Goadsby, Peter J

ABSTRACT Background This post hoc analysis examined the reduction in monthly headache days ( MHDs ) by frequency category shifts and associated improvements following eptinezumab treatment. Methods The DELIVER trial evaluated eptinezumab in adults with migraine for whom 2–4 previous preventive treatments failed. During a 24‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled period followed by a 48‐week extension period, participants received IV eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks, with all receiving eptinezumab beginning Week 25 (dose‐blinded). Participants were categorized by MHD frequency: > 14, 8–14, 4 to < 8, 1 to < 4, 0. MHD category shifts were evaluated in the total population and several subgroups (including participants with > 14 baseline MHDs and early ≥ 50% responders). In participants reporting < 8 MHDs after all doses, the associated changes in headache intensity and disease status were evaluated. Results Of randomized participants, 88% (782/890) completed the trial. The percentage of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who reported < 4 MHDs was 23% (138/592) over Weeks 1–12 and 47% (236/498) over Weeks 61–72; 9% reported 0 MHDs after the final dose. Of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who shifted from ≥ 8 MHDs at baseline to < 8 over Weeks 1–12, 71% (170/241) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial; of those who shifted from > 14 to < 8 MHDs, 66% (49/74) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial. Reduction to < 8 MHDs was associated with robust improvements in headache intensity and disease burden. Conclusions Eptinezumab was associated with sustained reduction in MHD category, with some achieving headache/migraine freedom in patients with a history of preventive treatments that failed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04418765; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ) and EudraCT (identifier: 2019‐004497‐25; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr‐search/search?query=2019‐004497‐25 )

Background Migraine is associated with obesity. These analyses evaluated weight change with atogepant used as a preventive migraine treatment. Methods Five atogepant clinical trials in adults with migraine (one phase 2b/3; four phase 3) were included: Three 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (episodic migraine: two; chronic migraine: one); one 40-week, open-label extension trial and one 52-week, standard care, randomized, long-term safety trial in episodic migraine. Change from baseline in body weight was measured. Results Mean baseline body mass indexes were 30.0–30.7 kg/m 2 (pooled episodic migraine [United States only]) and 25.0–25.5 kg/m 2 (chronic migraine [East Asia, Europe, and North America]). More participants treated with atogepant 60 mg once-daily compared to placebo experienced ≥7% weight loss at any time in the pooled episodic migraine placebo-controlled trials (4.9% vs. 2.8%), chronic migraine placebo-controlled trial (5.8% vs. 2.0%), and pooled open-label extension and long-term safety trials (24.0% vs.14.7% in standard care [long-term safety only]). In the placebo-controlled trials, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 2 (pooled episodic migraine: −0.32%; chronic migraine: −0.39%), increasing at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: −1.02%; chronic migraine: −1.50%); compared to weight gain with placebo at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: +0.49%; chronic migraine: +0.10%). In the long-term episodic migraine studies, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 4 (long-term safety: −0.42%; open-label extension: −0.76%), increasing at week 40 (long-term safety: −2.38%; open-label extension: −2.09%). Conclusion Atogepant was associated with modest dose- and duration-dependent weight loss. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (CGP-MD-01); NCT03777059 (3101-301-002); NCT03700320 (long-term safety trial); NCT03939312 (open-label extension trial); NCT03855137 (3101-303-002).

Abstract Objective To explore hidden Markov models (HMMs) as an approach for defining clinically meaningful headache‐frequency‐based groups in migraine. Background Monthly headache frequency in patients with migraine is known to vary over time. This variation has not been completely characterized and is not well accounted for in the classification of individuals as having chronic or episodic migraine, a diagnosis with potentially significant impacts on the individual. This study investigated variation in reported headache frequency in a migraine population and proposed a model for classifying individuals by frequency while accounting for natural variation. Methods The American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR) was a longitudinal multisite study of United States adults with migraine. Study participants completed quarterly questionnaires and daily headache diaries. A series of HMMs were fit to monthly headache frequency data calculated from the diary data of ARMR. Results Changes in monthly headache frequency tended to be small, with 47% of transitions resulting in a change of 0 or 1 day. A substantial portion (24%) of months reflected daily headache with individuals ever reporting daily headache likely to consistently report daily headache. An HMM with four states with mean monthly headache frequency emissions of 3.52 (95% Prediction Interval [PI] 0–8), 10.10 (95% PI 4–17), 20.29 (95% PI 12–28), and constant 28 days/month had the best fit of the models tested. Of sequential month‐to‐month headache frequency transitions, 12% were across the 15‐headache days chronic migraine cutoff. Under the HMM, 38.7% of those transitions involved a change in the HMM state, and the remaining 61.3% of the time, a change in chronic migraine classification was not accompanied by a change in the HMM state. Conclusion A divide between the second and third states of this model aligns most strongly with the current episodic/chronic distinction, although there is a meaningful overlap between the states that supports the need for flexibility. An HMM has appealing properties for classifying individuals according to their headache frequency while accounting for natural variation in frequency. This empirically derived model may provide an informative classification approach that is more stable than the use of a single cutoff value.

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Abstract Objective To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies. Background Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off‐label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995. Methods/Results Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of “cluster headache,” and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo‐controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo‐controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges. Conclusions Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.