Back to Authors

Khodavirdi, Ani C.

Mayo Clinic

Amgen (United States)

Citations 4

Comprehensive assessment of erenumab efficacy in participants with high‐frequency episodic migraine with at least one previously failed preventive treatment: The EMBRACE study
Lima, Gabriel Paiva da Silva , Rao, Renata, Szklener, Sebastian , Tassorelli, Cristina , Nastaj, Marcin, Chou, Denise E. , Khodavirdi, Ani C., Chehrenama, Mahan, Zhu, Yineng, Bhatia, Ajay, Lima, Gabriel Paiva da Silva , Dodick, David W , Szabó, Gyöngyi, Nastaj, Marcin, Zhu, Yineng, Dodick, David W.

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain | October 14, 2025 | Volume: 66 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 658-671

10.1111/head.15071 Get It

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of erenumab treatment beyond monthly migraine days in patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine who did not respond to at least one previous migraine preventive treatment. Background Reduction in monthly migraine days has been the efficacy standard for migraine preventive treatments; however, it does not fully capture the holistic benefit of the therapy. Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene–related peptide pathway, has demonstrated reduction in monthly migraine days and improvement in function in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Methods In this phase 4, interventional, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, multicenter, global study, treatment with erenumab was assessed over 4 months in adults with high‐frequency episodic migraine. The study was conducted at 61 sites located across North America and Europe between September 2020 and October 2023. Patients with ≥1 qualifying oral triptan‐treated migraine attack at baseline were randomized to receive erenumab 140 mg or placebo subcutaneously once monthly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly hours of at least moderate headache pain intensity over months 1, 2, and 3; secondary endpoints included change from baseline in mean monthly function, mean monthly duration of at least moderate pain intensity in migraine attacks, and mean monthly peak migraine pain intensity. Safety outcomes were also assessed. Results Of 512 randomized patients, 510 received erenumab 140 mg ( n = 254) or placebo ( n = 256) once monthly. Demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced between the two treatment arms. Erenumab 140 mg was superior to placebo in reducing duration of moderate or severe headache pain intensity over months 1, 2, and 3 (least squares mean [95% confidence interval {CI}] difference, −7.95 [−11.45, −4.46]; p < 0.001). Compared with placebo, erenumab significantly reduced migraine functional impact as assessed by the four domains of the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire, with a least squares mean (95% CI) difference of −7.36 (−10.80, −3.92) for physical functioning, −7.10 (−10.34, −3.87) for usual activities, −6.82 (−10.37, −3.27) for social functioning, and − 7.05 (−10.76, −3.34) for emotional functioning ( p < 0.001 for all domains). Significant reductions with erenumab compared with placebo were also observed in duration of at least moderate pain intensity in residual or break‐through migraine attacks (least squares mean [95% CI] difference, −1.07 [−1.92, −0.22]; p = 0.013) and peak migraine pain intensity (−0.48 [−0.85, −0.11]; p = 0.011). Incidence of grade 3 adverse events was 1.6% with erenumab and 1.2% with placebo; no grade 4 or fatal adverse events were reported in either treatment arm. Conclusion Findings from the EMBRACE study demonstrated that treatment with erenumab in patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine can provide positive therapeutic effects on ictal burden and pain, with residual migraine attacks tending to be shorter and less painful, with less overall impact.
Effect of erenumab versus other migraine preventive medications on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes: A United States claims database‐based observational cohort study
Dodick, David W. , Tepper, Stewart J. , Khodavirdi, Ani C., Pannacciulli, Nico, Fu, Alan , Kent, Shia T. , Gill, Karminder, Urman, Robert , Dodick, David W , Ailani, Jessica , Oh, Sam S.

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain | March 7, 2025 | Volume: 65 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 919-932

