Citations

Abstract OBJECTIVE Using individual pharmacogenomic phenotypes to investigate the factors affecting the efficacy and tolerability of verapamil for migraine prevention. BACKGROUND Verapamil has a wide range of dosing in headache disorders without reliable tools to predict the optimal doses for an individual. METHODS This is a retrospective chart review examining adults with existing pharmacogenomic reports at Mayo Clinic who had used verapamil for migraine. Effects of six cytochrome P450 phenotypes on the minimum effective and maximum tolerable verapamil doses for migraine prevention were assessed. RESULTS The mean minimum effective and maximum tolerable doses for the 33 patients in final analysis were 178.2(20–320) mg and 227.9(20–480) mg. A variety of CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5 phenotypes were found, without significant association with the verapamil doses after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated a wide range of effective and tolerable verapamil doses used for migraine in a cohort with various pharmacogenomic phenotypes.

Abstract Background Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the common causes of episodic dizziness, but it is underdiagnosed and poorly understood. Previous research suggests that otolith reflex pathway performance is often impaired in this patient group, leading to altered perception of roll plane stimuli. Clinically, this perception can be measured with subjective visual vertical (SVV) testing. Purpose The aim of this study is to compare static SVV performance (absolute mean SVV tilt, variance) in a cohort of patients diagnosed with VM to results obtained from clinically derived normative data. Study Design Retrospective case review. Study Sample Ninety-four consecutive patients between 18 and 65 years of age diagnosed with VM were included in this comparison to clinically derived normative data. Data Collection and Analysis Retrospective chart review was completed. Demographic data, symptom report, and vestibular laboratory results were documented. SVV performance was documented in terms of absolute mean SVV tilt and response variance. Results Abnormal mean SVV tilt was described in 54% (n = 51) of patients with VM. Including abnormal response variance increased those identified with abnormal presentation to 67% (n = 63). Laboratory findings were insignificant for semicircular canal function, but of those with abnormal ocular vestibular myogenic potential results (n = 30), 77% (n = 23) demonstrated both abnormal SVV and utriculo-ocular reflex performance. There were no associations noted for SVV performance and demographic or other self-report variables. Conclusion Absolute mean SVV tilt and response variance are often abnormal in patients diagnosed with VM. These findings support theories suggesting atypical intralabyrinthine integration within the vestibular nuclei and cerebellar nodular pathways.

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to characterize cutaneous heat and light‐induced pain thresholds in people with post‐traumatic headache (PTH) compared with healthy controls (HCs). Background Photophobia and allodynia are common in PTH, and there is emerging evidence to support multimodal sensory dysfunction. Methods In this age‐ and sex‐matched cohort study, individuals with PTH ( n = 20) and HCs ( n = 20), aged 18–65 years, were recruited from an institutional database of research volunteers, from the concussion clinic, and via the use of approved flyers posted on the Mayo Clinic Campus in Scottsdale, Arizona. Participants were assessed using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC‐12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Quantitative sensory testing quantified heat pain thresholds. A light stimulation device quantified light‐induced pain thresholds. Subsequently, heat pain thresholds were obtained immediately, 10, and 40 min after a bright light stressor. Results The mean photophobia symptom severity score, based on the PAQ, was higher in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 0.62 (SD = 0.25) versus mean 0.24 (SD = 0.24), p < 0.001. Light‐induced pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH (median = 90.5 lux and quartiles = 17.8 to 378.5) compared with HCs (median = 863.5 lux and quartiles = 519.9 to 4906.5) and were independent from BDI and STAI ( p < 0.001). Allodynia scores did not differ between participants with PTH and HCs after adjusting for BDI and STAI scores. Baseline forehead heat pain thresholds were not different, participants with PTH mean 41.9°C (SD = 0.89) versus HCs mean 44.3°C (SD = 0.89), p = 0.061; however, forearm heat pain thresholds were lower in participants with PTH compared with HCs, mean 40.8°C (SD = 0.80) versus mean 44.4°C (SD = 0.80), p = 0.002. The forehead heat pain threshold change from baseline post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different immediately (mean −1.2 (SD = 0.53), p = 0.025), 10 min (mean −1.8 (SD = 0.74), p = 0.015), and 40 min (mean −1.8 (SD = 0.88), p = 0.047). The forearm heat pain threshold change immediately post bright light stressor in participants with PTH versus HCs was different, mean −1.9°C (SD = 0.58), p = 0.001, however, not different at 10 and 40 min. Conclusions Photophobia is higher and light‐induced pain thresholds are lower in participants with PTH. Exposure to a light stressor reduced heat pain thresholds in participants with PTH immediately post bright light stressor, but not in HCs. This study provides evidence for multimodal sensory dysfunction in people with PTH.

