Lipton, Richard B.

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 120 mg DFN‐15 vs placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. Background Certain nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are guideline‐recommended therapies for the acute treatment of migraine, but patients who use them may have issues with gastrointestinal tolerability. Celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase‐2, produces analgesia similar to nonselective NSAIDs. DFN‐15 is an oral, ready‐made liquid solution of celecoxib being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, efficacy, tolerability, and safety study in adults with migraine was conducted. Subjects treated a single migraine attack with 120 mg DFN‐15 or placebo as soon as possible after the onset of pain of moderate to severe intensity. The 2 independent coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of subjects with freedom from pain and the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours postdose. A second double‐blind treatment period followed the first, but did not contribute to the primary outcomes and will be reported elsewhere. Results There were 622 subjects randomized (1:1) to double‐blind treatment with either 120 mg DFN‐15 or placebo, and 567 (91.2%) treated a migraine with study drug (n = 285 DFN‐15; n = 282 placebo). Groups were balanced in demographic characteristics; the mean age was 40, and most subjects were female (87% [494/567]). At 2 hours postdose, DFN‐15 was significantly superior to placebo for pain freedom (35.6% [98/275] vs 21.7% [57/263], P < .001), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.00 (1.36, 2.94) and for freedom from the MBS (57.8% [134/232] vs 44.8% [104/232], P = .007), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 1.68 (1.17, 2.43). A total of 13.3% (38/285) of DFN‐15‐treated subjects and 8.9% (25/282) of placebo‐treated subjects reported a treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE). Study drug‐related TEAEs were reported by 9.1% (26/285) of DFN‐15 subjects and 6.0% (17/282) of placebo subjects, the most common of which were dysgeusia (4.2% [12/285] vs 1.4% [4/282]) and nausea (3.2% [9/285] vs 1.8% [5/282]). No subjects treated with DFN‐15 reported TEAEs that were severe or led to withdrawal, and no serious TEAEs or deaths were reported in the study. Conclusions DFN‐15 was significantly more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine, with a generally favorable tolerability and safety profile.

Introduction ICHD-3 criteria for chronic migraine (CM) include a mixture of migraine and tension-type-like headaches and do not account for patients who have a high frequency of migraine but no other headaches. Materials and methods Patients from the Danish Headache Center and their relatives with ICHD-3 defined CM were compared with patients with high frequency episodic migraine (HFEM). Danish registries were used to compare the socioeconomic impact in these two groups. A Russian student population was used to determine the generalizability of the number of patients fulfilling CM and the proposed diagnostic criteria for CM. Results There was no difference in the demographic profile between the two groups in the Danish cohort. The number of lifelong or annual attacks ( p > 0.3), comorbid diseases, or self-reported effect of triptans ( p = 1) did not differ. HFEM patients purchased more triptans than CM patients ( p = 0.01). CM patients received more early pension ( p = 0.00135) but did not differ from HFEM patients with regard to sickness benefit ( p = 0.207), cash assistance ( p = 0.139), or rehabilitation benefit ( p = 1). Discussion Patients with HFEM are comparable to CM patients with regard to chronicity and disability. We therefore suggest classifying CM as ≥ 8 migraine days per month (proposed CM), disregarding the need for ≥ 15 headache days per month. The proposed diagnostic criteria for CM approximately doubled the number of patients with CM in both the Danish and the Russian materials. Extending the definition of CM to include patients with HFEM will ensure that patients with significant disease burden and unmet treatment needs are identified and provided appropriate access to the range of treatment options and resources available to those with CM. Conclusion Patients with migraine on eight or more days but not 15 days with headache a month are as disabled as patients with ICHD-3 defined CM. They should be included in revised diagnostic criteria for chronic migraine.

