Thomas Berk, MD

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less than a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients—those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose.Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had.There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well.Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine.The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients.A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance.The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3.In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment ofmigraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment.The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans.The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2)to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptaninsufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcomeon the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired).In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of agepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications.There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less then a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients — those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose. Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had. There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well. Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine. The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients. A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance. The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3. In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment of migraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment. The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans. The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2) to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptan insufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcome on the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired). In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of a gepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications. There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less then a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients — those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose. Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had. There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well. Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine. The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients. A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance. The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3. In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment of migraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment. The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans. The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2) to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptan insufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcome on the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired). In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of a gepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications. There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Many of our patients with refractory migraine do not respond to first-line acute or preventive treatments, and, almost by definition, first- and second-line treatments have failed in the majority of patients on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications. Three studies this month highlight the efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) and small-molecule medications in this population specifically.

After an initial first dose of a CGRP mAb treatment, many patients ask whether a suboptimal response necessitates switching to another agent or whether a second (or third) dose should be given first. Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered mAb that is repeated every 12 weeks. Schim and colleagues present post hoc data for patients who initially had a minimally beneficial response to eptinezumab and received a second dose at week 13.
 

The authors define a suboptimal response as having less then a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks. There were two pooled samples of patients — those who received 100 mg eptinezumab and those who received a 300 mg dose. Approximately 45% of patients in the pivotal trials of eptinezumab (PROMISE-1 and -2) were considered suboptimal responders, and 33%-37% of those suboptimal responders had a more than 50% decrease of their monthly migraine days after a second dose (week 24).
 

Further analysis determined predictive factors that favored a second dose response. The most prominent (and arguably most obvious) predictive factor was a favorable response after the first dose; the greater percent change in monthly migraine days after the first dose was proportional to the response after the second dose. Change in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) disability score after the first dose was also seen to be a strong predictive factor for improvement after the second dose.

When we discuss continuation of medications with our patients, especially when they have a suboptimal response, we should first keep in mind the degree of improvement that the patient initially had. There can be benefit from further treatment with the same medication; however, if the response truly was minimal, it may be better to consider another treatment option.

Practically every patient taking a preventive medication is taking at least one acute medication as well. Even the best preventive medication is not a guarantee that further exacerbations will not occur, and our patients will still need some acute treatment option even when their preventive medications are very effective. The study by Ambrosini and colleagues specifically shows how effective a preventive medication can be, specifically in allowing the patient to use fewer acute medications over time in a population of patients who have been resistant to two to four treatments.
 

Galcanezumab is a once-monthly mAb for the prevention of migraine. The authors of this study compared the acute use of medications for migraine in both the randomized and open-label stages of a study assessing treatment-refractory patients. A total of 462 patients were enrolled who were all resistant to two to four standard-of-care migraine-preventive medications that had been stopped either because of lack of efficacy or tolerance. The double-blind stage lasted 3 months; the open-label stage lasted another 3 months.
 

The treatment group was seen to use significantly fewer acute medications after just the first month and continued to improve through month 3. In the open-label phase, a similar improvement was noted in patients transitioning from placebo. In addition to acute medication use, emergency department use for migraine treatment was decreased significantly as well, by more than two thirds in month 3.

Migraine prevention will always remain the key ingredient for improvement for patients with higher frequencies of migraine, and adequate prevention will allow for the lower use of acute medications, and for less healthcare system use in general.
 

Most practitioners recommend migraine-specific medications for the acute treatment of migraine. Since the advent of sumatriptan, this has usually meant a triptan medication. However, a significant percentage of the population (up to 44% in one study) are either intolerant to, contraindicated for, or respond insufficiently to triptan medications. This can either be due to a strong triptan side effect (worsened nausea; tightness/soreness of the muscles of the chest, shoulders, and neck), having cardiovascular risk factors, or not responding adequately 2 hours after treatment. The study by Lipton and colleagues specifically assessed the efficacy of ubrogepant in this population.
 

