User login
Cannabis for migraine strongly linked to rebound headache
, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.
“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.
“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
Sixfold increase
“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.
From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.
To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.
Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).
There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
Jury out on cannabis for migraine
Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”
The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.
“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.
She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”
Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”
Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.
“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.
“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.
“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.
“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
Sixfold increase
“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.
From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.
To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.
Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).
There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
Jury out on cannabis for migraine
Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”
The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.
“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.
She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”
Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”
Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.
“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.
“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.
“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.
“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
Sixfold increase
“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.
From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.
To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.
Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).
There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
Jury out on cannabis for migraine
Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”
The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.
“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.
She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”
Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”
Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.
“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.
“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
Investigative gepant liver profile comparable with standard of care
according to results of a multicenter, open-label trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The trial included 739 patients, 543 of whom were randomized to daily oral atogepant with the remainder assigned to the existing standard of care oral migraine prevention medication, said Messoud Ashina, MD, PhD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen. Initially, 67% (n = 364) of the atogepant patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). However, he noted, the rate of TEAEs related to treatment was actually 18% (n = 98), and the rate of serious AEs was 4.4% (n = 24); 31 patients (5.7%) discontinued therapy because of TEAEs.
Those rates compared favorably with the standard of care group, Dr. Ashina said. In that group, the rate of TEAEs was 78.6% (154/196), and the rate of treatment-related TEAEs was 36.2% (n = 71).
In the atogepant group, the most common TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%, n = 56), constipation (7.2%, n = 39) and nausea (6.3%, n = 34). “With constipation in particular most cases were mild to moderate,” Dr. Ashina said. “Only one case was considered severe and it resolved before the end of the trial.” One patient discontinued treatment because of constipation.
Most significantly, said Dr. Ashina, “No hepatic safety issues were identified.” In the atogepant group, 2.4% of patients (n = 13) had ALT/AST levels at three times the upper limit of normal versus 3.2% (n = 6) in the standard of care group.
During question-and-answer, Dr. Ashina was pressed on the rate or urinary tract infections in the atogepant patients – 5.2% (n = 28), a measure not reported in the standard of care group – but he said there was no indication the UTIs resulted from atogepant itself. “I assume if there was some problems with urinary tract infections because of the kidneys then you would expect to see the lab data showing that,” he added in an interview. “There were no differences in lab abnormalities between the two groups.”
While Dr. Ashina said “I don’t think it’s something of concern” with regard to the UTI risk, he added: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t have to be careful. As physicians, we have to exhibit pharmacovigilance all the time, especially with the new drugs coming out over the next 5 years. But don’t panic.”
Stephen D. Silberstein, MD, director of the headache center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the hepatic values reported in the open-label trial are important. “What’s really nice about this study is the fact that we now know that this particular gepant when given on a regular basis for 1 year has no problem with liver or kidney function,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Ashina said once-daily oral atogepant could potentially be a desirable alternative migraine preventive treatment to monoclonal antibodies and their quarterly injections and a second-line therapy when other treatments don’t work. However, Dr. Silverstein noted that patients typically aren’t as compliant with self-administered oral medications as they are with periodic injections.
Allergan/AbbVie sponsored the trial. Dr. Ashina reported financial relationships with Allergan/AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva. Dr. Silberstein is a trial investigator.
according to results of a multicenter, open-label trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The trial included 739 patients, 543 of whom were randomized to daily oral atogepant with the remainder assigned to the existing standard of care oral migraine prevention medication, said Messoud Ashina, MD, PhD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen. Initially, 67% (n = 364) of the atogepant patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). However, he noted, the rate of TEAEs related to treatment was actually 18% (n = 98), and the rate of serious AEs was 4.4% (n = 24); 31 patients (5.7%) discontinued therapy because of TEAEs.
Those rates compared favorably with the standard of care group, Dr. Ashina said. In that group, the rate of TEAEs was 78.6% (154/196), and the rate of treatment-related TEAEs was 36.2% (n = 71).
In the atogepant group, the most common TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%, n = 56), constipation (7.2%, n = 39) and nausea (6.3%, n = 34). “With constipation in particular most cases were mild to moderate,” Dr. Ashina said. “Only one case was considered severe and it resolved before the end of the trial.” One patient discontinued treatment because of constipation.
Most significantly, said Dr. Ashina, “No hepatic safety issues were identified.” In the atogepant group, 2.4% of patients (n = 13) had ALT/AST levels at three times the upper limit of normal versus 3.2% (n = 6) in the standard of care group.
During question-and-answer, Dr. Ashina was pressed on the rate or urinary tract infections in the atogepant patients – 5.2% (n = 28), a measure not reported in the standard of care group – but he said there was no indication the UTIs resulted from atogepant itself. “I assume if there was some problems with urinary tract infections because of the kidneys then you would expect to see the lab data showing that,” he added in an interview. “There were no differences in lab abnormalities between the two groups.”
While Dr. Ashina said “I don’t think it’s something of concern” with regard to the UTI risk, he added: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t have to be careful. As physicians, we have to exhibit pharmacovigilance all the time, especially with the new drugs coming out over the next 5 years. But don’t panic.”
Stephen D. Silberstein, MD, director of the headache center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the hepatic values reported in the open-label trial are important. “What’s really nice about this study is the fact that we now know that this particular gepant when given on a regular basis for 1 year has no problem with liver or kidney function,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Ashina said once-daily oral atogepant could potentially be a desirable alternative migraine preventive treatment to monoclonal antibodies and their quarterly injections and a second-line therapy when other treatments don’t work. However, Dr. Silverstein noted that patients typically aren’t as compliant with self-administered oral medications as they are with periodic injections.
Allergan/AbbVie sponsored the trial. Dr. Ashina reported financial relationships with Allergan/AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva. Dr. Silberstein is a trial investigator.
according to results of a multicenter, open-label trial presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
The trial included 739 patients, 543 of whom were randomized to daily oral atogepant with the remainder assigned to the existing standard of care oral migraine prevention medication, said Messoud Ashina, MD, PhD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen. Initially, 67% (n = 364) of the atogepant patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). However, he noted, the rate of TEAEs related to treatment was actually 18% (n = 98), and the rate of serious AEs was 4.4% (n = 24); 31 patients (5.7%) discontinued therapy because of TEAEs.
Those rates compared favorably with the standard of care group, Dr. Ashina said. In that group, the rate of TEAEs was 78.6% (154/196), and the rate of treatment-related TEAEs was 36.2% (n = 71).
In the atogepant group, the most common TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%, n = 56), constipation (7.2%, n = 39) and nausea (6.3%, n = 34). “With constipation in particular most cases were mild to moderate,” Dr. Ashina said. “Only one case was considered severe and it resolved before the end of the trial.” One patient discontinued treatment because of constipation.
Most significantly, said Dr. Ashina, “No hepatic safety issues were identified.” In the atogepant group, 2.4% of patients (n = 13) had ALT/AST levels at three times the upper limit of normal versus 3.2% (n = 6) in the standard of care group.
During question-and-answer, Dr. Ashina was pressed on the rate or urinary tract infections in the atogepant patients – 5.2% (n = 28), a measure not reported in the standard of care group – but he said there was no indication the UTIs resulted from atogepant itself. “I assume if there was some problems with urinary tract infections because of the kidneys then you would expect to see the lab data showing that,” he added in an interview. “There were no differences in lab abnormalities between the two groups.”
While Dr. Ashina said “I don’t think it’s something of concern” with regard to the UTI risk, he added: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t have to be careful. As physicians, we have to exhibit pharmacovigilance all the time, especially with the new drugs coming out over the next 5 years. But don’t panic.”
Stephen D. Silberstein, MD, director of the headache center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the hepatic values reported in the open-label trial are important. “What’s really nice about this study is the fact that we now know that this particular gepant when given on a regular basis for 1 year has no problem with liver or kidney function,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Ashina said once-daily oral atogepant could potentially be a desirable alternative migraine preventive treatment to monoclonal antibodies and their quarterly injections and a second-line therapy when other treatments don’t work. However, Dr. Silverstein noted that patients typically aren’t as compliant with self-administered oral medications as they are with periodic injections.
Allergan/AbbVie sponsored the trial. Dr. Ashina reported financial relationships with Allergan/AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva. Dr. Silberstein is a trial investigator.
FROM AAN 2021
Rimegepant looks safe in migraine patients with cardiovascular risk
Results from a 1-year, open-label safety study suggest that Patients who fall into this category may be ineligible for treatment with triptans.
There are mechanistic concerns with rimegepant and related CGRP receptor antagonists. They block CGRP’s effect in the central nervous system, but CGRP is also active in blood vessels and the heart, leading to the possibility that countering its vasodilating effect could expose organs to risk of ischemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved rimegepant in 2020 for treatment of acute migraine attacks. Sponsor Biohaven is also seeking approval for migraine prevention after a successful phase 3 study published January 2021 in The Lancet.
Susan Hutchinson, MD, who is a headache specialist at Orange County Migraine & Headache Center in Irvine, Calif., presented the results at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting. The open-label study suggested that rimegepant is generally safe. “The proportion of subjects reporting at least one adverse event was similar among subjects whether they had zero, one, or two or more cardiovascular disease risk factors, and also among those with low and moderate to high 10-year cardiovascular risk, as determined by the Framingham Risk Score,” said Dr. Hutchinson during her presentation.
Still, there was one concerning case: A 53-year-old man experienced an attack of angina. But he already had angina prior to the study, was being treated for hypercholesterolemia, and had current or former exposure to statins. “This adverse event was deemed by the investigator to not be related to rimegepant,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
During the following question-and-answer session, an attendee pressed Dr. Hutchinson about the case, and she admitted to some initial doubts. “That was my concern when I saw those slides. I’m like, ‘oh, my goodness.’ ” She clarified that the man’s angina history dated to 2016, which was several years before the trial, and the episode of angina occurred 7 months after the first dose of rimegepant. “He was treated with nitroglycerin and taken out of the trial,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
Proper patient selection is key
The research adds to the literature on rimegepant by providing data on multiple uses, as opposed to the phase 3 study, which only looked at single use, according to Olivia Begasse de Dhaem, MD, who is a neurology attending physician at Stamford (Conn.) Health and was the session moderator. Rimegepant and other oral CGRP receptor antagonists, including the FDA-approved ubrogepant and the investigative drug atogepant, will help fill the gap of patients who don’t tolerate or are ineligible for triptans, she said.
Dr. Begasse de Dhaem pointed out that patient selection remains important. “I think the main thing for patient care is to look at whether the patient we are treating would fit within the inclusion criteria, or would have been excluded from this study,” said Dr. Begasse de Dhaem. Specifically, according to its clinicaltrials.gov page, the trial excluded patients with hemiplegic and basilar migraine, as well as patients with uncontrolled, unstable, or recently diagnosed cardiovascular disease, those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher, and hemoglobin A1c levels of 6.5% or higher. “This also looked at people with less than 15 migraine days per month, so it’s limited in how much we can extrapolate to people with chronic migraine who may take more than 7.7 rimegepant [doses, the mean value taken by trial participants] per month,” Dr. Begasse de Dhaem added.
She also applauded the inclusion of older patients in the study, noting that most migraine studies have an upper age limit.
The study included subjects who experienced 2-14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month, and they were allowed to take other migraine medications. Cardiovascular risk factors did not prevent entry to the trial and, like the previous pivotal trial, the long-term safety study admitted subjects older than 65. Among the study cohort, 1,514 participants were told to treat migraine pain of any intensity with 75 mg rimegepant up to once per day on an as-needed basis (PRN), and a second group of 286 were told to take 75 mg rimegepant every other day for 12 weeks, along with PRN dosing on nonscheduled treatment days.
Nearly 90% of subjects were female, the mean age was 43.1 years, and 3.7% were age 65 or older. Among the study participants, 40.8% had cardiovascular risk factors, including 28.8% with one risk factor, and 12.1% with two or more. About 7% had a moderate to high (≥10%) 10-year cardiovascular risk by Framingham Risk Score, 23.6% had a family history of coronary artery disease, 11.7% were being treated for hypertension, 10.4% smoked, 8.3% were being treated with a statin, and 3.0% had a history of diabetes.
In total, subjects were exposed to 112,014 doses of rimegepant, a mean of 7.7 doses per 4-week period. The exposure was similar across all risk groups, which included zero risk factors, one risk factor, and two or more risk factors; FRS of less than 10%; and FRS of 10% or greater. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%), and sinusitis (5.1%). The frequency of one or more adverse events was similar among those with zero cardiovascular risk factors (59.6%), one risk factor (61.4%), two or more risk factors (62.2%), FRS less than 10% (59.9%), and FRS of 10% or greater (59.9%).
The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hutchinson has been a consultant or advisory board member for Biohaven, Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. She has been on the speaker’s bureau for Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Begasse de Dhaem has no relevant financial disclosures.
Results from a 1-year, open-label safety study suggest that Patients who fall into this category may be ineligible for treatment with triptans.
There are mechanistic concerns with rimegepant and related CGRP receptor antagonists. They block CGRP’s effect in the central nervous system, but CGRP is also active in blood vessels and the heart, leading to the possibility that countering its vasodilating effect could expose organs to risk of ischemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved rimegepant in 2020 for treatment of acute migraine attacks. Sponsor Biohaven is also seeking approval for migraine prevention after a successful phase 3 study published January 2021 in The Lancet.
