Effectiveness of switching strategies in CGRP monoclonal antibody therapy for migraine: A retrospective cohort study.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Headache Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1111/head.14865
Alex Jaimes, Andrea Gómez, Olga Pajares, Jaime Rodríguez-Vico
{"title":"Effectiveness of switching strategies in CGRP monoclonal antibody therapy for migraine: A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Alex Jaimes, Andrea Gómez, Olga Pajares, Jaime Rodríguez-Vico","doi":"10.1111/head.14865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of first switching between monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor in the treatment of migraine.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although mAbs targeting CGRP or its receptor have emerged as a leading treatment for migraine prevention, a proportion of patients do not respond. While switching between these antibodies is a common clinical practice in such cases, the effectiveness remains a subject of study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary headache center, analyzing data from clinical records of patients treated with anti-CGRP mAbs from January 2020 to March 2024. Baseline was defined as the monthly headache days (MHDs) in the 3 months prior to the start of the second mAb. The primary endpoint was the change in MHDs at month 3 and month 6 following the switch. Additionally, we evaluated response rates in both periods. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on changes in mechanism of action. Finally, we assessed the influence of the number of doses of the first mAb and the inter-treatment interval.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1244 initially identified patients, 185 were included in the month-3 analysis and 123 in the month-6 evaluation. The median MHDs decreased from 27.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 16.1, 30.0; range 5.0, 30.7) at baseline to 21.0 (IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 30.0; p < 0.001) at month 3, and to 20.0 (IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0; p < 0.001) at month 6. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in MHDs between maintaining the same target or changing it (baseline: 28.0 [IQR 16.2, 30.0; range 5.0, 31.0] vs. 27.0 [IQR 6.0, 31.0; range 6.0, 31.0]; month 3: 23.0 [IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0] vs. 19.0 [IQR 11.0, 30.0; range 1.0, 31.0], p = 0.144; month 6: 24.0 [IQR 11.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0] vs. 17.0 [IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 3.0, 31.0], p = 0.170). There was no association between a ≥50% reduction in MHDs and the number of previous doses of the first mAb (odds ratio [OR] 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0, 1.1; p = 0.189) or the inter-treatment interval (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.9, 1.1; p = 0.914).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Switching between anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in a reduction in MHDs, with no significant differences based on the mechanism of action. Factors such as the number of doses of the first mAb and the inter-treatment interval did not appear to predict a ≥50% reduction in MHDs at month 3. Our findings support the viability of switching as an effective treatment option for patients with migraine who do not respond to initial mAb therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14865","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of first switching between monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor in the treatment of migraine.

Background: Although mAbs targeting CGRP or its receptor have emerged as a leading treatment for migraine prevention, a proportion of patients do not respond. While switching between these antibodies is a common clinical practice in such cases, the effectiveness remains a subject of study.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary headache center, analyzing data from clinical records of patients treated with anti-CGRP mAbs from January 2020 to March 2024. Baseline was defined as the monthly headache days (MHDs) in the 3 months prior to the start of the second mAb. The primary endpoint was the change in MHDs at month 3 and month 6 following the switch. Additionally, we evaluated response rates in both periods. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on changes in mechanism of action. Finally, we assessed the influence of the number of doses of the first mAb and the inter-treatment interval.

Results: Out of 1244 initially identified patients, 185 were included in the month-3 analysis and 123 in the month-6 evaluation. The median MHDs decreased from 27.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 16.1, 30.0; range 5.0, 30.7) at baseline to 21.0 (IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 30.0; p < 0.001) at month 3, and to 20.0 (IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0; p < 0.001) at month 6. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in MHDs between maintaining the same target or changing it (baseline: 28.0 [IQR 16.2, 30.0; range 5.0, 31.0] vs. 27.0 [IQR 6.0, 31.0; range 6.0, 31.0]; month 3: 23.0 [IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0] vs. 19.0 [IQR 11.0, 30.0; range 1.0, 31.0], p = 0.144; month 6: 24.0 [IQR 11.0, 30.0; range 0.0, 31.0] vs. 17.0 [IQR 10.0, 30.0; range 3.0, 31.0], p = 0.170). There was no association between a ≥50% reduction in MHDs and the number of previous doses of the first mAb (odds ratio [OR] 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0, 1.1; p = 0.189) or the inter-treatment interval (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.9, 1.1; p = 0.914).

Conclusion: Switching between anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in a reduction in MHDs, with no significant differences based on the mechanism of action. Factors such as the number of doses of the first mAb and the inter-treatment interval did not appear to predict a ≥50% reduction in MHDs at month 3. Our findings support the viability of switching as an effective treatment option for patients with migraine who do not respond to initial mAb therapy.

CGRP单克隆抗体治疗偏头痛转换策略的有效性:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的:评价针对降钙素基因相关肽(CGRP)或其受体的单克隆抗体(mab)首次转换治疗偏头痛的有效性。背景:尽管针对CGRP或其受体的单克隆抗体已成为预防偏头痛的主要治疗方法,但仍有一部分患者没有反应。虽然在这种情况下,在这些抗体之间切换是一种常见的临床实践,但其有效性仍是一个研究课题。方法:我们在三级头痛中心进行了一项回顾性队列研究,分析了2020年1月至2024年3月期间抗cgrp单克隆抗体治疗患者的临床记录数据。基线定义为第二次单抗开始前3个月的每月头痛天数(mhd)。主要终点是转换后第3个月和第6个月mhd的变化。此外,我们评估了两个时期的反应率。根据作用机制的变化进行亚组分析。最后,我们评估了第一次单抗的剂量数量和治疗间隔的影响。结果:在最初确定的1244例患者中,185例纳入第3个月的分析,123例纳入第6个月的评估。中位数mhd从27.0下降(四分位数间距[IQR] 16.1, 30.0;范围5.0,30.7)基线至21.0 (IQR 10.0, 30.0;范围:0.0,30.0;p结论:切换抗cgrp单克隆抗体可降低mhd,但从作用机制来看无显著差异。诸如第一次单抗的剂量数和治疗间隔等因素似乎不能预测第3个月时mhd降低≥50%。我们的研究结果支持转换作为对初始单抗治疗无反应的偏头痛患者的有效治疗选择的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Headache
Headache 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信