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule CGRP antagonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Although somewhat controversial, most practitioners use ubrogepant in patients with some cardiovascular risk, a situation where they would be more likely to avoid the use of triptans. The study authors pooled post hoc data from the pivotal ubrogepant trials (ACHIEVE-1 and -2) to isolate patients with insufficient response to triptans, and their primary outcome was improvement in function 2 hours after medication dose.
 

Participants in the pivotal trials were separated into three groups: triptan responders, triptan insufficient responders, and triptan-naive patients. Triptan response was defined as achieving pain freedom 2 hours after medication dose. Both those who had an insufficient response and those who no longer use the triptan owing to intolerance or contraindications were included in the group with insufficient triptan response. Function improvement was defined as the primary outcome on the basis of a 4-point response scale (0 = no disability, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = moderately impaired, 3 = severely impaired). In addition, patients were asked to report scores of satisfaction with the medication (yes or no) at 2 and 24 hours and their impression of overall change at 2 hours using a 7-point scale.
 

The population group of triptan insufficient responders (451 patients) had significant improvement in the primary outcome functional disability at 2, 4, and 7 hours after receipt of medications, but there was no statistical difference at 1 hour. This was similar when comparing those with intolerance to triptans, insufficient response to triptans, or contraindications for triptans. The secondary outcomes of satisfaction and global impression of change were also statistically improved in the insufficient-responders group. No additional tolerance issues or adverse events were noted in this group either.

It would certainly be worth considering the use of a gepant acute medication, such as ubrogepant, in patients who are intolerant to or inadequately treated by triptan medications. There still is much to learn about cardiovascular risk and the use of CGRP antagonists, and although no adverse events were noted, more data may be necessary to widely prescribe this class in higher-risk patients.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Cefaly is a commonly used nonprescription device that uses external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) to either abort or prevent migraine attacks. The pivotal Cefaly study was published about 10 years ago, and Cefaly was the first US Food and Drug Administration–cleared neurostimulation device for headache. The initial acute data were gathered primarily in the hospital setting, and the investigators in the study by Kuruvilla and colleagues intended to replicate a more real-world scenario for the acute use of Cefaly.

This was a prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they developed migraine prior to age 50 years and experienced two to eight attacks per month of moderate to severe intensity. Patients were randomized to either Cefaly or a sham device. The Cefaly device itself has two setting: acute and preventive. For this study, the acute setting was used for 2 hours at a time during an acute attack (within the first 4 hours). The supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of trigeminal nerves bilaterally are stimulated with a continuous stimulation via a self-adhesive electrode. This has previously been shown to be safe and effective with the most common side effect noted to be skin irritation at the electrode site.

Patients collected data about their headaches in an e-diary and continued to treat for 2 months. The co-primary outcomes were headache freedom and resolution of most bothersome syndrome at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain relief at 2 hours, resolution of any migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after beginning e-TNS treatment, sustained pain freedom (defined as pain freedom at 2 hours and pain freedom at 24 hours without the use of antimigraine medication during those 24 hours), and use of a rescue medication between 2 and 24 hours after beginning an e-TNS session.

A total of 538 patients were enrolled. The percentage of patients with both freedom from pain and resolution of the most bothersome symptoms were statistically different in the intervention and sham groups. The secondary outcomes were also statistically improved in the device group, with the exception of use of rescue medications between 2 and 24 hours. The most common adverse events were forehead discomfort and paresthesia.

This study does show the effectiveness of Cefaly, especially when used for longer periods of time than had been previously recommended. The outcomes were all met with the exception of rescue medication use, and there is no contraindication to using any rescue medication while using the Cefaly device. Cefaly can be an excellent add-on for acute treatment, especially in patients that may need to use more than one intervention acutely for their migraine attacks.

Providers often discuss when to start medications but do not as often discuss when to stop medications. This is especially true for preventive medications for migraine. The best-case scenario is that a preventive medication is so effective that it is no longer necessary; but in other circumstances, preventive medications have to be stopped, for instance, during pregnancy planning. One concern especially when starting and stopping a monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication is the development of neutralizing antibodies to negate the effect of restarting the medication. This study was designed to determine whether restarting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)–mAb medications was still effective after having been previously stopped.

