- Review
- Open access
- Published:
Ten open questions in migraine prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide pathway: a narrative review
The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 24, Article number: 99 (2023)
Abstract
The monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway, collectively called here “anti-CGRP/rec mAbs”, have dramatically improved preventive migraine treatment. Although their efficacy and tolerability were proven in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, maybe even more convincingly, in real world settings, a number of open questions remain. In this narrative review, we will analyze published data allowing insight in some of the uncertainties related to the use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in clinical practice: their differential efficacy in migraine subtypes, outcome predictors, switching between molecules, use in children and adolescents, long-term treatment adherence and persistence, effect persistence after discontinuation, combined treatment with botulinum toxin or gepants, added-value and cost effectiveness, effectiveness in other headache types, and potential contraindications based on known physiological effects of CGRP. While recent studies have already provided hints for some of these questions, many of them will not find reliable and definitive answers before larger studies, registries or dedicated RCTs are available.
Introduction
The monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) (eptinezumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) or its receptor (erenumab), collectively called here “anti-CGRP/rec mAbs” have proven their efficacy and safety in multiple large randomized controlled trials (RCT). They are now universally recommended for the preventive treatment of both episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), though not as first line therapies chiefly for pharmaco-economic reasons [1]. A number of real-world studies have confirmed their effectiveness, but also unraveled some overlooked adverse effects and provided useful information for clinical practice [2,3,4]. Despite the large body of scientific data, there remains a number of open questions concerning their effect in subtypes of migraine, predictors of (in)efficacy, long term management strategies, combination with other treatments, cost-effectiveness, effect in other headache types and, given the known myriad of physiological actions of CGRP, the potential adverse effects and possible contraindications due to its blockade in the long term. In the following sections, we will address the 10 most pertinent questions in a systematic way.
Is their efficacy identical in all migraine subtypes?
Migraine with aura
The physiological effects of CGRP, in particular on vessels [5, 6] and oxidative stress (reviews in 7,8) could play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine auras. In theory the large molecular weight of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs prevents their penetration through the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and in rat, even after opening the BBB, fremanezumab did not inhibit cortical spreading depression (CSD) [9] or CSD-induced arterial dilatation and plasma protein extravasation [10]. A study using transcranial Doppler sonography, CGRP infusion induced a greater vasodilatatory reponse in the posterior circulation in migraine with aura than in migraine without aura patients; the authors suggest that this could favour CSD assuming that CGRP would dilate chiefly the proximal arteriolar segments while the distal segments would constrict due to local hyocapnia to maintain a constant cerebral blood flow, a hypothesis that needs to be proven [11].
In a post-hoc secondary analysis of 4 RCTs with erenumab, no significant difference in monthly migraine day (MMD) reductions was found between patients with or without a history of migraine with aura, although at the 140 mg dose the reduction and gain over placebo was lower in EM patients with a history of aura. As expected, erenumab had no effect on monthly number of aura days in the CM group where this outcome was assessed [12].
In a recently published observational, open-label cohort study of 46 patients with high frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or CM treated with galcanezumab for 3 months, the incidence of headache after the occurrence of visual aura was reduced by 50% in super-responders (\(\ge\) 70% reduction of migraine days), by 0% in super non-responders (\(\le\)30% reduction of migraine days), while there was similarly a greater decrease in headache incidence after prodromal symptoms in super-responders [13].
During real-world treatment with anti-CGRP/rec mAbs, contradictory changes of aura attacks were reported, ranging from aura frequency decrease in 35% of patients [14] to no change in most patients [15] or de novo occurrence of auras in a handful of patients [15, 16] or worsening in one patient [17].
Further randomized controlled studies are needed to determine if the anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are able to modify the incidence of aura attacks, or if their effect is limited only to a decreased incidence of headache following an aura, as suggested by Ashina et al’s study [13]. It is reassuring, however, that there is up to now no indication from real-world experience for a deleterious effect of the anti-CGRP/rec mAbs on severity of migraine auras.
Chronic migraine
According to most RCTs and real-world studies, the efficacy of anti CGRP/rec mAbs is not significantly different between EM and CM [3, 18,19,20] including the most difficult-to-treat patients with numerous previous preventive treatment failures [21, 22]. However, in some real-world trials non-responders are more numerous in CM than in EM [15, 23]. This could be due to the fact that CM is far from being a homogeneous condition. It comprises at least two major subgroups of patients, tentatively identified in the Appendix of the 3rd edition International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) [24], those with pain-free periods (code A1.3.1) and those with continuous pain (code A1.3.2) defined as headache not interrupted by pain-free periods of > 3 h on \(\ge\)5 days/month. With a few exceptions [25, 26], CM patients with continuous pain have been excluded from most RCTs with anti-CGRP mAbs [27]. In real-world studies continuous or daily headache is a negative predictor of treatment response [15, 28, 29] (Table 1), which might explain the lower response rates found in CM cohorts with a combination of both subgroups of patients [15, 23].
Medication overuse headache
Excessive use of acute medications is, together with high attack frequency and depression [30], the most important risk factor for migraine chronification and associated with so-called medication overuse headache (MOH) (ICHD-3 8.2). In RCTs where CM patients with medication overuse were subanalyzed, efficacy of all 4 anti-CGRP/rec mAbs was comparable to that found in patients without such overuse [31, 32]. This was also the case in most real-world studies [15], although in some studies outcome was less favorable in patients with MOH [33,34,35,36]. In a retrospective cohort study comparing super-responders (\(\ge\)75% reduction in monthly headache days-MHDs) and non-responders (\(\le\)25% reduction) after 3 months of treatment with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab, medication overuse was more frequent in the latter (58% vs. 28%) [23] (Table 1). In a prospective, randomized, open-label study of patients with CM and MOH the addition of erenumab, fremanezumab or galcanezumab to overused medications withdrawal resulted in a significantly higher reduction of headache days and symptomatic medication intake [37]. In a prospective study of erenumab and galcanezumab, efficacy was similar in patients who were detoxified in-hospital prior to the start of treatment and in those who were not [38].
Efficacy in MOH patients was also reported for onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) in a subanalysis of the pooled PREEMPT trials [39], but in a meta-analysis [40] this was true for reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) but not for response rate and the effect size of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs was greater, and drop-out rates were lower than those of BoNT-A. In pooled RCTs [41] topiramate was effective in CM with MOH, but numerically more effective in CM without MOH. Giri et al. [40] concluded from their systematic review that “there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the impact of topiramate in CM with MOH”.
There is thus, on the one hand, clinical evidence that anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are effective in CM with MOH. On the other hand, however, 50% of such patents improve, i.e. may reverse to EM, 2 months after simple withdrawal of the overconsumed drug [42] and several studies showed that preventive therapy is the most effective when it is associated from the start on with withdrawal [43,44,45]. From a pharmacoeconomic point of view, it might thus be appropriate to withdraw MOH patients from overuse, not only at the start of any prophylactic migraine treatment, but also before considering 3rd or 4th line therapies with expensive drugs like anti-CGRP/rec mAbs or BoNT-A, which is currently not requested by most reimbursement policies.
Are there any outcome predictors?
Given that the anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are inefficient in a proportion of patients and a costly therapy, it would be useful for the practitioner (and the patient) to be able to predict who is likely to be a responder. A number of predictors of effect have been retrospectively identified in RCTs or real-world studies as well as post-treatment changes correlating with successful outcome (Table 1), but their positive or negative predictive value is mostly not high and hence of low or uncertain usefulness in individual patients.
In most trials, previous failures of preventive treatments do not prevent anti-CGRP/rec mAbs from being effective [2, 22]. An inverse relation between outcome and number of prior treatment failures was nonetheless reported in several real-world studies [15, 33, 34]. Moreover, although the LIBERTY trial [46] is taken as evidence that erenumab is effective even after 2–4 previous treatment failures in EM, the reported 50% responder rate of 30% is clearly lower than that of the pivotal RCTs for EM (50%) [47] or even CM (41%) [48].
As mentioned above, CM patients with continuous pain (ICHD-3 A1.3.2) may be poor responders to anti-CGRP/rec mAbs and probably to most treatments. During a compassionate use program of erenumab [15], very low 50% and 30% responder rates, of respectively 13% and 37%, were found in such a cohort of patients, contrasting with 58% and 76% in CM patients with pain-free periods (ICHD-3 A1.3.1). Similarly, other real-world studies found a poor outcome with erenumab in such patients [17, 28, 29] and no improvement by switching from erenumab to a ligand-blocking mAb in patients with initially daily headache [49]. Additional pathophysiologic and therapeutic studies are clearly needed in CM patients with continuous pain, the more so that they also respond poorly to neuromodulation treatments [50]. Psychiatric comorbidity may be a culprit in these patients according to one study where concomitant depression was more frequent in non-responders (65%) than in super-responders (28%) [23].
Higher baseline migraine frequency [28, 35] and interictal cephalic allodynia [51] have also been reported as poor outcome correlates.
Although with some discrepancies, positive post-hoc predictors of treatment success and treatment-induced changes associated with good outcome were also identified in real-world studies, most of them with erenumab (Table 1): headache unilaterality [52, 53], cranial autonomic attack symptoms [54], higher baseline migraine frequency [51, 55], less severe disability at baseline [34, 55], absence of other primary headaches [28, 56], good response to triptans [23, 53, 55], typical migraine features and vomiting [23], young age [36], and a \(\ge\) 50% response after 3 months of treatment [57]. In experimental studies, responders to erenumab had higher susceptibility to attack induction by the intravenous administration of CGRP [58], higher pre-treatment salivary CGRP levels [59], increased thresholds of the biceps femoris withdrawal reflex at 3 months [60], lower serum CGRP levels at 4 weeks [61], and less iron accumulation in the periaqueductal gray and anterior cingulate cortex at 8 weeks post-injection [62].
Is switching between anti-CGRP/rec mAbs useful?
Various recent network meta-analyses of RCTs have confirmed similar efficacy and tolerability profiles for erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab [19, 63, 64]. This was confirmed in one prospective, observational cohort study that found no evidence suggesting superiority of one antibody over the other [65], but a recent study suggested that the ligand-blocking mAbs might be modestly but significantly more effective than erenumab, the receptor-blocking mAb [66]. Individual differences in treatment response may exist between anti-CGRP/rec mAbs. Switching between them may thus be appropriate in selected patients. Its therapeutic value is up to now only suggested by a handful of case series and seems unpredictable. Ziegeler & May [67] reported on 3 patients (2 CM, 1 EM) not responding to erenumab who were all three significantly improved by galcanezumab. In another case series, 3 out of 7 CM patients benefited from a switch between anti-CGRP/rec mAbs [68]. Switching to a second mAb in 14 patients with CM was followed by a persistent amelioration in 9 of them [69]. In a larger retrospective diary review [49], 25 patients (n = 22 CM) who had < 30% reduction of MHDs after 3 treatment cycles to erenumab, switched to galcanezumab (n = 12) or fremanezumab (n = 13). Three months after switching 3 out of 25 were \(\ge\)50% responders while 8 out of 25 had a 30% response; patients with daily headache had no response. In another retrospective study of 22 patients (19 CM) not responding to a first anti-CGRP/rec mAb, switching to a second mAb produced a 75% response in 1 patient, a \(\ge\) 50% response in 6 patients and a \(\ge\) 30% response in 3 patients; no difference was found between switching against a ligand- or a receptor-blocking mAb nor, by contrast with the previous study, between daily versus non-daily headache patients [70]. Data on switching to eptinezumab are not yet available.
