Preventive Treatment Of Chronic Migraine Research Articles

Pericranial Muscle Stiffness, Pain Thresholds, and Tenderness during a Treatment Cycle of OnabotulinumtoxinA for Chronic Migraine Prevention

Background: Treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) is effective as a preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM). Preclinical studies suggest that the mechanism of action of BoNT-A in migraine is based on blocking unmyelinated C fibers. We aimed to investigate whether the muscle-relaxing effect of BoNT-A is associated with the preventive mechanism in patients with chronic migraine by measuring the stiffness, pain thresholds, and tenderness of the BoNT-A-applied muscles. Methods: A total of 22 patients with CM who were already in BoNT-A treatment participated in this longitudinal prospective study. Pericranial muscle stiffness was measured using ultrasound shear wave elastography, which measures the speed of shear waves propagating through the muscle. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were obtained via algometry, and muscle tenderness was measured via manual palpation. Measurements were made before BoNT-A injections and six weeks after the treatment. The measurements were performed while the muscles were maximally relaxed. The patients also completed daily diaries on headache and neck pain. Results: No change was observed in muscle stiffness (p = 0.737) or pericranial muscle tenderness (p = 0.400). The PPT over the trapezius muscles increased from 250 kPa before treatment to 304 kPa six weeks after treatment (p = 0.027). No change was observed on the temporalis muscles (p = 0.200) nor the non-dominant index finger (p = 0.067). BoNT-A decreased neck pain (p = 0.008) and headache (p = 0.007). Conclusions: The findings suggest that BoNT-A leads to the desensitization of cutaneous and muscle nociceptors in the head and neck regions, whereas muscle relaxation might not be an important part of the anti-migraine effect.

Update of Gepants in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine.

Despite the unmet therapeutic needs of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and/or medication overuse, available treatment options are limited. Recently, four calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have been approved for the treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the preventive treatment of CM with gepants and highlights recent findings. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown promising results for rimegepant and atogepant as preventive treatments for CM. In an RCT targeting patients with CM, atogepant demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean monthly migraine days, irrespective of acute medication overuse. Moreover, the patients reported no significant safety concerns and exhibited good tolerance to treatment. These findings highlight the potential of gepants as a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with CM and/or medication overuse. Gepant use will help improve the management and quality of life of individuals with this debilitating condition.

Experience of treatment of chronic migraine with botulinum toxin type A among aesthetic medicine professionals in Poland.

This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and standard of treatment of chronic migraine with botulinum toxin by Polish aesthetic medicine professionals. Onabotulinum toxin A injections are used as a preventive treatment for chronic migraine. Besides neurologists, healthcare professionals of multiple specialisms can offer this treatment. Aesthetic medicine professionals commonly use the treatment to extend the scope of their practice. This may bring about a situation wherein physicians with different levels of experience and training are providing botulinum toxin injections for chronic migraine. An online survey asking about patient qualification procedures, the level of adherence to the PREEMPT paradigm, product-, technique-, dosing-, and treatment intervals-related aspects of the treatment, efficacy evaluation practices and concerns about the use of botulinum toxin in chronic migraine was sent to 110 Polish physicians practicing aesthetic medicine. The response rate was 73.6%. The results of the survey revealed multiple deviations from the current paradigm of treatment of chronic migraine with botulinum toxin, from improper patient qualification through treatment procedure to the evaluation of the efficacy. Only around one-third of professionals evaluated the observed effectiveness of therapy as very good. Most respondents wanted to expand their knowledge and skills in chronic migraine treatment. There is a considerable willingness among aesthetic medicine specialists to treat patients with chronic migraine with botulinum toxin. The current levels of knowledge and skills in this treatment are limited, and multiple physicians declared deviations from the diagnostic criteria and the therapeutic protocol. Transferring aesthetic medicine practices to neurology treatment is common and may result in a lack of effectiveness of treatment or even intensification of symptoms. An appropriate educational programme should be implemented for all physicians authorised to administer BoNT-A in Poland.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137). Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]). Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. Allergan (now AbbVie).

Atogepant, the first oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine

Atogepant, the first oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine

Improving to Four or Fewer Monthly Headache Days Per Month Provides a Clinically Meaningful Therapeutic Target for Patients with Chronic Migraine.

Treatment 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. All treatment arms were pooled for analysis from the PROMISE-2 trial evaluating eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of CM. Patients (N = 1072) received eptinezumab 100mg, 300mg, 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 4weeks preceding assessment. Based 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 ≥ 10days 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. Participants 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. ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02974153) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02974153 ).

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS phase 3 trial (S47.005)

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS phase 3 trial (S47.005)

Chronic Migraine as a Primary Chronic Pain Syndrome and Recommended Prophylactic Therapeutic Options: A Literature Review.

