Dodick, David W

Abstract Objective To assess the role of small‐molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) in the acute treatment of migraine, particularly in relation to triptan treatments. Background Triptans have established efficacy and are widely prescribed for the acute treatment of migraine. However, triptans may not be recommended for some individuals due to cardiovascular contraindications and precautions, as well as other comorbidities, and many may discontinue triptans because of inadequate or inconsistent symptom relief or poor tolerability. Several gepants are also indicated for the treatment of migraine (both acute and preventive), and their demonstrated efficacy and safety may address some challenges associated with triptans. Methods This narrative review addresses considerations for the acute treatment of migraine through summarizing literature and data from preclinical studies and clinical trials of triptans and gepants. Results We consider triptans and gepants, where available, first‐line treatment options for the acute treatment of migraine. Triptans may be prescribed in the absence of contraindications, significant risk of cardiovascular disease, or risk for or history of medication‐overuse headache. In those who have contraindications or precautions for triptans, those who do not have an adequate response to triptans, and those unable to tolerate them, gepants are often an appropriate option. The efficacy and safety of gepants for the acute treatment of migraine has been established through clinical trials and open‐label extension studies and based on real‐world evidence. Gepants have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in triptan insufficient responders, perhaps because of their distinct mechanisms of action. Additionally, the safety of gepants, including relative cardiovascular safety, is supported in pivotal controlled trials and open‐label extension trials. In experimental settings and through their use as preventive treatment for migraine, gepants appear unlikely to produce medication‐overuse headache. In addition, one gepant (ubrogepant) has demonstrated efficacy in preventing headache onset when given during the prodrome, a finding that has not been demonstrated for triptans. A single‐arm, open‐label study of naratriptan given during the prodrome suggested fewer subsequent headaches, but interpretation is limited because there was no contemporaneous control group. Limited head‐to‐head clinical trials comparing gepants and triptans have not demonstrated significant differences. Prescribers of both triptans and gepants should be mindful of potential drug–drug interactions. Conclusions Key advantages of gepants include their favorable tolerability, efficacy for the acute treatment of both the prodromal/premonitory phase (ubrogepant) and the headache phase of migraine (ubrogepant, rimegepant, zavegepant), lack of cardiovascular contraindications, and lack of association with medication‐overuse headache. Disadvantages include limitations due to cost and access and CYP3A4 drug interactions for most gepants. Together, the advantages may help to optimize patient care and lead to better persistence and effectiveness in a real‐world setting. Head‐to‐head studies are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of triptans and gepants.

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.

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.

Abstract Migraine and functional neurological disorder (FND) are two of the most common conditions in neurological practice. It is assumed that the two conditions have distinct underlying mechanisms. However, it can be clinically challenging to disentangle their relative contributions to a patient's symptoms. In addition, apart from the relationship between persistent postural perceptual dizziness (PPPD) and migraine, the frequency of co-occurrence has not been characterized in detail. Contemporary conceptualizations of FND have driven a re-evaluation of its relationship to other neurological disorders, including migraine. We carried out a narrative review of the literature examining the co-occurrence of migraine and FND. We also explored their comorbidities, aetiological risk factors and mechanisms, focusing especially on areas of potential overlap. Our review suggests increased frequency of migraine in people with functional seizures compared to epilepsy, but data from people with functional motor symptoms is mixed. Robust epidemiological studies evaluating the frequency of FND in migraine are lacking. Similar to other neurological disorders, migraine is an established trigger of FND. Female gender, adverse childhood experiences and comorbid psychiatric and functional disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia, are more common in both conditions than in controls, but perhaps more so in FND. Mechanistic research in both conditions highlights converging frameworks of dysregulated allostatic/stress responses in the context of predictive processing models of the brain. This has implications for pharmaceutical and rehabilitation treatments. The relationship between migraine and FND is poorly studied. An overview of their overlap offers a model of non-dualistic thinking within a clinical neuroscience framework for future studies.

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.

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.