10.1111/head.14912 Get It

Abstract Objective To estimate the real‐world risk of cardiovascular events among patients with migraine treated with erenumab and other migraine preventive medications. Background Migraine preventive treatment with calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) pathway inhibitors, such as erenumab and others, may theoretically result in cardiovascular effects due to a lack of compensatory vasodilation with CGRP pathway inhibition. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, we estimated the unadjusted cumulative risk (CR) of new‐onset hypertension, acute myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke among patients with migraine newly treated with erenumab, other anti‐CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), standard oral preventive medications, and onabotulinumtoxinA using data from the MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental medical claims database. Comparative analyses to assess the relative risk (RR) of vascular events were gated on the comparability of treatment groups with respect to baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Potential bias due to unmeasured confounding was evaluated via negative control outcome (NCO) analyses. Confounding based on measured covariates and differential informative censoring were addressed with inverse probability weights. Results A total of 108,019 new users of migraine preventive medications were included. Unadjusted CR (95% confidence interval [CI]) of hypertension at 12 months of treatment was: erenumab, 9.34% (8.79–9.89%); other anti‐CGRP pathway mAbs, 9.42% (8.92–9.92%); standard oral preventive medications, 9.09% (8.77–9.41%); and onabotulinumtoxinA, 9.10% (8.39–9.81%). NCO analyses identified minimal concerns related to unmeasured confounding in erenumab versus other mAbs and erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA comparisons. Adjusted RRs (95% CIs) of acute MI and stroke, respectively, at 36 months of treatment were 1.02 (0.45–1.59) and 0.90 (0.56–1.25) for erenumab versus other mAbs and 0.87 (0.19–1.55) and 0.97 (0.42–1.52) for erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA. Conclusions In this analysis of the MarketScan medical claims database, we found no difference in the risk of vascular events in patients treated with erenumab versus other anti‐CGRP pathway mAbs or onabotulinumtoxinA.
Evaluation of vascular risk in patients with migraine with and without aura treated with erenumab: Post hoc analysis of pooled long‐term clinical trial data
Kudrow, David, Dafer, Rima M. , Dodick, David W. , Starling, Amaal J. , Dougherty, Carrie, Kalidas, Kavita, Jeswani, Rohini, Patel, Nishil , Khodavirdi, Ani C., Starling, Amaal, Dodick, David W , Ailani, Jessica , Zhang, Feng

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain | March 21, 2023 | Volume: 63 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 418-428

10.1111/head.14485 Get It

Abstract Objective To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk. Background Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene‐related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre‐existing CV risk factors. Methods Data pooled from four double‐blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10‐year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no‐risk‐factors, low‐risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate‐risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high‐risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE). Results There was no apparent difference between placebo‐ ( N = 1032) and erenumab‐treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1–3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long‐term analysis. Erenumab‐treated patients with high and moderate 10‐year CV risk ( N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double‐blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low‐risk erenumab group ( N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long‐term extensions of up to 5 years ( N = 2499; 3482 patient‐years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure‐adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient‐years) for no risk factor ( N = 1805), low ( N = 492), moderate ( N = 121), and high ( N = 81) 10‐year CV risk groups, respectively. Conclusions Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10‐year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.
Risk of hypertension in erenumab‐treated patients with migraine: Analyses of clinical trial and postmarketing data
Dodick, David W. , Tepper, Stewart J. , Pannacciulli, Nicola, Navetta, Marco S., Loop, Brett, Zhang, Feng , Khodavirdi, Ani C., Mann, Allison, Abdrabboh, Ahmad, Kalim, Jawed, Dodick, David W , Ailani, Jessica

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain | September 30, 2021 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1411-1420

10.1111/head.14208 Get It

Abstract Objective To assess the risk of hypertension in patients with migraine who received erenumab in clinical trials and in the postmarketing setting. Background Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention that targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor. Hypertension is a theoretical risk for inhibitors of the CGRP pathway. Although no evidence of an association between erenumab treatment and hypertension was observed during the clinical development program, adverse events (AEs) of hypertension have been identified in the postmarketing setting. Methods Safety data from four phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials were used to perform a pooled analysis of hypertension AEs in patients with migraine receiving erenumab. Postmarketing AEs of hypertension were identified from the Amgen Global Safety database from May 17, 2018, through January 31, 2020. Results In the pooled analysis of clinical trials, hypertension AEs (placebo, 9/1043 [0.9%]; erenumab 70 mg, 7/893 [0.8%]; erenumab 140 mg, 1/507 [0.2%]) and percentage of patients initiating medication to treat hypertension (12/1043 [1.2%], 7/893 [0.8%], 1/507 [0.2%], respectively) were similar across treatment groups. A total of 362 AEs of hypertension were identified from the postmarketing setting, 26.2% (95/362) of which were serious, >245,000 patient‐years of exposure. The exposure‐adjusted incidence of hypertension was 0.144 per 100 patient‐years. Conclusions Clinical trials did not demonstrate an increased risk of hypertension with erenumab compared with placebo, and AE rates of hypertension reported with erenumab in the postmarketing setting were generally low. Additional data are needed to fully characterize the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab.