Blumenfeld, Andrew

Abstract Background Treatment wearing‐off has been reported for calcitonin gene‐related peptide‐pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. Objective We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. Methods In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double‐blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing‐off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1–3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). Results There was no evidence of wearing‐off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1–3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing‐off, but the extent of wearing‐off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1–3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing‐off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab‐treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing‐off and those maintaining response. Conclusion No systematic wearing‐off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing‐off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Abstract Objective To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. Background Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. Methods This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. Results In the pooled analysis population ( n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom ( p = 0.290) and absence of MBS ( p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. Conclusions Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Background The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated. Methods ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis. Results Participants’ (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0–1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14–1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33–2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2–24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1–2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3–2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1–2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0–1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC 90 for nearly 12 h. Conclusions Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine. Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709)

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.

The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has attracted the interest of practitioners treating head and face pain for over a century because of its anatomical connections and role in the trigemino‐autonomic reflex. In this review, we discuss the anatomy of the SPG, as well as what is known about its role in the pathophysiology of headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. We then address various therapies that target the SPG, including intranasal medication delivery, new SPG blocking catheter devices, neurostimulation, chemical neurolysis, and ablation procedures.

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.

Objective/Background To review the existing literature and describe a standardized methodology by expert consensus for the performance of trigger point injections ( TPIs ) in the treatment of headache disorders. Despite their widespread use, the efficacy, safety, and methodology of TPIs have not been reviewed specifically for headache disorders by expert consensus. Methods The Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Other Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the A merican H eadache S ociety over a series of meetings reached a consensus for nomenclature, indications, contraindications, precautions, procedural details, outcomes, and adverse effects for the use of TPIs for headache disorders. A subcommittee of the Section also reviewed the literature. Results Indications for TPIs may include many types of episodic and chronic primary and secondary headache disorders, with the presence of active trigger points ( TPs ) on physical examination. Contraindications may include infection, a local open skull defect, or an anesthetic allergy, and precautions are necessary in the setting of anticoagulant use, pregnancy, and obesity with unclear anatomical landmarks. The most common muscles selected for TPIs include the trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, and temporalis, with bupivacaine and lidocaine the agents used most frequently. Adverse effects are typically mild with careful patient and procedural selection, though pneumothorax and other serious adverse events have been infrequently reported. Conclusions When performed in the appropriate setting and with the proper expertise, TPIs seem to have a role in the adjunctive treatment of the most common headache disorders. We hope our effort to characterize the methodology of TPIs by expert opinion in the context of published data motivates the performance of evidence‐based and standardized treatment protocols.