Diener, Hans‐Christoph

Importance Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) comprise a unique collection of primary headache disorders characterized by moderate or severe unilateral pain, localized in in the area of distribution of the first branch of the trigeminal nerve, accompanied by cranial autonomic symptoms and signs. Most TACs are rare diseases, which hampers the possibility of performing randomized clinical trials and large studies. Therefore, knowledge of treatment efficacy must be based only on observational studies, rare disease registries, and case reports, where real-world data and evidence play an important role in health care decisions. Observations Chronic cluster headache is the most common of these disorders, and the literature offers some evidence from randomized clinical trials to support the use of pharmacologic and neurostimulation treatments. Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide, was not effective at 3 months in a randomized clinical trial but showed efficacy at 12 months in a large case series. For the other TACs (ie, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms), only case reports and case series are available to guide physicians in everyday management. Conclusions and Relevance The accumulation of epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, natural history knowledge, and data from case series and small controlled trials, especially over the past 20 years from investigators around the world, has added to the previously limited evidence and has helped advance and inform the treatment approach to rare TACs, which can be extremely challenging for clinicians.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient‐reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH). Background MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect. Methods PROMISE‐2 was a phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient‐reported outcomes: 6‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient‐identified most bothersome symptom (PI‐MBS), and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). Results A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE‐2 population [ n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT‐6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24‐week study. Responder rates for individual HIT‐6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab‐treated patients indicated the PGIC was “much” or “very much” improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI‐MBS and SF‐36 scores. Conclusions This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient‐reported outcomes.

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., “common data elements”), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Background Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine. Methods An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine. Results Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created. Conclusions Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg compared with placebo in patients with the dual diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH). Background Eptinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene‐related peptide, may be effective for treating patients with a dual diagnosis of CM and MOH. Methods PROMISE‐2 (NCT02974153) was a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 study that comprised a screening visit, a 28‐day pretreatment period, and a 32‐week study duration. Patients in this exploratory analysis of a prespecified subgroup had confirmed diagnoses of both CM and MOH at screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Efficacy outcomes included mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) during weeks 1–12, migraine responder rates at week 12, and percentages of patients below International Classification of Headache Disorders thresholds for CM and MOH over weeks 1–24. Results There were 431 patients who were diagnosed with CM and MOH as specified in the protocol and received eptinezumab 100 mg ( n = 139), 300 mg ( n = 147), or placebo ( n = 145). During the baseline period, these patients experienced an average of 16.7 migraine days across treatment arms. Over weeks 1–12, eptinezumab‐treated patients experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than placebo patients (100 mg, change from baseline = −8.4, difference from placebo [95% confidence interval (CI)] = −3.0 [−4.56, −1.52], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; 300 mg, change from baseline = −8.6, difference from placebo [95% CI] = −3.2 [−4.66, −1.78], p < 0.0001 vs. placebo; placebo, −5.4). Compared with placebo, more eptinezumab‐treated patients were ≥50% migraine responders (100 mg, 84/139 [60.4%]; 300 mg, 91/147 [61.9%]; placebo, 50/145 [34.5%]) or ≥75% responders (100 mg, 38/139 [27.3%]; 300 mg, 44/147 [29.9%]; placebo, 21/145 [14.5%]) over weeks 1–12. Therapeutic benefits with eptinezumab were observed from day 1 after dosing, and improvements were sustained with an additional dose. For the full 24‐week treatment period, 71/139 (51.1%), 80/147 (54.4%), and 47/145 (32.4%) of 100, 300 mg, and placebo‐treated patients, respectively, were below CM thresholds, and of the patients who provided sufficient acute medication data, 47/93 (50.5%), 53/107 (49.5%), and 26/96 (27.1%), respectively, were below medication‐overuse thresholds. Conclusions In patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH, eptinezumab treatment resulted in greater reductions in MMDs, higher responder rates, and fewer patients meeting CM and MOH criteria, thus demonstrating the efficacy and clinical utility of eptinezumab in this patient population.

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 Quality clinical trials form 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. In 2008, the Committee published the first specific guidelines on chronic migraine. Subsequent advances in drug, device, and biologicals development, as well as novel trial designs, have created a need for a revision of the chronic migraine guidelines. Objective The present update is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and its recommendations do not apply to trials in children or adolescents.