Aurora, Sheena K.

Objective To provide clinically relevant insights on the identification of the muscles and techniques involved in the safe and effective use of onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine prophylaxis. Background Although guidance on the use of onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine is available, based on the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program, clinical experience has shown that insufficient understanding of the anatomy and function of the head and neck muscles may lead to undesirable outcomes and suboptimal efficacy. Design/Methods Each muscle involved in the standardized PREEMPT injection paradigm is reviewed with a thorough description of each muscle's anatomy (ie, muscle description and location, innervation, vascular supply) and function. Key insights based on clinical experience are also provided to help improve outcomes. Results The identification of the muscles in the PREEMPT injection paradigm should be based on each patient's unique anatomy and injections should be administered using the advised techniques. A thorough examination of the patient prior to treatment is also critical to determine if any preexisting conditions may increase the risk for unwanted outcomes and appropriate expectations should be communicated. Conclusions Thorough knowledge of the functional anatomy of the muscles involved in the standardized PREEMPT injection paradigm is critical to achieve the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. In addition, it is important to assess a patient's baseline condition to anticipate the risk for unwanted outcomes that may result from treatment.

Aim The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant (MK-1602), a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist (CGRP-RA), for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 834 participants to treat one migraine attack with ubrogepant 1 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and headache response at two hours. The first primary hypothesis tested the dose-response trend for two-hour pain freedom using a logistic regression model. Subsequent hypotheses tested the effects of each dose on the co-primary endpoints, using a closed sequential testing procedure to control for multiplicity. Results A total of 527 participants received ubrogepant and 113 received placebo. A positive response trend in the proportion of participants achieving two-hour pain freedom was demonstrated ( p < 0.001). Ubrogepant 100 mg was significantly superior to placebo for two-hour pain freedom (25.5% vs 8.9%) but not for two-hour headache response. Per the prespecified multiplicity strategy, this nonsignificant result precluded further formal hypothesis testing, although the 50 mg and 25 mg doses demonstrated nominal significance over placebo for two-hour pain freedom (unadjusted p < 0.05). Overall, adverse events were similar between ubrogepant and placebo. Conclusion This trial supports ubrogepant’s efficacy and provides further evidence that CGRP-RAs are viable options for the acute treatment of migraine.

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.