Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of CGRP-mAbs in Menstrual-Related Migraine: A Real-World Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Migraine shows a significantly higher prevalence in women, especially during reproductive age when menstrual-related hormonal fluctuations represent the most common migraine trigger. Indeed, over 50% of patients report a higher occurrence of migraine attacks during the perimenstrual window. Menstrual migraine attacks are consistently referred to as more disabling, less responsive to symptomatic treatments, longer in duration, and more prone to relapse than non-menstrual migraine attacks. Evidence strongly suggests that estrogen fluctuations are involved in migraine attacks worsening during the perimenstrual window through several mechanisms directly or indirectly involving the CGRP pathway. We aimed to evaluate whether mAbs blocking CGRP-ligand or receptor (CGRP-mAbs) could represent an effective and safe preventive treatment for menstrual migraine attacks in patients with menstrual-related migraine (MRM) with previous treatment failures.

Methods

Forty patients with MRM with at least three previous treatment failures received monthly CGRP-mAbs. At the baseline and after six CGRP-mAbs administrations, patients underwent to extensive interviews to assess frequency, duration, intensity, and responsiveness to painkiller intake of migraine attacks occurring during the perimenstrual window.

Results

After six administrations of CGRP-mAbs we observed a reduction of median menstrual migraine frequency (from 5 to 2 days per month), pain intensity (from 8/10 to 6/10), and attacks duration (from 24 to 8 h) (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, a significant increase in the percentage of responding to migraine painkillers was observed from 42.5% at baseline to 95% at T1 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

CGRP-mAbs could represent a safe and effective preventive therapeutic strategy able to reduce the disabling burden of menstrual migraine attack frequency, duration, intensity, and significantly improve the response to painkillers. These findings could be related to and further indirectly prove the greater influence of CGRP-mediated mechanisms in the pathophysiology of menstrual migraine attacks.

SUBMITTER: Silvestro M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are approved in Europe as preventive treatment of migraine in patients with at least four monthly migraine days. Migraine gives rise to direct healthcare expenditures, but most of the economic burden of migraine is socioeconomic. Evidence on the socioeconomic implications of CGRP-mAbs is, however, limited. There is an increasing interest in supplementing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with real-world evidence (RWE) to aid clinical decision making and inform decision making for migraine management. The objective of this study was to generate RWE on the health economic and socioeconomic implications of administering CGRP-mAbs to patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM), and low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM)).MethodsReal-world data (RWD) on Danish patients with CM, HFEM, and LFEM were collected via two Danish patient organisations and two informal patient networks and used in a tailored economic model. Treatment effects of CGRP-mAbs on health economic and socioeconomic outcomes were estimated using a sub-sample of patients with CM who receive CGRP-mAb treatment.ResultsA total of 362 patients (CM: 199 [55.0%], HFEM: 80 [22.1%], LFEM: 83 [22.9%]) were included in the health economic model (mean age 44.1 ± 11.5, 97.5% female, 16.3% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs), and 303 patients were included in the socioeconomic model (15.2% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs). Health economic savings from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled €1,179 per patient with CM per year on average (HFEM: €264, LFEM: €175). Socioeconomic gains from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled an average gross domestic product (GDP) gain of €13,329 per patient with CM per year (HFEM: €10,449, LFEM: €9,947).ConclusionOur results indicate that CGRP-mAbs have the potential to reduce both health economic expenditures and the socioeconomic burden of migraine. Health economic savings are used as a basis for health technology assessments (HTAs) of the cost-effectiveness of new treatments, which implies that important socioeconomic gains may not be given enough importance in decision making for migraine management.

Project description:Backgroundthe interest of clinical reaseach in polymorphisms and epigenetics in migraine has been growing over the years. Due to the new era of preventative migraine treatment opened by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the signaling of the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP), the present systematic review aims at identifying genetic variants occurring along the CGRP pathway and at verifying whether these can affect the clinical features and the course of disease and the responsiveness of patients to therapy.Methodsthe literature search has been conducted consulting the most relevant scientific databases, i.e. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) Published Literature database (Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base) and Clinicaltrials.gov from database inception until April 1, 2021. The process of identification and selection of the studies included in the analysis has followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the guidance from the Human Genome Epidemiology Network for reporting gene-disease associations.Resultsthe search has retrieved 800 results, among which only 7 studies have met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The latter are case-control studies of genetic association and an exploratory analysis and two polymorphisms have been detected as the most recurring: the rs3781719 (T > C) of the CALC A gene encoding CGRP and the rs7590387 of the gene encoding the receptor activity-modifying protein (RAMP) 1 (C > G). Only one study assessing the methylation pattern with regard to CGRP pathway has been found from the search. No genetic association studies investigating the possible effect of genetic variants affecting CGRP signaling on the responsiveness to the most recent pharmacological approaches, i.e. anti-CGRP(R) mAbs, gepants and ditans, have been published. According to the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) systematic reviews and meta-analyses risk-of-bias score for genetic association studies, the heterogeneity between and across studies and the small sample size do not allow to draw conclusions and prompt future studies.Conclusionsadequately powered, good quality genetic association studies are needed to understand the impact of genetic variants affecting the pathway of CGRP on migraine susceptibility and clinical manifestation and to predict the response to therapy in terms of efficacy and safety.

Project description:BackgroundChronic migraine (CM) is a disabling condition with high prevalence in the general population. Until the recent approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (Anti-CGRP mAbs), OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) was the only treatment specifically approved for CM prophylaxis. Direct comparisons between the two treatments are not available so far.MethodsWe performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study in Italy to compare the real-world effectiveness of Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A. Patients with CM who had received either treatment according to Italian prescribing regulations were extracted from available clinical databases. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in monthly headache days (MHD), MIgraine Disability ASsessment test (MIDAS), and monthly acute medications (MAM) evaluated at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was MHD change from baseline at 12 months. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (SAE) and treatment discontinuation. Unadjusted and adjusted models were used for the analyses.ResultsTwo hundred sixteen potentially eligible patients were screened; 183 (86 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 97 BoNT-A) were included. One hundred seventy-one (80 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 91 BoNT-A) and 154 (69 Anti-CGRP mAbs; 85 BoNT-A) patients were included in the efficacy analysis at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A both resulted in a mean MHD reduction at 6 (-11.5 and -7.2 days, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.3; 95%CI -6.6 to -2.0; p = 0.0003) and 12 months (-11.9 and -7.6, respectively; unadjusted mean difference -4.4; 95%CI -6.8 to -2.0; p = 0.0002) of follow-up. Similar results were observed after adjusting for baseline confounders. Anti-CGRP mAbs showed a significant MIDAS (-31.7 and -19.2 points, p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0296, respectively) and MAM reduction (-5.1 and -3.1 administrations, p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0574, respectively) compared to BoNT-A at 6 and 12 months. No SAEs were reported. One patient receiving fremanezumab discontinued treatment due to arthralgia. Treatment discontinuations, mainly for inefficacy, were comparable.ConclusionBoth Anti-CGRP mAbs and BoNT-A were effective in CM patients with Anti-CGRP mAbs presenting higher effect magnitude, with comparable safety. Still, BoNT-A remains a valuable option for CM patients with contraindications to Anti-CGRP mAbs or for frail categories who are candidates to local therapy with limited risk of systemic administration.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND:The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on-treatment adverse events (AEs). METHODS:This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study in adults with 2-14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2-8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks. RESULTS:The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4-week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ?1 on-treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ?2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment-related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION:Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.