Headache最新文献

Objective: To assess changes in real-world use of acute and preventive medications for migraine over a 12-month follow-up period in the United States following initiation of the anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibody (mAb) erenumab.

Background: Early assessments of real-world use of acute and preventive medications for migraine after initiation of erenumab have been limited to 6 months of follow-up.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA open-source longitudinal prescription (LRx) and medical (Dx) claims databases. Adult patients with an initial claim (index date) for erenumab between May 2018 and April 2020 were identified.

Results: Among 201,176 patients who met inclusion criteria, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 47.5 (13.8) years and 85.6% (n = 172,153) were female. Most patients used one or more acute (88.4%; n = 177,795) and one or more traditional preventive (86.1%; n = 173,225) medications during the 12-month pre-index period. Adherence to erenumab (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥0.80) was 40.2% (n = 80,927) with an overall mean (SD) PDC of 0.60 (0.34). Among all patients, 70.0% (n = 140,809) discontinued erenumab. After accounting for 24.7% (n = 49,720) of patients who restarted erenumab, discontinuation without reinitiation was observed in 45.3% (n = 91,089) of total patients. Switching to a different anti-CGRP pathway mAb was observed in 13.1% (n = 26,446) of total patients. Among 177,795 patients with pre-index use of one or more acute migraine medication class, 86.5% (n = 153,788) had post-index use of the same class, and 56.7% (87,134/153,788) of them discontinued one or more class of acute medication in the 12-month follow-up period. Similarly, among 173,225 patients with pre-index use of one or more traditional migraine preventive medication class, 67.7% (n = 117,274) had post-index use of the same class, and 46.7% (54,790/117,274) of them discontinued one or more class of traditional preventive medication in the 12-month follow-up period.

Conclusions: In this long-term study, we observed the discontinuation of both acute and preventive medications for migraine post-erenumab initiation.

Objective: The potential for drug-drug interaction of multiple-dose intranasal zavegepant on the single-dose oral contraceptive ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel (EE-LNG) was evaluated.

Background: Zavegepant (as a nasal spray) is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved in the United States for treatment of acute migraine in adults.

Methods: This single-center, Phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence study included healthy, nonsmoking females (18-45 years old). In treatment Period 1, a single oral dose of EE-LNG 0.02-0.10 mg was administered on Day 1. In treatment Period 2, intranasal zavegepant (20 mg daily; 10 mg per nostril separated by 1 h) was administered on Days 1-5; 1 oral dose of EE-LNG 0.02-0.10 mg was administered immediately after first 10 mg intranasal zavegepant dose on Day 2. Blood samples for EE-LNG concentrations were collected on Day 1, treatment Period 1, and Day 2, treatment Period 2, and zavegepant concentrations on Day 2, treatment Period 2. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters included maximum observed concentration (C_max), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from Time 0 to last non-zero concentration (AUC_0-t), and AUC from Time 0 to infinity (AUC_0-inf). The safety and pharmacokinetic sample sizes were 26 and 23, respectively.

Results: Statistical comparisons of pharmacokinetic exposure parameters after co-administration of zavegepant and EE-LNG versus EE-LNG alone showed small, but statistically insignificant, changes in either EE or LNG exposure. EE comparison ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 109.9% (105.3%, 114.8%) for AUC_0-inf and 110.2% (104.6%, 116.1%) for C_max. LNG comparison ratios (90% CIs) were 107.0% (100.2%, 114.3%) for AUC_0-inf and 108.8% (99.9%, 118.4%) for C_max. Frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events included dysgeusia (n = 25, 96%), throat irritation (n = 11, 42%), headache (n = 10, 39%), nasal discomfort (n = 7, 27%), pharyngeal paresthesia (n = 5, 19%), and nausea (n = 4, 15%).

Conclusion: Co-administration of zavegepant nasal spray with a single dose of an oral contraceptive resulted in no clinically meaningful changes (<12% increase) in EE-LNG exposure.

Objective: This review was conducted to systematically identify evidence characterizing patients with migraine who are unsuitable for triptans.

Background: Triptans are not suitable as first-line treatment for all patients with migraine due to contraindications, lack of efficacy, and/or poor tolerability. However, there is debate about the frequency and characteristics of these patients and the burden they experience.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and conference abstracts (2011-2022) were reviewed for evidence on patients with migraine unsuitable for triptans for any reason. Data from publications describing the frequency and characteristics of this group, as well as the clinical, humanistic, or economic burden of disease in this population, were extracted.

Results: Of 1460 records screened, 29 publications met inclusion criteria. Persistence with triptans was low; 51%-66% of patients starting a new triptan did not refill it, and 43%-100% discontinued their initial triptan over 2 years. In one study, 14% of patients with migraine reported prior discontinuation/failure of ≥ 2 triptans due to inadequate efficacy or poor tolerability. Up to 15% of patients with migraine had triptan contraindications, and ≥ 20% of patients receiving triptans had contraindications. In four studies, 10%-44% of patients who tried triptans had insufficient response, although definitions varied. Patients who achieved a sufficient response typically did so with their first triptan; few became responders with additional triptans. Of patients who did not respond to one to two triptans and received another, 45% were dissatisfied with the final triptan. Approximately half of patients who tried two to three triptans had an insufficient response. Greater disability, impact of disease, and depression were reported in triptan discontinuers compared to those with sustained use. Worse quality of life scores and utility values were reported in triptan insufficient versus sufficient responders, as were greater migraine-related costs, work impairment, and health-care resource utilization.

