scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of erenumab and galcanezumab in the prevention of chronic and episodic migraine: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrián Viudez-Martinez ◽  
Angela Pascual-Carrasco ◽  
Isabel Beltrán Blasco ◽  
Raquel Hernandez-Lorido ◽  
Rosa Fuster-Ruiz-de-Apodaca
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Real World ◽  
Test Score ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Specific Medication

Aim and Methods: Erenumab and galcanezumab have shown great results for migraine prevention in several clinical trials. However, strict inclusion criteria, absence of concomitant medication and selective outcome report may sometimes be barely representative of the real-world daily practice. Therefore, this observational, retrospective, non-comparative study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab 140 mg and galcanezumab 120 mg in real-world patients with difficult-to-treat episodic or chronic migraine, who previously did not respond to up to three well-stablished pharmacological alternatives for migraine prevention. A combination of objective well-defined tools and vastly used patient reported outcome measurements were evaluated at baseline and after the administration of 3 and 6 doses. Results: from 180 patients, 142 matched inclusion criteria for the present study. Data here reported shows that erenumab and galcanezumab reduced mean headache days, acute migraine specific medication days, Headache Impact Test score, Migraine Disability Assessment Test score and Visual Analogue Scale score after 3 and 6 doses in real-world patients diagnosed with difficult to treat chronic or episodic migraine (p<0.01). Moreover, acute migraine specific medication days were reduced by a half in, at least, a 50% of the patients enrolled in each of the groups of the study. Both treatments exhibited a great safety profile, rarely leading to discontinuation because of poor tolerance. Conclusions: Erenumab and galcanezumab seem effective and well tolerated for migraine prevention in real-world patients with episodic or chronic migraine who previously failed to oral preventive therapies.

scholarly journals Randomised, controlled trial of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine in patients from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America: The EMPOwER study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110241
Author(s):  
Shuu-Jiun Wang ◽  
Artemio A Roxas ◽  
Bibiana Saravia ◽  
Byung-Kun Kim ◽  
Debashish Chowdhury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Medication Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Specific Medication ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Objective EMPOwER, a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Methods Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment. Results At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was −3.1, −4.2, and −4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P < 0.001 [140 mg]). Both erenumab doses were also significantly superior to placebo on all secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days, change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days and change from baseline in the Headache Impact Test-6™ scores. The safety profile of erenumab was comparable with placebo; no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions This study of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America met all primary and secondary endpoints. A consistent numerical benefit was observed with erenumab 140 mg versus erenumab 70 mg across all efficacy endpoints. These findings extend evidence of erenumab’s efficacy and safety to patients under-represented in previous trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03333109

scholarly journals Consensus of the Hellenic Headache Society on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Kouremenos ◽  
◽  
Chrysa Arvaniti ◽  
Theodoros S. Constantinidis ◽  
Ermioni Giannouli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Botulinum Toxin Type A ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Regulatory Affairs ◽  
First Choice

AbstractMore than 0.6 million people suffer from disabling migraines in Greece causing a dramatic work loss, but only a small proportion of migraineurs attend headache centres, most of them being treated by non-experts. On behalf of the Hellenic Headache Society, we report here a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of adult migraine that is based on the recent guidelines of the European Headache Federation, on the principles of Good Clinical Practice and on the Greek regulatory affairs. The purposes are three-fold: (1) to increase awareness for migraine in Greece; (2) to support Greek practitioners who are treating migraineurs; and (3) to help Greek migraineurs to get the most appropriate treatment. For mild migraine, symptomatic treatment with high dose simple analgesics is suggested, while for moderate to severe migraines triptans or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both, should be administered following an individually tailored therapeutic strategy. A rescue acute treatment option should always be advised. For episodic migraine prevention, metoprolol (50–200 mg/d), propranolol (40–240 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), topiramate (25–100 mg/d) and candesartan (16–32 mg/d) are the drugs of first choice. For chronic migraine prevention topiramate (100-200 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d) and venlafaxine (150 mg/d) may be used, but the evidence is very limited. Botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are recommended for patients suffering from chronic migraine (with or without medication overuse) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. Anti-CGRP mAbs are also suggested for patients suffering from high frequency episodic migraine (≥8 migraine days per month and less than 14) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes from a 1-Year, Real-World, Head-to-Head Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA and Topiramate for Headache Prevention in Adults With Chronic Migraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 215013272095993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Blumenfeld ◽  
Atul T. Patel ◽  
Ira M. Turner ◽  
Kathleen B. Mullin ◽  
Aubrey Manack Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Real World ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Work Productivity ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Activity Impairment ◽  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Headache Impact

