Revised French guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults and children.

International audience: N/A

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with prior preventive treatment failures: subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled DELIVER study

Chronic migraine; Episodic migraine; EptinezumabMigraña crónica; Migraña episódica; EptinezumabMigranya crònica; Migranya episòdica; EptinezumabBackground Migraine is a disabling neurological disease adversely affecting many aspects of life. Most patients are still required to have failed several older oral preventive therapies before being reimbursed for a preventive, migraine-specific anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment. In the 24-week placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER, eptinezumab was shown to reduce migraine frequency and resulted in higher migraine responder rates compared with placebo in patients with two to four previous preventive treatment failures. This subgroup analysis assessed if demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with differences in preventive benefits. Methods Migraine frequency reductions and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients reaching a ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days relative to baseline) were determined in the total population and predefined subgroups by sex, age, migraine frequency (chronic migraine, episodic migraine, high-frequency episodic migraine, low-frequency episodic migraine), medication overuse, medication-overuse headache, and previous preventive treatment failures (2, >2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1–12. Results Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo over weeks 1–12 (−4.8 and −5.3 vs –2.1, respectively; p < 0.0001). In most subgroups, eptinezumab-treated patients demonstrated larger monthly migraine days reductions from baseline over weeks 1–12 than patients receiving placebo, with reductions maintained or increased over weeks 13–24. For ≥50% and ≥75% migraine responder rates, the odds ratios versus placebo all numerically favored eptinezumab. Conclusion Eptinezumab had larger monthly migraine days reductions and higher responder rates than placebo across clinically relevant subgroups showing that, across different demographic populations and clinical characteristics, eptinezumab is effective in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765)The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S, including medical writing support for the development of the manuscript. In collaboration with the academic authors, the sponsor participated in the design and conduct of the study and in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. The preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript was undertaken by all authors and by a professional medical writer and editor funded by the sponsor. All authors and H. Lundbeck A/S prepared, reviewed, and approved the final version of the manuscript and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The sponsor did not have the right to veto publication or to control the decision regarding to which journal the manuscript was submitted

My migraine voice survey. aA global study of disease burden among individuals with migraine for whom preventive treatments have failed

Background: Migraine is associated with many debilitating symptoms that affect daily functioning. My Migraine Voice is a large global cross-sectional study aimed at understanding the full burden and impact of migraine directly from patients suffering from ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) with a history of prophylactic treatment failure. Methods: This study was conducted worldwide (31 countries across North and South Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region) using an online survey administered to adults with migraine who reported ≥4 MMDs in the 3 months preceding survey administration, with pre-specified criteria of 90% having used preventive migraine treatment (80% with history of ≥1 treatment failure). Prophylactic treatment failure was defined as a reported change in preventive medication by individuals with migraine for any reason, at least once. Results: In total, 11,266 individuals participated in the survey. Seventy-four percent of the participants reported spending time in darkness/isolation due to migraine (average: 19 h/month). While 85% of all respondents reported negative aspects of living with migraine (feeling helpless, depressed, not understood), sleeping difficulties (83%), and fear of the next attack (55%), 57% shared ≥1 positive aspect (learning to cope, becoming a stronger person). Forty-nine percent reported feeling limited in daily activities throughout all migraine phases. Migraine impact on professional, private, or social domains was reported by 87% of respondents (51% in all domains). In the previous 12 months, 38% of respondents had visited the emergency department (average: 3.3 visits), whereas 23% stayed in hospital overnight (average: 3.2 nights) due to migraine. Conclusions: The burden of migraine is substantial among this cohort of individuals with at least 4 migraine days per month and for whom at least 1 preventive migraine treatment had failed. Interestingly, respondents reported some positive aspects in their migraine journey; the greater resilience and strength brought on by coping with migraine suggests that if future treatments could address existing unmet needs, these individuals with migraine will be able to maximize their contribution to society

Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes – International (CaMEO-I) Study: Methods and multi-country baseline findings for diagnosis rates and care

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International study provides insight into people with migraine in multiple countries. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based cohort study was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States. An initial Screening Module survey solicited general healthcare information from a representative sample and identified participants with migraine based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey based on validated migraine-specific assessments. RESULTS: Among 90,613 people who correctly completed the screening surveys, 76,121 respondents did not meet the criteria for migraine, while 14,492 did. Among respondents with migraine, mean age ranged from 40 to 42 years. The median number of monthly headache days ranged from 2.33 to 3.33 across countries, while the proportion of respondents with moderate-to-severe disability (measured by Migraine Disability Assessment) ranged from 30% (Japan) to 52% (Germany). The proportion of respondents with ≥15 monthly headache days ranged from 5.4% (France) to 9.5% (Japan). Fewer than half of respondents with migraine in each country reported having received a migraine diagnosis. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated high rates of migraine-related disability and underdiagnosis of migraine across six countries. This study will characterize country-level burden, treatment patterns, and geographical differences in care

