{"title":"降钙素基因相关肽单克隆抗体治疗新发日常持续性头痛。","authors":"Sanjay Cheema, Khadija Rerhou Rantell, Rachel Pickering, Susie Lagrata, Salwa Kamourieh, Manjit Matharu","doi":"10.1186/s10194-025-02111-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a rare headache disorder that often resembles chronic migraine (CM) phenotypically, but unlike CM is daily from onset. Several calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have been proven to be effective in CM. It is not known whether CGRP mAbs are effective in NDPH. We sought to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP mAbs in NDPH and compare their effect in NDPH to CM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an observational study using prospectively collected data in consecutive patients treated with CGRP mAbs in three groups: Group 1 included patients with NDPH with migraine features; Group 2 included patients with CM with daily headache; and Group 3 patients with non-daily CM. Given the observational nature of the study, propensity score matching was used in an attempt to balance the three groups on baseline factors to make them comparable. The majority of patients were treated with erenumab while the remainder received galcanezumab. Patients completed a headache diary and disability questionnaires at baseline and 12-week follow-up, with the primary endpoint being the proportion who achieved a reduction of at least 30% in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days (MSHD) compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 patients with NDPH, 101 with daily-CM, and 68 with non-daily-CM were included. From baseline to week 12, 11/47 (23%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in MSHD, compared to 46/99 (46%) in daily CM (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.82-4.97, p = 0.125), and 51/61 (84%) in non-daily-CM (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.17-16.6, p = 0.028). Only 5/47 (11%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in monthly headache days, and 24/44 (54%) reported an overall subjective improvement of ≥ 30%. Almost 50% of patients experienced at least one side effect, which were mild in almost all cases, and similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CGRP mAbs were effective in approximately 1/4 patients with treatment-refractory NDPH,but less likely to be effective in NDPH than CM. This suggests that NDPH cannot be seen as equivalent to CM and that new treatment options are required for this highly disabling disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":16013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Headache and Pain","volume":"26 1","pages":"170"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12306023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment for new daily persistent headache.\",\"authors\":\"Sanjay Cheema, Khadija Rerhou Rantell, Rachel Pickering, Susie Lagrata, Salwa Kamourieh, Manjit Matharu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s10194-025-02111-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a rare headache disorder that often resembles chronic migraine (CM) phenotypically, but unlike CM is daily from onset. Several calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have been proven to be effective in CM. It is not known whether CGRP mAbs are effective in NDPH. We sought to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP mAbs in NDPH and compare their effect in NDPH to CM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an observational study using prospectively collected data in consecutive patients treated with CGRP mAbs in three groups: Group 1 included patients with NDPH with migraine features; Group 2 included patients with CM with daily headache; and Group 3 patients with non-daily CM. Given the observational nature of the study, propensity score matching was used in an attempt to balance the three groups on baseline factors to make them comparable. The majority of patients were treated with erenumab while the remainder received galcanezumab. Patients completed a headache diary and disability questionnaires at baseline and 12-week follow-up, with the primary endpoint being the proportion who achieved a reduction of at least 30% in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days (MSHD) compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 patients with NDPH, 101 with daily-CM, and 68 with non-daily-CM were included. From baseline to week 12, 11/47 (23%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in MSHD, compared to 46/99 (46%) in daily CM (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.82-4.97, p = 0.125), and 51/61 (84%) in non-daily-CM (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.17-16.6, p = 0.028). Only 5/47 (11%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in monthly headache days, and 24/44 (54%) reported an overall subjective improvement of ≥ 30%. Almost 50% of patients experienced at least one side effect, which were mild in almost all cases, and similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CGRP mAbs were effective in approximately 1/4 patients with treatment-refractory NDPH,but less likely to be effective in NDPH than CM. This suggests that NDPH cannot be seen as equivalent to CM and that new treatment options are required for this highly disabling disorder.