To summarize, as stated in the updated EHF recommendations [1], there is at present insufficient evidence on the potential benefits of antibody switching, although a minority of patients may benefit from it. In theory, it seems rational to switch between different classes of antibodies, i.e. from erenumab, the CGRP receptor blocker, to a mAb blocking the ligand, or vice versa. It remains to be demonstrated whether this is the most effective strategy, but preliminary data suggest that it may not be relevant [70]. In clinical practice very few patients may benefit from a switch to a 3rd anti-CGRP/rec mAb. If switching is considered after 12 weeks of treatment, a timepoint at which most patients will have responded or not [57], one has to take into account the recent results from an Italian registry showing that 146 out of 265 non-responders (55.1%) to an anti-CGRP/rec mAb at 12 weeks have nevertheless a \(\ge\) 50% response after 24 weeks [71].
Can anti-CGRP/rec mAbs be used in adolescents and children?
In an opinion paper, the members of the Pediatric and Adolescent Headache special interest group of the American Headache Society (AHS) caution against an unrestricted use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in pediatric and adolescent migraine patients until the data from the ongoing RCTs in these age groups are available [72]. Their use may nonetheless be considered in appropriate cases refractory to at least 2 other preventive drugs taken for 2–3 months and non-drug treatments, with the lowest effective dose and the shortest possible treatment duration, given the physiological role of CGRP in bone formation [73]. Regarding the latter, however, available data are not totally concordant. While in animal experiments, CGRP was shown to stimulate osteoblast differentiation and to inhibit osteoclast formation [74], a recent prospective cohort study of 45 CM patients treated for 3 months with a ligand-targeting anti-CGRP mAb (91.1% galcanezumab, 8.9% fremanezumab) found a significant increase in a serum marker of bone formation, but no change of a bone resorption marker [75]. Close monitoring of pubertal status, bone health, linear growth and BMI are nevertheless recommended in young migraineurs treated with CGRP pathway blocking drugs. Spzerka et al. [72] mention as contraindications: disturbed blood-brain barrier (recent meningitis or neurosurgery), severe cardiovascular disease or stroke, as well as pregnancy and breast feeding, which are also of concern in adults (see Table 3).
The cost considerations of the AHS consensus were challenged by Charles and Turner [76] who argued that “cost considerations is not a goal of treatment. Our task is to treat our patients with effective therapies that are safe and without adverse effects, not cheap drugs first”, a statement that may be applicable in a system with chiefly private health insurance, like in the USA, but not in a public health insurance system with a budgetary envelope, like in most European countries. Meanwhile, in a retrospective study of 112 adolescents (mean age:15.9 yrs) with refractory chronic headache disorders (83.9% CM), treated with an anti-CGRP/rec mAb (86.6% erenumab), 30% had a “significant benefit” defined as \(\ge\) one third reduction in headache frequency, intensity or duration for at least 1 month, and 40% had “some benefit”. There was a modest reduction of -2.0 MHDs. Tolerance was excellent with only 4.5% of subjects discontinuing treatment because of adverse effects that were similar to those reported in adults [77].
Until the results of ongoing pediatric RCTs [78] are published, treatment with an anti-CGRP/rec mAb in migraine patients below age 18 cannot be advocated without the abovementioned precautions and is not yet reimbursed in several countries.
What about long-term adherence and persistence?
Adherence and persistence to treatment are major problems with the classical oral preventive migraine drugs, especially in CM. In a retrospective US claims analysis of 8707 CM patients, persistence to the initial preventive medication was 25% at 6 months and 14% at 12 months; in patients who switched to another preventative persistence was between 10 and 13% [79]. Adherence ranged between 26% and 29%, being lowest for amitriptyline, nortriptyline, gabapentin and divalproex [80].
In RCTs of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs discontinuation of treatment during the double-blind phase was exceptional. For instance, in EM the number of patients that need to be treated with erenumab 140 mg [81] to experience an adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation is 319 while the corresponding figure for topiramate 100 mg is 7 [82]. In an open-label 5-year extension phase with erenumab [83], 34.5% (132/383) of EM patients discontinued erenumab 70 mg within 2 years, most of them because they requested so, were not ameliorated or had adverse effects. When the erenumab dose was increased to 140 mg/month after 2 years, 36 of 250 (14%) patients discontinued treatment for the same reasons, but seemingly only 138 patients (55%) were still treated at the 5-year term. In patients who remained in the extension phase for 5 years, treatment efficacy (50% responder rate of 71%, non-adjusted for drop-outs), tolerance (exposure-adjusted adverse event rate: 123/100 patient years) and safety (no new signals) were stable.
In real-world studies of erenumab, drop-out rates for lack of efficacy ranged from 1.4 to 1.9% after 12 weeks [52, 84] to 40% after 6 months [17, 85]. After 1 year of follow-up, adherence to erenumab was around 70% in two surveys [15, 86]. Interestingly, in one of these studies [86] 59.3% of patients escalated from the 70 mg to the 140 mg of erenumab over 1 year, while only 4.4% deescalated from 140 to 70 mg. Among 160 resistant CM patients treated with erenumab 47% still had a \(\ge\)30% response after 2 years in one study [87] and 54.8% continued treatment after 17–30 months in another one [88]. In a Danish long-term, observational study of 300 CM patients treated with erenumab, 40% provided data at 52 weeks and a sustained ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs at all assessment timepoints throughout the 52-week treatment period was achieved by 34% of patients [89]. It is worth mentioning that in the multicenter European ESTEEM study, even patients with a good relative response to erenumab had a residual clinically relevant burden: after 12 weeks of treatment among the 32.6% patients with a 50% MMD reduction versus baseline (396 out of 1215 patients) 62% still had 4–7 MMDs and 23.7% even had 8–14 MMDs [90].
There is thus little doubt that treatment persistence and adherence is better with the anti-CGRP/rec mAbs than with previous migraine preventatives. Nonetheless, even in good responders a significant burden may persist because of residual migraine attacks and within 2 years over 30–40% of patients are likely to discontinue treatment because of inefficacy or, less frequently, due to intolerance.
How long does the effect persist after treatment discontinuation?
Numerous studies have assessed the effect duration of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs after discontinuation. Overall, they indicate that the effect persists for only a few weeks or months and does hardly outlast their pharmacological action. Cessation of treatment after 6 months in the pivotal galcanezumab RCTs Evolve-1 and Evolve-2 showed that more than 25% of patients lost their 50% response after 1 month, 45% after 2 months and 60% after 4 months, although on average the number of MMDs remained below baseline levels [91]. All real-world studies showed a waning of the effect 2–3 months after treatment discontinuation, some as soon as 1–4 weeks after completion of a 1-year treatment [54, 92,93,94]. Out of 24 patients who interrupted erenumab for at least 3 months and had \(\ge\) 8 MMD in the 3rd month, 14 patients (58%) had already \(\ge\) 8 MMD in the 2nd month [92]. In the hitherto largest longitudinal study of 154 patients treated with erenumab or galcanezumab, the 50% responder rate dropped 3 months after treatment cessation from 73 to 27% in HFEM (n = 47) and from 60 to 35% in CM (n = 107) [95]. Size and onset of the clinical deterioration after treatment discontinuation were not significantly different between these two anti-CGRP/rec mAbs. However, in a study focusing on the post-treatment changes of headache impact and health-related quality of life, a slightly more rapid deterioration was found in patients treated with erenumab than in those treated with galcanezumab or fremanezumab, which might be due to the longer half-life or a more pronounced efficacy of the latter [96]. In 44 chronic migraine patients treated for 12 months with erenumab or galcanezumab, one quarter showed a sustained benefit during a 3-month discontinuation period and did not need retreatment; the only post-hoc positive predictor of sustained benefit was lower pre-treatment disability as indexed by lower Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT) scores [97], Most patients restart treatment after a planned drug holiday, but in the real-world study by Raffaelli et al. [98] 11 of 39 patients (28.2%) did not achieve a \(\ge\) 30% response to the same mAb after resumption of erenumab (n = 5) or galcanezumab/fremanezumab (n = 6). This finding needs to be replicated and, if confirmed, the reason for a poorer response to a 2nd treatment period remains to be determined.
Early recurrence of migraine headaches after anti-CGRP/rec mAb discontinuation is at odds with topiramate. After 6 months of treatment with the latter the therapeutic benefit was maintained up to 6 months after cessation in a placebo group although MMDs increased 1.09 days more than in patients who stayed on topiramate [99]. However, similar blinded trials evaluating the efficacy after treatment discontinuation are at present not available for anti-CGRP/rec mAbs. The available evidence that little of their therapeutic effect outlasts their pharmacological effect favors the hypothesis that anti-CGRP/rec mAbs, contrary to other preventive treatments, act chiefly as long-lasting acute therapies at the level of the trigeminovascular system [2]. Whether this could be related to the persistence of “phantom attacks” without headache during treatment [2, 100] remains to be determined. It also remains to be confirmed if anti-CGRP/rec mAbs reduce interictal burden, independently of the reduction in attack frequency. This is suggested by a significant decrease of the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale after 3 and 6 months of galcanezumab treatment in EM and CM patients with 2–4 previous preventive treatment failures [101], but the decrease in interictal burden could be in part due to the decreased likelihood of an attack occurrence.
Taken together, published real-world data indicate that most patients worsen significantly as soon as the 2nd month of anti-CGRP/rec mAb treatment discontinuation. Although it seems reasonable to limit treatments to patients who benefit from them and to evaluate periodically the sustained need for migraine prophylaxis, a prescheduled treatment holiday and a fixed (3-month) duration of treatment interruption, as mandatory for reimbursement purposes in several countries, may not be adequate.
Can anti-CGRP/rec mAbs be combined with botulinum toxin and gepants?
Given that BoNT-A prevents the activation of nociceptive C fibers while anti-CGRP/rec mAbs mainly blocks A\(\delta\) fibers, there may be a physiological rationale for an association of both in CM treatment [102]. As a matter of fact, several studies have shown the benefit of adding an anti-CGRP/rec mAb in CM patients not responding adequately to BoNT-A, which produced a clinically meaningful improvement in \(\pm\)40% of patients [103,104,105,106,107]. In 19 CM patients who had less than 30% reduction in MHDs with BoNT-A (n = 19) or fremanezumab (n = 17) or erenumab (n = 2) as monotherapies, the combination of both BoNT-A and an anti-CHRP/rec mAb resulted in \(\ge\)50% of MHDs in 14 patients [108]. The combination does not induce additional adverse effects or new safety signals. In a real-world study of 155 CM patients, however, in which erenumab and galcanezumab were found efficient after complete or partial failure on previous BoNT-A, dual therapy in 12 patients had no additional benefit [109]. Accordingly, a retrospective chart review comparing CM patients treated with erenumab alone (n = 70) or as an add-on to BoNTA (n = 73) found that the reduction in MHDs was less with the dual therapy (-4.7) than with erenumab (-8.2) and the probability of achieving a \(\ge\) 50% reduction in MHDs lower with the dual therapy (odds ratio: 0.57) [110].