Objectives To characterize unmet treatment needs in a sample of Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study participants using oral, acute prescription migraine medications. Background The MAST Study is a 2017 study of US adults with migraine that profiles current treatment patterns and identifies and quantifies unmet treatment needs. Methods Cross‐sectional data from an online survey of US adults meeting ICHD‐3 beta criteria for migraine. For inclusion in this paper, respondents self‐reported a history of 3 or more monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months and at least 1 MHD in the past 30 days, and current use of orally administered acute prescription medication for headache. Three domains of unmet need were identified: inadequate treatment response (ie, inadequate 2‐hour pain freedom, recurrence within 24 hours of initial relief), demanding attack characteristics (rapid onset of attack, headache associated with sleep), and unique patient characteristics (opioid or barbiturate overuse, cardiovascular comorbidity). Sociodemographics, oral medication use, and coexisting conditions and symptoms (ie, level of treatment optimization, psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia, and migraine symptom severity) were assessed for each domain and by the number of unmet need domains. Results Overall, 15,133 respondents met inclusion criteria, 26.0% (3930/15,133) reported current use of oral acute prescription medication to treat headache. Eligible participants had a mean age of 45.0 years, 73.6% [2892/3930] were women and 81.1% [3186/3930]) were White. A total of 95.8% (3765/3930) of respondents had at least 1 unmet acute treatment need; 89.5% (3516/3930) reported demanding attack characteristics, 74.1% (2912/3930) reported inadequate treatment response, and 16.1% (634/3930) presented with unique patient characteristics. Common areas of unmet need were rapid headache onset (65.3% [2567/3930]), moderate to severe disability (55.6% [2187/3930]), inadequate 2‐hours pain freedom (49.0% [1892/3930]), and headache recurrence within 24 hours (38.0% [1493/3930]). An increasing number of unmet treatment need domains was associated with worsening psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia and migraine symptom severity. Conclusion Nearly all MAST Study respondents using acute oral prescription medications for migraine reported at least 1 unmet treatment need. As unmet needs increased, so did coexisting conditions and symptom severity.

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. We evaluated eptinezumab, an intravenous (IV) anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of chronic migraine. Objective To determine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of four dose levels of eptinezumab and to inform the phase 3 development program. Methods This was a phase 2b, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial. Men and women (N = 616) aged 18–55 years were included if they had a diagnosis of chronic migraine, with onset at age ≤35 years and history of chronic migraine ≥1 year. During the 28-day screening period, patients must have had ≥15 headache days, including ≥8 migraine days, with ≥5 migraine attacks as recorded in the electronic diary. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to eptinezumab 300, 100, 30, 10 mg or placebo, administered as a single IV infusion. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a ≥75% decrease in monthly migraine days over weeks 1–12 compared with the 28-day screening period. Results The ≥75% migraine responder rates over weeks 1–12 for eptinezumab 300, 100, 30, and 10 mg were 33.3%, 31.4%, 28.2%, and 26.8%, respectively, versus 20.7% for placebo ( p = 0.033, 0.072, 0.201, 0.294 vs. placebo). Secondary efficacy endpoints (e.g. ≥50% responder rate, change from baseline in frequency of migraine/headache days, and percentage of severe migraines) had results favoring the three higher eptinezumab doses versus placebo. Eptinezumab was well tolerated and adverse event rates were similar to placebo. Conclusions The results of this trial demonstrate that eptinezumab appears effective and well-tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and justifies the conduct of pivotal phase 3 trials for migraine prevention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02275117.

Background The Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials demonstrated efficacy/tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine. This post hoc analysis assessed time of onset of onabotulinumtoxinA after the first treatment in total and responder populations and consistency weekly through five treatment cycles. Methods In the 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase of PREEMPT, individuals were randomized 1:1 to onabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) or placebo every 12 weeks for two cycles. The primary pooled efficacy variable was change in headache days per 28 days at week 24. We assessed change in headache and migraine/probable migraine (hereafter migraine) days/week compared with baseline week 4. Results Baseline mean (SD) headache days/week (week 4 of baseline) for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 688) and placebo (n = 696) were similar (4.8 [1.6] vs. 4.8 [1.6] days/week, respectively), as were migraine days/week (4.6 [1.7] vs. 4.6 [1.7] days/week). The effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on change in headache and migraine days/week was significantly greater than placebo at week 1, persisting from week 3 after the first treatment (−1.6 [2.2] vs. −1.1 [2.2] headache days/week [ p < 0.001] and −1.6 [2.2] vs. −1.1 [2.2] migraine days/week [ p < 0.001]). Headache and migraine days decreased in onabotulinumtoxinA responders beginning 1 week after treatment 1. Conclusions Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with significant reductions in headache and migraine days/week at week 1, persisting after week 3, compared with placebo. Combined with earlier reports showing onabotulinumtoxinA treatment results in a persistent and progressive reduction in headache days over 56 weeks, it is suggested peak benefit may require multiple treatments. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00156910 and NCT00168428.