Abstract Objective This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE‐2 study. Background Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene‐related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE‐2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. Methods The phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled PROMISE‐2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders‐3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class‐specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. Results In PROMISE‐2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1–24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. Conclusions Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one‐fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Abstract Objective To assess the real‐world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. Background The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real‐world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine‐specific medications. Method This was a post‐market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1–3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. Results We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being “very satisfied” with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a “good responder” to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the “good responder” rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. Conclusion Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Background:Concussion affects almost 4 million individuals annually. There are many sideline screening tools available to assist in the detection of sports-related concussion. The King-Devick (K-D) test in association with Mayo Clinic utilizes rapid number naming to test saccadic eye movements in order to screen for concussion. An ideal screening tool for concussion would correctly identify all athletes with active concussion. The accuracy of K-D testing compared with other sideline screening tools is undetermined.Objective:To critically assess current evidence regarding the utility of K-D testing as a sideline screening tool for acute concussion and compare K-D testing to other sideline concussion assessments.Methods:The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of concussion neurology and neuro-ophthalmology.Results:A recent meta-analysis was selected for critical appraisal. Cohorts analyzing athletes with sports-related concussion were selected, and utilized K-D testing as the main baseline and sideline assessment of concussion. K-D testing was found to have a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting concussion when there was worsening from baseline.Conclusion:K-D testing has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting sideline concussion. Compared with other sideline screening tools that do not include vision testing, it has greater accuracy. Screening for concussion is optimized when multiple testing modalities are used in conjunction.

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.

Objective This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient‐reported outcomes of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories. Background Migraine causes considerable disease‐related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene‐related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients. Methods Analyses used data from 3 double‐blind, placebo (PBO)‐controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE‐1: N = 858 and EVOLVE‐2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE‐1 and ‐2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response‐level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient‐reported outcomes included the 14‐item Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Results Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100‐pt scale, increases in Role Function‐Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function‐Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB‐treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO‐treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB‐treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg). Conclusions Because migraine greatly impairs an individual’s ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB‐treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO‐treated patients. Elimination of migraine‐related disability was also more frequent in GMB‐treated patients compared with placebo‐treated patients.

Introduction Access to headache consultations by a headache specialist is limited. E‐consultations are an efficient approach shown to reduce costs and improve continuity of care with the primary care provider. Indications, suitability, and uptake in the headache population are not well studied. Methods This quality improvement pilot aims to explore the appropriateness of e‐consultations for patients referred to a headache specialist. E‐consultation feasibility was explored through (1) retrospective review of completed face‐to‐face consultations; (2) prospective survey of providers to identify face‐to‐face consultations appropriate for e‐consultation; (3) cross‐sectional review of the current waiting list to assess theoretical triaging to face‐to‐face vs e‐consultation; and (4) prospective review of all e‐consultations requested from an academic headache clinic to improve the understanding of e‐consultation feasibility and referral triage. Results The retrospective review included 75 face‐to‐face consultations with a mean (SD) wait time of 33 (39.4) days for consultations, of which 28/75 (37.3%) were deemed to be feasible e‐consultations. The prospective survey of providers identified 10 face‐to‐face consultations that were felt to be theoretically appropriate for e‐consultation. The cross‐sectional review identified 20 patients on the clinic waiting list, of whom 5/20 (25%) were theoretically triaged to e‐consultation. Finally, the prospective review found 12 requested e‐consultations, of which 6/12 (50%) were for migraine prophylaxis recommendations. Chart data often lacked details for complete assessments, with 5/12 (41.7%) converted to face‐to‐face consultations and only 4/12 (33.3%) deemed appropriate for e‐consultation. Conclusion E‐consultation in headache medicine could be considered if appropriately triaged. Pathways are needed to reach patients earlier in their disease course to ensure headache care meets guideline recommendations, and e‐consultation is 1 option. However, better communication with primary care is required for system optimization.