The novel small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) can safely be added as attack treatment during preventive anti-CGRP/rec mAbs treatment [111, 112] and co-administration in migraine patients did not influence the pharmacokinetics or safety of ubrogepant [113]. The same good tolerance remains to be proven for the long-term combination of a CGRP/rec mAb with a gepant administered as preventive therapy, as well as the possible benefit of such combination.
What is their added-value and cost-effectiveness?
The only available RCT (HER-MES) comparing directly an anti-CGRP receptor mAb, erenumab, and a classical migraine preventive, topiramate, for HFEM showed a clear therapeutic advantage of the former over the latter: 60% of patients receiving erenumab had a \(\ge\)50% MMD reduction after 6 months compared to 43% in the topiramate group while 10% of patients discontinued erenumab due to adverse effects compared to 39% with topiramate [114, 115]. Indirect comparisons of RCTs performed with classical preventive drugs or anti-CGRP/rec mAbs confirm that the latter have an unprecedented favorable ratio between efficacy and tolerance [116] and thus a markedly greater likelihood to help than to harm compared to propranolol, topiramate or BoNT-A [82]. In an adjusted indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis of 10 trials in CM, galcanezumab and fremanezumab reduced migraine days more than BoNT-A at week 12, whereas the reduction in headache days was similar as were adverse event rates [117]. A meta-analysis in CM with MOH concluded that both BoNT-A and anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are beneficial in reducing MMDs, but the effect size for the latter is greater and the drop-out rate lower [40].
There is strong evidence from studies using various patient-reported outcome measures that migraine treatment with anti-CGRP/rec mAbs improves quality of life, disability and work productivity, and reduces health resource utilization as well as the expense for acute medications [2, 118]. Although these studies suggest that CGRP/rec mAbs are also cost-effective, their high pricing, incomplete effectiveness and assumptions that less expensive and equally well-tolerated treatment alternatives might be as effective [119] underscore the need for pharmaco-economic analyses. In a pharmaco-economic study performed in Greece [120] incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the treatment of CM with erenumab versus BoNT-A were €218,870 (indirect costs included) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and €620 per migraine day avoided. For the erenumab ICER to fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold equal to three times the local gross domestic product per capita (€49,000), the price of erenumab would have to be no more than €192 per dose (societal perspective), which is substantially lower than the present prices in most countries, but needs of course to be adjusted to each country’s gross domestic product per capita. A systematic review of 16 economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with CM [121] concluded that erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab, were associated with ICERs ranging between 81,080 € and 218,870 €, above the most common willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs), compared to 17,720€-19,572€ for BoNT-A. The anti-CGRP/rec mAbs, however, were cost-effective within the commonly used WTPs among the patient population for whom previous preventive treatments, including BoNT-A, had failed.
Taken together, the added-value of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs is most obvious when both their effect size and adverse effect profile are compared to those of classical preventive drugs. Although in a real-world situation they clearly reduce acute medication use, disability and utilization of health resources, proving their cost-effectiveness in pharmaco-economic studies has been difficult and most convincing in the most disabled patients, predominantly when indirect costs are included. These difficulties are in part due to the high pricing of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs.
Are they effective in other headache types?
Anti-CGRP/rec mAbs have been used to treat various other disorders than migraine in some RCTs but most often in retro- or prospective case series (Table 2).
Although the ictal increase in blood levels of CGRP tends to be smaller than in migraine, there is a convincing physiological rationale for the utility of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in cluster headache (CH) [122]. A RCT comparing galcanezumab (300 mg at baseline and at 1 month) and placebo in episodic CH found indeed that the mAb significantly reduced weekly frequency of attacks with a 50% reduction at week 3 in 71% of patients compared to 53% for placebo [123]. The median time-to-first occurrence of \(\ge\) 50% reduction from baseline in CH attacks was 5 days for galcanezumab versus 14 days for placebo [124]. This study led to the FDA approval of galcanezumab for the preventive treatment of episodic CH. A beneficial effect of galcanezumab in episodic CH was confirmed in a smaller placebo-controlled trial [125]. Conversely, a RCT of galcanezumab in chronic CH did not achieve its primary or key secondary endpoints [126]. Erenumab, the mAb blocking the CGRP receptor, was found effective for the prevention of chronic CH attacks in small case series [127, 128], while a clinical trial of fremanezumab was discontinued after failing to meet the primary endpoint also in episodic CH [122]. A RCT of eptinezumab in episodic CH is ongoing (NCT04688775).
Overall, these studies suggest that anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are less effective in CH than in migraine, which is likely due to differences in pathophysiology but also to suboptimal trial methodologies poorly adapted to the natural history of CH, as highlighted in the recently updated IHS guidelines for clinical trials in CH [129]. They also underscore the differences in pathophysiology and response to treatments between the episodic and chronic forms of the disorder.
In a non-randomized, open-label study of 89 patients with persistent post-traumatic headache (PTH), erenumab (140 mg/month) was associated with a modest improvement, reducing MHDs by 1.7 (from 24.6 at baseline to 22.9 days at 12 weeks) with 13% of patients having a \(\ge\) 50% response [130]. Along the same line, a large retrospective chart review of 168 concussion patients with PTH showed that anti-CGRP/rec mAbs were associated with an average improvement of monthly headache days by -7.25 and HIT-6 scores by -4.26; headache severity and frequency, as well as overall concussion symptoms, were also improved [131]. In a phase 2 trial, not yet published in extenso, there was however no difference between placebo and fremanezumab in persistent PTH [132].
These discrepant results could de due to the clinical heterogeneity of PTH, where the CM phenotype could be more responsive to CGRP-blocking agents. This needs to be proven in an adequate trial, but it is suggested by a RCT showing that intravenous infusion of CGRP induced migraine-like headache in 21 of 30 participants (70%) with persistent PTH, compared with 6 of 30 participants (20%) after placebo infusion [133].
Open studies and case reports have explored the possible value of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in other headache types. Fifteen out of 25 migraine patients treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab had “moderate to significant improvement” of their vestibular migraine symptoms in a retrospective study [134]. Such a beneficial effect with all three anti-CGRP/rec mAbs was recently confirmed in a prospective observational cohort study of 50 CM patients with vestibular migraine: 45 patients (90%) had a \(\ge\) 50% reduction in vertigo frequency while 43 (86%) had a \(\ge\) 50% reduction in headache frequency; mean monthly days with dizziness/vestibular symptoms decreased from 10.3 at baseline to 0.8 days after 12 months [135].
In a prospective open label study of 55 females with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) in ocular remission, but with persistent chronic headache, erenumab (140 mg/month in 52 patients) produced dramatic improvements with 50% responder rates for moderate/severe headaches of 62% at 3 month and 85% at 12 months [136]. By contrast, such a beneficial effect in IIH was not confirmed for erenumab, fremanezumab or galcanezumab in a retrospective chart review, at present only available in abstract form [137].
Nine out of 10 patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia reported improvement in pain intensity, attack frequency and mood after erenumab treatment for 6 months in an open study [138], but this was not confirmed in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of 80 patients [139].
Erenumab or galcanezumab were also effective on migraine with aura in two patients with a mitochondriopathy [140, 141] and galcanezumab was found effective in a patient with nummular headache [142].
In a retrospective chart survey, anti-CGRP/rec mAbs markedly decreased comorbid neuropathic pain of various etiologies in patients treated for CM [143].
To sum up, episodic CH is at present the only headache type other than migraine where an anti-CGRP/rec mAb, galcanezumab, has evidence-based efficacy from a RCT, although the effect size is clearly smaller than in migraine. In various other headache conditions, results are discordant and mostly based on case series. In trigeminal neuralgia a RCT with erenumab was negative. Encouraging results were obtained in open studies of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, but need to be confirmed in a RCT. Such a placebo-controlled trial targeting patients with a CM phenotype would also be crucial in persistent PTH, a frequent and disabling condition in need of better management.
What are the potential contraindications of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs?
CGRP has a widespread distribution in the human body and is involved in multiple physiological functions [5, 6]. In theory, blocking CGRP or its receptor could have various unwanted effects in the short and particularly in the long term [144, 145]. Tolerance and safety, however, were outstanding in RCTs and real-world studies of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in migraine, even after > 6 years of administration for erenumab. Of note is that according to the Summary of Product Characteristics in most countries the only official contraindication to all 4 anti-CGRP/rec mAbs is ‘Hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients’. Safety could be overestimated because subjects with cardio- or cerebrovascular disorders or other serious diseases were excluded from most studies [15, 146]. It must also be kept in mind that the role of CGRP or its receptor can be taken over by other neuropeptides or neuropeptide receptors and one cannot exclude that some adverse effects may take longer to appear with continuing anti-CGRP/rec mAb therapy [144, 145].
Table 3 is a synoptic overview of major physiological roles of CGRP (1st column), disorders in which CGRP blockade could have potential deleterious consequences (2nd column) and available experimental and particularly clinical evidence for their occurrence (3rd column). The 4th column shows the respective recommendations that we propose for clinical practice on the basis of available data: anti-CGRP/rec mAbs would be “contraindicated” if there is clinical and/or strong experimental evidence for a harmful effect with serious consequences; they would be “not recommended” if there is circumstantial evidence for a possible worsening effect without proven serious consequences (precautionary principle); they would need “surveillance” if the contraindications are only theoretical or based on single case reports. We will comment on some of them.
A possible deleterious consequence of blocking CGRP’s role in protective vasodilatation, pro-angiogenesis, oxidative stress and homeostasis [5,6,7,8] has been an early concern, because it could potentially aggravate vascular disorders and ischemia [146]. Small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (so-called gepants) may worsen ischemic cerebral outcome in mice following middle cerebral artery occlusion, due to dysfunction of collateral circulation [147]. A comparable study is not available for anti-CGRP/rec mAbs. However, erenumab had no effect on vasodilatory or contractile responses of human isolated cerebral arteries in vitro [148]. A single intravenous administration of erenumab 140 mg in patients with stable angina did not aggravate exercice-induced angina or ST-segment depression [149], but this study was criticized because it explored a single acute administration too short before the treadmill test to allow for complete tissue distribution and comprised few women with angina in whom the distal coronary artery system, the most sensitive to CGRP, is chiefly involved. With a follow-up now exceeding 6 years, serious treatment-related vascular adverse events have not been reported with anti-CGRP/rec mAbs [150, 151], with the exception of 2 case reports complicated by comorbid features: an ischemic stroke in a patient with cerebral proliferative angiopathy [152], and reversible cerebral vasospasm in a patient treated with erenumab, a triptan and a combined contraceptive pill [153]. Despite the absence up to now of a signal of worse outcomes for cerebral or coronary ischemia under anti-CGRP/rec mAbs, their use is contraindicated in patients with recent stroke, unstable angina or myocardial infarction. There is an expert consensus that they are also contraindicated in patients with a history of stroke or myocardial infarction [154], but this may be regarded merely as a precautionary principle that might not necessarily apply to individual disabled patients in need of an effective preventive treatment.
