Citations

Abstract Objective To assess the role of small‐molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) in the acute treatment of migraine, particularly in relation to triptan treatments. Background Triptans have established efficacy and are widely prescribed for the acute treatment of migraine. However, triptans may not be recommended for some individuals due to cardiovascular contraindications and precautions, as well as other comorbidities, and many may discontinue triptans because of inadequate or inconsistent symptom relief or poor tolerability. Several gepants are also indicated for the treatment of migraine (both acute and preventive), and their demonstrated efficacy and safety may address some challenges associated with triptans. Methods This narrative review addresses considerations for the acute treatment of migraine through summarizing literature and data from preclinical studies and clinical trials of triptans and gepants. Results We consider triptans and gepants, where available, first‐line treatment options for the acute treatment of migraine. Triptans may be prescribed in the absence of contraindications, significant risk of cardiovascular disease, or risk for or history of medication‐overuse headache. In those who have contraindications or precautions for triptans, those who do not have an adequate response to triptans, and those unable to tolerate them, gepants are often an appropriate option. The efficacy and safety of gepants for the acute treatment of migraine has been established through clinical trials and open‐label extension studies and based on real‐world evidence. Gepants have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in triptan insufficient responders, perhaps because of their distinct mechanisms of action. Additionally, the safety of gepants, including relative cardiovascular safety, is supported in pivotal controlled trials and open‐label extension trials. In experimental settings and through their use as preventive treatment for migraine, gepants appear unlikely to produce medication‐overuse headache. In addition, one gepant (ubrogepant) has demonstrated efficacy in preventing headache onset when given during the prodrome, a finding that has not been demonstrated for triptans. A single‐arm, open‐label study of naratriptan given during the prodrome suggested fewer subsequent headaches, but interpretation is limited because there was no contemporaneous control group. Limited head‐to‐head clinical trials comparing gepants and triptans have not demonstrated significant differences. Prescribers of both triptans and gepants should be mindful of potential drug–drug interactions. Conclusions Key advantages of gepants include their favorable tolerability, efficacy for the acute treatment of both the prodromal/premonitory phase (ubrogepant) and the headache phase of migraine (ubrogepant, rimegepant, zavegepant), lack of cardiovascular contraindications, and lack of association with medication‐overuse headache. Disadvantages include limitations due to cost and access and CYP3A4 drug interactions for most gepants. Together, the advantages may help to optimize patient care and lead to better persistence and effectiveness in a real‐world setting. Head‐to‐head studies are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of triptans and gepants.

Background REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is a prodrome of α -synucleinopathy, yet mechanistic pathways are unresolved. Narcolepsy type 1 with RBD (NT1-RBD) provides a human model of orexin deficiency. We tested whether REM motor semiology differs categorically between isolated RBD (iRBD) and NT1-RBD. Methods We retrospectively analyzed blinded video-polysomnographic scorings from 57 patients (iRBD n = 34; NT1-RBD n = 23). Across 857 REM events (iRBD 717; NT1-RBD 140), we classified topography (head/neck, trunk, upper, lower limbs), complexity (elementary vs. complex), content (scenic, violent, self-referential), vocal/orofacial features, spatial distribution and laterality using a pre-specified codebook. The patient was the primary unit of inference. Binary features used Fisher’s exact tests with Cohen’s h ; the per-patient complex-event proportion used Mann–Whitney and Cliff’s δ (bootstrap 95% CI). Robustness checks comprised Beta-Binomial posteriors (Beta [1,1]) and patient-label permutation tests (10,000 permutations). Results REM motor phenotypes diverged categorically. Lower-limb dominance occurred in 18/23 (78.3%) NT1-RBD vs. 7/34 (20.6%) iRBD (Fisher p < 0.0001; Cohen’s h ≈ +1.23), whereas upper-limb dominance occurred in 24/34 (70.6%) iRBD vs. 2/23 (8.7%) NT1-RBD ( p < 0.0001; h ≈ −1.40). Any complex event was present in 27/34 (79.4%) iRBD vs. 3/23 (13.0%) NT1-RBD ( p < 0.0001; h ≈ −1.46); violent enactments in 16/34 (47.1%) vs. 0/23 (0%) ( p < 0.0001; h ≈ −1.51). The per-patient complex-event proportion was higher in iRBD [median 0.21 (0.05–0.33)] than NT1-RBD [0.00 (0.00–0.00)] (Mann–Whitney p < 0.0001; Cliff’s δ = −0.665; 95% CI −0.853 to −0.441). Event-level summaries were concordant; permutation p -values were 0.0001 for upper-limb involvement and 0.0083 for complex behaviour. Conclusion iRBD and NT1-RBD exhibit qualitatively distinct REM motor phenotypes: upper-body-dominant, complex/scenic behaviours in iRBD versus elementary, predominantly bilateral lower-limb behaviours with notable trunk recruitment in NT1-RBD, supported by large effect sizes and convergent robustness checks. These findings motivate mechanistic studies of hypothalamic-brainstem-cortical integration in REM and suggest that semiological profiling may aid stratification in prodromal neurodegeneration.

