Skip to main content
Download PDF

Real-world evidence of fremanezumab for treating migraine in Japan: a retrospective study

BMC Neurology volume 23, Article number: 404 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There have been very few real-world studies reported in the literature solely focusing on fremanezumab in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in a real-world setting in Japan.

Method

This single-centered, observational, retrospective study examined patients with migraines who received four doses of fremanezumab between December 2021 and August 2022 at Keio University Hospital. We assessed the changes in monthly migraine days, responder rates, and migraine-associated symptoms, as well as injection site reactions and adverse events.

Result

Twenty-nine patients were enrolled, wherein 79.3% were women. Compared with those at baseline, the monthly migraine days decreased by 5.9 days at 4 months. The 50% responder rate was 55.2% at 4 months. A total of 57.9%, 47.8%, and 65.0% of patients showed improvement in the severity of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea/vomiting, respectively. Moreover, injection site reactions were the most common adverse events (55.2%).

Conclusion

Fremanezumab is effective and safe for migraine prevention in Japan. Fremanezumab also improved migraine-associated symptoms in half of the patients.

Peer Review reports

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder with a high prevalence (8.4–14.4%) and burden on patients [1,2,3]. Migraine preventive treatments have improved dramatically with the development of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted drugs [4]. The expert consensus statement of the European Headache Foundation guidelines states that monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the CGRP pathway should be included as first-line treatment options [5]. Clinical studies have indicated the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab, an anti-CGRP mAb (CGRPmAb), in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) [6,7,8]. Fremanezumab is the second CGRPmAb to be approved in Japan, along with erenumab (June 2021), after galcanezumab (January 2021). Clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of fremanezumab in Japanese and Korean patients with EM and CM. In an EM study, the 50% responder rate (RR) was 41.3% for monthly dosing and 45.3% for quarterly dosing after 12 weeks. In a CM study, the 50% RR was 29.0% for monthly dosing and 29.1% for quarterly dosing after 12 weeks [9, 10]. A sub-analysis focusing only on Japanese patients has been reported, showing efficacy and safety in Japanese patients [11, 12]. The criteria for administering CGRPmAb differ between Japan and other countries. In Japan, CGRPmAb can be used in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and in those who have undergone treatment with at least one migraine-preventive drug (e.g., lomerizine, propranolol, or valproate), with ineffectiveness, intolerance, or strong concern about side effects [13]. Onabotulinum toxin A, a drug used globally for chronic migraines, has not been approved in Japan. Comparing clinical trials with real-world (RW) studies, clinical trials more likely to have a relatively homogeneous population, and the data quality is higher because headaches are assessed in detail using electronic headache diaries. Many trials excluded patients with special medical conditions or a high number of prophylactic drug failures (some trials included a large number of prophylactic drug failures) [6,7,8,9,10]. In many cases, no other prophylaxis is used during clinical trials; if used, it is used only in a small number of cases. By contrast, patients in RW studies have diverse backgrounds. In RW studies, the effect of CGRPmAb is often greater than that in clinical trials, partly because no placebo is used for comparison. Thus, it is important to construct RW evidence that reflects daily practices regarding CGRPmAb.

Two RW studies reported the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in Italy [14, 15]. The 50% RR at 3 months was 64.2% [14]. We have recently published RW evidence paper on galcanezumab from Japan, which showed a 50% responder rate of 61.5% at 3 months [16]. There have been RW evidence studies on CGRPmAbs, including fremanezumab, from Japan [17, 18]. To the best of our knowledge, only one other RW study solely focusing on fremanezumab have been published in international journal from Japan or Asia [19]. Differences in race or criteria for the use of fremanezumab may cause dissimilar results between Japanese studies and those from other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in RW settings in Japan.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Keio University School of Medicine (approval number:20211144), Tokyo, Japan. The patients were informed about this observational study via the institute’s website and could opt out of the study. The need for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Keio University School of Medicine in accordance with national regulations (Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects) [16]. The patients included in this study partly overlapped with previously reported responder analysis study that gathered information about fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab [20].

