Lipton, Richard B.

Background Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine. Methods In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4–14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week. Results We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1–4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.1 to −3.9 across atogepant doses vs −1.6 for placebo ( p < 0.0001). For weeks 5–8 and 9–12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.7 to −4.2 for atogepant vs −2.9 for placebo ( p ≤ 0.012) and −4.2 to −4.4 for atogepant vs −3.0 for placebo ( p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from −0.77 to −1.03 for atogepant vs −0.29 with placebo ( p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo ( p ≤ 0.0071). Conclusion Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059

Background Erenumab (erenumab-aooe in the US) effectively reduces monthly migraine days in episodic and chronic migraine. This traditional outcome does not capture the intensity of headache pain on days with migraine. Methods This post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine examined the effect of erenumab 70 and 140 mg on migraine pain. Cumulative monthly migraine pain intensity is the sum of the peak pain intensity scores (0 = no migraine to 3 = migraine day with severe pain) on migraine days. Change from baseline in cumulative monthly migraine pain and average monthly pain intensity was assessed over months 4 to 6 for episodic migraine and month 3 for chronic migraine; change in average monthly pain intensity was assessed among monthly migraine days responders/non-responders. Results Efficacy analysis included 946 patients for the episodic migraine study and 656 patients for the chronic migraine study. Cumulative monthly migraine pain decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo ( p < 0.001, for episodic migraine and chronic migraine). In addition, monthly average migraine pain intensity decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo for episodic migraine ( p < 0.01); decreases were non-significant for chronic migraine. In comparison with placebo-treated patients, a greater proportion of erenumab-treated patients were pain intensity responders regardless of threshold used. Episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (responders) had a greater reduction in monthly average pain intensity than non-responders. Conclusions Erenumab reduced cumulative monthly migraine pain in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients and significantly reduced monthly average migraine pain in episodic migraine, demonstrating treatment benefit beyond reduction in migraine frequency. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02066415

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.

Background Ictal cutaneous allodynia, common in chronic migraine, is associated with reduced responses to acute treatment with triptans. Allodynia’s impact on the efficacy of newer preventive treatments such as erenumab is unknown. Methods Post-hoc subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week study of erenumab in chronic migraine, contrasting those with no allodynia with those with moderate-severe allodynia assessed with the Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12, was undertaken. Results Of 648 randomized individuals with baseline Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12 scores, 386 (59.6%) had no allodynia and 153 (23.6%) had moderate-to-severe allodynia. Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine days were 17.6 (4.8) and 18.9 (4.3), respectively. Compared to placebo, the erenumab group had greater reductions in monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days in both no allodynia and allodynia subgroups. Mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences in change from baseline for monthly migraine days at week 12 were −2.5 (−3.7, −1.4) in the no allodynia subgroup and −3.3 (−5.3, −1.3) in the moderate-severe allodynia subgroup. Change in acute migraine-specific medication days were −3.3 (−4.3, −2.3) and −2.5 (−4.3, −0.8), respectively. Conclusions Erenumab’s efficacy in reducing monthly migraine days and acute migraine-specific medication days in chronic migraine was not impacted by the presence of moderate-severe ictal allodynia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066415

Abstract Background/Objective To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials. Method A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain‐related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache‐specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices. Results Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter‐rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine‐associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain‐related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one‐third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of “responders” to treatment based on wide variety of “responder definitions”) also differed substantially across publications. Conclusion Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial‐to‐trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2‐hour post‐treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi‐item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain‐related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient‐centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross‐trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.

Abstract Background Over the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized. Objective To describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Method A systematic literature review, following a pre‐specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine. Results The initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine‐specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache‐specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache‐related patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non‐headache‐specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of “responders” to treatment based on wide variety of “responder definitions”) also differed across publications. Conclusion Publications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear “standardized” set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross‐trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine.

Abstract Background Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. Objective To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. Methods Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real‐world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. Results From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females ( n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white ( n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority ( n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% ( n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% ( n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% ( n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% ( n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory agents ( n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen‐based products ( n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans ( n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate ( n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants ( n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta‐blockers ( n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA ( n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6‐month follow‐up period, almost half of patients ( n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment ( n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses ( n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued ( n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses ( n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued ( n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses ( n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6‐month follow‐up period. Conclusions Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

Abstract Objective We sought to assess factors associated with the frequency of self‐reported prescription opioid use in persons with migraine, including demographic variables, comorbidities, headache characteristics, and patterns of consultation. Background Despite the dose‐dependent effect of opioids on migraine progression and the association with negative outcomes, migraine treatment often includes opioids. The Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study focuses on individuals with migraine who receive prescription acute medications, including those receiving and those not receiving opioids. Methods This web‐based panel survey identified people in the United States with migraine using a validated screener. This analysis stratified people with migraine into 4 groups based on days of monthly opioid use: non‐opioid users, ≤3 days, 4‒9 days, and ≥10 days per month. Results Of 15,133 respondents with migraine, 4701 (31%) reported acute prescription medication use for headache/migraine in the previous 3 months (mean age 45 years, 71.6% [3367/4701] female), of whom 32.5% (1528/4701) reported opioid use. About one‐third of respondents with primary care or neurology consults in the prior 6 months reported receiving an opioid, and more than half of respondents (209/391, 53.5%) with a pain clinic consultation did so. Models compared those using opioids ≤3 days/month (879/4701, 18.7%), 4‒9 days/month (304/4701, 6.5%), ≥10 days/month (345/4701, 7.3%) to non‐opioid users (3173/4701, 67.5%). Compared to non‐opioid users, infrequent users (≤3 days/month) were more likely to be male and less likely to have chronic migraine or to screen positive for anxiety and depression; and frequent opioid users (the 4‒9 days/month and the ≥10 days/month groups) were more likely to be male, to smoke, to be obese, to report greater pain interference, to have moderate to severe disability, to have symptoms of anxiety and depression, to use fewer triptans and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, and to have poor acute treatment optimization. Conclusion Among prescription medication users, this cross‐sectional analysis shows that increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with male gender, chronic migraine, more severe disability, anxiety and depression, poor acute treatment optimization, and treatment in a pain clinic.