Advancing toward precision migraine treatment: Predicting responses to preventive medications with machine learning models based on patient and migraine features.

calcitonin gene‐related peptide monoclonal antibodies machine learning migraine precision medicine preventive treatments

Journal

Headache
ISSN: 1526-4610
Titre abrégé: Headache
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985091R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised: 05 07 2024
received: 29 04 2024
accepted: 12 07 2024
medline: 23 8 2024
pubmed: 23 8 2024
entrez: 23 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications. Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial-and-error approach is inefficient. In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow-up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre-trained a deep neural network, "TabNet," using 145 variables, then employed TabNet-embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non-responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held-out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance. Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta-blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin. We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine-specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial-and-error approach is inefficient.
METHODS METHODS
In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow-up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre-trained a deep neural network, "TabNet," using 145 variables, then employed TabNet-embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non-responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held-out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance.
RESULTS RESULTS
Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta-blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine-specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39176658
doi: 10.1111/head.14806
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024 American Headache Society.

Références

Diener HC, Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Adams AM, DeGryse RE, Silberstein SD. Benefits beyond headache days with OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment: a pooled PREEMPT analysis. Pain Ther. 2020;9(2):683‐694. doi:10.1007/s40122-020-00198-w
Chiang CC, Schwedt TJ. Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP)‐targeted therapies as preventive and acute treatments for migraine—the monoclonal antibodies and gepants. Prog Brain Res. 2020;255:143‐170. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.06.019
Ihara K, Ohtani S, Watanabe N, et al. Predicting response to CGRP‐monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine in Japan: a single‐centre retrospective observational study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24(1):23. doi:10.1186/s10194-023-01556-7
Hong JB, Lange KS, Overeem LH, Triller P, Raffaelli B, Reuter U. A scoping review and meta‐analysis of anti‐CGRP monoclonal antibodies: predicting response. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(7):934. doi:10.3390/ph16070934
Mathew NT, Kailasam J, Meadors L. Predictors of response to botulinum toxin type a (BoNTA) in chronic daily headache. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2008;48(2):194‐200. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00914.x
Martinelli D, Pocora MM, Icco RD, et al. Searching for the predictors of response to BoNT‐A in migraine using machine learning approaches. Toxins. 2023;15(6):364. doi:10.3390/toxins15060364
Gonzalez‐Martinez A, Pagán J, Sanz‐García A, et al. Machine‐learning‐based approach for predicting response to anti‐calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor or ligand antibody treatment in patients with migraine: a multicenter Spanish study. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29(10):3102‐3111. doi:10.1111/ene.15458
Bravo FP, García AADB, Gallego MM, et al. Prediction of patient's response to OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment for migraine. Heliyon. 2019;5(2):e01043. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e01043
Rothrock JF, Parada VA, Drinkard R, Zweifler RM, Key KF. Predictors of a negative response to Topiramate therapy in patients with chronic migraine. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2005;45(7):932‐935. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05161.x
Chiang C, Luo M, Dumkrieger G, et al. A large language model–based generative natural language processing framework fine‐tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2024;64(4):400‐409. doi:10.1111/head.14702
Arik SO, Pfister T. TabNet: attentive interpretable tabular learning. arXiv. 2019. doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.07442
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ: Br Méd J. 2015;350:g7594. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7594
Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385:e078378. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378
Tso AR, Brudfors M, Danno D, et al. Machine phenotyping of cluster headache and its response to verapamil. Brain. 2020;144(2):awaa388. doi:10.1093/brain/awaa388
Hakeem H, Feng W, Chen Z, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning model for predicting treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. JAMA Neurol. 2022;79(10):986‐996. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2514
Puac‐Polanco V, Ziobrowski HN, Ross EL, et al. Development of a model to predict antidepressant treatment response for depression among veterans. Psychol Med. 2023;53(11):5001‐5011. doi:10.1017/s0033291722001982
Simon GE, Cruz M, Boggs JM, Beck A, Shortreed SM, Coley RY. Predicting outcomes of antidepressant treatment in community practice settings. Psychiatr Serv. 2024;75(5):419‐426. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20230380
Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS, the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society. The American headache society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2021;61(7):1021‐1039. doi:10.1111/head.14153
Raina R, Battle A, Lee H, Packer B, Ng AY. Self‐taught learning: transfer learning from unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of the 24th international Conference on Machine Learning. 2007:759‐766. doi:10.1145/1273496.1273592

Auteurs

Chia-Chun Chiang (CC)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Todd J Schwedt (TJ)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.

Gina Dumkrieger (G)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.

Liguo Wang (L)

Department of Computational Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Chieh-Ju Chao (CJ)

Department of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Heather A Ouellette (HA)

Department of Information Technology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Imon Banerjee (I)

Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Yi-Chieh Chen (YC)

Department of Pharmacy, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Brandon M Jones (BM)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Krista M Burke (KM)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Han Wang (H)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, Minnesota, USA.

Ann M Murray (AM)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Monique M Montenegro (MM)

Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Jennifer I Stern (JI)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Mark Whealy (M)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Narayan Kissoon (N)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Fred M Cutrer (FM)

Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Classifications MeSH