Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Step Therapy in the Treatment of Migraine

  • Hot Topics in Pain and Headache (N Rosen, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Pain and Headache Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review examines recent evidence and applies bioethical principles to evaluate the benefits and risks of using step therapy in the treatment of migraine.

Recent Findings

With the CGRP mAbs, gepants, and lasmiditan now on the market for up to 5 years, new research, including network meta-analyses and long-term use studies, can evaluate the comparative efficacy, tolerability, and adherence of these medications relative to older acute and preventive medications for the treatment of migraine.

Summary

Deciding how medications are chosen for patients requires accounting for many factors including sustainability, efficacy, tolerability, and preference. Newer research can help give clarity on the appropriateness of gating certain treatment options behind others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •   Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, Bertozzi-Villa A, Biryukov S, Bolliger I, Charlson F, Davis A, Degenhardt L, Dicker D, Duan L. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burch R, Rizzoli P, Loder E. The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: updated age, sex, and socioeconomic‐specific estimates from government health surveys. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2021;61(1):60–8.

  3. Raval AD, Shah A. National trends in direct health care expenditures among US adults with migraine: 2004 to 2013. J Pain. 2017;18(1):96–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. • Gilligan AM, Foster SA, Sainski-Nguyen A, Sedgley R, Smith D, Morrow P. Direct and indirect costs among United States commercially insured employees with migraine. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(12):1120–7. Assessment of healthcare costs of patients with migraine.

  5. Devine J, Hadsall R, Cline R, Schommer J, Virnig B. Effect of daily migraine prevention on health care utilisation in an insured patient population. J Headache Pain. 2007;8:105–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lainez MJ. The effect of migraine prophylaxis on migraine-related resource use and productivity. CNS Drugs. 2009;23:727–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wertz DA, Quimbo RM, Yaldo AZ, Rupnow MF. Resource utilization impact of topiramate for migraine prevention in the managed-care setting. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(2):499–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Borges dos Santos MA, dos Santos Dias LL, Santos Pinto CD, da Silva RM, Osorio-de-Castro CG. Factors influencing pharmaceutical pricing-a scoping review of academic literature in health science. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019;12:1–2.

  9. Topiramate Drug Information. UpToDate. (n.d.). http://www.uptodate.com/contents/topiramate-drug-information?source=mostViewed_widget#F229190. Accessed 21 May 2023.

  10. Galcanezumab Drug Information. In: UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/galcanezumab-drug-information?source=auto_suggest&selectedTitle=1~1---1~4---galc&search=galcanezumab#F52042925. Accessed 21 May 2023

  11. Sumatriptan Drug Information. UpToDate. (n.d.-b). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/sumatriptan-drug-information?sectionName=Adult&topicId=9968&search=sumatriptan&usage_type=panel&anchor=F224280&source=panel_search_result&selectedTitle=1~44&showDrugLabel=true&kp_tab=drug_general&display_rank=1#F224261. Accessed 21 May 2023.

  12. Rimegepant Drug Information. UpToDate. (n.d.-b). https://www.uptodate.com/contents/rimegepant-drug-information?source=auto_suggest&selectedTitle=1~2---1~2---rime&search=rimegepant#F54266796. Accessed 21 May 2023.

  13. Hoffman S. Step therapy. Food Drug Law J. 2018;73(1):38–65.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sedghi T, Gronbeck C, Aiudi DA, Grant-Kels JM. Assessing the ethics of prior authorization denials and step therapy policies in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023.

  15. Silberstein SD, Winner PK, Chmiel JJ. Migraine preventive medication reduces resource utilization. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2003;43(3):171–8.

  16. Etemad LR, Yang W, Globe D, Barlev A, Johnson KA. Costs and utilization of triptan users who receive drug prophylaxis for migraine versus triptan users who do not receive drug prophylaxis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2005;11(2):137–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feliu AL, Rupnow MF, Blount A, Boccuzzi SJ, Vermilyea J. Resource use associated with topiramate in migraine prophylaxis. Am J Health-Syst pharm. 2007;64(14):1483–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Silberstein SD, Feliu AL, Rupnow MF, Blount AC, Boccuzzi SJ. Topiramate in migraine prophylaxis: long‐term impact on resource utilization and cost. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2007;47(4):500–10.

  19. • Foster SA, Hoyt M, Ye W, Mason O, Ford JH. Direct cost and healthcare resource utilization of patients with migraine before treatment initiation with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies by the number of prior preventive migraine medication classes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38(5):653–60. Examines underexplored topic of economic effect of medication non-responders.

  20. Khanal S, Underwood M, Naghdi S, Brown A, Duncan C, Matharu M, Mistry H. A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothrock JF, Bloudek LM, Houle TT, Andress‐Rothrock D, Varon SF. Real‐world economic impact of onabotulinumtoxin A in patients with chronic migraine. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2014;54(10):1565–73.

