Migraine and sleep disorders are common and often burdensome chronic conditions with a high prevalence in the general population, and with considerable socio-economic impact and costs. The existence of a relationship between migraine and sleep disorders has been recognized from centuries by clinicians and epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the exact nature of this association, the underlying mechanisms and interactions are complex and not completely understood. Recent biochemical and functional imaging studies identified central nervous system structures and neurotransmitters involved in the pathophysiology of migraine and also important for the regulation of normal sleep architecture, suggesting a possible causative role, in the pathogenesis of both disorders, of a dysregulation in these common nervous system pathways. This systematic review summarizes the existing data on migraine and sleep disorders with the aim to evaluate the existence of a causal relationship and to assess the presence of influencing factors. The identification of specific sleep disorders associated with migraine should induce clinicians to systematically assess their presence in migraine patients and to adopt combined treatment strategies.

Background: German authorities reimburse migraine prevention with erenumab only in patients who previously did not have therapeutic success with at least five oral prophylactics or have contraindications to such. In this real-world analysis, we assessed treatment response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) who failed five oral prophylactics and, in addition, onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA).Methods: We analyzed retrospective data of 139 CM patients with at least one injection of erenumab from two German headache centers. Patients previously did not respond sufficiently or had contraindications to β-blockers, flunarizine, topiramate, amitriptyline, valproate, and BoNTA. Primary endpoint of this analysis was the mean change in monthly headache days from the 4-weeks baseline period over the course of a 12-weeks erenumab therapy. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly migraine days, days with severe headache, days with acute headache medication, and triptan intake in the treatment period.Results: Erenumab (starting dose 70 mg) led to a reduction of −3.7 (95% CI 2.4-5.1) monthly headache days after the first treatment and −4.7 (95% CI 2.9-6.5) after three treatment cycles (p < 0.001 for both). All secondary endpoint parameters were reduced over time. Half of patients (51.11%) had a >30% reduction of monthly headache days in weeks 9-12. Only 4.3% of the patients terminated erenumab treatment due to side effects. Conclusion:In this treatment-refractory CM population, erenumab showed efficacy in a real-world setting similar to data from clinical trials. Tolerability was good, and no safety issues emerged. Erenumabis is a treatment option for CM patients who failed all first-line preventives in addition to BoNTA.

Background Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab. Methods We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache. Results The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

Background National and international guidelines recommend stopping migraine prophylaxis with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies after 6–12 months of successful therapy. In this study, we aimed to analyze the course of migraine for four months after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies use. Methods This longitudinal cohort study included patients with migraine who received a CGRP-(receptor) antibody for ≥8 months before treatment cessation. We analyzed headache data in the four-week period prior to mAb treatment initiation (baseline), in the month before the last mAb injection, in weeks 5–8 and 13–16 after last treatment. Primary endpoint of the study was the change of monthly migraine days from the month before last treatment to weeks 13–16. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use. Results A total of 62 patients equally distributed between prophylaxis with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab and the CGRP antibodies galcanezumab or fremanezumab participated in the study. Patients reported 8.2 ± 6.6 monthly migraine days in the month before last treatment. Monthly migraine days gradually increased to 10.3 ± 6.8 in weeks 5–8 (p = 0.001) and to 12.5 ± 6.6 in weeks 13–16 (p < 0.001) after drug cessation. Monthly migraine days in weeks 13–16 were not different from baseline values (−0.8 ± 5.4; p > 0.999). Monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use showed a similar pattern. Conclusions The cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies migraine prophylaxis was associated with a significant increase of migraine frequency and acute medication intake over time.

Background Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption. Methods Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period. Results This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life. Conclusions Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.