Search

Abstract Objective The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Methods We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Results Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30). Conclusions The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

Abstract Background Endogeneous and exogeneous sex hormones can impact the frequency and severity of migraine attacks, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. In this study, we investigate the relationship between female sex hormones and Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) concentrations in plasma of women with migraine and healthy controls, aiming to elucidate potential hormonal influences on PACAP dynamics and their relevance to migraine pathophysiology. Methods This analysis is part of a cross-sectional, matched-cohort study. We recruited two groups of women with episodic migraine: one with a regular menstrual cycle (M-RMC) and another undergoing combined oral contraceptive treatment (M-COC). Additionally, we included corresponding age-matched control groups without migraine for both categories (C-RMC and C-COC). For participants with a RMC, the study visits were scheduled during the perimenstrual period (menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2) and periovulatory period (day 13 ± 2). Participants using COC were examined at day 4 ± 2 of the hormone-free interval and between day 7–14 of the hormone intake phase. During these visits, PACAP-38 concentrations in plasma were measured using a commercial Enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit. Results The study included 120 women, with 30 participants in each group. Women with migraine and a RMC had significantly higher PACAP-38 plasma concentrations compared to healthy controls at both study visits [day 2 ± 2: M-RMC: 2547.41 pg/ml (IQR 814.27 – 4473.48) vs. C-RMC: 1129.49 pg/ml (IQR 257.34 – 2684.88), p = 0.025; day 13 ± 2: M-RMC: 3098.89 pg/ml (IQR 1186.29 – 4379.47) vs. C-RMC: 1626.89 (IQR 383.83 – 3038.36), p = 0.028]. In contrast, PACAP-38 levels were comparable between migraine and control groups receiving COC. Women with migraine and a RMC exhibited higher PACAP-38 concentrations during menstruation compared to those using COC during the hormone-free interval. Conclusion Systemic PACAP-38 concentrations in women vary based on the presence of migraine diagnosis and their hormonal status.

Abstract Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice. Methods This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches. Results Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group. Conclusion Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup.

Abstract Background To date, migraine is diagnosed exclusively based on clinical criteria, but fluid biomarkers are desirable to gain insight into pathophysiological processes and inform clinical management. We investigated the state-dependent profile of fluid biomarkers for neuroaxonal damage and microglial activation as two potentially relevant aspects in human migraine pathophysiology. Methods This exploratory study included serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples of patients with migraine during the headache phase (ictally) (n = 23), between attacks (interictally) (n = 16), and age/sex-matched controls (n = 19). Total Tau (t-Tau) protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were measured with the Neurology 4-plex kit on a Single Molecule Array SR-X Analyzer (Simoa® SR-X, Quanterix Corp., Lexington, MA). Markers of microglial activation, C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1 (CX3CL1) and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), were assessed using an immunoassay. Results Concentrations of CX3CL1 but not sTREM2 were significantly increased both ictally and interictally in CSF but not in serum in comparison to the control cohort (p = 0.039). ROC curve analysis provided an AUC of 0.699 (95% CI 0.563 to 0.813, p = 0.007). T-Tau in serum but not in CSF was significantly increased in samples from patients taken during the headache phase, but not interictally (effect size: η2 = 0.121, p = 0.038). ROC analysis of t-Tau protein in serum between ictal and interictal collected samples provided an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.558 to 0.861, p = 0.006). The other determined biomarkers for axonal damage were not significantly different between the cohorts in either serum or CSF. Discussion CX3CL1 in CSF is a novel potential fluid biomarker of migraine that is unrelated to the headache status. Serum t-Tau is linked to the headache phase but not interictal migraine. These data need to be confirmed in a larger hypothesis-driven prospective study.

Abstract Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9–12) of treatment. Results We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9–12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P

Abstract The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a “headache-tailored” perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations’ health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

