Ailani, Jessica

Abstract Objectives Discuss the current status of advanced practice providers (APPs) onboarding to headache medicine (HM) practices in the United States and present recommendations of the American Headache Society (AHS) APP Work Group to improve the onboarding process. Background A high demand for care, national shortage of specialists, and multiple advancements in HM have led to an increasing interest and presence of APPs of various backgrounds in the field, currently without a unifying onboarding process. Efforts to standardize and optimize the onboarding process for APPs in HM practices are necessary, to ensure high standards in quality of care. Methods The APP Work Group of the AHS Practice Management Committee developed comprehensive recommendations through literature review, survey of AHS members, and expert consensus. A modified Delphi protocol was used to establish key onboarding goals, definitions, and best practice recommendations. Results Recommendations are made regarding duration of onboarding, appropriate supervision, formal education and procedural skills, scope of practice, grading and documentation of competence, and reciprocal feedback. Conclusion Currently, there are no standard onboarding and training guidelines for APPs in the field of HM. We provide recommendations for a more systematic approach to help develop qualified providers and enhance their retention in HM practices.

Abstract Objectives The aim of this work was to develop an American Headache Society position statement addressing diagnostic screening for migraine among girls and women. Background Despite its high prevalence and substantial negative impacts, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Diagnostic screening for migraine enables more patients to receive timely, appropriate, and effective management. Methods Development of this position statement followed the rules established by the American Headache Society Guidelines Committee. The published literature was reviewed to determine if migraine meets criteria for when disease screening is justified, to guide recommendations for screening tools, and to determine subpopulation(s) for which migraine screening is indicated. After author consensus was reached, the position statement was reviewed and approved by the American Headache Society Board of Directors. Results Migraine fulfills established criteria for conditions in which screening is appropriate since it is highly prevalent, results in significant morbidity, and exerts substantial economic and social costs. Migraine incidence and prevalence are exceptionally high among girls and women during adolescence and through menopause. Furthermore, there are valid and reliable diagnostic screening methods (e.g., ID Migraine) and effective treatments that reduce migraine symptoms and disease impact. Conclusion Yearly diagnostic screening for migraine should be included as part of women's preventive healthcare services, particularly from adolescence to menopause.

Abstract Objective This study aimed to understand the factors limiting access to medications for the preventive treatment of migraine and to improve access to evidence‐based preventive care. Background For decades, the effective use of medication for the preventive treatment of migraine was limited by slow onset, slow and complex dose titration schedules, modest benefits, drug interactions, frequent side effects, and very low long‐term adherence. The calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) targeted preventive medications mitigate some of these limitations and demonstrated substantial therapeutic benefits in a significant proportion of adults with migraine. The American Headache Society considers these medications among the first‐line options for migraine prevention, although access to them remains limited. The American Migraine Foundation hosted a single‐day, multidisciplinary expert panel discussion to identify barriers to optimal preventive care and developed recommendations to address them. Methods Participants identified and prioritized barriers and used a modified nominal group technique to achieve consensus on them. A series of moderated discussions in plenary and breakout sessions was used to create possible solutions. Modified nominal group technique was also employed to achieve consensus on the priorities among these barriers and to achieve whole‐group consensus on the recommendations. Ethical issues that inform access were discussed. Results Participants included eight neurologists and board‐certified headache specialists, six representatives of reimbursement decision‐makers, six employees of life sciences companies, four patient advocates with lived experience with migraine, and a medical ethicist. Among those who have consulted healthcare professionals and received a diagnosis of migraine, we identified four main barriers to accessing preventive treatment: restrictive prior authorization requirements, the perceived lack of real‐world evidence and treatment guidelines, the need for clinician education, and the need for patient education. Consensus recommendations for eliminating barriers centered on using new evidence to evaluate policies that restrict the selection of first‐line therapies, initiating/improving collaboration among stakeholders, sharing of data and best practices, and increased training. Participants agreed to explore novel definitions of the value of preventive treatment and to establish the Migraine Prevention Network to facilitate ongoing cooperation and collective action. However, due to financial limitations, staffing changes, and time constraints, post‐meeting discussions led to a shift from establishing a broad Migraine Prevention Network to forming smaller task forces focused on the top‐priority barriers (real‐world evidence and The Patient Playbook ) identified through collaborative voting among American Headache Society, American Migraine Foundation, and industry stakeholders. Conclusions Adults with migraine face multiple barriers in accessing novel migraine‐specific, CGRP‐targeted preventive treatment. Stakeholders in the delivery of care, including clinicians, reimbursement decision‐makers, life sciences companies, and patient and clinician advocates, may be able to overcome many of these barriers and improve access by working with and on behalf of patients.

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.

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).