Susan Hutchinson, MD, who is a headache specialist at Orange County Migraine & Headache Center in Irvine, Calif., presented the results at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting. The open-label study suggested that rimegepant is generally safe. “The proportion of subjects reporting at least one adverse event was similar among subjects whether they had zero, one, or two or more cardiovascular disease risk factors, and also among those with low and moderate to high 10-year cardiovascular risk, as determined by the Framingham Risk Score,” said Dr. Hutchinson during her presentation.
Still, there was one concerning case: A 53-year-old man experienced an attack of angina. But he already had angina prior to the study, was being treated for hypercholesterolemia, and had current or former exposure to statins. “This adverse event was deemed by the investigator to not be related to rimegepant,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
During the following question-and-answer session, an attendee pressed Dr. Hutchinson about the case, and she admitted to some initial doubts. “That was my concern when I saw those slides. I’m like, ‘oh, my goodness.’ ” She clarified that the man’s angina history dated to 2016, which was several years before the trial, and the episode of angina occurred 7 months after the first dose of rimegepant. “He was treated with nitroglycerin and taken out of the trial,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
Proper patient selection is key
The research adds to the literature on rimegepant by providing data on multiple uses, as opposed to the phase 3 study, which only looked at single use, according to Olivia Begasse de Dhaem, MD, who is a neurology attending physician at Stamford (Conn.) Health and was the session moderator. Rimegepant and other oral CGRP receptor antagonists, including the FDA-approved ubrogepant and the investigative drug atogepant, will help fill the gap of patients who don’t tolerate or are ineligible for triptans, she said.
Dr. Begasse de Dhaem pointed out that patient selection remains important. “I think the main thing for patient care is to look at whether the patient we are treating would fit within the inclusion criteria, or would have been excluded from this study,” said Dr. Begasse de Dhaem. Specifically, according to its clinicaltrials.gov page, the trial excluded patients with hemiplegic and basilar migraine, as well as patients with uncontrolled, unstable, or recently diagnosed cardiovascular disease, those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher, and hemoglobin A1c levels of 6.5% or higher. “This also looked at people with less than 15 migraine days per month, so it’s limited in how much we can extrapolate to people with chronic migraine who may take more than 7.7 rimegepant [doses, the mean value taken by trial participants] per month,” Dr. Begasse de Dhaem added.
She also applauded the inclusion of older patients in the study, noting that most migraine studies have an upper age limit.
The study included subjects who experienced 2-14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month, and they were allowed to take other migraine medications. Cardiovascular risk factors did not prevent entry to the trial and, like the previous pivotal trial, the long-term safety study admitted subjects older than 65. Among the study cohort, 1,514 participants were told to treat migraine pain of any intensity with 75 mg rimegepant up to once per day on an as-needed basis (PRN), and a second group of 286 were told to take 75 mg rimegepant every other day for 12 weeks, along with PRN dosing on nonscheduled treatment days.
Nearly 90% of subjects were female, the mean age was 43.1 years, and 3.7% were age 65 or older. Among the study participants, 40.8% had cardiovascular risk factors, including 28.8% with one risk factor, and 12.1% with two or more. About 7% had a moderate to high (≥10%) 10-year cardiovascular risk by Framingham Risk Score, 23.6% had a family history of coronary artery disease, 11.7% were being treated for hypertension, 10.4% smoked, 8.3% were being treated with a statin, and 3.0% had a history of diabetes.
In total, subjects were exposed to 112,014 doses of rimegepant, a mean of 7.7 doses per 4-week period. The exposure was similar across all risk groups, which included zero risk factors, one risk factor, and two or more risk factors; FRS of less than 10%; and FRS of 10% or greater. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%), and sinusitis (5.1%). The frequency of one or more adverse events was similar among those with zero cardiovascular risk factors (59.6%), one risk factor (61.4%), two or more risk factors (62.2%), FRS less than 10% (59.9%), and FRS of 10% or greater (59.9%).
The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hutchinson has been a consultant or advisory board member for Biohaven, Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. She has been on the speaker’s bureau for Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Begasse de Dhaem has no relevant financial disclosures.
Results from a 1-year, open-label safety study suggest that Patients who fall into this category may be ineligible for treatment with triptans.
