Iser, Courtney

Abstract Objective To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Abstract Background Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor and is approved for the preventative treatment of migraine in adults. CGRP is involved in the regulation of vasomotor tone under physiologic and pathologic conditions, including hypertension. While there has not been evidence of hypertension in preclinical models or clinical trials, post‐marketing data suggest erenumab may be associated with hypertension. This led to a warning in the United States Food and Drug Administration prescribing information for erenumab. Objective To determine the frequency of worsening blood pressure (BP) after initiation of erenumab in patients with migraine and how this is associated with hypertension. Methods This is an observational retrospective cohort study evaluating patients at a tertiary headache or neurology department. Systolic and diastolic BPs were compared between the initial visit prior to initiation of erenumab, and follow‐up visit while on erenumab. Worsening BP was defined as moving from a lower stage to a higher stage of BP, as defined by the American Heart Association. Serious adverse vascular events were also recorded. Results A total of 335 patients were included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age of 45.7 [14.40] years, 83.9% [281/335] female). At baseline, 20.9% (70/335) of patients had a prior diagnosis of hypertension. The median (interquartile range) time to follow‐up appointment from initial appointment was 20.5 (13.3–35.3) weeks. The mean (SD) BP at baseline was systolic 124.7 (15) mmHg and diastolic 77 (11) mmHg, and at follow‐up was systolic 124.0 (15) mmHg and diastolic 77.8 (9) mmHg. Overall, 23.3% (78/335) of all patients had worsening BP, whereas 13/225 (3.9%) patients had improvement in their BP. Patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to develop worsening BP (odds ratio, 4.9, 95% confidence interval 1.12–21.4; p = 0.035). There was no association between worsening BP and pre‐existing hypertension, sex, body mass index, or age. One patient had non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction attributed to a hypertensive emergency while on erenumab. Conclusion We found that 23.3% of patients initiated on erenumab may have developed worsening BP, suggesting the need for BP monitoring in patients initiated on erenumab.