Dodick, David W.

Background Headache disorders comprise the three most prevalent medical disorders globally and contribute almost 20% to the total burden of neurologic illness. Although the experience of a recurrent headache disorder tends to be highly individualized, patient preferences tend to be a low priority in guidelines for the management of patients with headache. Methods In September 2017, the first Global Patient Advocacy Summit was convened, bringing together patients, patient advocates, patient advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, scientists, and regulatory agencies to advance issues of importance to patients affected by headache worldwide. Results Presentations and discussion covered multiple issues, such as improving access to appropriate medical care; incorporating the insights of independent patient advocates and advocacy organizations; leveraging the insights, experience and influence of leading health and neurological organizations; and raising awareness of the role of regulatory agencies in disease advocacy. Attendees agreed that it is important to understand and promote the global, regional, and local interests of people with headache disorders, as well as challenge the pervasive stigma associated with headache. They also agreed that those with severe, recurrent, or disabling headache disorders should have reliable access to competent medical care; healthcare professionals should have access to adequate training in Headache Medicine; global benchmarks should be established for accurate diagnosis and the use of evidence-based treatments in patients with headache; and that information is needed about consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of headache, particularly in regard to patient preferences. Conclusion Based on the group’s consensus around these issues, a series of statements was developed, and they are collectively presented herein as the Vancouver Declaration on Global Headache Patient Advocacy 2018.

Objective To better understand the utility of using pain freedom and most bothersome headache‐associated symptom (MBS) freedom as co‐primary endpoints in clinical trials of acute migraine interventions. Background Adhesive dermally applied microarray (ADAM) is an investigational system for intracutaneous drug administration. The recently completed pivotal Phase 2b/3 study (ZOTRIP), evaluating ADAM zolmitriptan for the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine, was one of the first large studies to incorporate MBS freedom and pain freedom as co‐primary endpoints per recently issued guidance by the US Food and Drug Administration. In this trial, the proportion of patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg, who were pain‐free and MBS‐free at 2 hours post‐dose, was significantly higher than for placebo. Methods We undertook a post‐hoc analysis of data from the ZOTRIP trial to examine how the outcomes from this trial compare to what might have been achieved using the conventional co‐primary endpoints of pain relief, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Results Of the 159 patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg or placebo, prospectively designated MBS were photophobia (n = 79), phonophobia (n = 43), and nausea (n = 37). Two‐hour pain free rates in those with photophobia as the MBS were 36% for ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg and 14% for placebo ( P = .02). Corresponding rates for those with phonophobia as the MBS were 14% and 41% ( P = .05). For those whose MBS was nausea, corresponding values were 56% and 16%, respectively ( P = .01). Two‐hour freedom from the MBS for active drug vs placebo were 67% vs 35% ( P < .01) for photophobia, 55% vs 43% ( P = .45) for phonophobia, and 89% vs 58% for nausea ( P = .04). MBS freedom but not pain freedom was achieved in 28%. Only 1 patient (1%) achieved pain freedom, but not MBS freedom. The proportion with both pain and MBS freedom was highest (56%) among those whose MBS was nausea. Conclusion In this study, the use of MBS was feasible and seemed to compare favorably to the previously required 4 co‐primary endpoints.

Background OnabotulinumtoxinA has been demonstrated to be effective for the preventive treatment of headache in individuals with chronic migraine and has been approved and recommended for this patient population. While the therapeutic effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on migraine headache is well documented, there is limited information on the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on migraine aura. Objective Given the prolonged and often debilitating nature of aura in patients with hemiplegic migraine, our group sought to examine the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on aura frequency and severity in this specific subset of migraine patients. Methods All clinical notes from July 1, 1994 to December 1, 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients diagnosed with hemiplegic migraine who received at least one set of onabotulinumtoxinA injections. Thirty‐four patients were identified; and of those, 23 were excluded due to incomplete documentation regarding aura symptoms at follow‐up visits. The clinical notes of the remaining 11 patients (4 with familial hemiplegic migraine [FHM] and 7 with sporadic hemiplegic migraine [SHM]) were reviewed, and the frequency and description of their headaches and aura before and after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA were recorded. Results Nine of the 11 patients in our series noted a decrease in the frequency, severity, and/or duration of their aura after receiving onabotulinumtoxinA. Of the 2 non‐responders, one was FHM and one was SHM. Of the 9 that noticed improved aura symptoms, 6 described a “wearing off” effect of onabotulinumtoxinA around week 9 or 10 of the 12‐week cycle, with subsequent improvement after the next round. Conclusion For 9 of 11 patients with hemiplegic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA was helpful not only in reducing the frequency and severity of headaches but also in reducing the frequency and severity of the aura. In this manuscript, we speculate on potential pathophysiologic mechanisms that could have contributed to this effect.

