Gandhi, Pranav

Abstract Objective This study explores and documents the patient experience during the prodrome phase of migraine. Background Migraine attacks can be divided into four stages: the prodrome (or premonitory phase), the aura, the headache phase, and postdrome. Qualitative data on the range of symptoms during the prodrome and their timing relative to headache onset are sparse. Prodromal symptoms may predict the onset of migraine headache pain and provide a clinically useful benchmark for initiation of treatment early in an attack before pain begins. Design/Methods Eligible participants with a clinician‐confirmed diagnosis of migraine and at least one prodromal symptom were consented, screened, and then participated in 60‐min interviews. The interview guide included open‐ended questions to elicit spontaneous reports and specific probes about prodromal symptoms based on a clinician‐established list. A theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data collected in interviews to identify key themes and gather insights; data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Results Data collection for this study occurred from March 8, 2022, to May 16, 2022. Twenty interviews were conducted, and analyses demonstrated that concept saturation was achieved. Participants reported 36 unique prodromal symptoms, and each participant experienced a mean of 13 symptoms (standard deviation [SD] = 6.6) and a median of 11 symptoms (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.8–17.0) during the prodrome phase. The most commonly reported prodromal symptoms were nausea ( n = 17/20, 85%), fatigue/tiredness ( n = 16/20, 80%), sensitivity to light ( n = 13/20, 65%), neck pain/stiffness ( n = 12/20, 60%), and dizziness/vertigo/light‐headedness ( n = 10/20, 50%). Of the symptoms reported by at least four participants ( n ≥ 4/20, 20%), neck pain/stiffness was rated most bothersome (8.9 out of 10) and sensitivity to light was rated most severe (8.5 out of 10). Almost 40% of all symptoms reported occurred less than 2 h before the start of migraine headache. Of the commonly reported symptoms, nausea (0.8h), sensitivity to light (1.0 h), and dizziness/vertigo/lightheadedness (2.0 h) began closest to headache onset; fatigue/tiredness (4.0 h) and neck pain/stiffness (4.8 h) were the most remote from headache onset. Conclusion This study identified frequently reported prodromal symptoms, with participants commonly reporting that a migraine headache would follow their experience of prodrome within a 1‐ to 6‐h window. Characterizing the prodrome experience may improve measurement strategies for the burden of migraine and create opportunities to treat during the prodromal phase to prevent the onset of moderate or severe headaches.

Background To evaluate the benefit-risk assessment of atogepant and calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) vs. placebo based on the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) in a blended episodic migraine and chronic migraine (EM + CM) population. Methods The NNT was calculated based on achievement of a ≥ 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline across 12 weeks. The NNH was calculated using the proportion of participants reporting a discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The primary analysis included data from studies of atogepant, erenumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab and fremanezumab. Results In the primary analysis, the calculated NNT for atogepant 60 mg vs. placebo was 4.2 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 3.1–6.7), which was the lowest relative to the CGRP mAbs in the blended EM + CM population. Participants who received atogepant 60 mg or fremanezumab showed the most favorable NNH values (−1010 (95% Crl = 44 to ∞ to number needed to benefit 80) for atogepant) resulting from lower rates of discontinuation due to AEs compared with those receiving placebo. Conclusions Atogepant demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with NNT and NNH values comparable (not statistically significant) with those of CGRP mAbs across all analyses.

Abstract Objective To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Background Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. Methods An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000‐305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9–12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1–12 and 9–12 for atogepant and during weeks 9–12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). Results In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9–74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9–60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4–49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1–9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9–75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079–$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901–$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusions Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Abstract Objective To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). Background Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. Methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt‐in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self‐reported physician‐diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0–3 days/month; moderate‐to‐high: 4–14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0–1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. Results Among individuals with moderate‐to‐high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0–1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive‐naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0–1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive‐naive 26.8 (2.9) ( p < 0.001) and 0–1 TF 30.1 (3.3) ( p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive‐naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive‐naive, p = 0.006; 0–1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations ( p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0–1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive‐naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups ( p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low‐frequency EM group. Conclusions In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.