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Headache and Pain\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12306023/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Headache and Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-025-02111-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Headache and Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-025-02111-2","RegionNum":1,"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
摘要
背景:新发持续性头痛(NDPH)是一种罕见的头痛疾病,其表型与慢性偏头痛(CM)相似,但与慢性偏头痛不同的是,新发性持续性头痛从发病起即为每日持续性头痛。几种降钙素基因相关肽单克隆抗体(CGRP mab)已被证明对CM有效。目前尚不清楚CGRP单克隆抗体是否对NDPH有效。我们试图评估CGRP单克隆抗体在NDPH中的疗效、耐受性和安全性,并比较它们在NDPH和CM中的效果。方法:我们对连续接受CGRP单克隆抗体治疗的患者进行了一项前瞻性收集数据的观察性研究,分为三组:第一组包括伴有偏头痛特征的NDPH患者;组2为CM伴每日头痛患者;3组为非日常CM。考虑到研究的观察性质,倾向评分匹配被用来试图平衡三组的基线因素,使它们具有可比性。大多数患者接受erenumab治疗,其余患者接受galcanezumab治疗。患者在基线和12周随访时完成头痛日记和残疾问卷调查,主要终点是与三组相比,每月中度至重度头痛天数(MSHD)减少至少30%的比例。结果:共纳入NDPH患者48例,每日cm患者101例,非每日cm患者68例。从基线到第12周,11/47(23%)的NDPH患者的MSHD改善≥30%,而每日CM组为46/99 (46%)(OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.82-4.97, p = 0.125),非每日CM组为51/61 (84%)(OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.17-16.6, p = 0.028)。只有5/47(11%)的NDPH患者每月头痛天数改善≥30%,24/44(54%)的患者总体主观改善≥30%。几乎50%的患者至少有一种副作用,在几乎所有病例中都是轻微的,两组之间相似。结论:CGRP单克隆抗体对大约1/4难治性NDPH患者有效,但对NDPH的有效性低于CM。这表明NDPH不能等同于CM,需要新的治疗方案来治疗这种高度致残的疾病。
Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment for new daily persistent headache.
Background: New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a rare headache disorder that often resembles chronic migraine (CM) phenotypically, but unlike CM is daily from onset. Several calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have been proven to be effective in CM. It is not known whether CGRP mAbs are effective in NDPH. We sought to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP mAbs in NDPH and compare their effect in NDPH to CM.
Methods: We performed an observational study using prospectively collected data in consecutive patients treated with CGRP mAbs in three groups: Group 1 included patients with NDPH with migraine features; Group 2 included patients with CM with daily headache; and Group 3 patients with non-daily CM. Given the observational nature of the study, propensity score matching was used in an attempt to balance the three groups on baseline factors to make them comparable. The majority of patients were treated with erenumab while the remainder received galcanezumab. Patients completed a headache diary and disability questionnaires at baseline and 12-week follow-up, with the primary endpoint being the proportion who achieved a reduction of at least 30% in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days (MSHD) compared between the three groups.
Results: A total of 48 patients with NDPH, 101 with daily-CM, and 68 with non-daily-CM were included. From baseline to week 12, 11/47 (23%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in MSHD, compared to 46/99 (46%) in daily CM (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.82-4.97, p = 0.125), and 51/61 (84%) in non-daily-CM (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.17-16.6, p = 0.028). Only 5/47 (11%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in monthly headache days, and 24/44 (54%) reported an overall subjective improvement of ≥ 30%. Almost 50% of patients experienced at least one side effect, which were mild in almost all cases, and similar between groups.
Conclusions: CGRP mAbs were effective in approximately 1/4 patients with treatment-refractory NDPH,but less likely to be effective in NDPH than CM. This suggests that NDPH cannot be seen as equivalent to CM and that new treatment options are required for this highly disabling disorder.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Headache and Pain, a peer-reviewed open-access journal published under the BMC brand, a part of Springer Nature, is dedicated to researchers engaged in all facets of headache and related pain syndromes. It encompasses epidemiology, public health, basic science, translational medicine, clinical trials, and real-world data.
With a multidisciplinary approach, The Journal of Headache and Pain addresses headache medicine and related pain syndromes across all medical disciplines. It particularly encourages submissions in clinical, translational, and basic science fields, focusing on pain management, genetics, neurology, and internal medicine. The journal publishes research articles, reviews, letters to the Editor, as well as consensus articles and guidelines, aimed at promoting best practices in managing patients with headaches and related pain.