ABSTRACT Background This post hoc analysis examined the reduction in monthly headache days ( MHDs ) by frequency category shifts and associated improvements following eptinezumab treatment. Methods The DELIVER trial evaluated eptinezumab in adults with migraine for whom 2–4 previous preventive treatments failed. During a 24‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled period followed by a 48‐week extension period, participants received IV eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks, with all receiving eptinezumab beginning Week 25 (dose‐blinded). Participants were categorized by MHD frequency: > 14, 8–14, 4 to < 8, 1 to < 4, 0. MHD category shifts were evaluated in the total population and several subgroups (including participants with > 14 baseline MHDs and early ≥ 50% responders). In participants reporting < 8 MHDs after all doses, the associated changes in headache intensity and disease status were evaluated. Results Of randomized participants, 88% (782/890) completed the trial. The percentage of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who reported < 4 MHDs was 23% (138/592) over Weeks 1–12 and 47% (236/498) over Weeks 61–72; 9% reported 0 MHDs after the final dose. Of participants randomized initially to eptinezumab who shifted from ≥ 8 MHDs at baseline to < 8 over Weeks 1–12, 71% (170/241) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial; of those who shifted from > 14 to < 8 MHDs, 66% (49/74) reported < 8 MHDs for the rest of the trial. Reduction to < 8 MHDs was associated with robust improvements in headache intensity and disease burden. Conclusions Eptinezumab was associated with sustained reduction in MHD category, with some achieving headache/migraine freedom in patients with a history of preventive treatments that failed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04418765; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ) and EudraCT (identifier: 2019‐004497‐25; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr‐search/search?query=2019‐004497‐25 )

Background Migraine is associated with obesity. These analyses evaluated weight change with atogepant used as a preventive migraine treatment. Methods Five atogepant clinical trials in adults with migraine (one phase 2b/3; four phase 3) were included: Three 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (episodic migraine: two; chronic migraine: one); one 40-week, open-label extension trial and one 52-week, standard care, randomized, long-term safety trial in episodic migraine. Change from baseline in body weight was measured. Results Mean baseline body mass indexes were 30.0–30.7 kg/m 2 (pooled episodic migraine [United States only]) and 25.0–25.5 kg/m 2 (chronic migraine [East Asia, Europe, and North America]). More participants treated with atogepant 60 mg once-daily compared to placebo experienced ≥7% weight loss at any time in the pooled episodic migraine placebo-controlled trials (4.9% vs. 2.8%), chronic migraine placebo-controlled trial (5.8% vs. 2.0%), and pooled open-label extension and long-term safety trials (24.0% vs.14.7% in standard care [long-term safety only]). In the placebo-controlled trials, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 2 (pooled episodic migraine: −0.32%; chronic migraine: −0.39%), increasing at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: −1.02%; chronic migraine: −1.50%); compared to weight gain with placebo at week 12 (pooled episodic migraine: +0.49%; chronic migraine: +0.10%). In the long-term episodic migraine studies, weight loss with atogepant 60 mg once-daily was observed at week 4 (long-term safety: −0.42%; open-label extension: −0.76%), increasing at week 40 (long-term safety: −2.38%; open-label extension: −2.09%). Conclusion Atogepant was associated with modest dose- and duration-dependent weight loss. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (CGP-MD-01); NCT03777059 (3101-301-002); NCT03700320 (long-term safety trial); NCT03939312 (open-label extension trial); NCT03855137 (3101-303-002).

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.