Chronic pain conditions have a high socio-economic impact and represent a burden for patients, and their management is a challenge for healthcare professionals. Chronic migraine is one of the chronic primary headache disorders, which belong to chronic primary pain syndromes as per the new concept of multiple parenting. The aims of this review were to provide an overview of the latest classification systems involving both entities, the epidemiological data, and the currently recommended prophylactic treatment options for chronic migraine. Randomized controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, real-world data, and review articles were analyzed. Chronic migraine is a prevalent and highly burdensome disease and is associated with high headache-related disability and worsening health-related quality of life. Treatment of chronic migraine includes pharmacological or, in drug-refractory cases, non-pharmacological (e.g., neuromodulatory) approaches. Among pharmacological treatment options, injectable botulinum toxin type A and calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting human and fully humanized monoclonal antibodies (i.e., eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) are highly recommended in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Novel migraine-specific therapies offer a solution for this devastating and difficult-to-treat chronic pain condition.

OnabotulinumtoxinA: Still the Present for Chronic Migraine.

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) is one of the few drugs approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM). Despite this, some aspects of its mechanism of action are still a matter of debate, and the precise magnitude of BT-A effects needs to be completely elucidated. BT-A acts primarily upon trigeminal and cervical nerve endings, by inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators such as calcitonin gene-related peptide, as well as reducing the insertion of ionotropic and metabotropic receptors into the neuronal membrane. These actions increase the depolarization threshold of trigeminal and cervical nerve fibers, thus reducing their activation. The central actions of BT-A are still a matter of debate: a retrograde axonal transport has been postulated, but not clearly assessed in humans. Clinically, the efficacy of BT-A in CM has been assessed by large, randomized placebo-controlled trials, such as the Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. Those results were also confirmed in a wide range of open-label studies, even for long-term periods. Recently, novel findings have led to a better understanding of its pharmacological actions and clinical usefulness in migraine prevention. This narrative review summarizes, updates and critically revises the available data on BT-A and its possible implementation in chronic migraine. Moreover, the current role of BT-A in CM treatment has been discussed.

Effectiveness and Safety of Chronic Migraine Preventive Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review.

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 (> 1year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6months, topiramate up to 3months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12months. 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 3years. 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.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine

Objective To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data. Methods We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs. Results Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140). Conclusion These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

Preventive treatment can reverse cognitive impairment in chronic migraine

ObjectiveTo study the impact of chronic migraine (CM) on the cognition and quality of life (QoL) of patients in the interictal period, and to analyse the degree of reversibility of any observed alterations following the use of preventive treatment.BackgroundCM is a highly disabling disease, and migraineurs often have associated comorbidities, such as subjective memory problems, that are involved in the development of cognitive impairment. Our hypotheses are that patients suffering from chronic migraine experience objective cognitive alterations that are not only due to the pain that they suffer or their current emotional state. Furthermore, preventive treatment should be capable of reversing, or at least reducing, the impact of CM on the cognition and QoL of migraineurs.MethodsThe cognition and QoL of 50 control subjects and 46 patients with CM were assessed using a battery of tests, prior to the use of preventive treatment based on botulinum toxin or oral drugs and after 3 months of this treatment.ResultsCompared with controls, patients with CM had lower scores on the assessment of cognitive performance (Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test [ROCF] (p<0.05), Trail Making Test [TMT] B) (p < 0.05) and QoL (p < 0.05). Three months after the use of preventive treatment, improvement was observed in all cognitive parameters (p < 0.05) and QoL (p < 0.05), except the ROCF copy task (p = 0.79). No statistically significant differences were observed when these outcomes were compared based on treatment.ConclusionsThis study confirms poor cognitive performance that is not explained by migraine pain itself, as it occurs in the interictal period, irrespective of the patient’s emotional status. Our findings show that these effects are reversible in some cases with preventive treatment of CM, reaffirming the important impact of this condition on the QoL of these patients, and the need to establish preventive treatment guidelines.

Real-world long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine: a 52-week, single-center, prospective, observational study

BackgroundClinical trials have shown that erenumab is effective and well-tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. To extend the results from clinical trials, we assessed the real-world efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine from the outpatient clinic at the Danish Headache Center.MethodsA 52-week, single-center, prospective, observation study of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine who are eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor in Denmark. The primary outcome was defined as proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to weeks 9–12.ResultsA total of 300 adult patients with chronic migraine were enrolled and received at least one dose of erenumab. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of monthly headache days was 23 ± 4.9 and mean number of MMDs was 16.8 ± 6.4. Of 300 enrolled patients, 273 (91.0%) patients completed 12 weeks of treatment, and 119 (39.7%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. The number of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs from baseline to weeks 9–12 was 195 (71.4%) of 273 patients. Sustained ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs at all assessment periods throughout the 52-week treatment period was achieved by 102 (34%) of 300 patients. Adverse events occurred in 220 (73.3%) out of 300 patients. The most common adverse event was constipation. Treatment discontinuation due to lack of tolerability occurred in 41 (13.7%) patients.ConclusionsAmong adult patients with chronic migraine and previous failure of medications for migraine prevention, erenumab was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Retrospective Chart Review: The Feasibility of a Self-Administered Nasal Spray Targeting the Sphenopalatine Ganglion (SPG) in Treatment of Chronic Migraine.