Raynaud’s phenomenon is since a long time known to be more prevalent in patients with migraine [155]. Its incidence with anti-CGRP/rec mAbs is higher in the WHO Vigibase® [156] than with triptans or beta-blockers and severe Raynaud’s with microvascular complications was reported in 9 patients among whom 2 had sclerodermia [157]. It is worth mentioning that new onset digital Raynaud’s was also reported in 2 patients taking a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist [158].
Although arterial hypertension did not occur more frequently in RCTs of erenumab [83, 159], 62 cases were reported to the FDA after real-world use, 31% of whom had preexisting hypertension [160]. In a Dutch study, next to a significant overall rise in blood pressure, de novo hypertension appeared in 3.7% (4/109) of patients treated with erenumab and in none out of 87 patients treated with fremanezumab [161]. In a recent study on the risk of hypertension after initiation of erenumab in the post-marketing setting published in abstract form, blood pressure increase occurred in 23.3% of 335 patients irrespective of pre-existing hypertension [162].
There are up to now no reports on worsening of peripheral artery disease or occurrence of venous thrombosis or embolism [150], while single case reports of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction with erenumab [163] and erectile dysfunction possibly due to galcanezumab [164] have been published.
In animal experiments, CGRP is involved in vasoregulation of utero-placental blood flow and feto-placental development [145, 165] and anti-CGRP/rec mAbs can penetrate in milk during lactation [166]. No deleterious effect was found in pregnant monkeys [166], but increased fetal mortality and decreased growth was found with CGRP8 − 37, a CGRP receptor antagonist, in pregnant rats [167]. However, no signal for an effect on the human fetus or pregnancy outcome has emerged up to now in case reports [168, 169] or in the recently updated WHO pharmacovigilance database of 286 safety reports [170]. Although based on our abovementioned criteria the term “not recommended” could be used for anti-CGRP mAbs in pregnancy, “contraindicated” was agreed upon in Table 3, because the exclusion of foeto-maternal toxicity may need much larger databases and follow-up of children after birth. Moreover, the contraindication is unlikely to be worrisome for female migraineurs, as most of them will improve during pregnancy.
Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders are prevalent in migraine patients and could be related to the effect of CGRP on GI tract motility and mucosal integrity [171, 172]. Though not found in RCTs, erenumab induced or aggravated constipation in real-world studies in 20% of patients on average [15]. However, constipation rarely leads to treatment discontinuation and seems to occur less frequently with the ligand-blocking mAbs. Whether these GI adverse effects are due to the high expression of the Calcrl gene, which encodes the CGRP receptor component to which erenumab binds [173], to a decrease in Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) [174], to the fact that amylin binds to the CGRP receptor [171] or to their combination remains to be determined. There is no signal in available databases suggesting that the anti-CGRP/rec mAbs might worsen peptic ulcer or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Interestingly, however, the Fab’2 fragment of fremanezumab decreases experimental colonic hypersensitivity in rat [175], an effect that would rather be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome.
CGRP plays a role in a number of other organs and (patho)physiological functions. We have previously discussed its possible effect on bones in relation to the use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in children [73]. Its role in skin biology may explain why the monoclonals can cause in rare patients impaired wound healing [176], ecchymosis [177] and, as reported in several case series and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), alopecia [178,179,180]. Occurrence or aggravation of inflammatory disorders like arthritis, psoriasis and urticaria was reported in 7 patients, likely related to the role of CGRP in innate immune response and inflammation [181]. The latter could also be responsible for the recurrent oral candidiasis reported in a patient both during erenumab and galcanezumab treatment [182]. On the other hand, galcanezumab reduced osteoarthritis-related pain in rodents [183].
Although CGRP may have contrasting effects in broncho-pulmonary physiology [5], it could amplify bronchoconstriction [184] and surveillance only is recommended in patients treated with anti-CGRP/rec mAbs since no deleterious signals in obstructive pulmonary disease or in pulmonary hypertension have yet appeared in pharmacovigilance databases.
CGRP can influence the hypothalamo-pituitary axis, glucose and lipid metabolism [5, 144, 145], but up to now no hormonal dysregulation, significant weight changes or occurrence/aggravation of diabetes have been detected during anti-CGRP/rec mAb treatment.
Finally, CGRP is present in motor nerve endings at the skeletal muscle endplate where it has a trophic role [185] and increases acetylcholine release in rodents [186]. Besides occasional benign muscle spasms, chiefly at the injection site [187], adverse effects related to skeletal muscles have not been reported yet. The occurrence of a restless legs-like syndrome found in two patients treated with erenumab or galcanezumab needs to be confirmed [188], but is unlikely to be mediated by a skeletal muscle mechanism.
To summarize, because of the known physiological actions of CGRP and signals in adverse effect reporting systems and/or case reports, and chiefly as a precautionary principle, anti-CGRP/rec mAbs are contraindicated in subjects with recent stroke, unstable angina, myocardial infarction or severe Raynaud’s phenomenon. They are not recommended in uncontrolled hypertension (particularly erenumab), severe peripheral artery disease, recent venous thrombosis or embolism, severe constipation (only erenumab), severe skin lesions or poor wound healing, abnormal hair loss and severe inflammatory disorders. They are also contraindicated during pregnancy and breast feeding as a precautionary principle. Surveillance is recommended to detect aggravation of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease, vasculitis and bleeding disorders, bronchopulmonary disorders, erectile dysfunction, hormonal dysfunctions and muscle disorders.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Sacco S, Amin FM, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Katsarava Z, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Martelletti P, Mitsikostas DD, Ornello R, Reuter U, Sanchez-Del-Rio M, Sinclair AJ, Terwindt G, Uluduz D, Versijpt J, Lampl C (2022) European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention – 2022 update. J Headache Pain Jun 11(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01431-x
Schoenen J, Manise M, Nonis R, Gérard P, Timmermans G (2020) Monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP transmission: an update on their added value in migraine prevention. Rev Neurol (Paris) Dec 176(10):788–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2020.04.027
Wang YF, Wang SJ (2022) CGRP targeting therapy for chronic migraine-evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies. Curr Pain Headache Rep Jul 26(7):543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-022-01056-4Epub 2022 May 14
Pavelic AR, Wöber C, Riederer F, Zebenholzer K (2022) Monoclonal Antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review of Real-World Data. Cells.Dec 29;12(1):143. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010143
Russell FA, King R, Smillie SJ, Kodji X, Brain SD (2014) Calcitonin gene-related peptide: physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev Oct 94(4):1099–1142. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00034.2013
Majima M, Ito Y, Hosono K, Amano H (2019) CGRP/CGRP receptor antibodies: potential adverse Effects due to Blockade of Neovascularization? Trends Pharmacol Sci Jan 40(1):11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2018.11.003
Gross EC, Lisicki M, Fischer D, Sándor PS, Schoenen J (2019) The metabolic face of migraine - from pathophysiology to treatment. Nat Rev Neurol Nov 15(11):627–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0255-4
Borkum JM (2019) CGRP and brain functioning: cautions for Migraine Treatment. Headache Sep 59(8):1339–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13591
Melo-Carrillo A, Schain AJ, Stratton J, Strassman AM, Burstein R (2020) Fremanezumab and its isotype slow propagation rate and shorten cortical recovery period but do not prevent occurrence of cortical spreading depression in rats with compromised blood-brain barrier. Pain May 161(5):1037–1043. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001791
Schain AJ, Melo-Carrillo A, Stratton J, Strassman AM, Burstein R (2019) CSD-Induced arterial dilatation and plasma protein extravasation are unaffected by Fremanezumab: implications for CGRPs role in migraine with aura. J Neurosci Jul 24(30):6001–6011. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0232-19.2019
Visočnik D, Zaletel M, Žvan B, Zupan M (2022) The Vasodilatory response to CGRP of the anterior and posterior cerebral circulation in Migraine. Front Neurol May 19:13:854134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.854134
Ashina M, Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, Tepper SJ, Xue F, Zhang F, Brennan F, Paiva da Silva Lima G (2022) Assessment of Erenumab Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Migraine With and Without Aura: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Neurol. Feb 1;79(2):159–168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4678
Ashina S, Melo-Carrillo A, Toluwanimi A, Bolo N, Szabo E, Borsook D, Burstein R (2023) Galcanezumab effects on incidence of headache after occurrence of triggers, premonitory symptoms, and aura in responders, non-responders, super-responders, and super non-responders. J Headache Pain. Mar 16;24(1):26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01560-x
Straube A, Stude P, Gaul C, Schuh K, Koch M (2021) Real-world evidence data on the monoclonal antibody erenumab in migraine prevention: perspectives of treating physicians in Germany. J Headache Pain. Nov 6;22(1):133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01344-1
Schoenen J, Timmermans G, Nonis R, Manise M, Fumal A, Gérard P (2021) Erenumab for Migraine Prevention in a 1-Year compassionate use program: efficacy, tolerability, and differences between clinical phenotypes. Front Neurol Dec 10:12:805334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.805334
Kearney E, Collins T, Sengupta S (2020) De Novo Visual Aura Onset in a Migraineur on Galcanezumab-Gnlm. Headache Jul 60(7):1435–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13855
Robblee J, Devick KL, Mendez N, Potter J, Slonaker J, Starling AJ (2020) Real-world patient experience with erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. Headache 60(9):2014–2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13951
Soni P, Chawla E (2021) Efficacy and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for treatment of chronic migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg Oct 209:106893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106893
Yang CP, Zeng BY, Chang CM, Shih PH, Yang CC, Tseng PT, Wang SJ (2021) Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of the pharmacology of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide and its receptor for the Prevention of Chronic Migraine: a Network Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials. Neurother Oct 18(4):2639–2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-021-01128-0
Haghdoost F, Puledda F, Garcia-Azorin D, Huessler EM, Messina R, Pozo-Rosich P (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 Apr 43(4):3331024231159366. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231159366
Sevivas H, Fresco P (2022) Treatment of resistant chronic migraine with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a systematic review. Eur J Med Res Jun 4(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00716-w
Wang X, Wen D, He Q, You C, Ma L (2022) Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor for migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: a network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain. Sep 8;23(1):105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01472-2