Abstract Objective Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. Methods A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. Results Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41–0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. Conclusions There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Abstract Background Migraine is a disorder associated with neuropeptide release, pain and inflammation. Tau protein has recently been linked to inflammatory diseases and can be influenced by neuropeptides such as CGRP, a key neurotransmitter in migraine. Here, we report serum concentrations of total-tau protein in migraine patients and healthy controls. Methods In this cross-sectional study, interictal blood samples from n = 92 patients with episodic migraine (EM), n = 93 patients with chronic migraine (CM), and n = 42 healthy matched controls (HC) were studied. We assessed serum total-tau protein (t-tau) and for comparison neurofilament light chain protein (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L (UCH-L1) concentrations using the Neurology 4-plex kit, on a single molecule array HD-X Analyzer (Quanterix Corp Lexington, MA). Matched serum/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were used for post-hoc evaluations of a central nervous system (CNS) source of relevant findings. We applied non-parametric tests to compare groups and assess correlations. Results Serum t-tau concentrations were elevated in EM [0.320 (0.204 to 0.466) pg/mL] and CM [0.304 (0.158 to 0.406) pg/mL] patients compared to HC [0.200 (0.114 to 0.288) pg/mL] (p = 0.002 vs. EM; p = 0.025 vs. CM). EM with aura [0.291 (0.184 to 0.486 pg/mL); p = 0.013] and EM without aura [0.332 (0.234 to 0.449) pg/mL; p = 0.008] patients had higher t-tau levels than HC but did not differ between each other. Subgroup analysis of CM with/without preventive treatment revealed elevated t-tau levels compared to HC only in the non-prevention group [0.322 (0.181 to 0.463) pg/mL; p = 0.009]. T-tau was elevated in serum (p = 0.028) but not in cerebrospinal fluid (p = 0.760). In contrast to t-tau, all proteins associated with cell damage (NfL, GFAP, and UCH-L1), did not differ between groups. Discussion Migraine is associated with t-tau elevation in serum but not in the CSF. Our clinical study identifies t-tau as a new target for migraine research.

Abstract Objective Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. Methods A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo–controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. Results Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). Conclusions Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large‐scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

Abstract Background Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0–1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. Results Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0–1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P

Abstract Objective While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. Results We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. Conclusions (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

Abstract Objective The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. Methods We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Results Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). Conclusions Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

Abstract Background Clinical trials and real-world studies revealed a spectrum of response to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in migraine prophylaxis, ranging from no effect at all to total migraine freedom. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical characteristics between super-responders (SR) and non-responders (NR) to CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study at the Headache Center, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The definition of super-response was a ≥ 75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) in the third month after treatment initiation compared to the month prior to treatment begin (baseline). Non-response was defined as ≤ 25% reduction in MHD after three months of treatment with a CGRP-receptor mAb and subsequent three months of treatment with CGRP mAb, or vice versa. We collected demographic data, migraine disease characteristics, migraine symptoms during the attacks in both study groups (SR/NR) as well as the general medical history. SR and NR were compared using Chi-square test for categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables. Results Between November 2018 and June 2022, n = 260 patients with migraine received preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) mAbs and provided complete headache documentation for the baseline phase and the third treatment month. Among those, we identified n = 29 SR (11%) and n = 26 NR (10%). SR reported more often especially vomiting (SR n = 12/25, 48% vs. NR n = 4/22, 18%; p = 0.031) and typical migraine characteristics such as unilateral localization, pulsating character, photophobia and nausea. A subjective good response to triptans was significantly higher in SR (n = 26/29, 90%) than in NR (n = 15/25, 60%, p = 0.010). NR suffered more frequently from chronic migraine (NR n = 24/26, 92% vs. SR n = 15/29, 52%; p = 0.001), medication overuse headache (NR n = 14/24, 58% versus SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.024), and concomitant depression (NR n = 17/26, 65% vs. SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.005). Conclusion Several clinical parameters differ between SR and NR to prophylactic CGRP(-R) mAbs. A thorough clinical evaluation prior to treatment initiation might help to achieve a more personalized management in patients with migraine.

Abstract Introduction Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making. Methods Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Discussion Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated. Conclusion Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Objective HER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication. Methods Post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment. Results Patients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50–100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p

Abstract Background Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. Main body The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. Conclusions The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Abstract Background A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments. Methods The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. Results We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts’ opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives. Conclusion Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.

A new era in migraine prophylaxis has begun with the launch of antibodies blocking the Calcitonin-Gene Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway. These substances act across the entire frequency spectrum of migraine and have a tolerability superior to any other class of migraine preventatives based on our clinical and experimental knowledge of a 5- year period of use. Their superior tolerability profile may be due to their specificity. New questions have also arrived with these drugs ranging from the duration of therapy and treatment pause to the question which monoclonal antibodies (mAb) for which patient - a question which we cannot answer at this stage. Nevertheless, CGRP – ® mAbs offer a class of migraine prophylactics with significant advantages over older medications.