The quality of clinical trials is an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. Scientific and clinical developments in headache medicine led to second and third editions in 2000 and 2012, respectively. The current, fourth edition of the Guidelines retains the structure and much content from previous editions. However, it also incorporates evidence from clinical trials published after the third edition as well as feedback from meetings with regulators, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and patient associations. Its final form reflects the collective expertise and judgement of the Committee. These updated recommendations and commentary are intended to meet the Society's continuing objective of providing a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Background Cutaneous allodynia is a common clinical feature of migraine that has been associated with reduced efficacy of acute migraine treatments and an increased risk of disease progression. Objective Identify factors associated with allodynia in a sample of adults with migraine. Methods An online survey panel was used to identify adults with migraine who averaged at least 1 monthly headache day over the previous 3 months. Data on sociodemographics, headache frequency, headache pain intensity, migraine symptom severity, medication use, depression and anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist) were obtained. Binary logistic modeling predicted the presence of allodynia. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results In total, 15,133 individuals with migraine met the eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 years, 73.0% were female, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Allodynia was present in 39.9%. The fully adjusted model, controlling for sociodemographics and headache features, demonstrated that allodynia was significantly associated with a higher migraine symptom severity score (odds ratio 1.17, confidence interval 1.15, 1.19) and more severe pain intensity (odds ratio 1.11, confidence interval 1.08, 1.14); probable depression and/or anxiety (odds ratio 1.83, confidence interval 1.67, 2.00); and overuse of acute medication (odds ratio 1.23, confidence interval 1.09, 1.38). A higher number of monthly headache days increased the likelihood of allodynia, but the effect was attenuated in the fully adjusted model. Conclusion In a representative sample of US adults with migraine, there were significant associations between allodynia and headache frequency and intensity, anxiety and/or depression, symptom severity, and acute medication overuse.

Objective This study aimed to identify the essential content and amount of information to be collected from people with migraine via a patient‐facing smartphone‐based migraine tracker for them to share with clinicians during live discussions to assist in optimizing migraine management. The proposed tracker is intended for use in non‐interventional research to evaluate disease burden in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients as assessed by demographic and clinical characteristics and health resource utilization in an integrated delivery network setting. The proposed tracker is not intended for commercial purposes. Background Epidemiological studies suggest migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Studies of patient‐clinician interactions suggest that effective medical communication may help address these issues. Methods Four migraine practice leaders, an epidemiologist with extensive migraine experience, and a measurement expert took part in a modified Delphi panel process to identify data elements that could be collected from people with migraine through a smartphone‐based migraine tracker. Importantly, the proposed tracker would not be intended to replace the patient‐clinician encounter but to support the encounter through enabling the patient to document migraine symptoms and experiences in a timely and accurate manner for sharing with a clinician as part of a broader face‐to‐face discussion. The panel reviewed questions derived from the existing migraine diaries in the public domain, those used in clinical trials, and patient‐centric surveys assessing the impact of migraine on physical function and other related concepts. Key considerations included identification of the most clinically useful data elements for a shared communication tool for people with migraine under the care of a clinician. The panel also identified numerous functionality requirements for such a tool and provided recommendations on the most effective way to present results to a clinician. Results The expert panel opined that people with migraine may value the ability to capture a relatively broad range of information for their own migraine‐tracking purposes, while clinicians will likely find greater value in a small set of data relevant to the management of migraine. The panel identified the 3 most essential concepts in categories of data for a clinician, for which they coined the term “The 3 Fs”: F requency of days with headache; F requency of acute medication usage; and F unctional impairment. Information on the frequency of days with headache was felt to combine with the information on the frequency of acute medication usage to provide essential insights into current migraine management strategy and its outcomes, and to assist considerations of preventive measures. Functional impairment was treated as an effective surrogate for headache severity and was assessed based on the following: degree of difficulty in performing activities of daily living, impact on absenteeism (taking leave from work or cancelling/avoiding other activities) and presenteeism (performing work or other daily activities, with reduced productivity/capability), and amount of rest required as a result of a migraine attack. The modified Delphi panel process resulted in the selection of 13 questions in 8 categories to elicit sufficient and meaningful data comprising headache occurrence, symptoms, daily/preventive and as‐needed/acute medication usage, triggers, ability to concentrate, and functional impairment. The panel also agreed that the tracker should generate 2 distinct reports: one for people with migraine that would include a wider range of data about symptoms and perceived triggers, and a targeted report for the clinician that would place prime emphasis on the 3 Fs for aggregating the results of each headache occurrence and the trend over time. Conclusions A system that easily captures critical data elements about migraine, with specific feedback displays for patients to share with clinicians during live discussions, may offer some benefit to people with migraine and their clinicians by facilitating more objective communication and optimizing management. The tracker’s output may enable people with migraine to track a wide range of data for their own purposes, allowing them to better understand their condition, while a synthesized view of the selected data may support more informed clinical decision‐making for the clinician and individualized, evidence‐based discussion with the patient. As a result, this shared decision‐making tool may enable patients to more accurately convey essential migraine information during live patient‐clinician discussions to drive improved management and patient outcomes.