Raffaelli and colleagues managed a small (39 patients) open-label prospective study. Patients either had a diagnosis of episodic or chronic migraine and were initially given CGRP-mAbs for at least 8 months. They then stopped the therapy for at least 3 months and were restarted on the same mAb that they had initially used. They tracked their headache symptoms for 3 months after restarting therapy. If another treatment had been started in between, those patients were excluded.

The primary outcome was change in mean monthly migraine days between the last 4 weeks of treatment discontinuation and weeks 9-12 after restarting therapy. Secondary endpoints were the changes in mean monthly headache days across the other observation points and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) sum scores. Of the 39 patients enrolled, 16 were given erenumab, 15 galcanezumab, and 8 fremanezumab.

Mean migraine days and mean headache days were shown to have a statistically significant decrease after resumption of therapy. Restarting CGRP medications was not associated with other adverse events associated with these medications. This gives us evidence in favor of restarting the same CGRP medication when a patient's symptoms start to worsen after they have discontinued because of improvement or after pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The use of implanted devices for migraine treatment is considered somewhat controversial. Surgical interventions and implantations for migraine have not been well studied; however small case series have been published, and non-neurologists report anecdotally that these interventions can be helpful for refractory headache disorders. The study by Evans and colleagues reviewed via meta-analysis much of the prior data for nerve stimulation in migraine.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were English-language, peer-reviewed articles of prospective studies with patients over age 18 years for migraine diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. The devices were transcutaneous nerve stimulator devices in a single region of the head (occipital, supraorbital/supratrochlear areas) and enrolled a minimum of 10 patients in the treatment groups. A total of 14 studies were identified; 13 of the studies did report significant adverse events related to treatment.

Regarding migraine frequency, only four of the studies were considered comparable, investigating episodic migraine with 2-3 months of transcutaneous stimulation, and two were comparable in investigating chronic migraine. The episodic migraine studies had a pooled reduction by 2.8 days of migraine per month; chronic migraine was noted to be 2.97 days fewer per month. Three comparable studies for episodic migraine showed a pooled reduction in severity by 2.23 points after 3 months.

Occipital and other trigeminal branch stimulation implants are invasive and associated with risk, most prominently leading to migration and worsening headache and neck pain. This meta-analysis did reveal important pooled data, but it becomes less impressive when considering the published data for standard oral or injection therapies. The fact that there can be long-term worsening and adverse events with surgical implantation makes this choice a higher risk. Of note, there are now neurostimulation devices, such as Cefaly, that allow similar transcutaneous stimulation without the risk of surgery.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

The theme of the articles this month is migraine and blood vessels. Migraine is a known risk factor for vascular events, it is a known vasodilatory phenomenon, and it is commonly treated with vasoconstrictive medications. Genetic studies are further elucidating the connection between migraine and vascular risk factors. The following studies take this vascular connection to clinical relevance in different ways.

Previous studies have investigated the combination of simvastatin and vitamin D for migraine prevention. Statins have anti-inflammatory properties and migraine can partially be understood as an inflammatory vascular phenomenon. Vitamin D and simvastatin were previously shown to be effective in a randomized trial; this study¹ investigated the combination of atorvastatin with nortriptyline for migraine prevention. Patients were excluded if they had a vitamin D deficiency.

This was a triple-blinded study with one control group, one placebo plus notriptyline group, and one atorvastatin plus nortiptyline group. The nortiptyline dosage was 25mg nightly, and the interventions were given for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in headache day frequency; secondary outcomes were severity and quality of life as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ).

Migraine frequency was seen to be significantly improved after 24 weeks in the statin group; however severity was not significantly affected. Adverse effects were mild and overall no subjects discontinued due to the intervention. Quality of life was also seen to be better in the combination statin/nortriptyline group.

The results of this study are compelling enough to consider the addition of a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) for a patient already on a statin or to start a statin (in the appropriate clinical setting) on a patient already on a TCA. The main limiting factor may be the hesitation to use a TCA medication in an older patient, where the anticholinergic effects may be less predictable.