BackgroundTherapeutic options for migraine prevention in non-responders to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and its receptor are often limited. Real-world data have shown that non-responders to the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab may benefit from switching to a CGRP ligand mAb. However, it remains unclear whether, vice versa, erenumab is effective in non-responders to CGRP ligand mAbs. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of erenumab in patients who have previously failed a CGRP ligand mAb.MethodsThis monocentric retrospective cohort study included patients with episodic or chronic migraine in whom a non-response (< 30% reduction of monthly headache days during month 3 of treatment compared to baseline) to the CGRP ligand mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab led to a switch to erenumab, and who had received at least 3 administrations of erenumab. Monthly headache days were retrieved from headache diaries to assess the ≥30% responder rates and the absolute reduction of monthly headache days at 3 and 6 months of treatment with erenumab in this cohort.ResultsFrom May 2019 to July 2022, we identified 20 patients who completed 3 months of treatment with erenumab after non-response to a CGRP ligand mAb. Fourteen patients continued treatment for ≥6 months. The ≥30% responder rate was 35% at 3 months, and 45% at 6 months of treatment with erenumab, respectively. Monthly headache days were reduced from 18.6 ± 5.9 during baseline by 4.1 ± 3.1 days during month 3, and by 7.0 ± 4.8 days during month 6 compared to the month before treatment with erenumab (p < 0.001, respectively). Responders and non-responders to erenumab did not differ with respect to demographic or headache characteristics.ConclusionSwitching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand mAb might be beneficial in a subgroup of resistant patients, with increasing responder rates after 6 months of treatment. Larger prospective studies should aim to predict which subgroup of patients benefit from a switch.

Abstract Background Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab. Methods ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women. Results Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs. Conclusions The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Abstract Background Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption. Methods Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period. Results This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life. Conclusions Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

Abstract Background Migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(−receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has a positive effect on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The German treatment guidelines recommend discontinuing successful treatment with CGRP(−receptor) mAbs after 6–12 months. We aimed to evaluate headache-specific and generic HRQoL for three months after discontinuation of CGRP(−receptor) mAb treatment. Methods We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study, including patients with migraine after 8–12 months of therapy with a CGRP(−R) mAb and before a planned discontinuation attempt. HRQoL was assessed at the time of the last mAbs injection (V1), eight weeks later (V2), and sixteen weeks later (V3). For headache-specific HRQoL, we used the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Generic HRQoL was determined with the EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Level (ED-5D-5L) form, and the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), which comprises a Physical Component Summary (PCS-12) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS-12). Questionnaires’ total scores were compared across the three observation points using nonparametric procedures. Results The study cohort consisted of n = 61 patients (n = 29 treated with the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab and n = 32 with the CGRP mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab). The HIT-6 sum score was 59.69 ± 6.90 at V1 and increased by 3.69 ± 6.21 at V3 (p

Abstract Background Several drugs are available for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The choice of which therapy to initiate first, second, or third is not straightforward and is based on multiple factors, including general efficacy, tolerability, potential for serious adverse events, comorbid conditions, and costs. Recently, a new class of migraine preventive drugs was introduced, i.e. monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor. Methods The present article summarizes the evidence gathered with this new migraine preventive drug class from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. It further puts this into perspective next to the evidence gained by the most widely used agents for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine with an emphasis on efficacy and the robustness with which this efficacy signal was obtained. Results Although being a relatively new class of migraine preventive drugs, monoclonal antibodies blocking the CGRP pathway have an efficacy which is at least comparable if not higher than those of the currently used preventive drugs. Moreover, the robustness of this efficacy signal is substantiated by several randomized clinical trials each including large numbers of patients. In addition, because of their excellent tolerability and with long-term safety data emerging, they seem to have an unprecedented efficacy over adverse effect profile, clearly resulting in an added value for migraine prevention. Conclusions Balancing the data presented in the current manuscript with additional data concerning long term safety on the one hand and cost issues on the other hand, can be of particular use to health policy makers to implement this new drug class in the prevention of migraine.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are increasingly being used as preventive treatments for migraine. Their effectiveness and safety were established through numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials and real-world studies, yet a significant proportion of patients do not respond to this treatment, and currently, there is a lack of accepted predictors of response to guide expectations, as data from studies so far are lacking and inconsistent. We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies reporting on predictors of response to CGRP and/or CGRP-receptor (CGRP-R) mAbs, defined as a 30% or 50% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at varying durations of follow-up. Quantitative synthesis was performed where applicable. We found 38 real-world studies that investigated the association between various predictors and response rates. Based on these studies, good response to triptans and unilateral pain with or without unilateral autonomic symptoms are predictors of a good response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Conversely, obesity, interictal allodynia, the presence of daily headaches, a higher number of non-successful previous prophylactic medications, and psychiatric comorbidities including depression are predictive of a poor response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Future studies should confirm these results and help to generate more tailored treatment strategies in patients with migraine.

