Silberstein, Stephen D.

Chronic migraine (CM) is a neurological disease characterized by frequent migraine attacks that prevent affected individuals from performing daily activities of living, significantly diminish quality of life, and increase familial burden. Before onabotulinumtoxinA was approved for CM, there were few treatment options for these seriously disabled patients and none had regulatory approval. The terminology and recognition of CM evolved in parallel with the onabotulinumtoxinA clinical development program. Because there were no globally accepted classification criteria for CM when onabotulinumtoxinA was in development, the patient populations for the trials conducted by Allergan were determined by the Allergan migraine team in collaboration with headache scientists and clinicians. These trials and collaborations ultimately led to improvements in CM classifications. In 2010, onabotulinumtoxinA became the first medication and first biologic approved specifically to prevent headaches in patients with CM. Approval was based on 2 similarly designed phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical studies. Both studies showed significantly greater improvements in mean change from baseline in headache-day frequency in patients with CM receiving onabotulinumtoxinA compared with those receiving placebo. The safety and effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA have been established globally in >5000 patients with CM with or without medication overuse treated in clinical and observational studies. Benefits also include improvements in quality of life, fewer psychiatric comorbidities, and reduced healthcare resource utilization. Across studies, onabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated; adverse events tended to be mild or moderate in severity and to decline over subsequent treatment cycles.

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether the 15‐day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. Background The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. Methods The patients with migraine ( N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0–7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8–14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15–23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS‐PI), Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4), and General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scores were compared. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS‐PI, GAD‐7, and PHQ‐4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20–58] vs. 55 [30–90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7–30], p < 0.001), WPAI‐% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS‐PI‐T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52–138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7–30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20–58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30–90), p < 0.001], WPAI‐%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI‐% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI‐%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.

AbstractBackground and purposeAlthough erenumab has demonstrated significant reduction in migraine frequency and improved quality of life in studies lasting 3 to 12 months, little is known about long‐term therapy.MethodsThis study was an open‐label, 5‐year treatment phase following a 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in adults with episodic migraine. Patients initially received open‐label erenumab 70 mg, which increased to 140 mg following a protocol amendment. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly acute migraine‐specific medication (AMSM) days, and health‐related quality of life.ResultsOf 383 patients enrolled, 250 switched to 140 mg; 215 (56.1%) completed open‐label treatment. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs from baseline of 8.7 (0.2) days was −5.3 (0.3) days; an average reduction of 62.3% at year 5. Among patients using AMSM at baseline (6.3 [2.8] treatment days), mean change in monthly AMSM days was −4.4 (0.3) days at the end of 5 years. Patient‐reported outcomes indicated stable improvements in disability, headache impact, and migraine‐specific quality of life. Exposure‐adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were 123.0/100 patient‐years; AEs were most frequently nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza. Serious AEs (SAEs) reported by 49 patients (3.8/100 patient‐years) were mostly single occurrence. Two fatal adverse events were reported. There were no increases in incidence of AEs, SAEs, or AEs leading to treatment discontinuation over 5 years of exposure.ConclusionsTreatment with erenumab was associated with reductions in migraine frequency and improvements in health‐related quality of life that were maintained for at least 5 years. No new safety signals were observed.

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. We evaluated eptinezumab, an intravenous (IV) anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of chronic migraine. Objective To determine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of four dose levels of eptinezumab and to inform the phase 3 development program. Methods This was a phase 2b, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial. Men and women (N = 616) aged 18–55 years were included if they had a diagnosis of chronic migraine, with onset at age ≤35 years and history of chronic migraine ≥1 year. During the 28-day screening period, patients must have had ≥15 headache days, including ≥8 migraine days, with ≥5 migraine attacks as recorded in the electronic diary. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to eptinezumab 300, 100, 30, 10 mg or placebo, administered as a single IV infusion. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a ≥75% decrease in monthly migraine days over weeks 1–12 compared with the 28-day screening period. Results The ≥75% migraine responder rates over weeks 1–12 for eptinezumab 300, 100, 30, and 10 mg were 33.3%, 31.4%, 28.2%, and 26.8%, respectively, versus 20.7% for placebo ( p = 0.033, 0.072, 0.201, 0.294 vs. placebo). Secondary efficacy endpoints (e.g. ≥50% responder rate, change from baseline in frequency of migraine/headache days, and percentage of severe migraines) had results favoring the three higher eptinezumab doses versus placebo. Eptinezumab was well tolerated and adverse event rates were similar to placebo. Conclusions The results of this trial demonstrate that eptinezumab appears effective and well-tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and justifies the conduct of pivotal phase 3 trials for migraine prevention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02275117.

Background Previously published three-month placebo-controlled and one-year open-label clinical trial data have provided information on the efficacy and safety of erenumab. Methods Interim analysis was undertaken from an ongoing five-year open-label treatment phase after all patients completed three years in the open-label treatment phase or discontinued the study. Adult patients with episodic migraine enrolled in the open-label treatment phase initially received 70 mg erenumab monthly. A protocol amendment increased the dosage to 140 mg monthly to assess long-term safety of the higher dose. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring adverse events, electrocardiograms, laboratory assessments, and vital signs. Results Of 383 patients enrolled in the open-label treatment phase, at data cutoff 235 (61.3%) remained in the study, all received 140 mg for ≥1 year. Median (Q1, Q3) exposure (70 or 140 mg) for all patients enrolled was 3.2 (1.3, 3.4) years. The most frequent adverse events (≥4.0/100 patient-years) were reported as viral upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, influenza, and back pain. Exposure-adjusted serious adverse event rates were 4.2/100 patient-years. There was no increase in cardiovascular events over time. Conclusions In this long-term study of a CGRP-receptor antibody, erenumab was found to be safe and well-tolerated with a spectrum and rate of adverse events consistent with shorter-term placebo-controlled studies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952574

Background The Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials demonstrated efficacy/tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine. This post hoc analysis assessed time of onset of onabotulinumtoxinA after the first treatment in total and responder populations and consistency weekly through five treatment cycles. Methods In the 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase of PREEMPT, individuals were randomized 1:1 to onabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) or placebo every 12 weeks for two cycles. The primary pooled efficacy variable was change in headache days per 28 days at week 24. We assessed change in headache and migraine/probable migraine (hereafter migraine) days/week compared with baseline week 4. Results Baseline mean (SD) headache days/week (week 4 of baseline) for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 688) and placebo (n = 696) were similar (4.8 [1.6] vs. 4.8 [1.6] days/week, respectively), as were migraine days/week (4.6 [1.7] vs. 4.6 [1.7] days/week). The effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on change in headache and migraine days/week was significantly greater than placebo at week 1, persisting from week 3 after the first treatment (−1.6 [2.2] vs. −1.1 [2.2] headache days/week [ p < 0.001] and −1.6 [2.2] vs. −1.1 [2.2] migraine days/week [ p < 0.001]). Headache and migraine days decreased in onabotulinumtoxinA responders beginning 1 week after treatment 1. Conclusions Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with significant reductions in headache and migraine days/week at week 1, persisting after week 3, compared with placebo. Combined with earlier reports showing onabotulinumtoxinA treatment results in a persistent and progressive reduction in headache days over 56 weeks, it is suggested peak benefit may require multiple treatments. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00156910 and NCT00168428.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine. Background There is a significant unmet need for novel effective well‐tolerated acute migraine treatments. REN is a novel acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation – an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. A recent pilot study showed that REN can significantly reduce headache. We have conducted a randomized, double‐blind, sham‐controlled study to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of REN for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods This was a randomized, double‐blind, sham‐controlled, multicenter study conducted at 7 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Israel. Two hundred and fifty‐two adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with 2‐8 migraine headaches per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham stimulation. A smartphone‐controlled wireless device was applied for 30‐45 minutes on the upper arm within 1 hour of attack onset; electrical stimulation was at a perceptible but non‐painful intensity level. Migraine pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2, and 48 hours post‐treatment. Most bothersome symptoms (MBS) were also recorded. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving pain relief at 2 hours post‐treatment (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or none, or from mild pain to none). Relief of MBS and pain‐free at 2 hours were key secondary endpoints. Results Active stimulation was more effective than sham stimulation in achieving pain relief (66.7% [66/99] vs 38.8% [40/103]; therapeutic gain of 27.9% [CI 95% , 15.6‐40.2]; P < .0001), pain‐free (37.4% vs 18.4%, P = .003), and MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%, P = .0008) at 2 hours post‐treatment. The pain relief and pain‐free superiority of the active treatment was sustained 48 hours post‐treatment. The incidence of device‐related adverse events was low and similar between treatment groups (4.8% [6/126] vs 2.4% [3/126], P = .499). Conclusions REN provides superior clinically meaningful relief of migraine pain and MBS compared to placebo, offering a safe and effective non‐pharmacological alternative for acute migraine treatment.