Preventive Treatment Of Chronic Migraine Research Articles

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...

Oral Cannabinoid Preparations for the Treatment of Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Study.

To explore the effectiveness and safety of three oral cannabinoid preparations (FM2®, Istituto farmaceutico militare, Firenze, Italy; Bedrocan®, Bedrocan International, Vandaam, Netherlands; and Bediol®, Bedrocan International, Vandaam, Netherlands) in the treatment of chronic migraine. Retrospective, cohort study. Patients with chronic migraine who received FM2, Bedrocan, or Bediol daily for the off-label treatment of their headache, for up to 6 months. The number of migraine days per month, pain intensity, the number of acute medications taken per month, the number of days per month on which the patient took at least one acute medication, and adverse events were recorded at baseline and at 3 months and 6 months after the start of treatment with oral cannabinoid preparations. The number of migraine days did not change significantly after the third month or the sixth month when compared with baseline (P = 0.1182). The pain intensity (P = 0.0004), the acute medication consumption (P = 0.0006), and the number of days per month in which patients took at least one acute medication significantly decreased when compared with baseline (P = 0.0004). No significant differences were found between patients who were still taking a preventive treatment for chronic migraine and those who were not (all P > 0.05). Different oral cannabinoid preparations displayed similar levels of effectiveness (all P > 0.05). The adverse events were mostly mild and occurred in 43.75% of patients. Oral cannabinoid preparations may have a role in reducing pain intensity and acute medication intake in patients with chronic migraine, but the magnitude of the effect seems modest; further studies are needed.

Predictors of response to erenumab after 12 months of treatment.

ObjectiveErenumab is a monoclonal antibody acting against calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor and approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. The aim of the present study is to identify clinical predictors of good response in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse‐headache.Material and methodsThis was a retrospective single‐center not funded study. Enrolled patients were affected by chronic migraine and medication overuse‐headache treated with erenumab monthly, up to 1 year. At 1 year, patients were classified as good responders if they displayed a ≥50% reduction in the number of headache days per months compared to the baseline.ResultsAfter 1 year, a significant improvement in the number of headache days per months, analgesic consumption, 6‐items headache impact test, and migraine disability assessment questionnaire scores were obtained compared to the baseline. Patients who obtained a ≥50% reduction in the number of headache days per month compared to the baseline displayed a longer history of medication overuse‐headache, a higher number of painkillers taken per month at the baseline and a higher number of failed preventive treatments in the past.ConclusionsPatients with longer medication overuse‐headache duration, higher analgesic intake, and a higher number of previous preventive treatment failures may receive less benefit with erenumab.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Versus Botulinum Neurotoxin a in the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Migraine: An Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) are new agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Comparison between CGRPmAbs and previously approved Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) will inform optimal preventive treatment of chronic migraine, but head-to-head trials are lacking. We therefore aimed to perform adjusted indirect comparison between CGRPmAbs and BoNT-A through a meta-analysis. Methods: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, clinical registries, and government websites were searched from inception to September 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing CGRPmAbs or BoNT-A with placebo in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine were included. The primary outcomes were headache days and migraine days measured at week 12. Data were synthesized by using a frequentist approach; and the treatments were ranked by P-score. Results: We included 10 trials (n = 4,678) after screening 1049 candidates. Six trials were with low risk of bias. Fremanezumab had an effect similar to BoNT-A in the reduction of headache days at week 12 (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.08, 95%CI -0.55 to -0.7). Galcanezumab reduced more migraine days than BoNT-A at week 12 (SMD, -0.94, 95%CI −1.24 to −0.63); fremanezumab showed similar findings (SMD, −0.55, 95%CI −0.85 to −0.24). Galcanezumab and fremanezumab had better effect in mitigating headache impact at week 12. CGRPmAbs and BoNT-A had similar adverse event rate. Conclusion: CGRPmAbs and BoNT-A had similar effect in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. BoNT-A might be preferentially selected owing to its cost-effectiveness profiles. Further studies with direct comparison of the two treatments are warranted.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibody Versus Botulinum Toxin for the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Migraine: Evidence From Indirect Treatment Comparison.