Caffeine has a controversial place in the headache world. Many patients either use caffeine as a way to treat their migraine attacks, or avoid it completely as they are told it is a migraine trigger. Most headache specialists recommend the avoidance of excessive caffeine use (typically considered >150 mg daily) and tell their patients to be consistent about when they consume caffeine. The effect of caffeine on migraine likely is due to its vasoactive property, specifically that it is vasoconstrictive in nature. These vasoactive properties may also be why many studies investigating cerebrovascular reactivity have been inconclusive in the past.

The authors in this study² recruited patients with episodic migraine and divided them based on caffeine use. All subjects underwent transcranial Doppler testing at baseline and after 3 months, caffeine users were instructed to discontinue caffeine in the interim. Doppler testing looked for differences in BHI (breath holding index) of the bilateral posterior cerebral arteries (PCA), which is a standard at their institution. Subjects were only investigated if they were headache-free and had not used a migraine abortive medication in the previous 48 hours. Preventive medications were not controlled for.

Although the investigators recommended discontinuation of caffeine for the caffeine users, only 28% of that subgroup did discontinue. They then subdivided the group of caffeine users into those whose caffeine intake increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Transcranial Doppler testing was performed in all subgroups.

The investigators found a lower BHI-PCA, or decrease in vasodilatory function, in the subgroups that remained on caffeine. Those who stopped caffeine had improvement in this metric, showing the possible reversibility that discontinuation of caffeine can have. It remains unclear precisely how caffeine is vasoactive, and the effects may be via adenosine receptors, endothelial function, neurotransmitter production, or regulation of the autonomic nervous system. The long-term vascular effects of caffeine are unknown, but they do appear to be reversible after a 3 month period.

Migraine, and especially migraine with aura, is well known as a vascular risk factor. The presence of migraine increases the odds ratio of stroke, myocardial ischemia, deep vein thrombosis and other vascular events significantly. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends avoiding the use of any estrogen containing medication in the presence of migraine, due to estrogen itself being a pro-thrombotic hormone.  The precise mechanism that leads to this increased risk is unknown.

This study investigated the connection between migraine and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA). This group observed 415 consecutive patients aged 18-54 who presented for a first time ischemic stroke (other neurovascular events, such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage with secondary ischemia and transient ischemic attacks, were excluded). Data regarding these patient’s risks factors was collected and analyzed including elevated body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and hyperlipidemia.

All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as either magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA), and duplex ultrasound confirmed the images. Atherosclerosis was classified using a standardized system (ASCOD: atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, cardiac pathology, other causes, and dissection) that grades atheroslerotic lesions on a 0-3 scale.

The results may be considered counterintuitive. The presence of migraine was negatively associated with the presence of LAA: a history of migraine did not increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This was even the case when controlling for the traditional vascular risk factors. The authors theorize that likely the association between migraine and stroke and other vascular events is not related to atherosclerosis and may be due to other causes.

A genome-wide association study recently identified a specific polymorphism that was shared by migraine and coronary artery disease. But just like this study, the people with migraine had a negative association with coronary artery disease. If people with migraine do develop stroke or other vascular phenomena they typically present younger and healthier, and this may be why this negative correlation exists.

References

1. Sherafat M et al. The preventive effect of the combination of atorvastatin and nortriptyline in migraine-type headache: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Res. 2022 (Jan 17).
2. Gil Y-E et al. Effect of caffeine and caffeine cessation on cerebrovascular reactivity in patients with migraine. Headache. 2022;62(2):169-75 (Feb 3).
3. Gollion C et al. Migraine and large artery atherosclerosis in young adults with ischemic stroke. Headache. 2022;62(2):191-7 (Feb 5).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Most practitioners recommend a host of non-medical therapeutic options to their patients with migraine. The best studied and safest, most effective supplements remain magnesium, riboflavin/B₂, and CoQ10. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a supplement with both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that has showed positive protective effects in a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and episodes of oxidative stress. One migraine study¹ evaluated serum ALA levels and found over 90% of people with migraine to deficient. This study sought to observe the potential benefit of supplementation with ALA in patients with episodic migraine.

This was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial over the course of 3 months. In this study, 92 female subjects with episodic migraine (defined as experiencing >2 but <15 days of headache per month) were recruited and randomized to receiving 300 mg ALA twice daily or placebo. Patients with chronic migraine, in menopause, pregnant, or lactating were excluded, as were patients with the presence of other chronic medical issues, or patients who had taken antioxidant supplements in the previous 4 months.