Abstract Background In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Methods The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline. Results In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM. Conclusions In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM. Trial registrations NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

Abstract Objective Migraine, endometriosis, and the comorbidity of both are frequent pain disorders of special relevance for women. The neuropeptide calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) is critically involved in migraine, and circumstantial evidence suggests a role in endometriosis. We assessed CGRP levels at different times of menstrual cycle in four groups: healthy women, women with migraine or endometriosis and with the comorbidity of both. Methods Women with episodic migraine and women with a histologically confirmed endometriosis were recruited from specialized centers. For CGRP determination with a commercial enzyme immunoassay kit, cubital vein blood samples were collected on menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2 (during menstruation) and on day 15 ± 2 (periovulatory period). The primary endpoint of the study was the absolute difference of CGRP plasma levels between the menstrual and the periovulatory phase of all study groups. Groups were compared using nonparametric test procedures. Results A total of 124 women were included in the study. The change of CGRP plasma levels between menstruation and the periovulatory period was different between groups (p = 0.007). Women with comorbid migraine and endometriosis showed an increase of CGRP in the menstrual phase of +6.32 (interquartile range, IQR −3.64–13.60) compared to the periovulatory time, while healthy controls had a decrease of −10.14 (−22.54–0.91, p = 0.004). CGRP levels were different in the periovulatory phase among groups (p = 0.008), with highest values in healthy controls. Interpretation CGRP levels change significantly during the menstrual cycle. Different patterns in women with the comorbidity point to a deviant regulation of CGRP release.

Abstract Background Lockdown measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to lifestyle changes, which in turn may have an impact on the course of headache disorders. We aimed to assess changes in primary headache characteristics and lifestyle factors during the COVID-19 lockdown in Germany using digital documentation in the mobile application (app) M-sense. Main body We analyzed data of smartphone users, who entered daily data in the app in the 28-day period before lockdown (baseline) and in the first 28 days of lockdown (observation period). This analysis included the change of monthly headache days (MHD) in the observation period compared to baseline. We also assessed changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), the use of acute medication, and pain intensity. In addition, we looked into the changes in sleep duration, sleep quality, energy level, mood, stress, and activity level. Outcomes were compared using paired t-tests. The analysis included data from 2325 app users. They reported 7.01 ± SD 5.64 MHD during baseline and 6.89 ± 5.47 MHD during lockdown without significant changes (p > 0.999). MMD, headache and migraine intensity neither showed any significant changes. Days with acute medication use were reduced from 4.50 ± 3.88 in the baseline to 4.27 ± 3.81 in the observation period (p

BackgroundDigitalization and electronic health (eHealth) offer new treatment approaches for patients with migraine. Current smartphone applications (apps) for migraine patients include a wide spectrum of functions ranging from digital headache diaries to app-based headache treatment by, among others, analysis of the possible triggers, behavioral therapy approaches and prophylactic non-drug treatment methods with relaxation therapy or endurance sport. Additional possibilities arise through the use of modern, location-independent communication methods, such as online consultations. However, there is currently insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and/or risks of these electronic tools for patients. To date, only few randomized controlled trials have assessed eHealth applications.MethodsSMARTGEM is a randomized controlled trial assessing whether the provision of a new digital integrated form of care consisting of the migraine app M-sense in combination with a communication platform (with online consultations and medically moderated patient forum) leads to a reduction in headache frequency in migraine patients, improving quality of life, reducing medical costs and work absenteeism (DRKS-ID: DRKS00016328).DiscussionSMARTGEM constitutes a new integrated approach for migraine treatment, which aims to offer an effective, location-independent, time-saving and cost-saving treatment. The design of the study is an example of how to gather high quality evidence in eHealth. Results are expected to provide insightful information on the efficacy of the use of electronic health technology in improving the quality of life in patients suffering from migraine and reducing resource consumption.

Abstract Background New treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions. Methods We conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care. Results There were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care. Conclusions This report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities.

Abstract Background The FOCUS study evaluated the efficacy of migraine preventive medications across different countries within the same patient population, particularly for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. These prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated efficacy by country in the FOCUS study of fremanezumab in adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Methods Overall, 838 participants were enrolled in the FOCUS study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b study performed at 104 sites. For 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, evaluated by country in these subgroup analyses. Results Of 14 countries contributing data, the Czech Republic (n = 188/838; 22%), the United States (n = 120/838; 14%), and Finland (n = 85/838; 10%) enrolled the most patients. Changes from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab versus placebo for patients in these countries: Czech Republic (least-squares mean difference versus placebo [95% confidence interval]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 1.9 [− 3.25, − 0.47]; P = 0.009; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 4.39, − 1.59]; P

Abstract Introduction Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances. Main body Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required. Conclusions We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat.

