ≥4 monthly migraine or headache days, having taken acute or preventive prescription migraine medications or currently taking acute prescription migraine medications, and taking no preventive migraine medications. Participants were categorized as never treated with preventive medicines, having failed 1 preventive medicine, or having failed ≥2 preventive medicines. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment, RAND’s 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument, 5-Level EuroQoL instrument (EQ-5D), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment General Health version, 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire, and 7-Item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. Details about medication use and health care resource use (HCRU) were collected. Data were adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting and compared using two-sided two-sample t-tests or Chi-square tests.Results:Patients who had failed preventive treatments had poorer HRQoL, greater work productivity loss, greater nonwork activity impairment, and greater HCRU than patients who had never taken preventive treatments. The number of preventive-treatment failures scaled with disease burden. Patients with ≥2 treatment failures had significantly lower EQ-5D scores (0.69 vs 0.73) than those for prevention-naïve patients; patients with ≥2 treatment failures had significantly higher overall work productivity loss (45.9% vs 34.9%), activity impairment (46.8% vs 36.7%), and higher rates of emergency room visits (37.0% vs 25.2%), hospitalization (23.5% vs 12.3%), and neurologist visits (17.6 vs 10.9%) than those of prevention-naïve patients. Medication overuse rates were similar among patients with any treatment failures and prevention-naïve patients (migraine-specific: 34.4%-39.3%; overall: 59.2%-62.3%).Conclusion:US adults with frequent migraines who failed preventive treatments have significantly greater unmet needs and different acute medication use patterns than adults who never took treatments.

BackgroundAtogepant is a CGRP receptor antagonist used in prevention of migraine. This study assesses the safety and efficacy of this drug in management of migraine headaches.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched until March 24, 2025. Outcomes assessed included monthly migraine and headache day change from baseline at 12 weeks, ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), acute medication use days at 12 weeks, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), score on Role Function-Restrictive domain of MSQ at 12 weeks, score on daily activity performance and physical impairment domains of AIM-D at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis was performed based on different doses of atogepant.ResultsSix RCTs comprising of 4052 patients were included. Atogepant showed significant improvement in patients with migraine in terms of MMD over 12 weeks at all doses, 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg. Moreover, it also reduced monthly headache days, had 50% reduction in MMD, and reduced days requiring acute medication use. Atogepant was shown to increase the risk of TEAE, particularly gastrointestinal (GI) side effect including constipation and nausea, however, occurrence of other side effects with atogepant use was insignificant.ConclusionAtogepant is a highly effective CGRP antagonist for migraine prevention, however, it is associated with increased incidence of GI side effects. Further studies are needed to comprehensively investigate the relationship between atogepant dosage and migraine improvement and safety profile.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-025-04394-z.

BackgroundEffects of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, on patient satisfaction, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and acute medication use were evaluated in a long-term, open-label study in patients with migraine.MethodsPatients with episodic (78.9%) or chronic migraine (21.1%) were evaluated in the CGAJ study, an open-label study with 12-month treatment period. Galcanezumab 120 mg (with a loading dose of 240 mg) or 240 mg was administered subcutaneously once a month during treatment period. A self-rated scale, Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire–Modified (PSMQ-M), was used to measure satisfaction levels. Participants reported HCRU for the previous 6 months at baseline and that which occurred since the patient’s last study visit during treatment period. Acute headache medication use for migraine or headache for the past month was self-reported by participants at baseline and at each monthly visit during treatment period.ResultsAt Months 1, 6, and 12, at least 69% of patients treated with galcanezumab responded positively for overall satisfaction, preference over prior treatments, and less impact from side effects. There were within-group reductions from baseline in migraine-specific HCRU (per 100 person-years) with galcanezumab for health care professional visits (173.4 to 59.6), emergency room visits (20.2 to 4.7), and hospital admissions (3.7 to 0.4) during treatment period. Statistically significant reductions in HCRU were observed for some events. There were significant within-group reductions from baseline in mean number of days/month with acute headache medication use for migraine or headache at each monthly visit during treatment period (overall change: −5.1 for galcanezumab 120 mg/240 mg; p<0.001).ConclusionResults from this long-term, open-label study suggest that treatment with galcanezumab is likely to lead to high patient satisfaction with treatment as well as meaningful reductions in migraine-specific HCRU and acute headache medication use in people with migraine.