Introduction/Objective: Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic burden, but many people with CM are underdiagnosed and do not receive appropriate preventive treatment. OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate have demonstrated efficacy (treatment benefit under ideal conditions) for the prevention of headaches in people with CM in clinical trials, but real-world studies suggest markedly different clinical effectiveness (treatment benefit based on a blend of efficacy and tolerability). This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate immediate release for people with CM. Methods: FORWARD was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 4 study comparing onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks with topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day for ≤36 weeks in people with CM. PROs measured included the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire Quick Depression Assessment (PHQ-9), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire (FIMQ). Results: A total of 282 patients were randomized and treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 140) or topiramate (n = 142). From baseline to week 30, mean HIT-6 test scores improved significantly in patients taking onabotulinumtoxinA compared with topiramate ( P < .001). Improvements in depression over time were observed via larger changes in PHQ-9 scores with onabotulinumtoxinA than topiramate ( P < .001). Work productivity assessed via WPAI:SHP scores revealed significant improvements with onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in Work Productivity Loss ( P = .024) and Activity Impairment ( P < .001) domains. Results from the FIMQ also revealed a larger reduction from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA vs topiramate ( P < .0001). Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment had more favorable real-world effectiveness than topiramate on depression, headache impact, functioning and daily living, activity, and work productivity. The overall study results suggest that the beneficial effects on a range of PROs are the result of improved effectiveness when onabotulinumtoxinA is used as preventive treatment for CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02191579; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02191579

scholarly journals Progress in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks: From Traditional Approaches to Eptinezumab

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 924
Author(s):  
Damiana Scuteri ◽  
Giacinto Bagetta
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Migraine Treatment ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Bothersome Symptom ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
Marketing Data ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Traditional Approaches

Migraine is the second cause of disability and of lost years of healthy life worldwide. Migraine is characterized by recurrent headache attacks and accompanying disabling symptoms lasting 4–48 h. In episodic migraine, attacks occur in less than 15 days per month and in chronic migraine, in more than 15 monthly days. Whilst successful translation of pharmacological discoveries into efficacious therapeutics has been achieved in the preventative therapy of chronic migraine, treatment of acute migraine suffers the lack of effective advancements. An effective treatment affords complete freedom from pain two hours after therapy and provides the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) associated with migraine after 2 h. However, available anti-migraine abortive treatments for acute attacks do not represent an effective and safe treatment for all the populations treated. In particular, the most used specific treatment is represented by triptans that offer 2-h sustained freedom from pain achieved in 18–50% of patients but they are contraindicated in coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease due to the vasoconstriction at the basis of their pharmacologic action. The most novel therapies, i.e., gepants and ditans, are without sufficient post-marketing data for secure use. Here, an attempt is proposed to analyse the rational basis and evidence in favour of investigating the efficacy and safety in acute migraine attacks of eptinezumab, i.e., monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) unique for intravenous infusion administration.

scholarly journals Vascular safety of erenumab for migraine prevention

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. e497-e510 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kudrow ◽  
Julio Pascual ◽  
Paul K. Winner ◽  
David W. Dodick ◽  
Stewart J. Tepper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Vascular Risk Factors ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Vascular Risk ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Specific Medication

ObjectiveTo examine the cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular safety of erenumab across migraine prevention studies.MethodsVascular adverse events (AEs) and blood pressure data were integrated across 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of erenumab and their open-label extensions in patients with chronic or episodic migraine. Subgroup analyses were conducted by acute migraine-specific medication use and number of vascular risk factors at baseline. Standardized search terms were used to identify vascular AEs (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or peripheral). An independent committee adjudicated whether targeted events were vascular in origin.ResultsIn placebo-controlled studies, 2,443 patients received placebo (n = 1,043), erenumab 70 mg (n = 893), or erenumab 140 mg (n = 507) subcutaneously once monthly. Regardless of acute migraine-specific medication use or vascular risk factors at baseline, AE incidence was similar across the placebo and erenumab treatment groups. Hypertension AEs were reported for 0.9% (placebo), 0.8% (erenumab 70 mg), and 0.2% (erenumab 140 mg) of patients. Vascular AEs, which were similar across double-blind and open-label treatment, generally were confounded, with plausible alternative etiologies. In 18 patients with events reviewed by the independent committee, 4 events were positively adjudicated as cardiovascular in origin: 2 deaths and 2 vascular events. All 4 positively adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred during open-label erenumab treatment.ConclusionSelective blockade of the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor with erenumab for migraine prevention had a vascular safety profile comparable to that of placebo over 12 weeks, with no increased emergence of events over time. Further study of long-term safety of erenumab in patients with migraine is needed.Clinicaltrials.gov identifiersNCT02066415, NCT02456740, NCT01952574, NCT02483585, NCT02174861, and NCT01723514.Classification of evidenceThis analysis provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, erenumab does not increase the risk of vascular AEs.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in chronic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 1611-1621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Messoud Ashina ◽  
Stewart Tepper ◽  
Jan Lewis Brandes ◽  
Uwe Reuter ◽  
Guy Boudreau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Specific Medication