Patients

Patients were administered fremanezumab 225 mg subcutaneously (i.e., a single dose) at the first administration in our hospital. Next, the patients were administered 225 mg of subcutaneous fremanezumab monthly or 675 mg quarterly at the second visit, according to their preference. We started with a single dose of fremanezumab instead of three because each dose costs approximately 12,350 yen (88 USD as of June 2023) for most patients subscribing to the Japanese insurance system. During the study period, fremanezumab was only permitted in the syringe and not by self-injection in Japan; therefore, patients who did not prefer monthly visits to the hospital tended to choose quarterly dosing from the second dose.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: treatment with fremanezumab for 4 months as the first CGRPmAb (de novo) either via monthly injections of fremanezumab 225 mg for four times or a dose of fremanezumab 225 mg at the first administration and a quarterly dose of fremanezumab 675 mg at the second administration from the headache group of the Keio University Hospital between December 2021 (when the drug became available at the hospital) and August 2022; fulfillment of the diagnostic criteria for migraine, including probable migraine, according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3); and age ≥ 18 years. The patients were diagnosed with migraine by a headache specialist. Non-Asian patients were excluded (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient selection

Full size image

Research items

We retrospectively collected demographic data, medical history, family history of headache, and migraine characteristics. Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) [21, 22] and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [23] were assessed before administering CGRPmAbs to determine the extent of anxiety and depression, respectively. We also collected migraine-preventive drug data, including the drugs administered (lomerizine, propranolol, valproate, amitriptyline, or topiramate), the use or non-use of preventive drugs at the first dose, and the handling of preventive drugs at the first dose [16].

Headache specialists explained the criteria for migraine based on the ICHD-3 to all patients, who were asked to track their headache and migraine days, including probable migraine days. Patients completed a questionnaire on monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD), pain intensity (0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS)), and associated symptoms (none, mild, moderate or severe) at baseline and after the first, second, third, and fourth months (Supplementary Fig. 1). The patients who injected quarterly doses recorded questionnaire monthly as well. Headache specialists verified the accuracy and reliability of the completed questionnaires by interviewing and occasionally reviewing each patient’s headache diary [16].

Information on the injection sites, reactions (pain, redness, swelling, numbness, or others), severity, and other adverse reactions were also collected in the questionnaire. The patients were asked about their satisfaction levels at 4 months after receiving fremanezumab [16].

Outcomes

We investigated the efficacy of the therapy by measuring the changes in MMD, MHD, AMD, NRS scores, and associated symptoms. The primary endpoints were a change in the MMD from baseline and 50% responder rate (RR) based on MMD. The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in MHD; AMD; NRS; 25%, 75%, and 100% RR; and associated symptoms. We defined an improvement in associated symptoms as a reduction in symptom severity (e.g., severe to mild), and a disappearance as a disappearance of symptoms (e.g., severe to none). For safety, we investigated the injection sites and reactions, and other adverse events [16].

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as number (percent) and mean ± standard deviation. Differences from baseline in MMD, MHD, AMD, and NRS and their least-squares means were analyzed using the mixed-effects model for repeated measures, with time as a fixed effect and individual as a random effect. The correlation structure was defined as unstructured. Normality was assessed visually using residual plots. We did not impute missing data. The statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 [16].

Results

Patients

Forty-three patients who experienced migraine received fremanezumab for the first time between December 2021 and August 2022. We excluded one non-Asian patient. Twelve patients received fremanezumab for < 4 months: 5 discontinued fremanezumab due to adverse effects (constipation, pruritus, and skin rash) or ineffectiveness, and 7 started fremanezumab later than 4 months before the end of the study period. We excluded one patient who switched from monthly to quarterly doses during the third administration. Twenty-nine patients were considered eligible for the efficacy and safety analyses (225 mg monthly only, n = 19; 225 mg/625 mg quarterly, n = 10) (Fig. 1).