Abstract Monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor (Erenumab) or against CGRP (Eptinezumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab) are new substances for the preventive treatment of migraine. They represent an extension of the therapeutic options, which already exist in migraine prevention. In randomized, placebo-controlled studies, the efficacy and good tolerability of these specific substances have been demonstrated in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. The following treatment recommendation presents a summary of the pivotal studies. Recommendations are provided for the targeted selection of patients as well as for the evaluation of therapeutic success and the duration of treatment. Finally, possible restrictions on the use of this new substance group are discussed. This guideline is an abridged and translated version of the guideline published by Diener H-C, May A et al., Prevention of migraine with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor, Supplement to S1 Guideline Therapy of Migraine Attack and Prevention of Migraine, 2019, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (eds.), Guidelines for Diagnostics and Therapy in Neurology. A complete version of this guideline can be found on the website of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie ( www.dgn.org/leitlinien ) and the AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher Medizinischer Gesellschaften). This guideline has been approved by the German Neurological Society (DGN) and the German Migraine and Headache Society (GMHS) and was reviewed by the two societies.

Discontinuation of treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway leads to an increase in migraine frequency. We aimed to assess changes in free and total CGRP plasma concentrations after the discontinuation of CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. This prospective analysis included 59 patients with migraine (n = 25 erenumab, n = 25 galcanezumab, n = 9 fremanezumab) who discontinued mAbs after ≥8 months of treatment. Patients were visited at the time of the last mAb injection (V1) and 16 weeks later (V2). For control, 30 migraine patients without preventive drug therapy were included. We measured free CGRP plasma concentrations in the erenumab and fremanezumab group and total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group. Free CGRP plasma concentrations did not change after treatment discontinuation [erenumab: V1 31.2 pg/mL (IQR 25.8–45.6), V2 30.3 pg/mL (IQR 22.9–47.6), p = 0.65; fremanezumab V1 29.4 pg/mL (IQR 16.4–61.9), V2 34.4 (19.2–62.0), p = 0.86]. Controls had similar CGRP values of 32.6 pg/mL (IQR 21.3–44.6). Total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group were 5439.3 pg/mL (2412.7–6338.1) at V1, and decreased to 1853.2 pg/mL (1136.5–3297.0) at V2 (p < 0.001). Cessation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs did not have an impact on the free-circulating CGRP concentrations. Total CGRP decreased significantly after three months of treatment discontinuation.

Objective: We reported gender-specific data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody antagonizing the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor.Methods: Our pooled patient-level analysis of real-world data included patients treated with erenumab and followed up for 12 weeks. We considered the following outcomes at weeks 9–12 of treatment compared with baseline: 0–29%, 30–49%, 50–75%, and ≥75% responder rates, according to the decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs), rate of treatment stopping, change in MHDs, monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly days of acute medication and triptan use, and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score from baseline to weeks 9–12. Outcomes were compared between men and women by the chi-squared test or t-test, as appropriate. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to identify factors influencing the efficacy outcomes.Results: We included 1,410 patients from 16 centers, of which 256 (18.2%) were men. Men were older than women and had a lower number of MHDs at baseline. At weeks 9–12, compared with baseline, 46 (18.0%) men had a ≥75% response, 75 (29.3%) had a 50–74% response, 35 (13.7%) had a 30–49% response, and 86 (33.6%) had a 0–29% response, while 14 (5.5%) stopped the treatment. The corresponding numbers for women were 220 (19.1%), 314 (27.2%), 139 (12.0%), 402 (34.8%), and 79 (6.8%). No gender difference was found in any of the outcomes. The ANCOVA showed that gender did not influence the efficacy of outcomes.Conclusion: We found that erenumab is equally safe and effective in men compared with women after 12 weeks.

BackgroundThe representation of migraine in the media is stereotypical. Standard images of migraine attacks display stylish young women holding their head in a pain pose. This representation may contribute to the social stigmatization of patients with migraine. ObjectiveWe aimed to analyze how patients with migraine and health care workers perceive online images of migraine. MethodsThe study consisted of an anonymous web-based survey of patients with migraine at the Headache Center of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (migraine group) and employees and students at our university (health care group). A total of 10 frequently used Adobe Stock photos of migraine attacks were presented to the participants. Each photo was rated on a scale of 0% to 100% based on how closely it resembled a realistic migraine attack (realism score). Patients with migraine also indicated how much each photo corresponded to their own experience of migraine as a percentage (representation score). We calculated the mean realism and representation scores for all photos and conducted further analyses using the categories male or female models, younger or older models, and unilateral or bilateral pain pose. ResultsA total of 367 patients with migraine and 331 health care employees and students completed the survey. In both groups, the mean realism score was