  22. Messali A, Owens G, Bloudek L, Kori S, Cole A, Chia J. Health care resource utilization following initiation of a triptan: a retrospective claims analysis. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(4):368–75.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marcus SC, Shewale AR, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Young WB, Viswanathan HN, Doshi JA. Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with migraine with potentially adequate and insufficient triptan response. Cephalalgia. 2020;40(7):639–49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Acute treatments for Migraine & Final policy recommendations - ICER. https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_Acute-Migraine_Final-Evidence-Report_Policy-Recommendations_022520-1.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2023

  25. Wilper A, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D, Nardin R. Impact of insurance status on migraine care in the United States: a population-based study. Neurology. 2010;74(15):1178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Minen MT, Lindberg K, Langford A, Loder E. Variation in prescription drug coverage for triptans: analysis of insurance formularies. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2017;57(8):1243–51.

  27. Wang V, Bieser S, Lowe A, Li M, Yuan H. CGRP antagonist (gepant) vs triptan use profiles in individuals with migraine: a multicenter electronic medical record analysis of patient characteristics and emergency department services utilization (P6–12.010).

  28. • Jackson JL, Cogbill E, Santana-Davila R, Eldredge C, Collier W, Gradall A, Sehgal N, Kuester J. A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis of drugs for the prophylaxis of migraine headache. PloSOne. 2015;10(7):e0130733. Older but thorough examination of comparative efficacy of preventive medication.

  29. • Ehrlich M, Hentschke C, Sieder C, Maier-Peuschel M, Reuter U. Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):1–8. One of only studies comparing a CGRP mAb with an oral preventive.

  30. Overeem LH, Raffaelli B, Mecklenburg J, Kelderman T, Neeb L, Reuter U. Indirect comparison of topiramate and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2021;35:805–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Frank F, Ulmer H, Sidoroff V, Broessner G. CGRP-antibodies, topiramate and botulinum toxin type A in episodic and chronic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia. 2021;41(11–12):1222–39. Comparison of CGRP mAbs, onabotA, and an oral preventive.

  32. Alpuente A, Gallardo VJ, Caronna E, Torres-Ferrús M, Pozo-Rosich P. Partial and nonresponders to onabotulinumtoxinA can benefit from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies preventive treatment: a real-world evidence study. Euro J Neurol. 2021;28(7):2378–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Goldstein J, Silberstein SD, Saper JR, Ryan Jr RE, Lipton RB. Acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine in combination versus ibuprofen for acute migraine: results from a multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐group, single‐dose, placebo‐controlled study. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2006;46(3):444–53.

  34. Jafari S, Khayyamfar F, Ansari I, Jafari R, Afshinmajd S. Comparison of ibuprofen and AAC (acetaminophen, aspirin, caffeine) for treating acute migraine episodes. J Basic Clin Pathophysiol. 2018;6(2):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Misra UK, Kalita J, Yadav RK. Rizatriptan vs. ibuprofen in migraine: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. J Headache Pain. 2007;8:175–9.

  36. Pini LA, Guerzoni S, Cainazzo M, Ciccarese M, Prudenzano MP, Livrea P. Comparison of tolerability and efficacy of a combination of paracetamol+ caffeine and sumatriptan in the treatment of migraine attack: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, cross-over study. J Headache Pain. 2012;13:669–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Goldstein J, Silberstein SD, Saper JR, Elkind AH, Smith TR, Gallagher RM, Battikha JP, Hoffman H, Baggish J. Acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine versus sumatriptan succinate in the early treatment of migraine: results from the ASSET trial. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2005;45(8):973–82.

  38. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Goadsby PJ. Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans vs other classes of acute migraine medication—a review. Cephalalgia. 2004;24(5):321–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Xu H, Han W, Wang J, Li M. Network meta-analysis of migraine disorder treatment by NSAIDs and triptans. J Headache Pain. 2016;17(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hou M, Liu H, Li Y, Xu L, He Y, Lv Y, Zheng Q, Li L. Efficacy of triptans for the treatment of acute migraines: a quantitative comparison based on the dose-effect and time-course characteristics. Euro J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75:1369–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. •• Johnston K, Popoff E, Deighton A, Dabirvaziri P, Harris L, Thiry A, Croop R, Coric V, L’Italien G, Moren J. Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22(1):155–66. One of few studies looking at comparative efficacy and tolerability of the gepants and lasmiditan.

  42. •• Yang CP, Liang CS, Chang CM, Yang CC, Shih PH, Yau YC, Tang KT, Wang SJ. Comparison of new pharmacologic agents with triptans for treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open. 2021;4(10):e2128544-. Comparison of new and old acute treatments for migraine.

  43. Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. He A, Song D, Zhang L, Li C. Unveiling the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications for migraine: pairwise and network-meta analysis. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Vécsei L, Majláth Z, Szok D, Csáti A, Tajti J. Drug safety and tolerability in prophylactic migraine treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14(5):667–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kangasniemi P, Hedman C. Metoprolol and propranolol in the prophylactic treatment of classical and common migraine. A double-blind study Cephalalgia. 1984;4(2):91–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Couch JR, Amitriptyline Versus Placebo Study Group. Amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of migraine and chronic daily headache. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2011;51(1):33–51.