The primary outcomes of migraine severity, frequency, and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group; duration of headache was not significantly different. Biochemical analysis of the two groups did show a difference in the lactate level of the intervention group, and this was considered a secondary outcome. Relevant side effects were primarily gastrointestinal, including stomach pain (higher in the placebo group), increased appetite, and constipation.

There is a great interest in finding effective non-medical treatments for migraine. These are frequently used as an adjunct to other preventive medications, or potentially as a stand-alone treatment for low frequency migraine. Many patients prefer non-medical options as well, and unfortunately many of the treatments they read about online or in less scientific spaces are unproven or unsafe. Supplementation remains an important part of migraine treatment for many practitioners and patients.

This study argues that ALA can be considered a safe and effective treatment for episodic migraine. When patients ask about non-medical options, ALA can be an additional treatment worth considering. Many patients are already taking multiple supplements before seeing their specialist, and this article  informs us that there may be some treatment benefit for this supplement as well. We may not be recommending this supplement alone as a preventive treatment for migraine, but we can add a new non-medical option to consider to our mix.

Using preventive medication in pediatrics is now more controversial than it had been previously. The well known The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial² surprised many in the field by revealing that were no significant differences in headache frequency or disability when comparing children with migraine who received preventive medications or placebo. The CHAMP trial spotlighted the effect of non-medical therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback) and education. Many pediatric specialists have altered their practice paradigm in response to these results and have been more reticent to prescribe preventive medications for children with migraine. This is due to concern for potential side effects in light of the absence of direct benefit.

In an observational study of pediatric migraine,³ the investigators followed 186 children with migraine over a 3-year period to determine if the use of a number of preventive medications addresses disability (measured by Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment [PedMIDAS]) as well as frequency, severity and duration of migraine. Other bothersome features of migraine were followed including the presence of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, analgesic use, and the side effects of the preventive medication.

The preventive medications used were cyproheptadine, flunarazine, propranolol, and topiramate—all at weight based doses. It is important to note that amitriptyline was not used in the study and there was no placebo group. This was a Turkish population, the median age was 14, and 63% were female, all of which are appropriate for a pediatric migraine study. Treatment efficacy was defined as a 50% reduction of symptoms. This was achieved in 90% of subjects in the topiramate group, 75% in the propranolol group, and 52-53% in the flunarazine and cyproheptadine groups.

Medication side effects were divided into minor or significant side effects. The only significant side effect noted was 3% of patient with palpitations; minor side effects were changes in appetite and drowsiness. More than half (57%) of patients taking topiramate experienced some side effect, 51% of the cyproheptadine group did as well, and the propranolol and flunarazine groups were noted to have side effects in 22% and 13%, respectively. Overall, 31.7% of patients had some side effect.  

PedMIDAS scores improved significantly with the use of preventive medications; migraine frequency improved significantly as well, especially in the topiramate group. This study argues for the use of preventive medications in pediatric migraine. One of the most commonly used medications for migraine prevention was not investigated unfortunately. Amitriptyline is widely considered a safe and effective migraine prophylactic medication, especially at low doses. One important takeaway is the frequency of side effects at all, and especially with topiramate. It is unclear how many patients stopped their preventive medications due to a side effect. In light of this study, propranolol, which is often overlooked, might be considered a better choice for children with migraine.

Most of the patients with migraine we see are in their most productive years. Migraine disability can be a major difficulty for our patients, especially as it relates to work. The American Migraine Foundation and American Headache Society have both recently taken on initiatives that relate to migraine in the workplace. Migraine epidemiologic studies have shown that people with migraine are more likely to experience a negative impact on their careers, and migraine disability scores weigh time absent from work as well as lower function at work. Many people with migraine are concerned that having migraine may hold them back from being hired or achieving promotion.

Autio et al performed a retrospective analysis of occupationally active patients treated at a single provider (the Finnish health clinic Terveystalo).⁴ The authors first looked for erenumab responders, who they defined as patients who received two prescriptions for erenumab and no other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) medication. These patients were followed for 12 months, and their data was compared to the 12-month period prior to initiating erenumab. The authors evaluated headache-related sick days, all-cause sick days, healthcare visits, and prescriptions for all medications based on a registry. This registry also provided an age- and sex-matched control group of patients with migraine not taking any CGRP mAb medication.