Background: The previously approved botulinum toxin and nowadays promising calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody have shown efficacy for preventing chronic migraine (CM). However, there is no direct evidence for their relative effectiveness and safety. In this study, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison to compare the efficacy and safety of CGRP monoclonal antibody with botulinum toxin for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Methods: Up to August 31, 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central). Weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) software was used to conduct indirect treatment comparison. Results: Ten studies were pooled with 6,325 patients in our meta-analysis. Both botulinum toxin and CGRP monoclonal antibody demonstrated favorable efficacy in the change of migraine days, headache days, HIT-6 score, and 50% migraine responder rate compared with placebo. In indirect treatment comparison, CGRP monoclonal antibody was superior to botulinum toxin in the frequency of acute analgesics intake (WMD = −1.31, 95% CI: −3.394 to 0.774, p = 0.02113), the rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (RR = 0.664, 95% CI: 0.469 to 0.939, p = 0.04047), and the rate of treatment-related serious adverse events (RR = 0.505, 95% CI: 0.005 to 46.98, p < 0.001). Conclusion: For chronic migraine patients, CGRP monoclonal antibody was slightly better than botulinum toxin in terms of efficacy and safety. In the future, head-to-head trials would be better to evaluate the efficacy and safety between different medications in the prevention of chronic migraine.

Chronic Migraine and Medication Overuse Headache Worsening After OnabotulinumtoxinA Withdrawn Due to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 Pandemic.

Introduction: OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) is a preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM), which needs to be administered regularly by a trained clinician every 3 months. The spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 pandemic has forced many patients to momentarily stop the scheduled BT-A injections. The goal of this study was to explore whether those patients experienced a worsening of their CM and, if any, the clinical predictors of migraine worsening after BT-A withdrawal.Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Patients' clinical data were obtained from their clinical documentation stored at each center. In particular, the following variables were collected: the mean number of headache days in the last month (NHD), the average number of painkillers taken in the last month (AC), the average number of days in which patients took, at least, one painkiller in the last month (NDM), the average intensity of migraine using the numeric rating scale (NRS) score in the last month, and the average score obtained at the six-item Headache Impact Test. The variables mentioned earlier were compared before and after BT-A withdrawal.Results: After BT-A suspension, there was a significant increase in the NHD (P = 0.0313, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), AC (P = 0.0421, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), NDM (P = 0.0394, paired t-test), NRS score (P = 0.0069, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), and six-item Headache Impact Test score (P = 0.0372, Kruskal–Wallis rank test). Patients who were not assuming other preventive treatments other than BT-A displayed similar results. Patients who experienced a >30% worsening in NHD after BT-A was withdrawn displayed a longer CM history (P = 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), a longer MOH duration (P = 0.0017, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), a higher AC value at the baseline (P = 0.0149, Kruskal–Wallis rank test), a higher NDM (P = 0.0024, t-test), and a higher average value of the NRS score (P = 0.0073, Kruskal–Wallis rank test).Conclusion: BT-A withdrawn during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 pandemic was associated with a general worsening in patients suffering from CM, hence the need to continue BT-A injection to avoid patients' worsening.

Effects of fremanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and comorbid depression: Subgroup analysis of the randomized HALO CM study.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and moderate to severe depression.BackgroundFremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene–related peptide, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. CM and depression are highly comorbid.MethodsThe 12‐week, Phase 3 HALO trial randomized patients with CM to fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg/placebo/placebo), fremanezumab monthly (675/225/225 mg), or placebo. Post hoc analyses evaluated the effects of fremanezumab in patients with moderate to severe depression (baseline 9‐item Patient Health Questionnaire sum score ≥10) on monthly number of headache days of at least moderate severity; monthly migraine days; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC); 6‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) scores; and depression.ResultsFor the 219/1121 (19.5%) patients with moderate to severe depression at baseline, fremanezumab was associated with a significant reduction in monthly number of headache days of at least moderate severity for active treatment versus placebo (least‐squares mean change ± standard error for quarterly dosing: −5.3 ± 0.77; for monthly dosing: −5.5 ± 0.72; and for placebo: −2.2 ± 0.81; both p < 0.001). More patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in headache days of at least moderate severity with fremanezumab (quarterly: 31/78 [39.7%]; monthly: 39/96 [40.6%]) than placebo (9/67 [13.4%]; both p < 0.001). Compared with placebo, fremanezumab improved PGIC and HIT‐6 scores.ConclusionsFremanezumab demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of CM and reduced headache impact in patients with comorbid depression.

Erenumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine complicated with medication overuse headache: an observational, retrospective, 12-month real-life study.

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, which has been approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM). The aim of this study was to explore the safety and effectiveness of erenumab in patients suffering from CM and medication overuse headache (MOH) in a real-life setting, up to 1 year. Data regarding 81 patients treated with erenumab were retrospectively analyzed. Every 3 months, the following variables were collected: the mean number of headache days per month (headache index (HI)), the average number of painkillers taken per month (analgesic consumption (AC)), the mean number of days with painkiller consumption (number of days on medication (NDM)), the headache intensity (numeric rating scale (NRS) score), the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and the Self-Reported Instrument to Assess Work-Related Difficulties in Patients With Migraine (HEADWORK) scores. The HI, AC, and NDM and the NRS, HIT-6, and HEADWORK scores were significantly lower at every time point from the 3rd month onward compared to baseline (all P < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between patients who underwent painkiller detoxification before starting erenumab and those who did not (all P > 0.05). No significant differences were found between patients taking erenumab in combination with other preventive treatments and the ones taking it alone (all P ≥ 0.05). Five patients dropped out because of adverse events, which resolved after stopping erenumab. Erenumab was safe and effective for CM complicated with MOH. Painkiller withdrawal and the association with other preventive treatment(s) seem useless.

Topiramate, acupuncture, and BoNT-A for chronic migraine: a network meta-analysis.

Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) was the primary choice for preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Topiramate and acupuncture showed promising effect for chronic migraine, but their effectiveness relative to BoNT-A was rarely studied. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and acceptability between topiramate, acupuncture, and BoNT-A. We searched OVID Medline, Embase, the Cochrane register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), the Chinese Clinical Trial Register, and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared topiramate, acupuncture, and BoNT-A with any of them or placebo in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. A network meta-analysis was performed by using a frequentist approach and a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were reduction in monthly headache days and monthly migraine days at week 12. Acceptability was defined as the number of dropouts owing to adverse events. We included 15 RCTs (n=2545). Eleven RCTs were at low risk of bias. The network meta-analyses (n=2061) showed that acupuncture (2061 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% CI: -2.35 to -0.87) and topiramate (582 participants; SMD -0.4, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.04) ranked the most effective in the reduction of monthly headache days and migraine days, respectively; but they were not significantly superior over BoNT-A. Topiramate caused the most treatment-related adverse events and the highest rate of dropouts owing to adverse events. Topiramate and acupuncture were not superior over BoNT-A; BoNT-A was still the primary preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Large-scale RCTs with direct comparison of these three treatments are warranted to verified the findings.

Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Headache.

Botulinum toxin type A has been used in the treatment of chronic migraine for over a decade and has become established as a well-tolerated option for the preventive therapy of chronic migraine. Ongoing research is gradually shedding light on its mechanism of action in migraine prevention. Given that its mechanism of action is quite different from that of the new monoclonal antibodies directed against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, it is unlikely to be displaced to any major extent by them. Both will likely remain as important tools for patients with chronic migraine and the clinicians assisting them. New types of botulinum toxin selective for sensory pain neurons may well be discovered or produced by recombinant DNA techniques in the coming decade, and this may greatly enhance its therapeutic usefulness. This review summarizes the evolution of botulinum toxin use in headache management over the past several decades and its role in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders.