  48. Couch JR, Hassanein RS. Amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis. Arch Neurol. 1979;36(11):695–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ahmed F, Gaul C, García-Moncó JC, Sommer K, Martelletti P. An open-label prospective study of the real-life use of onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine: the REPOSE study. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Guerzoni S, Pellesi L, Baraldi C, Cainazzo MM, Negro A, Martelletti P, Pini LA. Long-term treatment benefits and prolonged efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients affected by chronic migraine and medication overuse headache over 3 years of therapy. Front Neurol. 2017;8:586.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Argyriou AA, Dermitzakis EV, Vlachos GS, Vikelis M. Long-term adherence, safety, and efficacy of repeated onabotulinumtoxinA over five years in chronic migraine prophylaxis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2022;145(6):676–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Yalinay Dikmen P, Kosak S, Ilgaz Aydinlar E, Sagduyu KA. A single-center retrospective study of onabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of 245 chronic migraine patients: survey results of a real-world experience. Acta Neurol Belg. 2018;118(3):475–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Vandervorst F, Van Deun L, Van Dycke A, Paemeleire K, Reuter U, Schoenen J, Versijpt J. CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Krasenbaum LJ, Pedarla VL, Thompson SF, Tangirala K, Cohen JM, Driessen MT. A real-world study of acute and preventive medication use, adherence, and persistence in patients prescribed fremanezumab in the United States. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pozo-Rosich P, Detke HC, Wang S, Doležil D, Li LQ, Aurora SK, Reuter U. Long-term treatment with galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from the open-label extension of the REGAIN study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2022;38(5):731–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tinsley A, Rothrock JF. Safety and tolerability of preventive treatment options for chronic migraine. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2021;20(12):1523–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Camporeale A, Kudrow D, Sides R, Wang S, Van Dycke A, Selzler KJ, Stauffer VL. A phase 3, long-term, open-label safety study of Galcanezumab in patients with migraine. BMC Neurol. 2018;18(1):1–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Lambru G, Hill B, Murphy M, Tylova I, Andreou AP. A prospective real-world analysis of erenumab in refractory chronic migraine. J Headache Pain. 2020;21:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ornello R, Casalena A, Frattale I, Gabriele A, Affaitati G, Giamberardino MA, Assetta M, Maddestra M, Marzoli F, Viola S, Cerone D. Real-life data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab in the Abruzzo region, central Italy. J Headache Pain. 2020;21:1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Saely S, Croteau D, Jawidzik L, Brinker A, Kortepeter C. Hypertension: a new safety risk for patients treated with erenumab. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 2021;61(1):202–8.

  61. Ashina M, Kudrow D, Reuter U, Dolezil D, Silberstein S, Tepper SJ, Xue F, Picard H, Zhang F, Wang A, Zhou Y. Long-term tolerability and nonvascular safety of erenumab, a novel calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for prevention of migraine: a pooled analysis of four placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions. Cephalalgia. 2019;39(14):1798–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. •• Ashina M, Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Silberstein S, Dodick DW, Xue F, Zhang F, Paiva da Silva Lima G, Cheng S, Mikol DD. Long‐term efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: results from a 5‐year, open‐label treatment phase of a randomized clinical trial. European journal of neurology. 2021 May;28(5):1716–25. Longest study to date on efficacy and safety of a CGRP mAb.

  63. Thorlund K, Toor K, Wu P, Chan K, Druyts E, Ramos E, Bhambri R, Donnet A, Stark R, Goadsby PJ. Comparative tolerability of treatments for acute migraine: a network meta-analysis. Cephalalgia. 2017;37(10):965–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lipton RB, Marcus SC, Shewale AR, Dodick DW, Viswanathan HN, Doshi JA. Acute treatment patterns in patients with migraine newly initiating a triptan. Cephalalgia. 2020;40(5):437–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Yang CP, Liang CS, Chang CM, Yang CC, Shih PH, Yau YC, Tang KT, Wang SJ. Comparison of new pharmacologic agents with triptans for treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open. 2021;4(10):e2128544-.

  66. Johnston K, Popoff E, Deighton A, Dabirvaziri P, Harris L, Thiry A, Croop R, Coric V, L’Italien G, Moren J. Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis. Expert Rev of Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22(1):155–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Headache, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, 211 Quarry Road, Suite #206, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Leon S. Moskatel & Niushen Zhang

Authors
  1. Leon S. Moskatel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niushen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leon S. Moskatel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Leon Moskatel and Niushen Zhang declare no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moskatel, L.S., Zhang, N. The Role of Step Therapy in the Treatment of Migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep 27, 571–577 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-023-01155-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-023-01155-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation