Dodick, David W

Abstract Objective To compare the artificial intelligence‐enabled electrocardiogram (AI‐ECG) atrial fibrillation (AF) prediction model output in patients with migraine with aura (MwA) and migraine without aura (MwoA). Background MwA is associated with an approximately twofold risk of ischemic stroke. Longitudinal cohort studies showed that patients with MwA have a higher incidence of developing AF compared to those with MwoA. The Mayo Clinic Cardiology team developed an AI‐ECG algorithm that calculates the probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF in ECGs with normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Methods Adult patients with an MwA or MwoA diagnosis and at least one NSR ECG within the past 20 years at Mayo Clinic were identified. Patients with an ECG‐confirmed diagnosis of AF were excluded. For each patient, the ECG with the highest AF prediction model output was used as the index ECG. Comparisons between MwA and MwoA were conducted in the overall group (including men and women of all ages), women only, and men only in each age range (18 to <35, 35 to <55, 55 to <75, ≥75 years), and adjusted for age, sex, and six common vascular comorbidities that increase risk for AF. Results The final analysis of our cross‐sectional study included 40,002 patients (17,840 with MwA, 22,162 with MwoA). The mean (SD) age at the index ECG was 48.2 (16.0) years for MwA and 45.9 (15.0) years for MwoA ( p < 0.001). The AF prediction model output was significantly higher in the MwA group compared to MwoA (mean [SD] 7.3% [15.0%] vs. 5.6% [12.4%], mean difference [95% CI] 1.7% [1.5%, 2.0%], p < 0.001). After adjusting for vascular comorbidities, the difference between MwA and MwoA remained significant in the overall group (least square means of difference [95% CI] 0.7% [0.4%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), 18 to <35 (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%], p = 0.022), and 35 to <55 (0.5% [0.2%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), women of all ages (0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%], p < 0.001), men of all ages (1.0% [0.4%, 1.6%], p = 0.002), women 35 to <55 (0.6% [0.3%, 0.9%], p < 0.001), and men 18 to <35 (1.2% [0.3%, 2.1%], p = 0.008). Conclusions Utilizing a novel AI‐ECG algorithm on a large group of patients, we demonstrated that patients with MwA have a significantly higher AF prediction model output, implying a higher probability of concurrent paroxysmal or impending AF, compared to MwoA in both women and men. Our results suggest that MwA is an independent risk factor for AF, especially in patients <55 years old, and that AF‐mediated cardioembolism may play a role in the migraine–stroke association for some patients.

Abstract Objective To investigate the impact of having headaches prior to traumatic brain injury (TBI) on headache features and long‐term patient health outcomes. Background and Methods This was an exploratory analysis of patients with TBI who were enrolled in the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR), a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal patient registry composed of patients with International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD‐3)–defined headache diagnoses. The ARMR study enrolled 2,707 patients between February 1, 2016 and May 6, 2020, 565 of whom qualified for this analysis. Those with headaches prior to their TBI were compared to those without headaches prior to their TBI for ICHD‐3 diagnoses, headache frequency and intensity, headache‐related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment score), symptoms of anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder [GAD‐7]), depression (two items from Patient Health Questionnaire‐9), post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cutaneous allodynia (12‐item Allodynia Symptom Checklist [ASC‐12]), cognitive dysfunction (Migraine Attacks Subjective Cognitive Impairments Scale [Mig‐SCog]), pain interference (Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System‐Pain Interference), and work productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment). Results Among 565 participants with TBI, 350 had headaches prior to their TBI. Those with pre‐TBI headaches were less likely to receive a diagnosis of post‐traumatic headache (PTH; 14/350 [4.0%] vs. 21/215 [9.8%], p = 0.006), even though 25.7% reported new or worsening headaches within 7 days of their TBI. Those with pre‐TBI headaches had higher ASC‐12 scores (2.4 ± 3.5 vs. 1.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.030), Mig‐SCog scores (9.3 ± 4.7 vs. 8 ± 4.9, p = 0.004), and GAD‐7 scores (6.9 ± 5.1 vs. 6.2 ± 5.4, p = 0.039), and were more likely to have a migraine diagnosis (335/350 [95.7%] vs. 192/215 [89.3%], p = 0.003). Conclusions Those with headaches prior to TBI are less likely to receive a diagnosis of PTH. They have more severe symptoms of cutaneous allodynia, cognitive impairment, and generalized anxiety. This analysis suggests that pre‐TBI headaches might impact post‐TBI headache diagnoses and associated features.

Abstract Objective To assess the utility of the novel patient‐identified (PI) most bothersome symptom (MBS) measure from PROMISE‐2, a phase 3 trial of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Background Relief of bothersome migraine symptoms can influence satisfaction with treatment and therapeutic persistence. Understanding the impact of preventive treatment on a PI‐MBS could improve clinical decision‐making. Methods In PROMISE‐2, patients with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to 2 doses ( n = 1072). PI‐MBS was an exploratory outcome requiring each patient to self‐report their MBS in response to an open‐ended question. At baseline and week 12, patients rated overall improvement in PI‐MBS. The relationships among PI‐MBS at week 12 and change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to month 3 (weeks 9–12), Patient Global Impression of Change at week 12, and changes from baseline to week 12 in the 6‐item Headache Impact Test total, EuroQol 5‐dimensions 5‐levels visual analog scale, and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey component scores were assessed. Results Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics and reported a total of 23 unique PI‐MBS, most commonly light sensitivity (200/1072, 18.7%), nausea/vomiting (162/1072, 15.1%), and pain with activity (147/1072, 13.7%). Improvements in PI‐MBS at week 12 correlated with changes in MMDs ( ρ = −0.49; p < 0.0001) and other patient‐reported outcomes. Controlling for changes in MMDs, PI‐MBS improvement predicted other patient‐reported outcomes in expected directions. The magnitude of the standardized mean differences between placebo and active treatment for PI‐MBS were 0.31 ( p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) and 0.54 ( p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively. Conclusions Improvement in PI‐MBS at week 12 was associated with improvement in other patient‐reported outcome measures, and PI‐MBS may be an important patient‐centered measure of treatment benefits in patients with chronic migraine.

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.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM‐D). Background Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. Methods The AIM‐D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM‐D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13‐week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM‐D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM‐D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression – Severity (PGI‐S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function‐Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM‐D. Results Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM‐D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11‐item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one‐ and two‐domain structures for the AIM‐D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM‐D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95–0.97), acceptable test–retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI‐S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known‐groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI‐S score and monthly migraine days. Conclusion The AIM‐D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Abstract Objective To assess the risk of hypertension in patients with migraine who received erenumab in clinical trials and in the postmarketing setting. Background Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention that targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor. Hypertension is a theoretical risk for inhibitors of the CGRP pathway. Although no evidence of an association between erenumab treatment and hypertension was observed during the clinical development program, adverse events (AEs) of hypertension have been identified in the postmarketing setting. Methods Safety data from four phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials were used to perform a pooled analysis of hypertension AEs in patients with migraine receiving erenumab. Postmarketing AEs of hypertension were identified from the Amgen Global Safety database from May 17, 2018, through January 31, 2020. Results In the pooled analysis of clinical trials, hypertension AEs (placebo, 9/1043 [0.9%]; erenumab 70 mg, 7/893 [0.8%]; erenumab 140 mg, 1/507 [0.2%]) and percentage of patients initiating medication to treat hypertension (12/1043 [1.2%], 7/893 [0.8%], 1/507 [0.2%], respectively) were similar across treatment groups. A total of 362 AEs of hypertension were identified from the postmarketing setting, 26.2% (95/362) of which were serious, >245,000 patient‐years of exposure. The exposure‐adjusted incidence of hypertension was 0.144 per 100 patient‐years. Conclusions Clinical trials did not demonstrate an increased risk of hypertension with erenumab compared with placebo, and AE rates of hypertension reported with erenumab in the postmarketing setting were generally low. Additional data are needed to fully characterize the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab.

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether the 15‐day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. Background The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. Methods The patients with migraine ( N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0–7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8–14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15–23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS‐PI), Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4), and General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scores were compared. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS‐PI, GAD‐7, and PHQ‐4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20–58] vs. 55 [30–90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7–30], p < 0.001), WPAI‐% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS‐PI‐T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52–138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7–30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20–58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30–90), p < 0.001], WPAI‐%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI‐% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI‐%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.

Abstract Objectives To describe the methodology and implications of the patient‐identified most bothersome symptom (PI‐MBS) measure used in the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, and parallel‐group PROMISE‐2 trial and to evaluate the contribution of this measure to the assessment of the preventive migraine benefits of treatment. Background Although freedom from MBS is a coprimary endpoint in acute migraine treatment trials, its evaluation in preventive migraine trials is limited. The PROMISE‐2 study assessed a unique PI‐MBS measure as a secondary endpoint. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from the PROMISE‐2 study. Adults with chronic migraine (CM) were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo, administered on day 0 and every 12 weeks. At the screening visit, patients were asked to verbally describe the MBS associated with their CM; the question format was open ended. At subsequent visits, patients were asked to rate the overall change in severity of their MBS from study inception to that time point, using a 7‐point ordinal scale ranging from “very much worse” (−3) to “very much improved” (+3). Patients completed the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment during the same visits, using an identical rating scale and recall period. Endpoints were summarized descriptively; post hoc correlations using the methodologies of Pearson and Spearman were calculated to evaluate relationships between PGIC and PI‐MBS and between PGIC and mean monthly migraine days (MMDs; primary efficacy endpoint in PROMISE‐2). Results Altogether, 1072 patients received treatment (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 356; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) and were included in the analysis. There were 23 unique MBS identified; those reported by ≥10 patients included light sensitivity (18.7%), nausea/vomiting (15.1%), pain with activity (13.7%), pain (12.4%), headache (11.2%), sound sensitivity (7.3%), throbbing/pulsating pain (4.7%), cognitive disruption (4.1%), fatigue (2.4%), mood changes (1.5%), and sensitivity to smell (0.9%). Four weeks after the first dose (week 4), the rates of much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS were higher with eptinezumab 100 mg (45%) and 300 mg (57%) than with placebo (29%). Four weeks after the second dose (week 16), the proportions with much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS had increased to 58%, 65%, and 36%, respectively. At each time point, the percentages of patients with PGIC ratings of much or very much improved were similar to those for patient‐reported improvement in PI‐MBS. Patient ratings of changes in PI‐MBS and PGIC correlated strongly across time points (Pearson, r range, 0.83–0.88; Spearman, r range, 0.83–0.89); the absolute value of the correlations was greater than the correlation among changes in MMDs and PGIC (Pearson, r range, −0.49 to −0.52; Spearman, r range, −0.49 to −0.52). Conclusions Among patients with CM in the PROMISE‐2 study, a broad range of PI‐MBS was reported at baseline. Throughout the study, patients treated with eptinezumab reported greater improvement in their PI‐MBS severity compared with placebo recipients, and this improvement correlated strongly with PGIC findings. Collectively, these results indicate that PI‐MBS is a promising and novel outcome measure for preventive trials of CM and thus may provide a unique patient‐centered approach for identifying and measuring the burden of migraine symptoms that matter most to each patient, as well as the benefits of treatment.