A total of 162 patients were included, 82 in the erenumab responder group.  Headache-related sick days decreased by 74%, and headache-related healthcare visits decreased by 44%. Triptan prescription use decreased by 31.5%; all-cause sick days and healthcare visits differences were not statistically significant.

Prevention remains key in improving our patients’ quality of life and a large factor in this is their work life. This study shows that intervention with erenumab significantly decreases migraine-related absenteeism. It could be argued that the other CGRP mAb medications may have the same effect, as can many other preventive therapies. It can also be argued that even with this data we can only assume that patients function better at work with preventive therapies. Further studies will also look at the degree that “presenteeism” plays in the workplace—people who show up to work but are functioning at a lesser extent due to migraine. That said, this is an important step towards recognizing the burden migraine disability has on our patients’ work life, and the extent that prevention can improve their quality of life.

References

1. Kelishadi MR et al. The beneficial effect of Alpha-lipoic acid supplementation as a potential adjunct treatment in episodic migraines. Sci Rep. 2022;12:271 (Jan 7).
2. Powers SW et al. Trial of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for pediatric migraine.  N Engl  J Med. 2017;376(2):115-124. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610384.
3. Tekin H, Edem P. Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children. Pediatr Int. 2021 (Dec 14).

1. Autio H et al. Erenumab decreases headache-related sick leave days and health care visits: a retrospective real-world study in working patients with migraine. Neurol Ther. 2021 (Dec 10).

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).

Ferrari et al¹provided information on an open label extension to the “LIBERTY” study which investigated the use of erenumab in subjects with episodic migraine that have failed multiple prior preventive medications. The initial Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) studies excluded more refractory patients.  Most commercial insurances in the United States have a “step” policy that relates to use of these and other newer medications, meaning that the majority of patient in the US who receive these medications have previously tried other preventive medications. This raised the question whether migraine refractoriness is a negative predictive factor for erenumab.

This long-term open label study is more like the real-world use of erenumab, and as such the results are similar to what many practitioners are seeing in their clinical experience. Approximately 25% of subjects discontinued erenumab, mostly due to ineffectiveness. Adverse events were mild, and although erenumab has warnings for constipation and hypertension, this study did not show either as increasing over 2 years. Erenumab appeared to be tolerable over time. There were no newly noted safety signals in this study.

The efficacy of erenumab also appeared to be stable over time, without the development of tolerance to the medication. There is a slight decrease in the 50% responder rate at 2 years when these more refractory patients are compared to those that did not have multiple treatment failures. This study also looked at “functional parameters,” such as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), both of which were significantly improved over time.

Although there are some significant limitations in this study-primarily the fact that it is open label—this does give a more representative and real-world sample of patients who will be prescribed erenumab in the United States. Most practitioners will be glad to find that the long-term use of erenumab appears safe, and the efficacy remains stable, even in a more difficult-to-treat population.

A randomized controlled international study investigated the preventive use of occipital nerve blocks in migraine without aura.² The majority of the literature for the use of occipital nerve blocks is for acute treatment, and arguably the most significant study prior to this was Friedman et al³ investigating the use of this procedure in the emergency ward. Prior occipital nerve studies have been inconclusive, and although occipital nerve blocks are considered standard of care for specific conditions in most headache centers, reimbursement is usually very limited. Insurance companies have quoted prior preventive occipital nerve studies to justify non-coverage of these procedures, making access to them for many patients very limited.

Occipital nerve blocks are not performed uniformly, both regarding the medications used—some practitioners use no steroids, some use lidocaine and bupivocaine—and regarding the placement of the injections. In this a small cohort study, 55 subjects were divided into four groups for intervention—one of which was a control group of saline—and all were given one 2.5 mL injection at a point in between the occipital protuberance and the mastoid process bilaterally. Due to adverse events (alopecia and cutaneous atrophy) in two of the triamcinolone groups, recruitment was halted for those two groups. Patients were assessed based on headache duration, frequency, and severity over a 4-week course.

