Percorrer por autor "Pozo-Rosich, Patricia"
A mostrar 1 - 3 de 3
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Early use of erenumab vs nonspecific oral migraine preventives: the APPRAISE randomized clinical trialPublication . Pozo-Rosich, Patricia; Dolezil, David; Paemeleire, Koen; Stepien, Adam; Stude, Philipp; Snellman, Josefin; Arkuszewski, Michal; Stites, Tracy; Ritter, Shannon; Lopez, Cristina Lopez; Maca, Jeff; Ferraris, Matias; Gil-Gouveia, RaquelImportance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden. Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment. Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P <.001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.
- European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failurePublication . Sacco, Simona; Lampl, Christian; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Braschinsky, Mark; Deligianni, Christina; Uludüz, Derya; Versijpt, Jan; Ducros, Anne; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Katsarava, Zaza; Martelletti, Paolo; Ornello, Raffaele; Raffaelli, Bianca; Boucherie, Deirdre M.; Pozo-Rosich, Patricia; Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita; Sinclair, Alexandra; Maassen van den Brink, Antoinette; Reuter, UweBACKGROUND: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. MAIN BODY: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient's well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.
- Longitudinal assessment of migraine burden in resistant and refractory migraine – data from the prospective REFINE studyPublication . Pensato, Umberto; Ornello, Raffaele; Rosignoli, Chiara; Caponnetto, Valeria; Onofri, Agnese; Braschinsky, Mark; Sved, Olga; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Oliveira, Renato; Lampl, Christian; Paungarttner, Jakob; Martelletti, Paolo; Wells-Gatnik, William David; Martins, Isabel Pavao; Mitsikostas, Dimos D.; Apostolakopoulou, Loukia; Ozge, Aynur; Narin, Dilan Bayar; Pozo-Rosich, Patricia; Munoz-Vendrell, Albert; Prudenzano, Maria Pia; Gentile, Martino; Ryliskiene, Kristina; Vainauskiene, Jurgita; Sanchez-del-Rio, Margarita; Vernieri, Fabrizio; Iaccarino, Gianmarco; Waliszewska-Prosół, Marta; Budrewicz, Sławomir; Carnovali, Marta; Katsarava, Zaza; Sacco, SimonaBackground: Some individuals with migraine fail to respond adequately to preventive treatments, bearing most of migraine burden. The European Headache Federation (EHF) classifies these individuals into resistant migraine (ResM) or refractory migraine (RefM) according to treatment failures, debilitating headache days, and disease duration. We investigated the evolution of these categories over six months in patients treated at tertiary headache centers and whether they accurately reflect disability and burden. Methods: Participants from the multicenter, prospective REFINE study were classified into three categories of treatment responsiveness, namely RefM, ResM, and non-refractory non-resistant migraine (NRNRM). The primary objective was to determine the trajectories of category changes over six months. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A and HADS-D) scores. Results: Overall, 489 participants were included with a median age of 45 years (IQR = 36–53); 389 participants (79.7%) were female; 256 (52.4%) had NRNRM, 178 (36.4%) ResM, and 55 (11.2%) RefM. At follow-up, 200/256 (78.1%) NRNRM remained stable, while 56/256 (21.9%) progressed to ResM. Among those with ResM, 98/178 (55.1%) remained stable, 72/178 (40.5%) improved to NRNRM, and 8/178 (4.5%) worsened to RefM. Among participants with RefM, 37/55 (67.3%) remained stable, while 18/55 (32.7%) improved to NRNRM. Participants with RefM and ResM presented significantly higher scores at baseline than those with NRNRM. Over time, HIT-6, HALT, and HADS-A scores improved substantially in the overall cohort (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively). Improvements were observed in participants with ResM across all scores and HIT-6 and HALT for NRNRM, but no improvement was noted in participants with RefM. Conclusions: Over six months, ~ 40% of ResM and ~ 30% of RefM individuals improved to NRNRM, while ~ 20% of NRNRM developed treatment resistance after receiving care in tertiary headache centers. Participants with ResM had a better prognosis than those with RefM. While both ResM and RefM reflect high migraine disability burden, they might present relevant differences in their management and prognosis.