There are mechanistic concerns with rimegepant and related CGRP receptor antagonists. They block CGRP’s effect in the central nervous system, but CGRP is also active in blood vessels and the heart, leading to the possibility that countering its vasodilating effect could expose organs to risk of ischemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved rimegepant in 2020 for treatment of acute migraine attacks. Sponsor Biohaven is also seeking approval for migraine prevention after a successful phase 3 study published January 2021 in The Lancet.
Susan Hutchinson, MD, who is a headache specialist at Orange County Migraine & Headache Center in Irvine, Calif., presented the results at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting. The open-label study suggested that rimegepant is generally safe. “The proportion of subjects reporting at least one adverse event was similar among subjects whether they had zero, one, or two or more cardiovascular disease risk factors, and also among those with low and moderate to high 10-year cardiovascular risk, as determined by the Framingham Risk Score,” said Dr. Hutchinson during her presentation.
Still, there was one concerning case: A 53-year-old man experienced an attack of angina. But he already had angina prior to the study, was being treated for hypercholesterolemia, and had current or former exposure to statins. “This adverse event was deemed by the investigator to not be related to rimegepant,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
During the following question-and-answer session, an attendee pressed Dr. Hutchinson about the case, and she admitted to some initial doubts. “That was my concern when I saw those slides. I’m like, ‘oh, my goodness.’ ” She clarified that the man’s angina history dated to 2016, which was several years before the trial, and the episode of angina occurred 7 months after the first dose of rimegepant. “He was treated with nitroglycerin and taken out of the trial,” said Dr. Hutchinson.
Proper patient selection is key
The research adds to the literature on rimegepant by providing data on multiple uses, as opposed to the phase 3 study, which only looked at single use, according to Olivia Begasse de Dhaem, MD, who is a neurology attending physician at Stamford (Conn.) Health and was the session moderator. Rimegepant and other oral CGRP receptor antagonists, including the FDA-approved ubrogepant and the investigative drug atogepant, will help fill the gap of patients who don’t tolerate or are ineligible for triptans, she said.
Dr. Begasse de Dhaem pointed out that patient selection remains important. “I think the main thing for patient care is to look at whether the patient we are treating would fit within the inclusion criteria, or would have been excluded from this study,” said Dr. Begasse de Dhaem. Specifically, according to its clinicaltrials.gov page, the trial excluded patients with hemiplegic and basilar migraine, as well as patients with uncontrolled, unstable, or recently diagnosed cardiovascular disease, those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher, and hemoglobin A1c levels of 6.5% or higher. “This also looked at people with less than 15 migraine days per month, so it’s limited in how much we can extrapolate to people with chronic migraine who may take more than 7.7 rimegepant [doses, the mean value taken by trial participants] per month,” Dr. Begasse de Dhaem added.
She also applauded the inclusion of older patients in the study, noting that most migraine studies have an upper age limit.
The study included subjects who experienced 2-14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month, and they were allowed to take other migraine medications. Cardiovascular risk factors did not prevent entry to the trial and, like the previous pivotal trial, the long-term safety study admitted subjects older than 65. Among the study cohort, 1,514 participants were told to treat migraine pain of any intensity with 75 mg rimegepant up to once per day on an as-needed basis (PRN), and a second group of 286 were told to take 75 mg rimegepant every other day for 12 weeks, along with PRN dosing on nonscheduled treatment days.
Nearly 90% of subjects were female, the mean age was 43.1 years, and 3.7% were age 65 or older. Among the study participants, 40.8% had cardiovascular risk factors, including 28.8% with one risk factor, and 12.1% with two or more. About 7% had a moderate to high (≥10%) 10-year cardiovascular risk by Framingham Risk Score, 23.6% had a family history of coronary artery disease, 11.7% were being treated for hypertension, 10.4% smoked, 8.3% were being treated with a statin, and 3.0% had a history of diabetes.
In total, subjects were exposed to 112,014 doses of rimegepant, a mean of 7.7 doses per 4-week period. The exposure was similar across all risk groups, which included zero risk factors, one risk factor, and two or more risk factors; FRS of less than 10%; and FRS of 10% or greater. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%), and sinusitis (5.1%). The frequency of one or more adverse events was similar among those with zero cardiovascular risk factors (59.6%), one risk factor (61.4%), two or more risk factors (62.2%), FRS less than 10% (59.9%), and FRS of 10% or greater (59.9%).
The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hutchinson has been a consultant or advisory board member for Biohaven, Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. She has been on the speaker’s bureau for Allergan, Amgen, Avanir, electroCore, Lilly, Novartis, Promius, Supernus, and Teva. Dr. Begasse de Dhaem has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2021
Migraineurs not taking advantage of an ‘effective prophylactic’
including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.
