User login
STOWE, VT – , said Rebecca Burch, MD, staff attending neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Clinical observation suggests that preventive treatment provides benefits for appropriately selected migraineurs, although few data confirm a modifying effect on disease course, she said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England. In her overview, Dr. Burch discussed when preventive treatment is appropriate, which patients are candidates for preventive therapy, and what the levels of evidence are for the preventive therapies. 
Identifying candidates for preventive treatment
Migraine is the second most disabling condition worldwide and imposes a large social and economic burden, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy reduces the disability associated with migraine. It reduces headache frequency and, thus, the risk that episodic migraine will transform into chronic migraine. By reducing the number of headache days, preventive treatment also may reduce the overuse of acute medication, which is a risk factor for migraine chronification.
Neurologists can consider preventive therapy for migraineurs with frequent headaches, but the term “frequent” is not clearly defined. Common definitions include one headache per week and two headaches per month with significant disability. These definitions are based on expert consensus and do not have strong evidential support, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy also may be appropriate for migraineurs who overuse acute medication or who have failed acute medications. Special cases, such as patients with exceptional anxiety or disability, may also call for preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch.
Data suggest that preventive treatment for migraine is underused. The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 2007 found that half of patients who should be offered preventive treatment are currently receiving it. In 2016, the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes study found that 4.5% of chronic migraineurs take both acute and preventive treatment.
Other data published in Cephalalgia in 2015 indicate that adherence to migraine preventive treatment is approximately 20%. About 45% of patients discontinue medication because of side effects, and 45% cite lack of efficacy as their reason for discontinuation. Patients also mentioned cost, interactions with other medications, and the inconvenience of daily medication as other reasons for discontinuation.
Neurologists can take several steps to increase adherence to preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch. First, neurologists should confirm that patients want preventive medication. A clear discussion of the goals of preventive treatment is helpful as well. Furthermore, neurologists should explain that they are offering patients a trial, said Dr. Burch. The medication can be titrated slowly from a low dose to minimize side effects. Patients can be reassured that ineffective medications will be stopped. Neurologists can emphasize that their relationship with the patient is a partnership and that the treatment strategy will be improved over time.
Examining the evidence on treatments’ efficacy
Many drug classes, such as antiepileptics, antidepressants, beta blockers, neurotoxins, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, include therapies that are used as preventive treatments for migraine. When selecting a medication, a neurologist should start with one that is supported by Level A or Level B evidence, said Dr. Burch. Medications with Level A evidence include divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Medications with Level B evidence include amitriptyline, venlafaxine, memantine, lisinopril, and candesartan. Neurologists sometimes prescribe gabapentin and verapamil, although the evidence for them is Level U. Duloxetine, nortriptyline, and pregabalin also are used, but the evidence for them has not been evaluated. “We need more evidence in these areas,” said Dr. Burch.
Neurologists should consider access (e.g., cost and insurance coverage), efficacy, side effects, and comorbidities and contraindications when choosing a preventive therapy, she added. Verapamil and memantine are well tolerated and appropriate choices if the goal is to avoid side effects in general. If weight gain or fatigue is a concern, then topiramate and venlafaxine should be considered. Neurologists should avoid prescribing antiepileptic drugs if cognitive symptoms are a concern, said Dr. Burch. Beta blockers and venlafaxine would be better options in this case.
In clinical trials of CGRP therapies, the rates of adverse events were similar between the active and control arms. “But it’s become fairly clear that the clinical trials did not fully capture the side-effect profile that we are seeing in clinical practice,” said Dr. Burch. In a paper currently in review, she and her colleagues retrospectively studied 241 patients that they had treated with CGRP monoclonal antibodies at their headache center. The most common adverse events were constipation (43%), injection-site reaction (24%), muscle or joint pain (17%), and fatigue (15%). Furthermore, CGRP antagonists were associated with maternal hypertension, fetal growth restriction, and fetal mortality in animal studies. The current recommendation is to avoid CGRP monoclonal antibodies during pregnancy or in any patient who is at risk of becoming pregnant, said Dr. Burch.