Background In phase 2 and 3 studies, fremanezumab, a monoclonal CGRP antibody, was an effective preventive treatment for high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). Objective Post-hoc analyses evaluated population-wise 50%, 75% and 100% responder rates, and the extent to which individual responders sustained a 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in migraine days, moderate-to-severe (M/S) headache days and days of acute medication use during all three treatment months of the fremanezumab phase 2 studies. Design/methods HFEM patients received either placebo or three once-monthly injections of 225 mg or 675 mg. CM patients received either placebo or three once-monthly injections of 900 mg, or an initial loading dose of 675 mg and subsequent injections of 225 mg. Patients reported headache-related data daily using an electronic diary. Results In the HFEM study, the percent of patients on fremanezumab doses 225 mg and 675 mg were greater compared to the percent of placebo patients with sustained 50% reduction in migraine days (39% and 35% vs. 10% for placebo, both p < 0.0001), M/S headache days (36% and 38% vs. 16% placebo, p = 0.0017 and p = 0.0007 respectively), and acute medication use days (36% and 27% vs. 8% placebo, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003). Likewise, although there were fewer patients with sustained 75% reduction, there were increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 225 mg and 675 mg in the HFEM study relative to placebo patients in migraine days (19% and 11% vs. 3% placebo, p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0176), M/S headache days (19% and 15% vs. 2% placebo, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0011) and days of acute medication use (16% and 8% vs. 2% placebo, p = 0.0005 and p = 0.0377). In the CM study, there were increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 675/225 mg and 900 mg with 50% sustained reduction in M/S headache days (32% and 40% vs. 15% placebo, p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0002) and days of acute medication use (26% and 22% vs. 11% placebo, p = 0.0098 and p = 0.0492). There were also increases in the percent of patients on fremanezumab 675/225 mg and 900 mg compared to patients on placebo with 75% sustained reduction in M/S headache days (10% and 13% vs. 3%, p = 0.0665 and p = 0.0203). Few patients had 100% sustained reductions in these parameters in either study. Conclusions Post-hoc results must be interpreted with caution; nonetheless, a statistically significant percentage of patients who initially responded to fremanezumab within 1 month sustained this response over the subsequent 2 months. Sustained reduction in individual patients may provide a novel patient-centric, clinically meaningful endpoint for future trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive migraine treatments. Trials are registered as http://clinical trials.gov as NCT02025556 and NCT02021773.

Migraine is a common, disabling neurological disorder characterized by multiple phases: premonitory, aura, headache, postdrome, and interictal. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of each phase of migraine has evolved over recent years. The premonitory phase begins as early as 3 days before the headache phase, and involves a complex interplay between various cortical and subcortical brain regions, including the hypothalamus and brainstem nuclei that modulate nociceptive signaling. The headache phase involves activation of the trigeminovascular system, a pathway that is well characterized. In one‐third of patients, an aura phase may occur during some attacks and likely correlates with a cortical spreading depression‐like event; a slowly propagating wave of neuronal and glial cell depolarization and hyperpolarization. Improved characterization of the pathophysiological processes involved at each stage of the migraine attack will aid the identification of new therapeutic targets for migraine prevention. This review provides an update on prevailing concepts of migraine pathophysiology.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the preventive treatment of migraine. Background sTMS was originally developed for the acute treatment of migraine with aura. Open label experience has suggested a preventive benefit. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sTMS for migraine prevention. Methods The eNeura SpringTMS Post-Market Observational U.S. Study of Migraine (ESPOUSE) Study was a multicenter, prospective, open label, observational study. From December 2014 to March 2016, patients with migraine (n = 263) were consented to complete a 1-month baseline headache diary followed by 3 months of treatment. The treatment protocol consisted of preventive (four pulses twice daily) and acute (three pulses repeated up to three times for each attack) treatment. Patients reported daily headache status, medication use, and device use with a monthly headache diary. The primary endpoint, mean reduction of headache days compared to baseline, was measured over the 28-day period during weeks 9 to 12. The primary endpoint was compared to a statistically-derived placebo estimate (performance goal). Secondary endpoints included: 50% responder rate, acute headache medication consumption, HIT-6, and mean reduction in total headache days from baseline of any intensity. Results Of a total of 263 consented subjects, 229 completed a baseline diary, and 220 were found to be eligible based on the number of headache days. The device was assigned to 217 subjects (Safety Data Set) and 132 were included in the intention to treat Full Analysis Set. For the primary endpoint, there was a −2.75 ± 0.40 mean reduction of headache days from baseline (9.06 days) compared to the performance goal (−0.63 days) ( p < 0.0001). The 50% responder rate of 46% (95% CI 37%, 56%) was also significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) than the performance goal (20%). There was a reduction of −2.93 (5.24) days of acute medication use, headache impact measured by HIT-6, −3.1 (6.4) ( p < 0.0001), and total headache days of any intensity −3.16 days (5.21) compared to the performance goal (−0.63 days) ( p < 0.0001). The most common adverse events were lightheadedness (3.7%), tingling (3.2%), and tinnitus (3.2%). There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions This open label study suggests that sTMS may be an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for migraine prevention. Trial registration number NCT02357381

Background Quality clinical trials form an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. In 2008, the Committee published the first specific guidelines on chronic migraine. Subsequent advances in drug, device, and biologicals development, as well as novel trial designs, have created a need for a revision of the chronic migraine guidelines. Objective The present update is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and its recommendations do not apply to trials in children or adolescents.