Raffaelli B, Fitzek M, Overeem LH, Storch E, Terhart M, Reuter U (2023) Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience. J Headache Pain Feb 27(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01552-x
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (2018) Cephalalgia 38: 1–211
Bigal ME, Edvinsson L, Rapoport AM, Lipton RB, Spierings EL, Diener HC, Burstein R, Loupe PS, Ma Y, Yang R, Silberstein SD (2015) Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of TEV-48125 for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study. Lancet Neurol Nov; 14(11):1091–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00245-8
Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Silberstein S, Goadsby PJ, Biondi D, Hirman J, Cady R, Smith J (2019) Eptinezumab for prevention of chronic migraine: a randomized phase 2b clinical trial. Cephalalgia Aug 39(9):1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102419858355
Vandervorst F, Van Deun L, Van Dycke A, Paemeleire K, Reuter U, Schoenen J, Versijpt J (2021) CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs. J Headache Pain. Oct 25;22(1):128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01335-2
Lekontseva O, Wang M, Amoozegar F (2022) Predictors of clinical response to erenumab in patients with migraine. Cephalalgia Rep 5:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/25158163221128185
Lowe M, Murray L, Tyagi A, Gorrie G, Miller S, Dani K, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Headache Service (2022) ;. Efficacy of erenumab and factors predicting response after 3 months in treatment resistant chronic migraine: a clinical service evaluation. J Headache Pain. Jul 22;23(1):86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01456-2
Buse DC, Greisman JD, Baigi K, Lipton RB (2019) Migraine progression: a systematic review. Headache Mar 59(3):306–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13459
Tepper SJ, Diener HC, Ashina M, Brandes JL, Friedman DI, Reuter U, Cheng S, Nilsen J, Leonardi DK, Lenz RA, Mikol DD (2019) Erenumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. Neurology. May 14;92(20):e2309-e2320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007497
Alpuente A, Torres-Ferrus M, Terwindt GM (2023) Preventive CGRP-targeted therapies for chronic migraine with and without medication-overuse headache. Cephalalgia 43(3):1–11
Baraldi C, Castro FL, Cainazzo MM, Pani L, Guerzoni S (2021) Predictors of response to erenumab after 12 months of treatment. Brain Behav 00:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2260
Belvís R, Irimia P, Pozo-Rosich P, González-Oria C, Cano A, Viguera J, Sánchez B, Molina F, Beltrán I, Oterino A, Cuadrado E, Gómez-Camello A, Alberte-Woodward M, Jurado C, Oms T, Ezpeleta D, de Terán JD, Morollón N, Latorre G, Torres-Ferrús M, Alpuente A, Lamas R, Toledano C, Leira R, Santos S Del Río MS. (2021) MAB-MIG: registry of the spanish neurological society of erenumab for migraine prevention. J Headache Pain Jul 17;22(1):74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01267-x
Silvestro M, Tessitore A, Scotto di Clemente F, Battista G, Tedeschi G, Russo A (2021) Refractory migraine profile in CGRP-monoclonal antibodies scenario. Acta Neurol Scand 144(3):325–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13472
Barbanti P, Egeo G, Aurilia C, d’Onofrio F, Albanese M, Cetta I, Di Fiore P, Zucco M, FilippiBonassi M, Bono F, Altamura C, Proietti S, Bonassi S, Vernieri F, FRIEND-Study Group (2022) Fremanezumab in the prevention of high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine: a 12-week, multicenter, real-life, cohort study (the FRIEND study). J Headache Pain Apr 9(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01396-x
Krymchantowski AV, Jevoux C, Krymchantowski AG, Silva-Néto RP (2023) Monoclonal antibodies for chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A real-world study. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1129439. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.1129439. eCollection 2023
Pensato U, Baraldi C, Favoni V, Mascarella D, Matteo E, Andrini G, Cainazzo MM, Cortelli P, Pierangeli G, Guerzoni S, Cevoli S (2022) Detoxification vs non-detoxification before starting an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody in medication overuse headache. Cephalalgia Feb 9:3331024211067791. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211067791
Silberstein SD, Blumenfeld AM, Cady RK, Turner IM, Lipton RB, Diener HC, Aurora SK, Sirimanne M, DeGryse RE, Turkel CC, Dodick DW (2013) OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: PREEMPT 24-week pooled subgroup analysis of patients who had acute headache medication overuse at baseline. J Neurol Sci Aug 15(1–2):48–56 Epub 2013 Jun 19
Giri S, Tronvik E, Linde M, Pedersen SA, Hagen K (2023) Randomized controlled studies evaluating Topiramate, Botulinum toxin type A, and mABs targeting CGRP in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia Apr 43(4):3331024231156922. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231156922
Diener HC, Dodick DW, Goadsby PJ, Bigal ME, Bussone G, Silberstein SD, Mathew N, Ascher S, Morein J, Hulihan JF, Biondi DM, Greenberg SJ (2009) Utility of topiramate for the treatment of patients with chronic migraine in the presence or absence of acute medication overuse. Cephalalgia Oct 29(10):1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01859.x
Zeeberg P, Olesen J, Jensen R (2006) Probable medication-overuse headache: the effect of a 2-month drug-free period. Neurology. Jun 27;66(12):1894-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000217914.30994.bd
Mathew NT, Kurman R, Perez F (1990) Drug induced refractory headache–clinical features and management. Headache Oct 30(10):634–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.1990.hed3010634.x
Hagen K, Albretsen C, Vilming ST, Salvesen R, Grønning M, Helde G, Gravdahl G, Zwart JA, Stovner LJ (2009) Management of medication overuse headache: 1-year randomized multicentre open-label trial. Cephalalgia Feb 29(2):221–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01711.x
Carlsen LN, Munksgaard SB, Nielsen M, Engelstoft IMS, Westergaard ML, Bendtsen L, Jensen RH (2020) Comparison of 3 Treatment Strategies for Medication Overuse Headache: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. Sep 1;77(9):1069–1078. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1179
Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, Lanteri-Minet M, Wen S, Hours-Zesiger P, Ferrari MD, Klatt J (2018) 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. Lancet 392(10161):2280–2287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32534-0
Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, Broessner G, Bonner JH, Zhang F, Sapra S, Picard H, Mikol DD, Lenz RA (2017) A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 377(22):2123–2132. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705848
Tepper S, Ashina M, Reuter U, Brandes JL, Doležil D, Silberstein S, Winner P, Leonardi D, Mikol D, Lenz R (2017) Safety and efficacy of erenumab for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 16(6):425–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30083-2
Overeem LH, Peikert A, Hofacker MD, Kamm K, Ruscheweyh R, Gendolla A, Raffaelli B, Reuter U, Neeb L (2021) Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: a multi-center retrospective cohort study. Cephalalgia Oct 13:3331024211048765. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211048765
Birlea M, Penning S, Callahan K, Schoenen J (2019) Efficacy and safety of external trigeminal neurostimulation in the prevention of chronic migraine: an open-label trial. Cephalalgia Rep Volume 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515816319856625
Ashina S, Melo-Carrillo A, Szabo E, Borsook D, Burstein R (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 Mar 43(3):3331024221147881. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221147881
Barbanti P, Aurilia C, Egeo G, Fofi L, Cevoli S, Colombo B, Filippi M, Frediani F, Bono F, Grazzi L, Salerno A, Mercuri B, Carnevale A, Altamura C, Vernieri F (2021) Erenumab in the prevention of high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine: Erenumab in Real Life in Italy (EARLY), the first italian multicenter, prospective real-life study. Headache 61(2):363–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14032
Vernieri F, Altamura C, Brunelli N, Costa CM, Aurilia C, Egeo G, Fofi L, Favoni V, Lovati C, Bertuzzo D, d’Onofrio F, Doretti A, Di Fiore P, Finocchi C, Di Schiano F, Ranieri A, Colombo B, Bono F, Albanese M, Cevoli S, Barbanti P, GARLIT Study Group (2022) Rapid response to galcanezumab and predictive factors in chronic migraine patients: a 3-month observational, longitudinal, cohort, multicenter, italian real-life study. Eur J Neurol Apr 29(4):1198–1208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15197
De Matteis E, Affaitati G, Frattale I, Caponnetto V, Pistoia F, Giamberardino MA, Sacco S, Ornello R (2021) Early outcomes of migraine after erenumab discontinuation: data from a real-life setting. Neurol Sci Aug 42(8):3297–3303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-05022-z
Torres-Ferrús M, Gallardo VJ, Alpuente A, Caronna E, Gine-Cipres E, Pozo-Rosich P (2021) The impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant migraine patients: a real-world evidence observational study. J Neurol Oct 268(10):3789–3798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10523-8
Salem-Abdou H, Simonyan D, Puymirat J (2021) Identification of predictors of response to Erenumab in a cohort of patients with migraine. Cephalalgia 4:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/25158163211026646
De Icco R, Vaghi G, Allena M, Ghiotto N, Guaschino E, Martinelli D, Ahmad L, Corrado M, Bighiani F, Tanganelli F, Bottiroli S, Cammarota F, Sances G, Tassorelli C (2022) Does MIDAS reduction at 3 months predict the outcome of erenumab treatment? A real-world, open-label trial. J Headache Pain Sep 17(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01480-2
Christensen CE, Younis S, Deen M, Khan S, Ghanizada H, Ashina M (2018) Migraine induction with calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients from erenumab trials. J Headache Pain Nov 8(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-018-0927-2
Alpuente A, Gallardo VJ, Asskour L, Caronna E, Torres-Ferrus M, Pozo-Rosich P (2022) Salivary CGRP and Erenumab Treatment response: towards Precision Medicine in Migraine. Ann Neurol Nov 92(5):846–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26472
De Icco R, Fiamingo G, Greco R, Bottiroli S, Demartini C, Zanaboni AM, Allena M, Guaschino E, Martinelli D, Putortì A, Grillo V, Sances G, Tassorelli C (2020) Neurophysiological and biomolecular effects of erenumab in chronic migraine: an open label study. Cephalalgia Oct 40(12):1336–1345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102420942230
de Vries Lentsch S, Garrelds IM, Danser AHJ, Terwindt GM, MaassenVanDenBrink A (2022) Serum CGRP in migraine patients using erenumab as preventive treatment. J Headache Pain. Sep 12;23(1):120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01483-z
Nikolova S, Chong CD, Dumkrieger GM, Li J, Wu T, Schwedt TJ (2023) Longitudinal differences in iron deposition in periaqueductal gray matter and anterior cingulate cortex are associated with response to erenumab in migraine. Cephalalgia Feb; 43(2):3331024221144783. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221144783
Wang X, Chen Y, Song J, You C (2021) Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibody Against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide or Its Receptor for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. Mar 25;12:649143. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.649143. eCollection 2021
Messina R, Huessler EM, Puledda F, Haghdoost F, Lebedeva ER, Diener HC (2023) Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cephalalgia Mar 43(3):3331024231152169. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231152169
Saccà F, Braca S, Sansone M, Miele A, Stornaiuolo A, De Simone R, Russo CV (2023) A head-to-head observational cohort study on the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide for chronic and episodic migraine. Headache. May 31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14528
di Schiano F, Bolchini M, Ceccardi G, Caratozzolo S, Liberini P, Rao R, Padovani A (2023) An observational study on monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin-gene-related peptide and its receptor. Eur J Neurol Jun 30(6):1764–1773. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15761
