Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis

Introduction and objective: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. Methods: The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values – which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB – were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. Results: All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. Conclusion: This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results. © International Headache Society 2021

Patients’ preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment

Background: We aimed to explore patients’ preferences for headache treatments with a self-administered questionnaire including the Q-No questionnaire for nocebo. Methods: Questionnaires from 514 outpatients naïve to neurostimulation and monoclonal antibodies were collected. Results: Patients assessed that the efficacy of a treatment is more important than safety or route of administration. They preferred to use an external neurostimulation device for both acute (67.1%) and preventive treatment (62.8%). Most patients preferred to take a pill (86%) than any other drug given parenterally for symptomatic pharmaceutical treatment. For preventive pharmaceutical treatment, most patients preferred to take a pill once per day (52%) compared to an injection either subcutaneously or intravenously each month (9% and 4%), or three months (15% and 11%). 56.6% of all participants scored more than 15 in Q-No questionnaire indicating potential nocebo behaviors that contributed significantly in their choices. Conclusion: These patient preferences along with efficacy and safety data may help physicians better choose the right treatment for the right person. © 2017, The Author(s)

Nocebo-prone behavior associated with sars-cov-2 vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/)