How should neurologists assess preventive efficacy?
The assessment of a medication’s preventive efficacy “is a moving target in the headache world,” said Dr. Burch. “Historically, we have used headache days per month, and that is still, according to the International Headache Society clinical trials guidelines, how we should be judging whether a medication is working or not. But that doesn’t necessarily tell us what’s going to happen to an individual patient in front of us.”
In 2017, the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness Research compared data for old and new migraine treatments in a network meta-analysis. They all tended to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by one to two, compared with placebo. When one analyzes clinical trials of the drugs using this criterion, “most of these treatments come out about the same,” said Dr. Burch.
More recently, investigators have examined responder rates. They commonly report the proportions of patients who had a reduction in headache days of 50%, 75%, or 100%, for example. To extrapolate responder rates from the trial participants to the general population, a neurologist must know which groups of patients got worse on treatment, said Dr. Burch. Furthermore, the responder rates for older medications are unknown, because they were not examined. This situation makes comparisons of newer and older therapies more complicated.
Phase 3 trials of the CGRP drugs included analyses of the therapies’ 50% responder rates. This rate was about 42% for the 70-mg dose of erenumab and 50% for the 140-mg dose. The 50% responder rates for fremanezumab were 47.7% for the 225-mg dose and 44.4% for the 675-mg dose. In two trials of galcanezumab, the 50% responder rate for the 120-mg dose was approximately 60%, and the rate for the 240-mg dose was about 59%. The 50% responder rates for eptinezumab were 50% for the 100-mg dose and 56% for the 300-mg dose. The 50% responder rate across all trials was around 50%-60% in the active group, which is roughly 25% over the placebo group, said Dr. Burch.
Another measurement of efficacy is the efficacy-to-harm ratio, which is derived from the number needed to treat and the number needed to harm. To calculate this ratio, however, harm needs to be assessed adequately during a clinical trial. Although the ratio can provide a clinically relevant overview of a drug’s effects, patients may differ from each other in the way they evaluate efficacy and harm.
In addition, many questions about preventive treatment of migraine have no clear answers yet. It is uncertain, for example, how long a patient should receive preventive treatment and when treatment should be withdrawn, said Dr. Burch. “Can we expect that a lot of people are going to need to be on it for life, or is there a subpopulation who will get better and [for whom] we can withdraw [treatment]?” she asked. “How do we identify them?” Also, more data are needed before neurologists can understand why a given patient responds to one treatment, but not to another. It is difficult to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Finally, it remains unclear how much of patients’ improvement can be attributed to regression to the mean, rather than preventive treatment.
STOWE, VT – , said Rebecca Burch, MD, staff attending neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Clinical observation suggests that preventive treatment provides benefits for appropriately selected migraineurs, although few data confirm a modifying effect on disease course, she said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England. In her overview, Dr. Burch discussed when preventive treatment is appropriate, which patients are candidates for preventive therapy, and what the levels of evidence are for the preventive therapies.
Identifying candidates for preventive treatment
Migraine is the second most disabling condition worldwide and imposes a large social and economic burden, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy reduces the disability associated with migraine. It reduces headache frequency and, thus, the risk that episodic migraine will transform into chronic migraine. By reducing the number of headache days, preventive treatment also may reduce the overuse of acute medication, which is a risk factor for migraine chronification.
Neurologists can consider preventive therapy for migraineurs with frequent headaches, but the term “frequent” is not clearly defined. Common definitions include one headache per week and two headaches per month with significant disability. These definitions are based on expert consensus and do not have strong evidential support, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy also may be appropriate for migraineurs who overuse acute medication or who have failed acute medications. Special cases, such as patients with exceptional anxiety or disability, may also call for preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch.
Data suggest that preventive treatment for migraine is underused. The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 2007 found that half of patients who should be offered preventive treatment are currently receiving it. In 2016, the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes study found that 4.5% of chronic migraineurs take both acute and preventive treatment.