Background: In Germany, so far the COVID-19 pandemic evolved in two distinct waves, the first beginning in February and the second in July, 2020. The Berlin University Children's Hospital at Charité (BCH) had to ensure treatment for children not infected and infected with SARS-CoV-2. Prevention of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of patients and staff was a paramount goal. Pediatric hospitals worldwide discontinued elective treatments and established a centralized admission process.Methods: The response of BCH to the pandemic adapted to emerging evidence. This resulted in centralized admission via one ward exclusively dedicated to children with unclear SARS-CoV-2 status and discontinuation of elective treatment during the first wave, but maintenance of elective care and decentralized admissions during the second wave. We report numbers of patients treated and of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections during the two waves of the pandemic.Results: During the first wave, weekly numbers of inpatient and outpatient cases declined by 37% (p < 0.001) and 29% (p = 0.003), respectively. During the second wave, however, inpatient case numbers were 7% higher (p = 0.06) and outpatient case numbers only 6% lower (p = 0.25), compared to the previous year. Only a minority of inpatients were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (0.47% during the first, 0.63% during the second wave). No nosocomial infection of pediatric patients by SARS-CoV-2 occurred.Conclusion: In contrast to centralized admission via a ward exclusively dedicated to children with unclear SARS-CoV-2 status and discontinuation of elective treatments, maintenance of elective care and decentralized admission allowed the almost normal use of hospital resources, yet without increased risk of nosocomial infections with SARS-CoV-2. By this approach unwanted sequelae of withheld specialized pediatric non-emergency treatment to child and adolescent health may be avoided.

BackgroundSmartphone-based apps represent a major development in health care management. Specifically in headache care, the use of electronic headache diaries via apps has become increasingly popular. In contrast to the soaring volume of available data, scientific use of these data resources is sparse. ObjectiveIn this analysis, we aimed to assess changes in headache and migraine frequency, headache and migraine intensity, and use of acute medication among people who showed daily use of the headache diary as implemented in the freely available basic version of the German commercial app, M-sense. MethodsThe basic version of M-sense comprises an electronic headache diary, documentation of lifestyle factors with a possible impact on headaches, and evaluation of headache patterns. This analysis included all M-sense users who had entered data into the app on a daily basis for at least 7 months. ResultsWe analyzed data from 1545 users. Mean MHD decreased from 9.42 (SD 5.81) at baseline to 6.39 (SD 5.09) after 6 months (P

Abstract Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the CGRP pathway are safe and efficacious therapies for the prevention of migraine. In this study we assessed the effects of discontinuation of preventive erenumab and galcanezumab treatment in patients with chronic migraine. Methods This retrospective pooled analysis included completers of the open-label extension study phase for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine with galcanezumab (NCT02614261; 9 months) and erenumab (NCT02174861; 12 months) in a single headache center. We compare migraine data until week 12 after open-label treatment completion, when patients did not have any pharmacological preventive medication, to study baseline values of the double-blind trial period, and to the last 4 weeks of the open-label extension. The assessment included changes in monthly migraine days, headache hours, days with severe headache and acute headache medication use. Results Data from 16 patients after galcanezumab (n = 9) and erenumab (n = 7) open-label treatment completion were analyzed. The mean number of monthly migraine days was 18.38 ± 3.74 at baseline, and 12.19 ± 4.53 in the last 4 weeks of the open-label extension (p

Abstract Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us of some misreported data due to the publication of the EVOLVE-2 trial (Cephalalgia. 2018;38:1442–1454), which substantially changed the level of evidence of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine. All changes are marked in bold and with red in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Please note that the final recommendations remain unchanged.

Abstract Background and aim Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide or on its receptor are new drugs to prevent migraine. Four monoclonal antibodies have been developed: one targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (erenumab) and three targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab). The aim of this document by the European Headache Federation (EHF) is to provide an evidence-based and expert-based guideline on the use of the monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide for migraine prevention. Methods The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic review and analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. Results We found low to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine and medium to high quality of evidence to recommend erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine. For several clinical questions, there was not enough evidence to provide recommendations using the GRADE approach and recommendations relied on experts’ opinion. Conclusion Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide are new drugs which can be recommended for migraine prevention. Real life data will be useful to improve the use of those drugs in clinical practice.

Lasmiditan, a highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 1F (5-HT 1F ) agonist, is the first drug in its class and is lacking triptan-like vasoactive properties. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in adults based on positive results of two pivotal phase III trials, which showed a significant difference to placebo in the proportion of patients achieving total migraine freedom within 2 h. More patients with lasmiditan achieved headache freedom and, in addition, freedom from the most bothersome symptom, that is, photophobia, than with placebo. Treatment-related side effects seem to be related to the rapid penetration of the drug into the brain and include dizziness, paresthesia and drowsiness, mostly of mild to moderate intensity. Interim results from an ongoing long-term phase III trial suggest a decrease in the frequency of adverse events after multiple lasmiditan use. Lasmiditan is a promising acute anti-migraine therapy, in particular for patients with cardiovascular risk factors, contraindications, or unwanted side effects to triptans.