Ziegeler C, May A (2020) Non-responders to treatment with antibodies to the CGRP-Receptor May profit from a switch of antibody class. Headache Feb 60(2):469–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13729
Briceño-Casado MDP, Gil-Sierra MD, De-La-Calle-Riaguas B (2021) Switching of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide in chronic migraine in clinical practice: a case series. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sep 14:ejhpharm–2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2021-002946
López-Moreno Y, Castro-Sánchez MV, García-Trujillo L, Serrano-Castro P (2022) [Failure of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody in the treatment of migraine. Is it worthwhile trying another one?]. Rev Neurol Aug 16(4):87–91. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.7504.2021526
Iannone LF, Burgalassi A, Vigani G, Tabasso G, De Cesaris F, Chiarugi A, Geppetti P (2023) Switching anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in multi-assessed non-responder patients and implications for ineffectiveness criteria: a retrospective cohort study. Cephalalgia Apr 43(4):3331024231160519. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231160519
Barbanti P, Aurilia C, Egeo G, Torelli P, Proietti S, Cevoli S, Bonassi S, Italian Migraine Registry study group (2023) Late response to Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: a Multicenter, prospective, observational study. Neurol Apr 18. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207292
Szperka CL, VanderPluym J, Orr SL, Oakley CB, Qubty W, Patniyot I, Lagman-Bartolome AM, Morris C, Gautreaux J, Victorio MC, Hagler S, Narula S, Candee MS, Cleves-Bayon C, Rao R, Fryer RH, Bicknese AR, Yonker M, Hershey AD, Powers SW, Goadsby PJ, Gelfand AA (2018) Recommendations on the use of Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in children and adolescents. Headache Nov 58(10):1658–1669. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13414
Sample SJ, Heaton CM, Behan M, Bleedorn JA, Racette MA, Hao Z, Muir P (2014) Role of calcitonin gene-related peptide in functional adaptation of the skeleton. PLoS One. Dec 23;9(12):e113959. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113959
He H, Chai J, Zhang S, Ding L, Yan P, Du W, Yang Z (2016) CGRP may regulate bone metabolism through stimulating osteoblast differentiation and inhibiting osteoclast formation. Mol Med Rep May 13(5):3977–3984. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2016.5023
Ray JC, Sztal-Mazer S, Baker J, Matharu MS, Hutton EJ (2023) The short-term effects of CGRP monoclonal antibodies on bone turnover: a prospective cohort study. Cephalalgia Jun 43(6):3331024231180562. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231180562
Charles JA, Turner IM (2021) AHS 2021 consensus on integrating new migraine therapies into clinical practice: isn’t our goal choice of best therapy regardless of cost? Headache. 00:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14232
Greene KA, Gentile CP, Szperka CL, Yonker M, Gelfand AA, Grimes B, Irwin SL (2021) Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody use for the Preventive Treatment of Refractory Headache Disorders in adolescents. Pediatr Neurol Jan 114:62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2020.09.014
Marshall A, Lindsay R, Clementi MA, Gelfand AA, Orr SL (2022) Outpatient Approach to resistant and refractory migraine in children and adolescents: a Narrative Review. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Oct 22(10):611–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-022-01224-4
Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Chia J, Matthew N, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB (2017) Persistence and switching patterns of oral migraine prophylactic medications among patients with chronic migraine: a retrospective claims analysis. Cephalalgia Apr 37(5):470–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102416678382
Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB (2015) Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia May 35(6):478–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102414547138
Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, Broessner G, Bonner JH, Zhang F, Sapra S, Picard H, Mikol DD, Lenz RA (2017) A controlled trial of Erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med Nov 30(22):2123–2132. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705848
Drellia K, Kokoti L, Deligianni CI, Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD (2021) Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: a systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis. Cephalalgia Jun 41(7):851–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102421989601
Ashina M, Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Silberstein S, Dodick DW, Xue F, Zhang F, Paiva da Silva Lima G, Cheng S, Mikol DD (2021) Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: results from a 5-year, open-label treatment phase of a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Neurol May 28(5):1716–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14715
Belvís R, Irimia P, Pozo-Rosich P, González-Oria C, Cano A, Viguera J, Sánchez B, Molina F, Beltrán I, Oterino A, Cuadrado E, Gómez-Camello A, Alberte-Woodward M, Jurado C, Oms T, Ezpeleta D, de Terán JD, Morollón N, Latorre G, Torres-Ferrús M, Alpuente A, Lamas R, Toledano C, Leira R, Santos S Del Río MS. (2021) MAB-MIG: registry of the spanish neurological society of erenumab for migraine prevention. J Headache Pain Jul 17;22(1):74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01267-x
Lambru G, Hill B, Murphy M, Tylova I, Andreou AP (2020) A prospective real-world analysis of erenumab in refractory chronic migraine. J Headache Pain 21(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-020-01127-0
Gladstone J, Chhibber S, Minhas J, Neish CS, Power GS, Lan Z, Rochdi D, Lanthier-Martel J, Bastien N (2022) Real-world persistence of erenumab for preventive treatment of chronic and episodic migraine: retrospective real-world study. Headache Jan; 62(1):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14218
Andreou AP, Fuccaro M, Hill B, Murphy M, Caponnetto V, Kilner R, Lambru G (2022) Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis. J Headache Pain Nov 4(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01507-8
Troy E, Shrukalla AA, Buture A, Conaty K, Macken E, Lonergan R, Melling J, Long N, Shaikh E, Birrane K, Tomkins EM, Goadsby PJ, Ruttledge MH (2023) Medium-term real-world data for erenumab in 177 treatment resistant or difficult to treat chronic migraine patients: persistence and patient reported outcome measures after 17–30 months. J Headache Pain Jan 16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01536-3
Cullum CK, Do TP, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Hugger SS, Iljazi A, Gusatovic J, Snellman J, Lopez-Lopez C, Ashina H, Amin FM (2022) Real-world long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine: a 52-week, single-center, prospective, observational study. J Headache Pain. Jun 2;23(1):61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01433-9
Ornello R, Baraldi C, Guerzoni S, Lambru G, Andreou AP, Raffaelli B, Gendolla A, Barbanti P, Aurilia C, Egeo G, Cevoli S, Favoni V, Vernieri F, Altamura C, Russo A, Silvestro M, Valle ED, Mancioli A, Ranieri A, Alfieri G, Latysheva N, Filatova E, Talbot J, Cheng S, Holle D, Scheffler A, Nežádal T, Čtrnáctá D, Šípková J, Matoušová Z, Casalena A, Maddestra M, Viola S, Affaitati G, Giamberardino MA, Pistoia F, Reuter U, Sacco S (2022) Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study. J Headache Pain. Mar 19;23(1):38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01408-w
Stauffer VL, Wang S, Voulgaropoulos M, Skljarevski V, Kovacik A, Aurora SK (2019) Effect of Galcanezumab following Treatment Cessation in patients with migraine: results from 2 randomized phase 3 trials. Headache Jun 59(6):834–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13508
Gantenbein AR, Agosti R, Gobbi C, Flügel D, Schankin CJ, Viceic D, Zecca C, Pohl H (2021) Impact on monthly migraine days of discontinuing anti-CGRP antibodies after one year of treatment - a real-life cohort study. Cephalalgia Oct 41(11–12):1181–1186. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211014616
Raffaelli B, Terhart M, Overeem LH, Mecklenburg J, Neeb L, Steinicke M, Reuter U (2021) Migraine evolution after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibody prophylaxis: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia Sep 27:3331024211046617. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211046617
Nsaka M, Scheffler A, Wurthmann S, Schenk H, Kleinschnitz C, Glas M, Holle D (2022) Real-world evidence following a mandatory treatment break after a 1-year prophylactic treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide (pathway) monoclonal antibodies. Brain Behav Jul 12(7):e2662. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2662
Vernieri F, Brunelli N, Messina R, Costa CM, Colombo B, Torelli P, Quintana S, Cevoli S, Favoni V, d’Onofrio F, Egeo G, Rao R, Filippi M, Barbanti P, Altamura C (2021) Discontinuing monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP pathway after one-year treatment: an observational longitudinal cohort study. J Headache Pain Dec 18(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01363-y
Terhart M, Mecklenburg J, Neeb L, Overeem LH, Siebert A, Steinicke M, Raffaelli B, Reuter U (2021) Deterioration of headache impact and health-related quality of life in migraine patients after cessation of preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies. J Headache Pain Dec 31(1):158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01368-7
Iannone LF, Fattori D, Benemei S, Chiarugi A, Geppetti P, De Cesaris F (2022) Predictors of sustained response and effects of the discontinuation of anti-calcitonin gene related peptide antibodies and reinitiation in resistant chronic migraine. Eur J Neurol Jan 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15260
Raffaelli B, Terhart M, Mecklenburg J, Neeb L, Overeem LH, Siebert A, Steinicke M, Reuter U (2022) Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience. J Headache Pain. Mar 30;23(1):40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01417-9
Diener HC, Bussone G, Van Oene JC, Lahaye M, Schwalen S, Goadsby PJ, TOPMAT-MIG-201(TOP-CHROME) Study Group (2007) Topiramate reduces headache days in chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia Jul 27(7):814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01326
Iannone LF, De Cesaris F, Ferrari A, Benemei S, Fattori D, Chiarugi A (2022) Effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on central symptoms of migraine. Cephalalgia Nov 42(13):1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221111526
Lipton RB, Buse DC, Sandoe CH, Ford JH, Hand AL, Jedynak JP, Port MD, Detke HC (2023) Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study. Headache May 63(5):683–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14460
Pellesi L, Do TP, Ashina H, Ashina M, Burstein R (2020) Dual therapy with Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and Botulinum Toxin for Migraine Prevention: is there a Rationale? Headache. 60(6):1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13843
Ailani J, Blumenfeld AM (2021) Combination CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment for preventive treatment in chronic migraine. Headache Jan 62(1):106–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14244
Blumenfeld AM, Frishberg BM, Schim JD, Iannone A, Schneider G, Yedigarova L, Manack Adams A (2021) Real-world evidence for control of chronic migraine patients receiving CGRP monoclonal antibody Therapy added to OnabotulinumtoxinA: a Retrospective Chart Review. Pain Ther Dec; 10(2):809–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-021-00264-x
Cohen F, Armand C, Lipton RB, Vollbracht S (2021) Efficacy and Tolerability of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide-Targeted Monoclonal Antibody Medications as Add-on Therapy to OnabotulinumtoxinA in Patients with Chronic Migraine. Pain Med. Aug 6;22(8):1857–1863. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnab093
Armanious M, Khalil N, Lu Y, Jimenez-Sanders R (2021) Erenumab and OnabotulinumtoxinA Combination Therapy for the Prevention of Intractable Chronic Migraine without Aura: a retrospective analysis. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother Mar 35(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2020.1829249