BackgroundIn patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).MethodsThe current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline.ResultsIn total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM.ConclusionsIn both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM.Trial registrationsNCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

SUMMARYObjective: To evaluate the impact of preventive treatment of migraine with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A as BOTOX) on the amount of acute headache medications used.* BOTOX is a registered trademark of Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USAResearch design and methods: Data from four studies of BoNT-A treatment for migraine were pooled for an aggregate analysis. All studies were at least 12 weeks in duration. For each study, the amounts of headache medications used at weeks 8-12 following BoNT-A treatment were compared with pretreatment baseline amounts and expressed as a percentage change.Main outcome measures: The mean value for the reduction in medication usage was calculated by pooling data from the individual studies and weighting the data according to the sample size of each study.Results: Four studies (one published, and three presented as recent meeting abstracts) with a total of 167 patients quantified acute headache medication use before and after BoNT-A treatment. The weighted average reduction in medication usage (primarily triptans) was 57% (range 38–75%).Conclusions: The results of this pooled analysis indicated a 57% reduction in acute headache rmedication use in the 8- to 12-week period following injection of BoNT-A. A reduction of this magnitude could represent substantial savings in the costs of acute medications. This could help to offset the total cost of treatment and suggests BoNT-A may be a cost-reasonable option for preventive headache care considering acute medication offsets alone especially in patients with chronic headache with higher acute medication use. Additional larger controlled efficacy and safety studies must be done to confirm these results since three of the four studies were preliminary research and of different study types. Further prospective studies of direct and indirect costs, including those for disability and lost productivity, are needed to evaluate the overall impact of BoNT-A therapy on the economic, societal, and individual burden of migraine headache.

BackgroundNew acute and preventive migraine medications are available, but data on current treatment patterns are limited. This study describes migraine treatment patterns among patients initiating novel acute migraine specific medications (nAMSMs), overall and by prior use of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study using IQVIA open-source pharmacy and medical claims data, we identified patients with ≥ 1 claim for a nAMSM (ubrogepant, rimegepant, lasmiditan) between 01/01/2020 and 09/30/2020 (index period). Patients were indexed on their first nAMSM claim and stratified into 2 cohorts: patients with prior mAb use (≥ 1 claim for erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab in the 6-month pre-index period) or patients without prior mAb use. Treatment patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period.ResultsOverall, 78,574 patients were identified (63% indexed on ubrogepant, 34% on rimegepant, and 3% on lasmiditan) with 26,656 patients (34%) having had prior mAb use. In the pre-index period, 79% of patients used non-mAb preventive medications and 75% of patients used acute medications. Following the index nAMSM claim, 65% of patients had ≥ 1 refill and 21% had ≥ 4 refills of their index nAMSM; 10% of patients switched to another nAMSM. Post-index mAb use was observed in 82% of patients with a prior mAb and 15% of patients without. Among patients with pre- and post-index use of acute medications, 38% discontinued ≥ 1 acute medication class in the post-index period. Among patients with concomitant use of traditional preventive medications at index, 30% discontinued ≥ 1 concomitant preventive anti-migraine medication in the post-index period.ConclusionsMost patients initiating nAMSMs had prior treatment with acute and preventive medications. Approximately one-third of patients had prior treatment with anti-CGRP pathway mAbs. After starting nAMSMs, more than one-third of patients discontinued at least one traditional acute medication and one-third of patients discontinued at least one traditional preventive medication.Despite nAMSM initiation, most patients with prior anti-CGRP pathway mAb use continued mAb use. Around 15% of patients without a prior mAb newly started a mAb. These results provide insight into how nAMSMs and mAbs have been integrated into clinical management of migraine in the real-world.

Atogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM) in participants with and without acute medication overuse. This subgroup analysis of the phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROGRESS trial evaluated adults with a ≥1-year history of CM, ≥15 monthly headache days (MHDs), and ≥8 monthly migraine days (MMDs) during the 4-week baseline period. Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, atogepant 30 mg twice daily (BID), or atogepant 60 mg once daily (QD) for 12 weeks and were analyzed by acute medication overuse status (triptans/ergots for ≥10 days per month, simple analgesics for ≥15 days per month, or combinations of triptans/ergots/simple analgesics for ≥10 days per month). Outcomes included change from baseline in mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days; ≥50% reduction in mean MMDs across 12 weeks; and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Of 755 participants in the modified intent-to-treat population, 500 (66.2%) met baseline acute medication overuse criteria (placebo, n = 169 [68.7%]; atogepant 30 mg BID, n = 161 [63.6%]; atogepant 60 mg QD, n = 170 [66.4%]). The least squares mean difference (LSMD) (95% CI) from placebo in MMDs was -2.7 (-4.0 to -1.4) with atogepant 30 mg BID and -1.9 (-3.2 to -0.6) with atogepant 60 mg QD. Mean MHDs (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.0 to -1.5] and -2.1 [-3.3 to -0.8]) and mean acute medication use days (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.1 to -1.6] and -2.6 [-3.9 to -1.3]) were reduced and a higher proportion of participants achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs (odds ratio [95% CI] 2.5 [1.5-4.0] and 2.3 [1.4-3.7]) with atogepant 30 mg BID and atogepant 60 mg QD. There was a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria over 12 weeks. Atogepant improved PRO measures. Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse. Atogepant was effective in participants with CM, with and without acute medication overuse, as evidenced by reductions in mean MMDs, MHDs, and acute medication use days; reductions in the proportion of participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria; and improvements in PROs. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03855137. Submitted: February 25, 2019; first patient enrolled: March 11, 2019. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03855137. This study provides Class II evidence that atogepant reduces mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days in adult patients with or without medication overuse.

Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications. To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs. This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine. This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy's, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.