Background: German authorities reimburse migraine prevention with erenumab only in patients who previously did not have therapeutic success with at least five oral prophylactics or have contraindications to such. In this real-world analysis, we assessed treatment response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) who failed five oral prophylactics and, in addition, onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA).Methods: We analyzed retrospective data of 139 CM patients with at least one injection of erenumab from two German headache centers. Patients previously did not respond sufficiently or had contraindications to β-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, amitriptyline, valproate, and BoNTA. Primary endpoint of this analysis was the mean change in monthly headache days from the 4-weeks baseline period over the course of a 12-weeks erenumab therapy. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly migraine days, days with severe headache, days with acute headache medication, and triptan intake in the treatment period.Results: Erenumab (starting dose 70 mg) led to a reduction of −3.7 (95% CI 2.4–5.1) monthly headache days after the first treatment and −4.7 (95% CI 2.9–6.5) after three treatment cycles (p < 0.001 for both). All secondary endpoint parameters were reduced over time. Half of patients (51.11%) had a >30% reduction of monthly headache days in weeks 9–12. Only 4.3% of the patients terminated erenumab treatment due to side effects.Conclusion: In this treatment-refractory CM population, erenumab showed efficacy in a real-world setting similar to data from clinical trials. Tolerability was good, and no safety issues emerged. Erenumabis is a treatment option for CM patients who failed all first-line preventives in addition to BoNTA.

Abstract Background The three primary headaches, tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache, occur in both genders, but all seem to have a sex-specific prevalence. These gender differences suggest that both male and female sex hormones could have an influence on the course of primary headaches. This review aims to summarise the most relevant and recent literature on this topic. Methods Two independent reviewers searched PUBMED in a systematic manner. Search strings were composed using the terms LH, FSH, progesteron*, estrogen*, DHEA*, prolactin, testosterone, androgen*, headach*, migrain*, “tension type” or cluster. A timeframe was set limiting the search to articles published in the last 20 years, after January 1st 1997. Results Migraine tends to follow a classic temporal pattern throughout a woman’s life corresponding to the fluctuation of estrogen in the different reproductive stages. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis forms the basis for most of the assumptions made on this behalf. The role of other hormones as well as the importance of sex hormones in other primary headaches is far less studied. Conclusion The available literature mainly covers the role of sex hormones in migraine in women. Detailed studies especially in the elderly of both sexes and in cluster headache and tension-type headache are warranted to fully elucidate the role of these hormones in all primary headaches.

Abstract Background Subcutaneous erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction at all monthly assessment points tested in 2 pivotal trials in episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Early efficacy of migraine preventive medications is an important treatment characteristic to patients. Delays in achievement of efficacy can result in failed adherence. The objective of these post-hoc analyses were to evaluate efficacy in the first 4 weeks after initial subcutaneous administration of erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo. Methods There is no generally accepted methodology to measure onset of action for migraine preventive medications. We used a comprehensive approach with data from both studies to evaluate change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD), achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD, and proportion of patients experiencing migraine measured on a daily basis. The 7-day moving averages were overlaid with observed data. Results In both studies (EM: N = 955; CM: N = 667), there was evidence of onset of efficacy of erenumab vs. placebo during the first week of treatment, which in some cases reached nominal significance. For EM the changes in WMD were (least squares mean [LSM] [95% CI]): placebo, − 0.1 (− 0.3, 0.0); erenumab 70 mg, − 0.3 (− 0.5, − 0.2) p = 0.130; erenumab 140 mg, − 0.6 (− 0.7, − 0.4) p