Mechtler L, Saikali N, McVige J, Hughes O, Traut A, Adams AM (2022) Real-world evidence for the safety and efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibody Therapy added to OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Migraine Prevention in adult patients with chronic migraine. Front Neurol Jan 6:12:788159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.788159
Argyriou AA, Dermitzakis EV, Xiromerisiou G, Vikelis M (2022) OnabotulinumtoxinA Add-On to Monoclonal Anti-CGRP Antibodies in Treatment-Refractory Chronic Migraine. Toxins (Basel). Dec 2;14(12):847. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14120847
Alpuente A, Gallardo VJ, Caronna E, Torres-Ferrús M, Pozo-Rosich P (2021) Partial and nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA can benefit from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies preventive treatment: a real-world evidence study. Eur J Neurol Jul; 28(7):2378–2382. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14828
Jaimes A, Gómez A, Pajares O, Rodríguez-Vico J (2023) Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: no synergistic effect in chronic migraine: a retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract Apr 23(4):349–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13196
Berman G, Croop R, Kudrow D, Halverson P, Lovegren M, Thiry AC, Conway CM, Coric V, Lipton RB (2020) Safety of Rimegepant, an oral CGRP receptor antagonist, plus CGRP monoclonal antibodies for Migraine. Headache Sep 60(8):1734–1742. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13930
Mullin K, Kudrow D, Croop R, Lovegren M, Conway CM, Coric V, Lipton RB (2020) Potential for treatment benefit of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist plus monoclonal antibody in migraine therapy. Neurology. May 19;94(20):e2121-e2125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000008944
Jakate A, Blumenfeld AM, Boinpally R, Butler M, Borbridge L, Contreras-De Lama J, McGeeney D, Periclou A, Lipton RB (2021) Pharmacokinetics and safety of ubrogepant when coadministered with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibody migraine preventives in participants with migraine: a randomized phase 1b drug-drug interaction study. Headache Apr 61(4):642–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14095
Reuter U, Ehrlich M, Gendolla A, Heinze A, Klatt J, Wen S, Hours-Zesiger P, Nickisch J, Sieder C, Hentschke C, Maier-Peuschel M (2022) Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial. Cephalalgia Feb 42(2):108–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211053571
Ehrlich M, Hentschke C, Sieder C, Maier-Peuschel M, Reuter U (2022) Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study. J Headache Pain Nov 15(1):141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01511-y
Vandervorst F, Van Deun L, Van Dycke A, Paemeleire K, Reuter U, Schoenen J, Versijpt J (2021) CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs. J Headache Pain. Oct 25;22(1):128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01335-2
Chen YY, Ye XQ, Tang TC, She TW, Chen M, Zheng H (2021) Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Versus Botulinum Neurotoxin a in the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Migraine: An Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis. Front Pharmacol. May 19;12:671845. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.671845. eCollection 2021
Torres-Ferrus M, Alpuente A, Pozo-Rosich P ()2019 How much do calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies improve the quality of life in migraine? A patient’s perspective. Curr Opin Neurol Jun ;32(3):395–404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000689
Grazzi L, Rizzoli P (2020) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) vs erenumab for high frequency episodic migraine without aura: time to take the gloves off! Headache. 60(4):804–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13776
Giannouchos TV, Mitsikostas DD, Ohsfeldt RL, Vozikis A, Koufopoulou P (2019) Cost-effectiveness analysis of Erenumab Versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for patients with chronic migraine attacks in Greece. Clin Drug Investig Oct 39(10):979–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-019-00827-z
Khanal S, Underwood M, Naghdi S, Brown A, Duncan C, Matharu M, Mistry H (2022) A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine. J Headache Pain Sep 16(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01492-y
Carmine Belin A, Ran C, Edvinsson L (2020) Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and Cluster Headache. Brain Sci. Jan 6;10(1):30. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010030
Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, Leone M, Bardos JN, Oakes TM, Millen BA, Zhou C, Dowsett SA, Aurora SK, Ahn AH, Yang JY, Conley RR, Martinez JM (2019) Trial of Galcanezumab in Prevention of Episodic Cluster Headache. N Engl J Med Jul 11(2):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1813440
Kudrow D, Andrews JS, Rettiganti M, Oakes T, Bardos J, Gaul C, Riesenberg R, Wenzel R, Kuruppu D, Martinez J (2020) Treatment outcomes in patients treated with Galcanezumab vs Placebo: Post Hoc analyses from a phase 3 randomized study in patients with episodic cluster headache. Headache Nov 60(10):2254–2264. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14011
Plato B, Andrews JS, Rettiganti M, Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, Bardos J, Wenzel R, Kuruppu D, Ambrosini A (2021) Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with episodic cluster headaches and a history of preventive treatment failure. Cephalalgia Rep Volume 4:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/25158163211015654
Dodick DW, Goadsby PJ, Lucas C, Jensen R, Bardos JN, Martinez JM, Zhou C, Aurora SK, Yang JY, Conley RR, Oakes T (2020) Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache: results from 3-month double-blind treatment. Cephalalgia Aug 40(9):935–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102420905321
Ruscheweyh R, Broessner G, Goßrau G, Heinze-Kuhn K, Jürgens TP, Kaltseis K, Kamm K, Peikert A, Raffaelli B, Rimmele F, Evers S (2020) Effect of calcitonin gene-related peptide (-receptor) antibodies in chronic cluster headache: results from a retrospective case series support individual treatment attempts. Cephalalgia Dec 40(14):1574–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102420949866
Silvestro M, Tessitore A, Scotto di Clemente F, Tedeschi G, Russo A (2020) Erenumab Efficacy on Comorbid Cluster Headache in patients with migraine: a real-world Case Series. Headache Jun 60(6):1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13832
Schoenen J, Snoer AH, Brandt RB, Fronczek R, Wei DY, Chung CS, Diener HC, Dodick DW, Fontaine D, Goadsby PJ, Matharu MS, May A, McGinley JS, Tepper SJ, Jensen RH, Ferrari MD, IHS Standing Committee for Clinical Trials (2022) Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache. Cephalalgia Dec 42(14):1450–1466. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221120266. IHS cluster headache trial guideline subcommittee
Ashina H, Iljazi A, Al-Khazali HM, Eigenbrodt AK, Larsen EL, Andersen AM, Hansen KJ, Bräuner KB, Mørch-Jessen T, Chaudhry B, Antic S, Christensen CE, Ashina M, Amin FM, Schytz HW (2020) Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of erenumab for the preventive treatment of persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury: an open-label study. J Headache Pain. Jun 3;21(1):62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-020-01136-z
McVige J, Rooney M, Lis D (2022) Anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Patients With Concussion. Neurology. Jan 4;98(1 Supplement 1):S9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000801812.93958.f8
Spierings ELH, Silberstein SD, Najib U, Bryson J, Barash S, Li J, Ahn AH (2021) A phase 2 study of fremanezumab as a treatment for posttraumatic headache in adult patients. Headache 61(Suppl 1):97–98 Meeting abstract
Ashina H, Iljazi A, Al-Khazali HM, Do TP, Eigenbrodt AK, Larsen EL, Andersen AM, Hansen KJ, Bräuner KB, Chaudhry BA, Christensen CE, Amin FM, Schytz HW (2022) CGRP-induced migraine-like headache in persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury. J Headache Pain Oct 17(1):135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01499-5
Hoskin JL, Fife TD (2022) New Anti-CGRP Medications in the treatment of vestibular migraine. Front Neurol Jan 27:12:799002. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.799002
Russo CV, Saccà F, Braca S, Sansone M, Miele A, Stornaiuolo A, De Simone R (2023) Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of vestibular migraine: a prospective observational cohort study. Cephalalgia Apr 43(4):3331024231161809. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231161809
Yiangou A, Mitchell JL, Fisher C, Edwards J, Vijay V, Alimajstorovic Z, Grech O, Lavery GG, Mollan SP, Sinclair AJ (2021) Erenumab for headaches in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective open-label evaluation. Headache Jan 61(1):157–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14026
Frerichs L, Nandy K, Friedman DI (2022) Effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for persistent headaches in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Headache 62 (Suppl 1): 106–107. Presented at the 64th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American-Headache-Society 2022. Denver CO
Parascandolo E, Levinson K, Rizzoli P, Sharon R (2021) Efficacy of Erenumab in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia: a retrospective Case Series. Neurol Clin Pract Jun 11(3):227–231. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001075
Schott Andersen AS, Maarbjerg S, Noory N, Heinskou TB, Forman JL, Cruccu G, Ashina M, Bendtsen L (2022) Safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with trigeminal neuralgia in Denmark: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study. Lancet Neurol Nov; 21(11):994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00294-0
Naegel S, Burow P, Holle D, Stoevesandt D, Heintz S, Thaele A, Zierz S, Kraya T (2021) Erenumab for migraine prevention in a patient with mitochondrial encephalopathy, lactate acidosis, and stroke-like episodes syndrome: a case report. Headache Apr 61(4):694–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14101
Kaltseis K, Indelicato E, Broessner G, Boesch S (2022) Case report: monoclonal CGRP-antibody treatment in a migraine patient with a mutation in the mitochondrial single-strand binding protein (SSBP1). Front Neurol Sep 15:13:958463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.958463
López-Bravo A, Oliveros-Cid A, Mínguez-Olaondo A, Cuadrado ML (2022) Nummular headache responsive to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies in a patient with migraine. Headache Sep 62(8):1063–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14372
Kang SA, Govindarajan R (2021) Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for neuropathic pain in patients with migraine headache. Muscle Nerve Apr 63(4):563–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27153
Deen M, Correnti E, Kamm K, Kelderman T, Papetti L, Rubio-Beltrán E, Vigneri S, Edvinsson L, Van Den Maassen A, European Headache Federation School of Advanced Studies (EHF-SAS) (2017) Blocking CGRP in migraine patients - a review of pros and cons. J Headache Pain Sep 25(1):96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-017-0807-1
Ray JC, Kapoor M, Stark RJ, Wang SJ, Bendtsen L, Matharu M, Hutton EJ (2021) Calcitonin gene related peptide in migraine: current therapeutics, future implications and potential off-target effects. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Dec 92(12):1325–1334. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-324674
MaassenVanDenBrink A, Meijer J, Villalón CM, Ferrari MD (2016) Wiping out CGRP: potential Cardiovascular Risks. Trends Pharmacol Sci 37(9):779–788
Mulder IA, Li M, de Vries T, Qin T, Yanagisawa T, Sugimoto K, van den Bogaerdt A, Danser AHJ, Wermer MJH, van den Maagdenberg AMJM, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Ferrari MD, Ayata C (2020) Anti-migraine calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists worsen cerebral ischemic outcome in mice. Ann Neurol Oct 88(4):771–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25831
Ohlsson L, Haanes KA, Kronvall E, Xu C, Snellman J, Edvinsson L (2019) Erenumab (AMG 334), a monoclonal antagonist antibody against the canonical CGRP receptor, does not impair vasodilatory or contractile responses to other vasoactive agents in human isolated cranial arteries. Cephalalgia Dec 39(14):1745–1752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102419867282
Depre C, Antalik L, Starling A, Koren M, Eisele O, Lenz RA, Mikol DD (2018) A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effect of Erenumab on Exercise Time During a Treadmill Test in Patients With Stable Angina. Headache 58(5):715–723