Guideline on the preventive treatment of chronic migraine, chronic tension type headache, hemicrania continua and new daily persistent headache on behalf of the Colombian Association of Neurology

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION: Chronic daily headache is a high impact entity in the general population. Although chronic migraine and tension-type headache are the most frequent conditions, it is necessary to consider hemicrania continua and new daily persistent headache as part of the differential diagnoses to perform a correct therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations for the treatment of chronic daily headache of primary origin METHODOLOGY: The Colombian Association of Neurology, by consensus and Grade methodology (Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation), presents the recommendations for the preventive treatment of each of the entities of the daily chronic headache of primary origin group. RESULTS: For the treatment of chronic migraine, the Colombian Association of Neurology recommends onabotulinum toxin A, erenumab, topiramate, flunarizine, amitriptyline, and naratriptan. In chronic tension-type headache the recommended therapeutic options are amitriptyline, imipramine, venlafaxine and mirtazapine. Topiramate, melatonin, and celecoxib for the treatment of hemicrania continua. Options for new daily persistent headache include gabapentin and doxycycline. The recommendations for inpatient treatment of patients with chronic daily headache and the justifications for performing neural blockades as a therapeutic complement are also presented. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic recommendations for the treatment of chronic daily headache based on consensus methodology and Grade System are presented.

Determining Thresholds for Meaningful Change for the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) Total and Item-Specific Scores in Chronic Migraine.

ObjectiveThe objective of the analyses described here was to develop thresholds defining clinically meaningful response on the total and item scores of the 6‐item short‐form Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) in a population of patients with chronic migraine (CM).BackgroundThe HIT‐6 is a short, easily understood, and useful measure of the impact of headache on daily life. Though widely used, limited literature supports a threshold value for clinically meaningful response within individuals over time for the HIT‐6 total score and for the item scores, especially in the CM population.MethodsPROMISE‐2 is a randomized, double‐blind, multicenter study comparing intravenous eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg with placebo for the preventive treatment of CM. Responder definitions for HIT‐6 total and items scores using data from PROMISE‐2 study were calculated via distribution‐based and anchor‐based methods. Distribution‐based methods included half of the baseline standard deviation and baseline standard error of measurement. The change from baseline to week 12 in HIT‐6 scores was assessed using the following anchors: patient global impression of change, reduction in migraine frequency, and change in EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels visual analog scale. Values from the literature and PROMISE‐2 analyses were plotted against the cumulative distribution function of change values (baseline to week 12) and used to triangulate to empirically support clinically meaningful change definitions for the HIT‐6 total and item scores in patients with CM.ResultsFrom the literature, 5 articles provided 7 candidate values for a responder threshold for the HIT‐6 total score. From distribution‐ and anchor‐based methods, 5 candidate values were derived from PROMISE‐2 data. Using the median of all candidate values, a HIT‐6 total score responder definition estimate of −6 (ie, ≥6‐point improvement in the total score) appears most appropriate for discriminating between individuals with CM who have experienced meaningful change over time and those who have not. For item‐level analyses using anchor‐based methods, the responder definition for items 1‐3 (“severe pain,” “limits daily activities,” and “lie down”) was a 1‐category improvement in response (eg, from Sometimes to Rarely); for items 4‐6 (“too tired,” “felt fed up or irritated,” and “limits concentration”), a 2‐category improvement in response (eg, from Always to Sometimes) was clinically meaningful.ConclusionsUsing a multifaceted, statistically‐based approach, the recommended responder definition for the HIT‐6 total score in the CM population is a ≥6‐point decrease, consistent with previous literature. Anchor‐based item‐level responder thresholds were defined as a decrease of 1 or 2 categories, depending on the item. These CM‐specific values will provide researchers and clinicians a means to interpret clinically meaningful change in the HIT‐6 total and item scores and may facilitate the measurement of treatment benefits in specific functional domains of the HIT‐6.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine attacks in episodic migraine in adults

Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently the Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine (2018), the Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults (2019), and Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents (2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately.