“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
An accessible prophylactic
Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”
“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.
The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).
The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.
Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.
Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
A word of caution
Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.
Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.
Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.
Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).
In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.
“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess.
However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
A ‘puzzling’ relationship
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”
“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”
Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.
“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
An accessible prophylactic
Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”
“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.
The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).
The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.
Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.
Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
A word of caution
Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.
Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.
Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.
Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).
In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.
“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess.
However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
A ‘puzzling’ relationship
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”
“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”
Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.
“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
An accessible prophylactic
Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”
“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.
The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).
The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.
Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.
Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
A word of caution
Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.
Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.
Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.
Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).
In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.
“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess.
However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
A ‘puzzling’ relationship
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”
“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”
Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2021
Poor sleep and stress linked to higher headache recurrence in episodic migraine
Key clinical point: Poor sleep and higher stress level is associated with a higher rate of headache recurrence over next 6 weeks in patients with episodic migraine.
Major finding: Poor sleep quality was associated with a 22% higher rate of headache recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.02-1.46), and the combination of poor sleep and moderate/high stress vs. good sleep and low stress was associated with a 31% higher rate of headache recurrence (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65).
Study details: Findings are from a priori secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of 98 patients with episodic migraine.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers. Dr. SM Bertisch reported receiving research support from and serving as a consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no financial conflicts of interest.
Source: Vgontzas A et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14105.
Key clinical point: Poor sleep and higher stress level is associated with a higher rate of headache recurrence over next 6 weeks in patients with episodic migraine.
Major finding: Poor sleep quality was associated with a 22% higher rate of headache recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.02-1.46), and the combination of poor sleep and moderate/high stress vs. good sleep and low stress was associated with a 31% higher rate of headache recurrence (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65).
Study details: Findings are from a priori secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of 98 patients with episodic migraine.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers. Dr. SM Bertisch reported receiving research support from and serving as a consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no financial conflicts of interest.
Source: Vgontzas A et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14105.
Key clinical point: Poor sleep and higher stress level is associated with a higher rate of headache recurrence over next 6 weeks in patients with episodic migraine.
Major finding: Poor sleep quality was associated with a 22% higher rate of headache recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.02-1.46), and the combination of poor sleep and moderate/high stress vs. good sleep and low stress was associated with a 31% higher rate of headache recurrence (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65).
Study details: Findings are from a priori secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of 98 patients with episodic migraine.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers. Dr. SM Bertisch reported receiving research support from and serving as a consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no financial conflicts of interest.
Source: Vgontzas A et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14105.
Celecoxib oral solution shows promise for acute treatment of migraine
Key clinical point: DFN-15- an oral, ready-made liquid solution of a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib, was superior to placebo for acute treatment of a migraine attack of any pain intensity, along with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.
Major finding: Percentage of patients with freedom from pain (46.2% vs. 31.1%; P less than.001) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (63.4% vs. 50.0%; P = .010) at 2 hours after dose was significantly higher for DFN-15 vs. placebo. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or those leading to study drug termination were reported.
Study details: Data come from the second phase of a 2-phase, double-blind, multicenter trial, which re-randomized 535 patients with migraine to placebo or DFN-15 group.
Disclosures: This study was supported and funded by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. The authors declared receiving funding, honoraria, and consulting from various sources. S Munjal reported being an employee and owning stocks and C Iaconangelo declared being a paid consultant of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.
Source: Lipton RB et al. J Pain Res. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S287571.
Key clinical point: DFN-15- an oral, ready-made liquid solution of a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib, was superior to placebo for acute treatment of a migraine attack of any pain intensity, along with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.
Major finding: Percentage of patients with freedom from pain (46.2% vs. 31.1%; P less than.001) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (63.4% vs. 50.0%; P = .010) at 2 hours after dose was significantly higher for DFN-15 vs. placebo. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or those leading to study drug termination were reported.
Study details: Data come from the second phase of a 2-phase, double-blind, multicenter trial, which re-randomized 535 patients with migraine to placebo or DFN-15 group.
Disclosures: This study was supported and funded by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. The authors declared receiving funding, honoraria, and consulting from various sources. S Munjal reported being an employee and owning stocks and C Iaconangelo declared being a paid consultant of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.
Source: Lipton RB et al. J Pain Res. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S287571.
Key clinical point: DFN-15- an oral, ready-made liquid solution of a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib, was superior to placebo for acute treatment of a migraine attack of any pain intensity, along with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.
Major finding: Percentage of patients with freedom from pain (46.2% vs. 31.1%; P less than.001) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (63.4% vs. 50.0%; P = .010) at 2 hours after dose was significantly higher for DFN-15 vs. placebo. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or those leading to study drug termination were reported.
Study details: Data come from the second phase of a 2-phase, double-blind, multicenter trial, which re-randomized 535 patients with migraine to placebo or DFN-15 group.
Disclosures: This study was supported and funded by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. The authors declared receiving funding, honoraria, and consulting from various sources. S Munjal reported being an employee and owning stocks and C Iaconangelo declared being a paid consultant of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.
Source: Lipton RB et al. J Pain Res. 2021 Feb 25. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S287571.
Prior exposure and response to triptans may not affect efficacy of ubrogepant
Key clinical point: Triptan historical responder status had no significant impact on the treatment effects of ubrogepant in patients with a history of migraine.
Major finding: Historical triptan responder status had no significant impact on the efficacy of ubrogepant for pain freedom (Pinteraction based on odds ratio [OR] = .290) and absence of migraine-associated symptom (Pinteraction based on OR = .705). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs was not significantly different across historical triptan experience subgroups.
Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from ACHIEVE I and II phase 3 trials involving 1,799 adults with a history of migraine with/without aura randomly allocated to either placebo or ubrogepant to treat a single attack. Based on previous experience with triptans, participants were categorized as responders, insufficient responders, and naïve.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Allergan. Some authors including the lead author declared receiving grants and personal fees; being consultant, speaker, or contributing author; or being on advisory boards for various sources including AbbVie. Some authors declared being current/former employees and/or holding stocks at AbbVie.
Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14089.
Key clinical point: Triptan historical responder status had no significant impact on the treatment effects of ubrogepant in patients with a history of migraine.
Major finding: Historical triptan responder status had no significant impact on the efficacy of ubrogepant for pain freedom (Pinteraction based on odds ratio [OR] = .290) and absence of migraine-associated symptom (Pinteraction based on OR = .705). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs was not significantly different across historical triptan experience subgroups.
Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from ACHIEVE I and II phase 3 trials involving 1,799 adults with a history of migraine with/without aura randomly allocated to either placebo or ubrogepant to treat a single attack. Based on previous experience with triptans, participants were categorized as responders, insufficient responders, and naïve.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Allergan. Some authors including the lead author declared receiving grants and personal fees; being consultant, speaker, or contributing author; or being on advisory boards for various sources including AbbVie. Some authors declared being current/former employees and/or holding stocks at AbbVie.
Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14089.
Key clinical point: Triptan historical responder status had no significant impact on the treatment effects of ubrogepant in patients with a history of migraine.
Major finding: Historical triptan responder status had no significant impact on the efficacy of ubrogepant for pain freedom (Pinteraction based on odds ratio [OR] = .290) and absence of migraine-associated symptom (Pinteraction based on OR = .705). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs was not significantly different across historical triptan experience subgroups.
Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from ACHIEVE I and II phase 3 trials involving 1,799 adults with a history of migraine with/without aura randomly allocated to either placebo or ubrogepant to treat a single attack. Based on previous experience with triptans, participants were categorized as responders, insufficient responders, and naïve.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Allergan. Some authors including the lead author declared receiving grants and personal fees; being consultant, speaker, or contributing author; or being on advisory boards for various sources including AbbVie. Some authors declared being current/former employees and/or holding stocks at AbbVie.
Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1111/head.14089.
Migraine: Anti-CGRP mAbs beneficial in partial and nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine respond to preventive treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP mAbs) irrespective of their previous failure or partial response to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Major finding: A response of 50% or higher improvement in headache (P = .395) or migraine (P = .408) frequency was not significantly different in partial or complete nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Study details: This was a real-world prospective observational study including 155 patients with migraine who initiated preventive treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs and were partial or nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors report no conflicts of interest in relation with this article.
Source: Alpuente A et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 Mar 17. doi: 10.1111/ene.14828.
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine respond to preventive treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP mAbs) irrespective of their previous failure or partial response to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Major finding: A response of 50% or higher improvement in headache (P = .395) or migraine (P = .408) frequency was not significantly different in partial or complete nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Study details: This was a real-world prospective observational study including 155 patients with migraine who initiated preventive treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs and were partial or nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors report no conflicts of interest in relation with this article.
Source: Alpuente A et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 Mar 17. doi: 10.1111/ene.14828.
Key clinical point: Patients with migraine respond to preventive treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP mAbs) irrespective of their previous failure or partial response to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Major finding: A response of 50% or higher improvement in headache (P = .395) or migraine (P = .408) frequency was not significantly different in partial or complete nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Study details: This was a real-world prospective observational study including 155 patients with migraine who initiated preventive treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs and were partial or nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA.
Disclosures: The authors declared receiving no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors report no conflicts of interest in relation with this article.
Source: Alpuente A et al. Eur J Neurol. 2021 Mar 17. doi: 10.1111/ene.14828.
Ubrogepant safety and efficacy not affected by triptan therapy
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
FROM HEADACHE
Green light puts the stop on migraine
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
, according to results of a small study from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
“This is the first clinical study to evaluate green light exposure as a potential preventive therapy for patients with migraine, “ senior author Mohab M. Ibrahim, MD, PhD, said in a press release. “Now I have another tool in my toolbox to treat one of the most difficult neurologic conditions – migraine.”
“Given the safety, affordability, and efficacy of green light exposure, there is merit to conduct a larger study,” he and coauthors from the university wrote in their paper.
The study included 29 adult patients (average age 52.2 years), 22 with chronic migraine and the rest with episodic migraine who were recruited from the University of Arizona/Banner Medical Center chronic pain clinic. To be included, patients had to meet the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for chronic or episodic migraine, have an average headache pain intensity of 5 out of 10 or greater on the numeric pain scale (NPS) over the 10 weeks prior to enrolling in the study, and be dissatisfied with their current migraine therapy.
The patients were free to start, continue, or discontinue any other migraine treatments as recommended by their physicians as long as this was reported to the study team.
White versus green
The one-way crossover design involved exposure to 10 weeks of white light emitting diodes, for 1-2 hours per day, followed by a 2-week washout period and then 10 weeks’ exposure to green light emitting diodes (GLED) for the same daily duration. The protocol involved use of a light strip emitting an intensity of between 4 and 100 lux measured at approximately 2 m and 1 m from a lux meter.
Patients were instructed to use the light in a dark room, without falling asleep, and to participate in activities that did not require external light sources, such as listening to music, reading books, doing exercises, or engaging in similar activities. The daily minimum exposure of 1 hour, up to a maximum of 2 hours, was to be completed in one sitting.
The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month, defined as days with moderate to severe headache pain for at least 4 hours. Secondary outcomes included perceived reduction in duration and intensity of the headache phase of the migraine episodes assessed every 2 weeks with the NPS, improved ability to fall and stay asleep, improved ability to perform work and daily activity, improved quality of life, and reduction of pain medications.
The researchers found that when the patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine were examined as separate groups, white light exposure did not significantly reduce the number of headache days per month, but when the chronic migraine and episodic migraine groups were combined there was a significant reduction from 18.2 to 16.5 headache days per month.
On the other hand, green light did result in significantly reduced headache days both in the separate (from 7.9 to 2.4 days in the episodic migraine group and 22.3 to 9.4 days in the chronic migraine group) and combined groups (from 18.4 to 7.4 days).
“While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes,” the authors reported.
“The use of a nonpharmacological therapy such as green light can be of tremendous help to a variety of patients that either do not want to be on medications or do not respond to them,” coauthor Amol M. Patwardhan, MD, PhD, said in the press release. “The beauty of this approach is the lack of associated side effects. If at all, it appears to improve sleep and other quality of life measures,” said Dr. Patwardhan, associate professor and vice chair of research in the University of Arizona’s department of anesthesiology.
Better than white light
Asked to comment on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said research has shown for some time that exposure to green light has beneficial effects in migraine patients. This study, although small, does indicate that green light is more beneficial than is white light and reduces headache days and intensity. “I believe patients would be willing to spend 1-2 hours a day in green light to reduce and improve their migraine with few side effects. A larger randomized trial should be done,” he said.
The study was funded by support from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (to Dr. Ibrahim), the Comprehensive Chronic Pain and Addiction Center–University of Arizona, and the University of Arizona CHiLLI initiative. Dr. Ibrahim and one coauthor have a patent pending through the University of Arizona for use of green light therapy for the management of chronic pain. Dr. Rapoport is a former president of the International Headache Society. He is an editor of Headache and CNS Drugs, and Editor-in-Chief of Neurology Reviews. He reviews for many peer-reviewed journals such as Cephalalgia, Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, and Headache.
FROM CEPHALALGIA