New uses of the Migraine Screen Questionnaire (MS-Q): validation in the Primary Care setting and ability to detect hidden migraine. MS-Q in Primary Care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>PC plays an important role in early diagnosis of health disorders, particularly migraine, due to the financial impact of this disease for the society and its impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of the study was to validate the self-administered MS-Q questionnaire for detection of hidden migraine in the field of primary care (PC), and to explore its use in this setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional, observational, and multicentre study in subjects above 18 years of age patients attending PC centers (regardless of the reason for consultation). A MS-Q score ≥ 4 was considered possible migraine. Level of agreement with IHS criteria clinical diagnosis (kappa coefficient), and instrument's validity properties: sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were determined. The ability of the instrument to identify possible new cases of migraine was calculated, as well as the ratio of hidden disease compared to the ratio obtained by IHS criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 9,670 patients were included [48.9 ± 17.2 years (mean ± SD); 61.9% women], from 410 PC centers representative of the whole national territory. The clinical prevalence of migraine according to the IHS criteria was 24.7%, and 20.4% according to MS-Q: Kappa index of agreement 0.82 (p < 0.05). MS-Q sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81 - 0.84), specificity 0.97 (95% CI, 0.98 - 0.99), PPV 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94 - 0.96), and NPV 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93 - 0.95). No statistically significant differences were found in the percentages of patients with <it>de novo </it>and hidden migraine identified by MS-Q and by IHS criteria: 5.7% vs. 6.1% and 26.6% vs. 24.1%, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of the present study confirm the usefulness of the MS-Q questionnaire for the early detection and assessment of migraine in PC settings, and its ability to detect hidden migraine.</p

The interest of gait markers in the identification of subgroups among fibromyalgia patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fibromyalgia (FM) is a heterogeneous syndrome and its classification into subgroups calls for broad-based discussion. FM subgrouping, which aims to adapt treatment according to different subgroups, relies in part, on psychological and cognitive dysfunctions. Since motor control of gait is closely related to cognitive function, we hypothesized that gait markers could be of interest in the identification of FM patients' subgroups. This controlled study aimed at characterizing gait disorders in FM, and subgrouping FM patients according to gait markers such as stride frequency (SF), stride regularity (SR), and cranio-caudal power (CCP) which measures kinesia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multicentre, observational open trial enrolled patients with primary FM (44.1 ± 8.1 y), and matched controls (44.1 ± 7.3 y). Outcome measurements and gait analyses were available for 52 pairs. A 3-step statistical analysis was carried out. A preliminary single blind analysis using k-means cluster was performed as an initial validation of gait markers. Then in order to quantify FM patients according to psychometric and gait variables an open descriptive analysis comparing patients and controls were made, and correlations between gait variables and main outcomes were calculated. Finally using cluster analysis, we described subgroups for each gait variable and looked for significant differences in self-reported assessments.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SF was the most discriminating gait variable (73% of patients and controls). SF, SR, and CCP were different between patients and controls. There was a non-significant association between SF, FIQ and physical components from Short-Form 36 (p = 0.06). SR was correlated to FIQ (p = 0.01) and catastrophizing (p = 0.05) while CCP was correlated to pain (p = 0.01). The SF cluster identified 3 subgroups with a particular one characterized by normal SF, low pain, high activity and hyperkinesia. The SR cluster identified 2 distinct subgroups: the one with a reduced SR was distinguished by high FIQ, poor coping and altered affective status.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Gait analysis may provide additional information in the identification of subgroups among fibromyalgia patients. Gait analysis provided relevant information about physical and cognitive status, and pain behavior. Further studies are needed to better understand gait analysis implications in FM.</p

Prevalence of headache in Europe: a review for the Eurolight project

The main aim of the present study was to do an update on studies on headache epidemiology as a preparation for the multinational European study on the prevalence and burden of headache and investigate the impact of different methodological issues on the results. The study was based on a previous study, and a systematic literature search was performed to identify the newest studies. More than 50% of adults indicate that they suffer from headache in general during the last year or less, but when asked specifically about tension-type headache, the prevalence was 60%. Migraine occurs in 15%, chronic headache in about 4% and possible medication overuse headache in 1–2%. Cluster headache has a lifetime prevalence of 0.2–0.3%. Most headaches are more prevalent in women, and somewhat less prevalent in children and youth. Some studies indicate that the headache prevalence is increasing during the last decades in Europe. As to methodological issues, lifetime prevalences are in general higher than 1-year prevalences, but the exact time frame of headache (1 year, 6 or 3 months, or no time frame stated) seems to be of less importance. Studies using personal interviews seem to give somewhat higher prevalences than those using questionnaires

Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine in whom two-to-four previous preventive treatments were unsuccessful:a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study

Paroxysmal Cerebral Disorder

Practice guidelines for the treatment of acute migraine and chronic knee osteoarthritis with paracetamol: an expert appraisal on evolution over time between scientific societies

International audienc

Severe migraine and its control: A proposal for definitions and consequences for care

International audienceCurrently many patients with severe migraine do not receive appropriate treatment and are never referred to specialist headache centres. On the other hand, specialist headache centres are frequently attended by patients whose migraines could be managed adequately in the community. One reason for this may be the absence of standardised definitions of migraine severity and control and of a treatment algorithm for orientating difficult-to-treat patients to specialist headache centres. Based on a review of the relevant literature and consensus meetings, proposals have been made for these items. We propose that migraine should be considered severe if headache frequency is at least eight migraine days per month or, if headaches are less frequent, the HIT-6 score is ≥60 or ≥50% of headaches require complete interruption of activity. The proposed definition of migraine control is defined on the basis of appropriate response to acute headache therapy and to preventative therapy. A treatment algorithm is proposed to assess migraine control regularly and to adapt therapy accordingly. These proposals may contribute to developing and testing strategies for management of severe disease with appropriate and effective preventive treatment strategies. With the anticipated introduction of new possibilities for migraine prevention in the near future, the time is ripe for a holistic approach to migraine management