Neurophysiological and biomolecular effects of erenumab in chronic migraine: An open label study

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies proved effective in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. In this open label study, we aim to assess the effects of erenumab administration on neurophysiological and biomolecular profiles in a representative cohort of chronic migraine patients. Forty patients with a history of chronic migraine for at least 12 months prior to enrollment, and previous failure of at least two different preventive therapies, were enrolled. After a 1-month observation period (T0), patients were treated with erenumab 70 mg s.c. (every 28 days) for a total of three administrations. At week 12, they returned for the end-of-protocol visit (T3). At T0 and T3, patients underwent recording of clinical features, recording of single stimulus (RTh), temporal summation (TST) thresholds of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex, venous blood sampling for miR-382-5p, and miR-34a-5p quantification. At T3, 31 patients (77.5%) qualified as 30% Responders (reduction in monthly migraine days by at least 30% in the last 4-week observation period). RTh (T0: 15.4 ± 8.1 mA, T3: 19.7 ± 8.2 mA) as well as TST (T0: 11.2 ± 5.8 mA, T3: 13.4 ± 5.0 mA) significantly increased at T3 in 30% Responders (p = 0.001 for both), while we did not observe significant changes in NON-responder patients. MiR-382-5p and miR-34a-5p levels were significantly lower after erenumab administration in the overall study population (p = 0.015, and p = 0.001, respectively), without significant differences between 30% Responder and NON-responder groups. Different migraine phenotypes, characterized by different treatment susceptibility, may exist as suggested by the divergent behavior between neurophysiological and biomolecular findings in 30% Responder vs. NON-responder patients.The study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04361721).

Influence of headache pain intensity and frequency on migraine-related disability in chronic migraine patients treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA

BackgroundThere is a need to establish which are the more relevant headache-related outcomes that have an impact on our patient’s lives to accurately evaluate treatment response in daily clinical practice.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of clinical trial endpoints in clinical real-life disability improvement in response to migraine preventive treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA.MethodsThis is an observational prospective study. We included patients with chronic migraine fulfilling ICHD-3beta/3 criteria. We prospectively collected data of 8 headache-related and acute medication use endpoints recommended by the Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine. We evaluated their impact on disability improvement after 6 months of treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA. We defined as a responder in disability, patients with ≥50% MIDAS score reduction after 2 cycles of treatment following PREEMPT protocol. We performed an analysis to measure the impact of improvement in the evaluated outcome measures according to perceived disability in clinical practice.ResultsWe included 395 patients (85.1% women, mean age 46.7 ± 12.6 years). Mean headache frequency at baseline was 26.5 ± 5.2 headache days/month. After 6 months, 49.1% of patients were headache-related disability responders. From all outcome measures collected, variables independently associated to disability improvement were headache days reduction (p = 0.02) and ≥ 50% pain intensity reduction (p = 0.04). A ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency or pain intensity showed similar influence on disability improvement after treatment.ConclusionsHeadache pain intensity is as important as frequency when evaluating the clinical response and impact on patient headache-related disability after migraine preventive treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA.

Evaluation of the concomitant use of oral preventive treatments and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: the PREVENBOX study

OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM). In CM, in addition to a reduction in headache frequency, a decreased reliance on oral prophylactics is also indicative of treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the change in the use of oral prophylactics after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM. This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Patients with CM (International Classification of Headache Disorders-3beta) that had been treated with onabotulinumtoxinA were enrolled consecutively. We collected parameters related to each patient's pre-treatment situation, as well as their current situation, focusing on frequency and intensity of migraine, number of oral prophylactics and the respective cycle of onabotulinumtoxinA. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. We included 542 patients, 90.0% of whom were taking oral preventive treatments. During treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA, 47.8% withdrew at least one prophylactic and 41.6% stopped using oral prophylactics altogether. Factors associated with a reduction or cessation of oral prophylactics were >50% improvement in frequency and intensity, remission to episodic migraine, use of topiramate as an initial treatment, increased number of infiltrations and shorter chronification period (P<0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that a chronification period <20months, more than five cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA, >50% improvement in pain intensity and topiramate as an initial treatment were predictors of a reduction in oral prophylactics (area under the curve, 70.3%; P<0.001). Our study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA. This treatment reduced the use of oral prophylactics. Withdrawal of oral prophylactics was most likely to occur after five cycles of treatment.