Conclusion: The total population of patients unsuitable for triptans is uncertain, but the literature highlights a large group who cannot or do not persist with triptans, and current evidence suggests a high burden in this population and an unmet need for new therapeutic options. Further research is needed to determine the frequency of unsuitability for triptans more precisely and to assess the associated burden.

Objective: To evaluate headache comorbidity in a cohort of patients with functional movement disorders by assessing the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and temporal relationship of headache with the onset of functional symptoms.

Background: Functional movement disorders are common and potentially treatable. Although headache is frequent in these patients, few studies have evaluated their headache features.

Methods: This observational cohort study included consecutive patients with functional movement disorders evaluated in our Functional Movement Disorders Unit between October 2021 and November 2022. Clinical and demographic features from clinical charts were reviewed, and patients completed a self-administered questionnaire designed by the authors that included headache characteristics, disease duration, treatments received, and the Headache Impact Test-6. Headache type was classified as per the Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition (ICHD-3).

Results: A total of 51 patients with functional movement disorders were included. Of those, 40 (78%) reported having recurrent headache. Headache intensity was moderate-severe in 33/40 (83%), and about two-thirds experienced headache >9 days/month. Disability secondary to headache was high (median [interquartile range] Headache Impact Test-6 score 62 [49-66]). Based on the ICHD-3, 23/40 (58%) of patients with headache met the criteria for migraine or probable migraine, 11/40 (27%) for tension-type headache, two of 40 (5%) for new daily persistent headache, and one of 40 (3%) for primary exercise headache, while three of 40 (7%) were unclassifiable. The onset of headache occurred before the functional movement disorder in 28/40 (70%), after the functional movement disorder in five of 40 (12%), and simultaneously in six of 40 (15%). In this last group, four of the six (67%) patients described a daily headache from the onset, and two met the criteria for new daily persistent headache.

Conclusions: Headache is a frequent condition in patients with functional movement disorders and an additional burden of disability beyond their motor symptoms. We found that, besides migraine and tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache may be a comorbid phenotype in patients with functional movement disorders and should be further studied in larger prospective studies.

Background: Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. It has been proven to be safe and efficacious in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) as demonstrated in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials including patients from Europe, Japan, and the United States. Reversion from CM to EM, as indicated by a reduction in the frequency of headache days, is an important indicator for efficacy outcome, though it has not been analyzed widely in patients with CM to date.

Objective: Primary results of the DRAGON study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM from China and other Asian countries. This post hoc analysis evaluated the rate of reversion from CM to EM in the overall population and in subgroups of patients defined by baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (age, body mass index, gender, prior preventive treatment failure, medication overuse status, and disease duration).

Methods: Reversion from CM to EM was defined as a reduction in headache frequency to < 45 headache days over the 12 weeks of the double-blind treatment period. In addition, migraine-related disability and disease impact on functional impairment were assessed within each treatment group in reverters and non-reverters using the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), and modified Migraine Disability Assessment (mMIDAS).

Results: Overall, 557 patients with CM were randomized to monthly erenumab 70 mg (n = 279) or placebo (n = 278), of whom 52.3% (146 of 279) treated with erenumab reverted from CM to EM compared to 41.0% (114 of 278) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.2; p = 0.007). Treatment with erenumab resulted in a greater mean change (standard error) from baseline in the HIT-6 total score for reverters versus non-reverters compared to placebo (erenumab: -9.5 [0.6] vs. -5.1 [0.5]; placebo: -8.9 [0.7] vs. -4.9 [0.5]). A similar pattern was observed for mMIDAS score in erenumab treatment groups versus placebo (erenumab: -22.1 [1.2] vs. -6.3 [1.8]; placebo: -19.9 [1.3] vs. -7.9 [1.6]). Substantial improvements were reported in MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores in reverters versus non-reverters in erenumab treatment groups (MPFID-PI: -5.9 [0.3] vs. -1.9 [0.6]; MPFID-EA: -7.9 [0.4] vs. -3.4 [0.6]) and in placebo (MPFID-PI: -5.4 [0.4] vs. -1.0 [0.5]; MPFID-EA: -7.1 [0.5] vs. -3.2 [0.5]).

Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients treated with erenumab reverted from CM to EM compared to patients treated with placebo. The reversion from CM to EM was reflected by the greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes in the erenumab group.

Objective: The goal is to provide an overview of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methodology and appraisal tailored to clinicians and researchers in the headache field to facilitate interdisciplinary communications and research.

Background: The application of AI to the study of headache and other healthcare challenges is growing rapidly. It is critical that these findings be accurately interpreted by headache specialists, but this can be difficult for non-AI specialists.

Methods: This paper is a narrative review of the fundamentals required to understand ML/AI headache research. Using guidance from key leaders in the field of headache medicine and AI, important references were reviewed and cited to provide a comprehensive overview of the terminology, methodology, applications, pitfalls, and bias of AI.

Results: We review how AI models are created, common model types, methods for evaluation, and examples of their application to headache medicine. We also highlight potential pitfalls relevant when consuming AI research, and discuss ethical issues of bias, privacy and abuse generated by AI. Additionally, we highlight recent related research from across headache-related applications.

Conclusion: Many promising current and future applications of ML and AI exist in the field of headache medicine. Understanding the fundamentals of AI will allow readers to understand and critically appraise AI-related research findings in their proper context. This paper will increase the reader's comfort in consuming AI/ML-based research and will prepare them to think critically about related research developments.

Objective: To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine.

Background: Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary.

Methods: Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences.

Results: In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from "wears off 2 weeks before next dose" to "does not wear off before the next dose" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from "cranial injections" to "intravenous infusions" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting.

Conclusions: In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.