Other data published in Cephalalgia in 2015 indicate that adherence to migraine preventive treatment is approximately 20%. About 45% of patients discontinue medication because of side effects, and 45% cite lack of efficacy as their reason for discontinuation. Patients also mentioned cost, interactions with other medications, and the inconvenience of daily medication as other reasons for discontinuation.
Neurologists can take several steps to increase adherence to preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch. First, neurologists should confirm that patients want preventive medication. A clear discussion of the goals of preventive treatment is helpful as well. Furthermore, neurologists should explain that they are offering patients a trial, said Dr. Burch. The medication can be titrated slowly from a low dose to minimize side effects. Patients can be reassured that ineffective medications will be stopped. Neurologists can emphasize that their relationship with the patient is a partnership and that the treatment strategy will be improved over time.
Examining the evidence on treatments’ efficacy
Many drug classes, such as antiepileptics, antidepressants, beta blockers, neurotoxins, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, include therapies that are used as preventive treatments for migraine. When selecting a medication, a neurologist should start with one that is supported by Level A or Level B evidence, said Dr. Burch. Medications with Level A evidence include divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Medications with Level B evidence include amitriptyline, venlafaxine, memantine, lisinopril, and candesartan. Neurologists sometimes prescribe gabapentin and verapamil, although the evidence for them is Level U. Duloxetine, nortriptyline, and pregabalin also are used, but the evidence for them has not been evaluated. “We need more evidence in these areas,” said Dr. Burch.
Neurologists should consider access (e.g., cost and insurance coverage), efficacy, side effects, and comorbidities and contraindications when choosing a preventive therapy, she added. Verapamil and memantine are well tolerated and appropriate choices if the goal is to avoid side effects in general. If weight gain or fatigue is a concern, then topiramate and venlafaxine should be considered. Neurologists should avoid prescribing antiepileptic drugs if cognitive symptoms are a concern, said Dr. Burch. Beta blockers and venlafaxine would be better options in this case.
In clinical trials of CGRP therapies, the rates of adverse events were similar between the active and control arms. “But it’s become fairly clear that the clinical trials did not fully capture the side-effect profile that we are seeing in clinical practice,” said Dr. Burch. In a paper currently in review, she and her colleagues retrospectively studied 241 patients that they had treated with CGRP monoclonal antibodies at their headache center. The most common adverse events were constipation (43%), injection-site reaction (24%), muscle or joint pain (17%), and fatigue (15%). Furthermore, CGRP antagonists were associated with maternal hypertension, fetal growth restriction, and fetal mortality in animal studies. The current recommendation is to avoid CGRP monoclonal antibodies during pregnancy or in any patient who is at risk of becoming pregnant, said Dr. Burch.
How should neurologists assess preventive efficacy?
The assessment of a medication’s preventive efficacy “is a moving target in the headache world,” said Dr. Burch. “Historically, we have used headache days per month, and that is still, according to the International Headache Society clinical trials guidelines, how we should be judging whether a medication is working or not. But that doesn’t necessarily tell us what’s going to happen to an individual patient in front of us.”
In 2017, the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness Research compared data for old and new migraine treatments in a network meta-analysis. They all tended to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by one to two, compared with placebo. When one analyzes clinical trials of the drugs using this criterion, “most of these treatments come out about the same,” said Dr. Burch.
More recently, investigators have examined responder rates. They commonly report the proportions of patients who had a reduction in headache days of 50%, 75%, or 100%, for example. To extrapolate responder rates from the trial participants to the general population, a neurologist must know which groups of patients got worse on treatment, said Dr. Burch. Furthermore, the responder rates for older medications are unknown, because they were not examined. This situation makes comparisons of newer and older therapies more complicated.