Background Erenumab was effective and well tolerated in a pivotal clinical trial of chronic migraine. Here, we evaluated efficacy and safety of monthly erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) versus placebo in the subgroup of patients who had previously failed preventive treatment(s) (≥ 1, ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories) and in patients who had never failed. Methods Subgroup analyses evaluated change from baseline in monthly migraine days; achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days; and change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Adverse events were evaluated for each subgroup. Results Treatment with both doses of erenumab resulted in greater reductions in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) at Month 3 (treatment difference [95% CI], never failed subgroup: −2.2 [−4.1, −0.3] for 70 mg and −0.5 [−2.4, 1.5] for 140 mg; ≥ 1 prior failed medication categories subgroup: −2.5 [−3.8, −1.2], for 70 mg and −3.3 [−4.6, −2.1] for 140 mg; ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories subgroup: −2.7 [−4.2, −1.2], for 70 mg and −4.3 [−5.8, −2.8] for 140 mg). Similar results were observed in the monthly acute migraine-specific medication days endpoint, and in the achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days. There were no new or unexpected safety issues. Conclusion Erenumab showed consistent efficacy in chronic migraine patients who had failed prior preventive treatments and was well tolerated across subgroups.

scholarly journals Long term outcome for onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) therapy in chronic migraine: A 2-year prospective follow-up audit of patients attending the Hull (UK) migraine clinic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 251581632098544
Author(s):  
Fayyaz Ahmed ◽  
Alina Buture ◽  
Taukir Tanvir ◽  
Modar Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Real World ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Sustained Response ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Large Patient ◽  
Number Of Patients

Objective: The objective of this prospective audit was to determine the long term outcome of patients diagnosed with chronic migraine who were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine. Background: While long term and real-world studies have confirmed the safety and efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in CM, there remains limited information from large patient numbers on the number of cycles and duration of onabotulinumtoxinA needed to successfully convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine, development of resistance to treatment and sustainability of response after stopping treatment. Methods: A total of 655 adult patients diagnosed with chronic migraine who received onabotulinumtoxinA at the Hull Migraine Clinic were followed up prospectively for a minimum of 2 years. OnabotulinumtoxinA was delivered as per the PREEMPT study protocol and patients were asked to keep a headache diary for at least 30 days prior to and continuously after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary outcome assessed in this prospective real-world audit was either the number of patients who achieved a ≥50% reduction in headache days or migraine days or an increment in crystal clear days twice that of baseline in a 30-day period. Patients were also assessed for analgesic medication overuse. Results: Treatment data were available for 655 patients who commenced treatment between July 2010 and October 2016 and followed for at least 2 years (24–70 months), with the last follow-up taking place in September 2018. Of the 655 patients, 380 patients responded to treatment after two cycles and went on to receive the third cycle. Of these, 152 patients were still on active treatment at 2 years. A further 61 patients had relapsed and were on treatment at 2 years. Of the 228 patients who stopped treatment, 112 were successfully converted to episodic migraine and showed a sustained response, 28 reverted to chronic migraine after the initial response despite continuing treatment (developed resistance), 14 were lost to follow up and 61 patients after achieving remission relapsed after a mean of 9 months (range 4–24 months) and recommenced treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. Conclusion: After a minimum of 2 years, 29.4% of patients with chronic migraine who initially responded to treatment were successfully converted to episodic migraine and maintained a sustained response. Forty percent of the initial cohort of responders continued therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA to manage their chronic migraine.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242198960
Author(s):  
Konstantina Drellia ◽  
Lili Kokoti ◽  
Christina I Deligianni ◽  
Dimitrios Papadopoulos ◽  
Dimos D Mitsikostas
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Episodic Migraine ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Calcitonin Gene ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Risk Ratios

Introduction and objective Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. Methods The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values – which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB – were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. Results All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. Conclusion This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document