Kudrow D, Pascual J, Winner PK, Dodick DW, Tepper SJ, Reuter U, Hong F, Klatt J, Zhang F, Cheng S, Picard H, Eisele O, Wang J, Latham JN, Mikol DD (2020) Vascular safety of erenumab for migraine prevention. Neurol Feb 4(5):e497–e510. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000008743
Rivera-Mancilla E, Villalón CM, MaassenVanDenBrink A (2020) CGRP inhibitors for migraine prophylaxis: a safety review. Expert Opin Drug Saf Oct 19(10):1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2020.1811229
Lehman LL, Bruccoleri R, Danehy A, Swanson J, Mrakotsky C, Smith E, Orbach DB, Burstein R (2021) Adverse effects of erenumab on cerebral proliferative angiopathy: a case report. Cephalalgia Jan 41(1):122–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102420950484
Aradi S, Kaiser E, Cucchiara B (2019) Ischemic stroke associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitor therapy for migraine: a case report. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 28:104286
Eigenbrodt AK, Ashina H, Khan S, Diener HC, Mitsikostas DD, Sinclair AJ, Pozo-Rosich P, Martelletti P, Ducros A, Lantéri-Minet M, Braschinsky M, Del Rio MS, Daniel O, Özge A, Mammadbayli A, Arons M, Skorobogatykh K, Romanenko V, Terwindt GM, Paemeleire K, Sacco S, Reuter U, Lampl C, Schytz HW, Katsarava Z, Steiner TJ, Ashina M (2021) Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol Aug 17(8):501–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00509-5
Zahavi I, Chagnac A, Hering R, Davidovich S, Kuritzky A (1984) Prevalence of Raynaud’s phenomenon in patients with migraine. Arch Intern Med Apr 144(4):742–744
Gérard AO, Merino D, Van Obberghen EK, Rocher F, Destere A, Lantéri-Minet M, Drici MD (2022) Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting drugs and Raynaud’s phenomenon: a real-world potential safety signal from the WHO pharmacovigilance database. J Headache Pain. May 3;23(1):53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01424-w
Breen ID, Brumfiel CM, Patel MH, Butterfield RJ, VanderPluym JH, Griffing L, Pittelkow MR, Mangold AR (2021) Evaluation of the Safety of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonists for Migraine Treatment Among Adults With Raynaud Phenomenon. JAMA Netw OpenApr 1;4(4):e217934. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7934
Bedrin K, Ailani J, Dougherty C (2022) Raynaud’s phenomenon associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists case report. Headache Nov 62(10):1419–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14417
Dodick DW, Tepper SJ, Ailani J, Pannacciulli N, Navetta MS, Loop B, Zhang F, Khodavirdi AC, Mann A, Abdrabboh A, Kalim J (2021) Risk of hypertension in erenumab-treated patients with migraine: analyses of clinical trial and postmarketing data. Headache Oct 61(9):1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14208
Saely S, Croteau D, Jawidzik L, Brinker A, Kortepeter C (2021) Hypertension: a new safety risk for patients treated with erenumab. Headache Jan 61(1):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14051
de Vries Lentsch S, van der Arend BWH, Maassen VanDenBrink A, Terwindt GM (2022) Blood Pressure in Patients With Migraine Treated With Monoclonal Anti-CGRP (Receptor) Antibodies: A Prospective Follow-up Study. Neurology. Oct 25;99(17):e1897-e1904. doi: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000201008
Chhabra N, Mead-Harvey C, Iser C, Vanood A, Taylor HK, Chaudhary HS, Dodick DW (2023) et Investigating the Risk of Hypertension after Initiation of Erenumab in the Post-Market Setting. Presented at the American Academy of Neurology Annual Meeting, 22–27 April, Boston, USA. S47.009
Rozen TD, Bhatt AA (2022) Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome developing after an erenumab injection for migraine prevention. Cephalalgia Mar 42(3):250–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211037277
Al-Hassany L, Vries T, Carpay JA, MaassenVanDenBrink A (2021) Could erectile dysfunction be a side effect of CGRP inhibition? A case report. Cephalalgia Aug 18:3331024211037304. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211037304
Chauhan M, Betancourt A, Balakrishnan M, Mishra A, Espinosa J, Shamshirsaz AA, Fox K, Belfort M, Yallampalli C (2022) Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide, Adrenomedullin, and Adrenomedullin 2 Function in Uterine Artery During Human Pregnancy. Endocrinology. Jan 1;163(1):bqab204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1210/endocr/bqab204
Bussiere JL, Davies R, Dean C, Xu C, Kim KH, Vargas HM, Chellman GJ, Balasubramanian G, Rubio-Beltran E, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Monticello TM (2019) Nonclinical safety evaluation of erenumab, a CGRP receptor inhibitor for the prevention of migraine. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Aug 106:224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.05.013
Gangula PR, Dong YL, Wimalawansa SJ, Yallampalli C (2002) Infusion of pregnant rats with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)(8–37), a CGRP receptor antagonist, increases blood pressure and fetal mortality and decreases fetal growth. Biol Reprod Aug; 67(2):624–629. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod67.2.624
Fofi L, Egeo G, Aurilia C, Barbanti P (2021) Erenumab during pregnancy: a case report in a patient with chronic migraine. Neurol Sci May 42(5):2145–2146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04931-3
Vig SJ, Garza J, Tao Y (2022) The use of erenumab for migraine prophylaxis during pregnancy: a case report and narrative review. Headache Apr 25. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14305
Noseda R, Bedussi F, Gobbi C, Ceschi A, Zecca C (2023) Safety profile of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide system in pregnancy: updated analysis in VigiBase®. Cephalalgia Apr 43(4):3331024231158083. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231158083
Ailani J, Kaiser EA, Mathew PG, McAllister P, Russo AF, Vélez C, Ramajo AP, Abdrabboh A, Xu C, Rasmussen S, Tepper SJ (2022) Role of calcitonin gene-related peptide on the gastrointestinal symptoms of migraine-clinical considerations: a narrative review. Neurol Sep 20(19):841–853. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000201332
Falkenberg K, Bjerg HR, Olesen J (2020) Two-hour CGRP infusion causes gastrointestinal hyperactivity: possible relevance for CGRP antibody treatment. Headache May 60(5):929–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13795
Vgontzas A, Renthal W (2020) Predicting erenumab adverse events with single-cell genomics. Lancet. Jul 11;396(10244):95–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32952-6
Haanes KA, Edvinsson L, Sams A (2020) Understanding side-effects of anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP receptor antibodies. J Headache Pain. Mar 16;21(1):26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-020-01097-3
Noor-Mohammadi E, Ligon CO, Mackenzie K, Stratton J, Shnider S, Greenwood-Van Meerveld B (2021) A monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibody decreases Stress-Induced Colonic hypersensitivity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther Nov 379(3):270–279. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.121.000731
Wurthmann S, Nägel S, Hadaschik E, Schlott S, Scheffler A, Kleinschnitz C, Holle D (2020) Impaired wound healing in a migraine patient as a possible side effect of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody treatment: a case report. Cephalalgia Oct 40(11):1255–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102420933571
Cullum CK, Olsen MK, Kocadag HB, Ashina M, Amin FM (2021) Extreme ecchymoses in a migraine patient using concomitant treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibodies and fish oil supplements: a case report. BMC Neurol. Jul 2;21(1):257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02294-6
Sessa M, Andersen M (2021) New Insight on the safety of Erenumab: an analysis of spontaneous reports of adverse events recorded in the US Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting System Database. BioDrugs Mar 35(2):215–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-021-00469-8
Evers S, Wald S (2023) Effluvium and alopecia associated with monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide antibody use. Headache Jan 63(1):165–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14427
Ruiz M, Cocores A, Tosti A, Goadsby PJ, Monteith TS (2023) Alopecia as an emerging adverse event to CGRP monoclonal antibodies: cases Series, evaluation of FAERS, and literature review. Cephalalgia Feb 43(2):3331024221143538. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024221143538
Ray JC, Allen P, Bacsi A, Bosco JJ, Chen L, Eller M, Kua H, Lim LL, Matharu MS, Monif M, Ruttledge M, Stark RJ, Hutton EJ (2021) Inflammatory complications of CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a case series. J Headache Pain. Oct 9;22(1):121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-021-01330-7
Joshi N, McAree M, Klimowich K, Cahill K, Janora D (2020) Oral candidiasis in a migraine patient taking Erenumab and Galcanezumab: a Case Report. SN Compr Clin Med 2:658–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00300-5
Benschop RJ, Collins EC, Darling RJ, Allan BW, Leung D, Conner EM, Nelson J, Gaynor B, Xu J, Wang XF, Lynch RA, Li B, McCarty D, Nisenbaum ES, Oskins JL, Lin C, Johnson KW, Chambers MG (2014) Development of a novel antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide for the treatment of osteoarthritis-related pain. Osteoarthr Cartil Apr 22(4):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.01.009
Sui P, Wiesner DL, Xu J, Zhang Y, Lee J, Van Dyken S, Lashua A, Yu C, Klein BS, Locksley RM, Deutsch G, Sun X (2018) Pulmonary neuroendocrine cells amplify allergic asthma responses. Science. Jun 8;360(6393):eaan8546. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8546
Changeux JP, Duclert A, Sekine S (1992) Calcitonin gene-related peptides and neuromuscular interactions. Ann N Y Acad Sci Jun 30:657:361–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb22783.x
Gaydukov AE, Bogacheva PO, Balezina OP (2016) Calcitonin gene-related peptide increases acetylcholine quantal size in neuromuscular junctions of mice. Neurosci Lett Aug 15:628:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.014
Deng H, Li GG, Nie H, Feng YY, Guo GY, Guo WL, Tang ZP (2020) Efficacy and safety of calcitonin-gene-related peptide binding monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol Feb 15(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01633-3
González-Quintanilla V, Pérez-Pereda S, González-Suárez A, Madera J, Toriello M, Pascual J (2021) Restless legs-like syndrome as an emergent adverse event of CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a report of two cases. Cephalalgia Oct 41(11–12):1272–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024211017879
Funding
No specific funding for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors discussed in a preliminary meeting the concept and content of the article. JS did the major part of the literature search and provided a first draft. JV, KP and AvD provided additional data and corrected/completed several versions of the manuscript until the final version was agreed upon. All authors reviewed the manuscript several times.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Competing interests
JS has received personal compensation from Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen/Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Teva, Man & Science and Balancair for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, and/or speaking and is an investigator for Eli Lilly, Novartis,and Teva. AvD has no competing interests.JV received personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees from Novartis and Lundbeck, andgrants and non-financial support from Allergan/Abbvie.KP has received personal compensation from Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen/Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Teva for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, and/or speaking and is a clinical trial investigator for Amgen/Novartis and Eli Lilly.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Schoenen, J., Van Dycke, A., Versijpt, J. et al. Ten open questions in migraine prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide pathway: a narrative review. J Headache Pain 24, 99 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01637-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01637-7