Phase 3 trials of the CGRP drugs included analyses of the therapies’ 50% responder rates. This rate was about 42% for the 70-mg dose of erenumab and 50% for the 140-mg dose. The 50% responder rates for fremanezumab were 47.7% for the 225-mg dose and 44.4% for the 675-mg dose. In two trials of galcanezumab, the 50% responder rate for the 120-mg dose was approximately 60%, and the rate for the 240-mg dose was about 59%. The 50% responder rates for eptinezumab were 50% for the 100-mg dose and 56% for the 300-mg dose. The 50% responder rate across all trials was around 50%-60% in the active group, which is roughly 25% over the placebo group, said Dr. Burch.
Another measurement of efficacy is the efficacy-to-harm ratio, which is derived from the number needed to treat and the number needed to harm. To calculate this ratio, however, harm needs to be assessed adequately during a clinical trial. Although the ratio can provide a clinically relevant overview of a drug’s effects, patients may differ from each other in the way they evaluate efficacy and harm.
In addition, many questions about preventive treatment of migraine have no clear answers yet. It is uncertain, for example, how long a patient should receive preventive treatment and when treatment should be withdrawn, said Dr. Burch. “Can we expect that a lot of people are going to need to be on it for life, or is there a subpopulation who will get better and [for whom] we can withdraw [treatment]?” she asked. “How do we identify them?” Also, more data are needed before neurologists can understand why a given patient responds to one treatment, but not to another. It is difficult to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Finally, it remains unclear how much of patients’ improvement can be attributed to regression to the mean, rather than preventive treatment.
STOWE, VT – , said Rebecca Burch, MD, staff attending neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Clinical observation suggests that preventive treatment provides benefits for appropriately selected migraineurs, although few data confirm a modifying effect on disease course, she said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England. In her overview, Dr. Burch discussed when preventive treatment is appropriate, which patients are candidates for preventive therapy, and what the levels of evidence are for the preventive therapies.
Identifying candidates for preventive treatment
Migraine is the second most disabling condition worldwide and imposes a large social and economic burden, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy reduces the disability associated with migraine. It reduces headache frequency and, thus, the risk that episodic migraine will transform into chronic migraine. By reducing the number of headache days, preventive treatment also may reduce the overuse of acute medication, which is a risk factor for migraine chronification.
Neurologists can consider preventive therapy for migraineurs with frequent headaches, but the term “frequent” is not clearly defined. Common definitions include one headache per week and two headaches per month with significant disability. These definitions are based on expert consensus and do not have strong evidential support, said Dr. Burch. Preventive therapy also may be appropriate for migraineurs who overuse acute medication or who have failed acute medications. Special cases, such as patients with exceptional anxiety or disability, may also call for preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch.
Data suggest that preventive treatment for migraine is underused. The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 2007 found that half of patients who should be offered preventive treatment are currently receiving it. In 2016, the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes study found that 4.5% of chronic migraineurs take both acute and preventive treatment.
Other data published in Cephalalgia in 2015 indicate that adherence to migraine preventive treatment is approximately 20%. About 45% of patients discontinue medication because of side effects, and 45% cite lack of efficacy as their reason for discontinuation. Patients also mentioned cost, interactions with other medications, and the inconvenience of daily medication as other reasons for discontinuation.
Neurologists can take several steps to increase adherence to preventive treatment, said Dr. Burch. First, neurologists should confirm that patients want preventive medication. A clear discussion of the goals of preventive treatment is helpful as well. Furthermore, neurologists should explain that they are offering patients a trial, said Dr. Burch. The medication can be titrated slowly from a low dose to minimize side effects. Patients can be reassured that ineffective medications will be stopped. Neurologists can emphasize that their relationship with the patient is a partnership and that the treatment strategy will be improved over time.
Examining the evidence on treatments’ efficacy
Many drug classes, such as antiepileptics, antidepressants, beta blockers, neurotoxins, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, include therapies that are used as preventive treatments for migraine. When selecting a medication, a neurologist should start with one that is supported by Level A or Level B evidence, said Dr. Burch. Medications with Level A evidence include divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Medications with Level B evidence include amitriptyline, venlafaxine, memantine, lisinopril, and candesartan. Neurologists sometimes prescribe gabapentin and verapamil, although the evidence for them is Level U. Duloxetine, nortriptyline, and pregabalin also are used, but the evidence for them has not been evaluated. “We need more evidence in these areas,” said Dr. Burch.