Abstract Background Acute headache is one of the most frequent neurological symptoms in pregnant women. The early diagnosis of underlying secondary conditions has a major influence on patient outcome, especially in emergency settings. However, at the time being no well-established guideline for diagnostic evaluation of acute headache during pregnancy exists. In this study, we aimed to characterize acute headache in pregnant women concerning demographic, clinical, and diagnostic features, and to determine predictors of secondary headache. Methods We analysed retrospectively the data of 151 pregnant women receiving neurological consultation due to acute headache at the Charité Berlin between 2010 and 2016. To assess risk factors for secondary headache in these patients we compared multiple anamnestic and clinical features of the primary and secondary headache group. Results 57.6% of the patients were diagnosed with primary headache, most common migraine and tension type headache. Concerning secondary headaches, the most common aetiologies were infections (29.7%) and hypertensive disorders (22.0%). The primary and secondary headache group were similar in most anamnestic and clinical features. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, secondary headache history [OR 6.6; 95% CI 1.3–33.1], elevated blood pressure [OR 7.2; 95% CI 2.3–22.6], fever [OR 12.1; 95% CI 1.3–111.0] and abnormal neurological examination [OR 9.9; 95% CI 2.7–36.3] represented independent predictors for secondary headache. Regarding additional diagnostic procedures, abnormal thrombocytes, GOT, GPT and CRP, proteinuria, pathologic results of lumbar puncture and neuroimaging were associated with secondary headache. Conclusions Secondary headache disorders are common during pregnancy, occurring in over one third of acute headache cases receiving neurological consultation. Most anamnestic and clinical features may not allow a clear distinction between primary and secondary headaches. Clinicians should pay attention to the presence of secondary headache history, elevated blood pressure, fever and abnormal findings in the neurological examination. Additional investigations, including laboratory tests and neuroimaging, are essential for the diagnostic process.

Concrete, as one of the essential construction materials, is responsible for a vast amount of emissions. Using recycled materials and gray water can considerably contribute to the sustainability aspect of concrete production. Thus, finding a proper replacement for fresh water in the production of concrete is significant. The usage of industrial wastewater instead of water in concrete is considered in this paper. In this study, 450 concrete samples are produced with different amounts of wastewater. The mechanical parameters, such as slump, compressive strength, water absorption, tensile strength, electrical resistivity, rapid freezing, half-cell potential and appearance, are investigated, and a specific concentration and impurities of wastewater that cause a 10% compressive strength reduction were found. The results showed that the usage of industrial wastewater does not significantly change the main characteristics of concrete. Although increasing the concentration of wastewater can decrease the durability and strength features of concrete nonlinearly, the negative effects on durability tests are more conspicuous, as utilizing concentrated wastewaters disrupt the formation of appropriate air voids, pore connectivity and pore-size distribution in the concrete.

Fracture analysis of reinforced concrete deep beam strengthened with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) plates was carried out. The present research aimed to discover whether crack propagation in a strengthened deep beam follows linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) theory or nonlinear fracture mechanics theory. To do so, a new energy release rate based on nonlinear fracture mechanics theory was formulated on the finite element method and the discrete cohesive zone model (DCZM) was developed in deep beams. To validate and compare with numerical models, three deep beams with rectangular cross-sections were tested. The code results based on nonlinear fracture mechanics models were compared with the experimental results and the ABAQUS results carried out based on LEFM. The predicted values of initial stiffness, yielding point and failure load, energy absorption, and compressive strain in the concrete obtained by the proposed model were very close to the experimental results. However, the ABAQUS software results displayed greater differences from the experimental results. For instance, the predicted failure load for the shear-strengthened deep beam using the proposed model only had a 6.3% difference from the experimental result. However, the predicted failure load using ABAQUS software based on LEFM indicated greater differences (25.1%) compared to the experimental result.

Several outbreak prediction models for COVID-19 are being used by officials around the world to make informed decisions and enforce relevant control measures. Among the standard models for COVID-19 global pandemic prediction, simple epidemiological and statistical models have received more attention by authorities, and these models are popular in the media. Due to a high level of uncertainty and lack of essential data, standard models have shown low accuracy for long-term prediction. Although the literature includes several attempts to address this issue, the essential generalization and robustness abilities of existing models need to be improved. This paper presents a comparative analysis of machine learning and soft computing models to predict the COVID-19 outbreak as an alternative to susceptible–infected–recovered (SIR) and susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) models. Among a wide range of machine learning models investigated, two models showed promising results (i.e., multi-layered perceptron, MLP; and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system, ANFIS). Based on the results reported here, and due to the highly complex nature of the COVID-19 outbreak and variation in its behavior across nations, this study suggests machine learning as an effective tool to model the outbreak. This paper provides an initial benchmarking to demonstrate the potential of machine learning for future research. This paper further suggests that a genuine novelty in outbreak prediction can be realized by integrating machine learning and SEIR models.

This paper provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art investigation of the recent advances in data science in emerging economic applications. The analysis is performed on the novel data science methods in four individual classes of deep learning models, hybrid deep learning models, hybrid machine learning, and ensemble models. Application domains include a broad and diverse range of economics research from the stock market, marketing, and e-commerce to corporate banking and cryptocurrency. Prisma method, a systematic literature review methodology, is used to ensure the quality of the survey. The findings reveal that the trends follow the advancement of hybrid models, which outperform other learning algorithms. It is further expected that the trends will converge toward the evolution of sophisticated hybrid deep learning models.