Compared to baseline all interventional groups had significantly decreased headache severity, which did return closer to baseline during the final week. Headache duration was decreased in the first 2 weeks post-injection. Headache frequency was seen to return to baseline at week 4, but prior to that the groups injected with lidocaine had a significant decrease in migraine frequency, with an average decrease in headache days.

Occipital nerve blocks are performed frequently for migraine, occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and many other conditions with noted tenderness over the occiput. As noted above, they are not performed uniformly—sometimes they are given for acute headache pain or status migranosus, and other times they are used in regular intervals for prevention. This data does finally show a preventive benefit with occipital nerve blocks, and this may allow for modifications in how occipital nerve blocks are currently performed. Based on this study, if given preventively, occipital nerve blocks should only contain topical anesthetics, not steroids, and should be performed on an every 2-3 week basis.

The limitations of this study are significant as well. This is a very small cohort, and the injections were performed in only one manner (one bilateral injection), whereas many practitioners will target the greater and lesser branches of the occipital nerve individually.  There were no exclusion criteria for subjects that already had occipital nerve blocks performed—those patients would be unblinded as there is a different sensation when injected with a topical anesthetic versus normal saline (normal saline does not cause burning subcutaneously).

These results should pave the way for further investigations in the use of occipital and other nerve blocks in the prevention of migraine. This should allow better access for our patients and the possibility of performing these procedures more uniformly in the future.

It can be challenging for many practitioners to determine which medication is ideal for individual situations. This is especially true when treating chronic migraine, where many potential complicating factors can influence positive to negative responses to treatment. The investigators here sought to determine which factors may potentially predict a positive response to galcanezumab.⁴

This is an observational study, where 156 subjects with a diagnosis of chronic migraine were enrolled. There was a 1-month run-in period where the following characteristics were collected: monthly headache days, monthly abortive medication intake, clinical features of migraine, and disability scores (MIDAS and HIT-6). These were tracked over a 3-month period after starting glacanezumab.

Approximately 40% of subjects experienced a 50% reduction in headache frequency. The better responders had a lower body mass index, fewer previously failed preventive medications, unilateral headache pain, and previous good response to triptan use. Surprisingly, the presence of medication overuse was associated with persistent improvement at 3 months as well, with over 60% of subjects with medication overuse no longer overusing acute medications at 3 months.  

This study is helpful in identifying specific features that may allow a practitioner to better recommend CGRP mAb medications, such as galcanezumab. Chronic migraine can offer a challenge to even the best trained clinicians. Patients will often have multiple factors that have led to a conversion from episodic to chronic migraine, and a history of medication failures or intolerances. These patients are often referred specifically due to these challenges.

When deciding on a preventive medication for patients with chronic migraine, we often first consider which oral preventive medications may allow us to treat migraine in addition to another underlying issue—such as insomnia, depression, or hypertension. Although the oral class can improve other comorbidities, intolerance is significantly higher for most of these medications as well. The CGRP mAb class is somewhat more ideal for prevention of migraine; the focus when using this class is for migraine prevention alone, and the side effect profile is more tolerable for most patients. That said, if predictive factors were known a more individualized approach to migraine prevention would be possible.

The authors’ recognition of the factors associated with improvement in patients using glacanezumab allows this better individualization. Based on these results, patients with more unilateral pain, lower BMI, and good response to triptans could be recommended glacanuzumab with a great degree of confidence. This should be irrespective of even high frequency use of acute medications, as most of subjects in this study with medication overuse reverted after 3 months.

There is never a single ideal preventive or acute treatment for migraine in any population, however, recognizing factors that allow for an individualized approach improves the quality of life for our patients, and leaves them less disabled by migraine.

References

1. Ferrari MD et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2–4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021(Nov 29).
2. Malekian N et al. Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2021(Nov 17).
3. Friedman BW et al. A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Bilateral Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks With Bupivacaine for Acute Migraine Patients Refractory to Standard Emergency Department Treatment With Metoclopramide. Headache. 2018(Oct);58(9):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13395.
4. Vernieri F et al. Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: A 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, Italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol. 2021(Nov 26).