7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      New Approaches to Shifting the Migraine Treatment Paradigm

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The standard of care paradigm for migraine treatment has been based almost exclusively on approaches that grew out of the happenstance use of market pharmaceuticals. Only methysergide, which has long since been removed from use for safety concerns, the ergotamine family of drugs, and the triptans were explicitly developed with migraine and other vascular headaches in mind. While the forward and innovative thinking to utilize the broad array of agents to treat migraine served millions well, their therapeutic efficacy was often low, and adverse event profiles were troublesome in the least. Advances in biochemical and molecular biology and the application of advanced “designing drugs” methods have brought about a potentially significant shift in treatment. The gepants have efficacies similar to the triptans but without vascular safety or medication overuse concerns. Preventative gepants offer innovative approaches to prevention and efficacy that exceed even the CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Those monoclonal antibodies brought rapid and highly effective outcomes across the spectrum of migraine. They outpaced older oral medication efficacy and eliminated most adverse events while potentially improving compliance with monthly or quarterly dosing. Other serotonin receptors beyond the 5HT1B and1D receptors have been targeted for decades. They now lead us to better formulations of dihydroergotamine for efficacy, convenience, and tolerability, and a 5HT1F-specific acute treatment like the gepants opens new options for acute management. Neuromodulation goes back to the mid-1800's. Our improved understanding of applied biomedical engineering has brought forward several tantalizing devices, including the application of currents distant from the target and patient regulated. Whether these advances change the paradigm of migraine treatment and standards of care remains to be seen, and issues such as cost and patient acceptance will help mold it.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A Controlled Trial of Erenumab for Episodic Migraine

          We tested erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, for the prevention of episodic migraine.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            ARISE: A Phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine.

            Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3. Results Patients receiving erenumab experienced -2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with -1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) ( p < 0.001). A ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was achieved by 39.7% (erenumab) and 29.5% (placebo) of patients (OR:1.59 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.27) ( p = 0.010). Migraine-specific medication treatment days were reduced by -1.2 (erenumab) and -0.6 (placebo) days, a treatment difference of -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2) ( p = 0.002). The ≥5-point reduction rates in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Physical Impairment were 33.0% and 27.1% (OR:1.33 (0.92, 1.90) ( p = 0.13) and in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Everyday Activities were 40.4% and 35.8% (OR:1.22 (0.87, 1.71) ( p = 0.26). Safety and adverse event profiles of erenumab were similar to placebo. Most frequent adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, injection site pain, and nasopharyngitis. Conclusions As a preventive treatment of episodic migraine, erenumab at a dosage of 70 mg monthly significantly reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication use. (Funded by Amgen). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02483585.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Galcanezumab in chronic migraine

              Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Methods A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase. Results Mean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo −2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg −4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg −4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo. Conclusions Both doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02614261. Classification of evidence This interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
                Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
                Front. Pain Res.
                Frontiers in Pain Research
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2673-561X
                2673-561X
                06 September 2022
                2022
                : 3
                : 873179
                Affiliations
                Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, WI, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Tony L. Yaksh, University of California, San Diego, United States

                Reviewed by: Lars Edvinsson, Lund University, Sweden; Francesca Puledda, King's College London, United Kingdom

                *Correspondence: Frederick G. Freitag ffreitag@ 123456mcw.edu

                This article was submitted to Headache, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pain Research

                Article
                10.3389/fpain.2022.873179
                9488522
                36147034
                326458e7-07ea-4aa7-a9d6-90c6e8d1e940
                Copyright © 2022 Johnson and Freitag.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 February 2022
                : 21 June 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 92, Pages: 12, Words: 10458
                Categories
                Pain Research
                Review

                remote electrical neurostimulation,dihydroergotamine,cgrp,gepants,triptans

                Comments

                Comment on this article