Neurologists should consider access (e.g., cost and insurance coverage), efficacy, side effects, and comorbidities and contraindications when choosing a preventive therapy, she added. Verapamil and memantine are well tolerated and appropriate choices if the goal is to avoid side effects in general. If weight gain or fatigue is a concern, then topiramate and venlafaxine should be considered. Neurologists should avoid prescribing antiepileptic drugs if cognitive symptoms are a concern, said Dr. Burch. Beta blockers and venlafaxine would be better options in this case.
In clinical trials of CGRP therapies, the rates of adverse events were similar between the active and control arms. “But it’s become fairly clear that the clinical trials did not fully capture the side-effect profile that we are seeing in clinical practice,” said Dr. Burch. In a paper currently in review, she and her colleagues retrospectively studied 241 patients that they had treated with CGRP monoclonal antibodies at their headache center. The most common adverse events were constipation (43%), injection-site reaction (24%), muscle or joint pain (17%), and fatigue (15%). Furthermore, CGRP antagonists were associated with maternal hypertension, fetal growth restriction, and fetal mortality in animal studies. The current recommendation is to avoid CGRP monoclonal antibodies during pregnancy or in any patient who is at risk of becoming pregnant, said Dr. Burch.
How should neurologists assess preventive efficacy?
The assessment of a medication’s preventive efficacy “is a moving target in the headache world,” said Dr. Burch. “Historically, we have used headache days per month, and that is still, according to the International Headache Society clinical trials guidelines, how we should be judging whether a medication is working or not. But that doesn’t necessarily tell us what’s going to happen to an individual patient in front of us.”
In 2017, the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness Research compared data for old and new migraine treatments in a network meta-analysis. They all tended to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by one to two, compared with placebo. When one analyzes clinical trials of the drugs using this criterion, “most of these treatments come out about the same,” said Dr. Burch.
More recently, investigators have examined responder rates. They commonly report the proportions of patients who had a reduction in headache days of 50%, 75%, or 100%, for example. To extrapolate responder rates from the trial participants to the general population, a neurologist must know which groups of patients got worse on treatment, said Dr. Burch. Furthermore, the responder rates for older medications are unknown, because they were not examined. This situation makes comparisons of newer and older therapies more complicated.
Phase 3 trials of the CGRP drugs included analyses of the therapies’ 50% responder rates. This rate was about 42% for the 70-mg dose of erenumab and 50% for the 140-mg dose. The 50% responder rates for fremanezumab were 47.7% for the 225-mg dose and 44.4% for the 675-mg dose. In two trials of galcanezumab, the 50% responder rate for the 120-mg dose was approximately 60%, and the rate for the 240-mg dose was about 59%. The 50% responder rates for eptinezumab were 50% for the 100-mg dose and 56% for the 300-mg dose. The 50% responder rate across all trials was around 50%-60% in the active group, which is roughly 25% over the placebo group, said Dr. Burch.
Another measurement of efficacy is the efficacy-to-harm ratio, which is derived from the number needed to treat and the number needed to harm. To calculate this ratio, however, harm needs to be assessed adequately during a clinical trial. Although the ratio can provide a clinically relevant overview of a drug’s effects, patients may differ from each other in the way they evaluate efficacy and harm.
In addition, many questions about preventive treatment of migraine have no clear answers yet. It is uncertain, for example, how long a patient should receive preventive treatment and when treatment should be withdrawn, said Dr. Burch. “Can we expect that a lot of people are going to need to be on it for life, or is there a subpopulation who will get better and [for whom] we can withdraw [treatment]?” she asked. “How do we identify them?” Also, more data are needed before neurologists can understand why a given patient responds to one treatment, but not to another. It is difficult to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Finally, it remains unclear how much of patients’ improvement can be attributed to regression to the mean, rather than preventive treatment.
REPORTING FROM HCNE STOWE 2020