Objective: To describe the results of a self-administered anesthetic nasal spray developed to target the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for the acute and preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Background: The SPG is a known migraine treatment target that may be anesthetized via minimally invasive in-office procedures. Historically, various noninvasive selfadministered intranasal anesthetic formulations have been developed for the treatment of migraine, with some studies suggesting implication of the SPG mechanism, however, this has needed further development and data on efficacy has been mixed and inconclusive. During COVID-19 pandemic clinic closures, we noticed a substantial need for improved at-home therapies for our university headache center patients with chronic migraine. Methods: We developed a compounded anesthetic nasal spray utilizing upward force and a supine delivery positioning with the aim of better targeting the SPG. Patients were instructed to use this treatment once per month as prevention and, additionally, up to four times per month as need acutely. Retrospective chart review was performed. Physician clinical judgment of patient reports was used to assign a dichotomous conclusion of the usefulness of such treatment for patients at an interval of 3 months (preventive effect) and acutely (acute effect). Adverse effects were also reviewed. Results differentiate treatment response in medication overuse headache (MOH) and peripartum subgroups as well. Results: 52 out of 66 (79%) patients reported improvement in overall headache frequency or intensity at 3 month follow up (preventive effect). 40 out of 53 (75%) patients who using the treatment acutely reported improvement in headache intensity (acute effect). Of the 6 patients also with MOH, 5 (83%) reported preventive effect and 4 (67%) reported acute effect. Of the 9 patients who were also peripartum, all 9 (100%) reported preventive effect and 8 (89%) reported acute effect. No significant adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: A self-administered nasal spray developed to target the SPG may be an effective and safe therapy for the acute and preventive treatment of chronic migraine. This delivery method suggests safe and potentially successful blockade of the SPG at home. Further developments in non-invasive intranasal techniques are warranted.

Long-term treatment with galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from the open-label extension of the REGAIN study

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. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02614261; www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614261

Efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment of topiramate and greater occipital nerve block versus topiramate monotherapy for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A randomized controlled trial.

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment of topiramate and greater occipital nerve block to topiramate monotherapy in adult chronic migraine patients. Options for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine are limited and costly. Combination treatments do not have an evidence base yet. This was a parallel group, 3 arms with 1:1:1 allocation ratio randomized controlled study in consecutive adult chronic migraine patients attending Headache Clinic in a tertiary care hospital. Patients received either topiramate monotherapy 100 mg/day (group A), or topiramate plus greater occipital nerve block with 40 mg lidocaine (2%) and 80mg (2 ml) methylprednisolone as the first injection followed by monthly injections of lidocaine for the next 2 months (group B) or topiramate plus greater occipital nerve block with 40 mg lidocaine (2%) injections monthly for 3 months (group C). The primary endpoint was the mean change in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Multiple secondary endpoints were assessed that included among others, achievement of ≥50% reduction in mean monthly headache days compared to baseline at Month 3 and assessment for any adverse events. One hundred and twenty-five patients were randomized; 41 to group A, 44 to group B, and 40 to group C. Efficacy assessments were done for 121 patients. Patients receiving combination treatment of topiramate and greater occipital nerve block with steroids and lidocaine and greater occipital nerve block with only lidocaine compared to topiramate monotherapy showed greater reductions in monthly migraine days at Month 3 (-9.6 vs -7.3 days; p = 0.003) and (-10.1 vs -7.3 days; p < 0.001) respectively. Greater proportion of patients in both the combination treatment groups (added greater occipital nerve block with and without steroid) achieved ≥50% reduction in mean monthly headache days [71.4% vs 39%; OR (95% CI) 3.9(1.6-9.8); p = 0.004] and [62.4% vs 39%; OR (95% CI) 2.7(1.1-6.7); p = 0.034] respectively, compared to those receiving topiramate monotherapy. Adverse effects between the groups were comparable although patients receiving combination treatment with added greater occipital nerve block reported transient adverse effects like post-injection dizziness, local site swelling, and pain. No serious adverse event was reported. Combination treatments of topiramate with monthly injections of greater occipital nerve block were more effective in reducing monthly migraine days in chronic migraine than topiramate monotherapy at Month 3. Combination treatments were well tolerated.

