Therapeutic patterns and migraine disease burden in switchers of CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies - insights from the German NeuroTransData registry.
Humans
Migraine Disorders
/ drug therapy
Female
Male
Registries
Antibodies, Monoclonal
/ therapeutic use
Germany
/ epidemiology
Middle Aged
Adult
Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide
/ immunology
Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists
/ therapeutic use
Quality of Life
Drug Substitution
/ statistics & numerical data
Cost of Illness
Receptors, Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide
/ immunology
Calcitonin-gene-related peptide
Migraine
Monoclonal antibody
Prophylaxis
Real-world experience
Journal
The journal of headache and pain
ISSN: 1129-2377
Titre abrégé: J Headache Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100940562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2024
03 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
20
03
2024
accepted:
13
05
2024
medline:
3
6
2024
pubmed:
3
6
2024
entrez:
2
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice. This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches. Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group. Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have shown good efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. However, a subset of patients does not respond to the first mAb treatment and switches among the available mAbs. The goal of this study is to characterize the switching pattern of migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP(-receptor, -R) mAbs, and to describe the headache burden of those who did not switch, switched once, and switched twice.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used real world data from the NeuroTransData Cohort, a registry of migraine patients treated at outpatient neurology clinics across Germany. Patients who had received at least one anti-CGRP(-R) mAb were included. Headache diaries were collected at baseline and during treatment, along with quality of life measures every three months. Results were summarized for the subgroups of patients who did not switch and those with one and two switches.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 655 eligible patients, 479 did not switch, 135 switched once, 35 twice, and 6 three or more times. The ≥ 50% response rates for monthly migraine days were 64.7%, 50.7%, and 25.0% for the no switch, one switch, and two switches groups in their last treatment cycles, respectively. Quality of life measures improved for the no switch and one switch groups, but not for the two switches group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who switched among anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs during the course of their treatment still benefited overall but to a lesser extent than those who did not switch. Treatment response in patients who switched twice was markedly lower compared to the no switch and one switch subgroup.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38825722
doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01790-7
pii: 10.1186/s10194-024-01790-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide
JHB2QIZ69Z
Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists
0
Receptors, Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
90Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP et al (2021) Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet 397:1485–1495
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32160-7
pubmed: 33773613
Edvinsson L, Haanes KA, Warfvinge K et al (2018) CGRP as the target of new migraine therapies — successful translation from bench to clinic. Nat Rev Neurol 14:338–350
doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0003-1
pubmed: 29691490
Lampl C, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Deligianni CI et al (2023) The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 24:56
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1
pubmed: 37208596
pmcid: 10197489
Murray AM, Stern JI, Robertson CE et al (2022) Real-world patient experience of CGRP-Targeting therapy for migraine: a Narrative Review. Curr Pain Headache Rep 26:783–794
doi: 10.1007/s11916-022-01077-z
pubmed: 36063264
Haghdoost F, Puledda F, Garcia-Azorin D et al (2023) Evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs and gepants for the preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Cephalalgia 43:033310242311593
doi: 10.1177/03331024231159366
Overeem LH, Lange KS, Fitzek MP et al (2023) Effect of switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand antibody treatment in migraine: a real-world cohort study. Front Neurol 14:1154420
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1154420
pubmed: 37034092
pmcid: 10075077
Overeem LH, Peikert A, Hofacker MD et al (2022) Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: a multi-center retrospective cohort study. Cephalalgia 42:291–301
doi: 10.1177/03331024211048765
pubmed: 34644203
Iannone LF, Burgalassi A, Vigani G et al (2023) Switching anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in multi-assessed non-responder patients and implications for ineffectiveness criteria: a retrospective cohort study. Cephalalgia 43:033310242311605
doi: 10.1177/03331024231160519
Kaltseis K, Filippi V, Frank F et al (2023) Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP (R): non-responders and switchers: real world data from an Austrian case series. BMC Neurol 23:174
doi: 10.1186/s12883-023-03203-9
pubmed: 37118682
pmcid: 10142255
International Headache Society. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia (2018); 38: 1–211
De Vries Lentsch S, Verhagen IE, Van Den Hoek TC et al (2021) Treatment with the monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody erenumab: a real‐life study. Euro J Neurol 28:4194–4203
doi: 10.1111/ene.15075
Lambru G, Hill B, Murphy M et al (2020) A prospective real-world analysis of erenumab in refractory chronic migraine. J Headache Pain 21:61
doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01127-0
pubmed: 32487102
pmcid: 7268737
for the GARLIT Study Group, Vernieri F, Altamura C et al (2021) Galcanezumab for the prevention of high frequency episodic and chronic migraine in real life in Italy: a multicenter prospective cohort study (the GARLIT study). J Headache Pain 22:35
doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01247-1
Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y et al (2017) A controlled trial of Erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 377:2123–2132
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705848
pubmed: 29171821
Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q et al (2018) Evaluation of Galcanezumab for the Prevention of episodic migraine: the EVOLVE-1 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol 75:1080
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1212
pubmed: 29813147
pmcid: 6143119
Ashina M, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P et al (2022) Safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures (DELIVER): a multi-arm, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 21:597–607
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00185-5
pubmed: 35716692
Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: results of the EVOLVE-2 phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia 38:1442–1454
doi: 10.1177/0333102418779543
pubmed: 29848108
Raffaelli B, Fitzek M, Overeem LH et al (2023) Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience. J Headache Pain 24:16
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01552-x
pubmed: 36843007
pmcid: 9969617
Straube A, Broessner G, Gaul C et al (2023) Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in patients with migraine switching from another mAb targeting the CGRP pathway: a subgroup analysis of the Finesse Study. J Headache Pain 24:59
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01593-2
pubmed: 37221478
pmcid: 10207758
Kuburas A, Russo AF (2023) Shared and independent roles of CGRP and PACAP in migraine pathophysiology. J Headache Pain 24:34
doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01569-2
pubmed: 37009867
pmcid: 10069045
Guo S, Jansen-Olesen I, Olesen J et al (2023) Role of PACAP in migraine: an alternative to CGRP? Neurobiol Dis 176:105946
doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2022.105946
pubmed: 36481434
Ashina S, Melo-Carrillo A, Szabo E et al (2023) Pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia identifies responders to prophylactic treatment of chronic and episodic migraine patients with galcanezumab: a prospective quantitative sensory testing study (NCT04271202). Cephalalgia 43:033310242211478
doi: 10.1177/03331024221147881
Hong JB, Lange KS, Overeem LH et al A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies: Predicting Response. Pharmaceuticals; 16. Epub ahead of print 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16070934
On behalf of School of Advanced Studies of European Headache Federation (EHF-SAS), Torres-Ferrús M, Ursitti F et al (2020) From transformation to chronification of migraine: pathophysiological and clinical aspects. J Headache Pain 21:42
doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01111-8
Sánchez-Rodríguez C, Gago-Veiga AB, García-Azorín D et al Potential Predictors of Response to CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Chronic Migraine: Real-World Data. Curr Pain Headache Rep. Epub ahead of print 24 October 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-023-01183-6
Lambru G, Caponnetto V, Hill B et al (2023) Long-term effect of switching from an Anti-CGRP receptor to an Anti-CGRP ligand antibody in treatment-refractory chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis. Neurotherapeutics 20:1284–1293
doi: 10.1007/s13311-023-01394-0
pubmed: 37430146
pmcid: 10480365
Talbot J, Stuckey R, Wood N et al (2024) Switching anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in chronic migraine: real-world observations of erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab. Eur J Hosp Pharm; ejhpharm-2023-003779.