Real-World Evidence for the Safety and Efficacy of CGRP Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Added to OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Migraine Prevention in Adult Patients With Chronic Migraine.

Background: OnabotulinumtoxinA and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) target different migraine pathways, therefore, combination treatment may provide additional effectiveness for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM) than either treatment alone. The objective of this study was to collect real-world data to improve the understanding of the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of adding a CGRP mAb to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for the preventive treatment of CM.Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal study conducted using data extracted from a single clinical site's electronic medical records (EMR) of adult patients (≥18 years) with CM treated with ≥2 consecutive cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA before ≥1 month of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA and CGRP mAb (erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) combination treatment. Safety was evaluated by the rate of adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). The proportion of patients who discontinued either onabotulinumtoxinA, a CGRP mAb, or combination treatment, and the reason for discontinuation, if available, was collected. The effectiveness of combination preventive treatment was assessed by the reduction in monthly headache days (MHD). Outcome data were extracted from EMR at the first CGRP mAb prescription (index) and up to four assessments at ~3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-index. The final analyses were based on measures consistently reported in the EMR.Results: EMR were collected for 192 patients, of which 148 met eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. Erenumab was prescribed to 56.7% of patients, fremanezumab to 42.6%, and galcanezumab to 0.7%. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) MHD were 20.4 (6.6) prior to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment and 14.0 (6.9) prior to the addition of a CGRP mAb (baseline). After real-world addition of a CGRP mAb, there were significant reductions in MHD at the first assessment (~3 months) (mean −2.6 days/month, 95% CI −3.7, −1.4) and at all subsequent visits. After ~12 months of continuous combination treatment, MHD were reduced by 4.6 days/month (95% CI −6.7, −2.5) and 34.9% of patients achieved ≥50% MHD reduction from index. AEs were reported by 18 patients (12.2%), with the most common being constipation (n = 8, 5.4% [onabotulinumtoxinA plus erenumab only]) and injection site reactions (n = 5, 3.4%). No SAEs were reported. Overall, 90 patients (60.8%) discontinued one or both treatments. The most common reason for discontinuing either treatment was lack of insurance coverage (40%); few (~14%) patients discontinued a CGRP mAb and none discontinued onabotulinumtoxinA due to safety/tolerability.Conclusion: In this real-world study, onabotulinumtoxinA was effective at reducing MHD and the addition of a CGRP mAb was safe, well-tolerated and associated with incremental and clinically meaningful reductions in MHD for those who stayed on the combination treatment. No new safety signals were identified. Of those who discontinued, the majority reported lack of insurance coverage as a reason. Prospective real-world and controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the safety and potential benefits of this combination treatment paradigm for people with CM.

Topiramate versus propranolol for prevention of chronic migraine: A randomized double-blind controlled trial (TOP-PRO study)

Except for topiramate, oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM) lacks credible evidence. We conducted TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind RCT, to know whether propranolol is as efficacious (non-inferior) and safe as topiramate for the prevention of CM.

TOP-PRO study: A randomized double-blind controlled trial of topiramate versus propranolol for prevention of chronic migraine.

The aim of the TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind randomized controlled trial, was to assess the efficacy (non-inferiority) and tolerability of propranolol compared to topiramate for the prevention of chronic migraine. Except for topiramate, oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine lacks credible evidence. Chronic migraine patients aged above 18 years and less than 65 years of age, not on any preventive treatment were randomly allocated to receive topiramate (100 mg/day) or propranolol (160 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in migraine days per 28 days at the end of 24 weeks from baseline. A mean difference of 1.5 days per four weeks was chosen as the cut-off delta value. Multiple secondary efficacy outcomes and treatment emergent adverse events were also assessed. As against the planned sample size of 244, only 175 patients could be enrolled before the spread of the corona virus disease-2019 pandemic and enforcement of lockdown in India. Of the 175 randomized patients, 95 (topiramate 46 and propranolol 49) completed the trial. The mean change in migraine days was -5.3 ± 1.2 vs -7.3 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.226) for topiramate and propranolol groups respectively. Propranolol was found to be non-inferior and not superior to topiramate (point estimate of -1.99 with a 95% confidence interval of -5.23 to 1.25 days). Multiple secondary outcomes also did not differ between the two groups. Intention to treat analysis of 175 patients and per-protocol analysis of 95 patients yielded concordant results. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Propranolol (160mg/day) was non-inferior, non-superior to topiramate (100mg/day) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and had a comparable tolerability profile.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2019/05/018997).

Switching of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide in chronic migraine in clinical practice: a case series

A multicentre case series of patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with monoclonal antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP-mAbs) switching were developed. The effectiveness and safety of CGRP-mAbs switching...