Baseline characteristics

Most of the patients were women, and the mean age was 47.2 ± 12.4 (26–72) years. The mean MMD, MHD, and AMD were 12.6 ± 7.2 days/month, 14.7 ± 7.1 days/month, and 10.5 ± 7.3 days/month, respectively. At baseline, 34.5% and 24.1% of patients were diagnosed with CM and MOH, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients
Full size table

Preventive drugs

In terms of previous use of other migraine preventives, 22 (75.9%), 3 (10.3%), 18 (62.1%), 7 (24.1%), and 4 (13.8%) patients had used lomerizine, propranolol, valproate, amitriptyline, and topiramate, respectively. Eleven (37.9%) patients used only one preventive drug, and the mean number of previous migraine preventives used was 1.9 ± 0.8. Twenty (69.0%) patients were using migraine prophylaxis at the time of initiating fremanezumab. Approximately half of the patients discontinued migraine prevention after the first dose of fremanezumab (Table 2).

Table 2 Preventive drugs used in studied patients
Full size table

Efficacy of fremanezumab for headache

All

At baseline, the average MMD was 12.6 ± 7.2 days/month. Compared with this baseline, MMD decreased by 5.9 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6–8.2; p < 0.001) at 1 month, 6.0 days (95% CI, 3.8–8.3; p < 0.001) at 2 months, 5.5 days (95% CI, 3.1–7.9; p < 0.001) at 3 months, and 5.9 days (95% CI, 3.1–8.7; p < 0.001) at 4 months. The MHD, AMD, and NRS scores were significantly reduced at 1 month compared to those at baseline (Fig. 2a). The 50% RR was 65.5% (95%CI, 45.7–82.1) at 1 month, 59.3% (95%CI, 38.8–77.6) at 2 months, 53.6% (95%CI, 33.9–72.5) at 3 months, and 55.2% (95%CI, 35.7–73.6) at 4 months; the 100% RR was 10.3% (95%CI, 2.2–27.4) at 4 months (Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Efficacy of fremanezumab in all patients. a Changes in MMD, MHD, AMD, and NRS from baseline. *Significant difference compared with baseline. * adjusted p < 0.05; **adjusted p < 0.01; ***adjusted p < 0.001. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Abbreviations: MMD, monthly migraine days; MHD, monthly headache days; AMD, monthly days with acute medication use; NRS, numerical rating scale; 1 M, 1 month; 2 M; 2 months; 3 M; 3 months; 4 M, 4 months. b Responder rates. Proportion of patients with responder rates of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Abbreviations: 1 M, 1 month; 2 M, 2 months; 3 M, 3 months; 4 M, 4 months; RR, responder rate

Full size image

EM (n = 19)

At baseline, the mean MMD was 8.8 ± 2.8 days/month. Compared with this baseline, MMD decreased by 4.0 days (95% CI, 1.5–6.5; p = 0.003) at 1 month, 4.4 days (95% CI, 2.4–6.4; p < 0.001) at 2 months, 4.1 days (95% CI, 2.2–6.0; p < 0.001) at 3 months, and 3.8 days (95% CI, 1.3–6.3; p = 0.005) at 4 months (Fig. 3a). The 50% RR was 63.2% (95% CI, 38.4–83.7) at 1 month, 63.2% (95% CI, 38.4–83.7) at 2 months, 57.9% (95% CI, 33.5–79.7) at 3 months, and 52.6% (95% CI, 28.9–75.6) at 4 months; the 100% RR was 15.8% (95% CI, 3.4–39.6) at 4 months (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with EM and CM. a Changes in MMD from baseline. *Significant difference compared with baseline. * adjusted p < 0.05; **adjusted p < 0.01; ***adjusted p < 0.001. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Abbreviations: MMD, monthly migraine day; EM, episodic migraine; CM, chronic migraine; 1 M, 1 month; 2 M, 2 months; 3 M, 3 months; 4 M, 4 months. b Responder rates. Proportion of patients with responder rates of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Abbreviations: EM, episodic migraine; CM, chronic migraine; 1 M, 1 month; 2 M, 2 months; 3 M, 3 months; 4 M, 4 months; RR, responder rate

Full size image

CM (n = 10)

At baseline, the average MMD was 19.7 ± 7.6 days/month. Compared with this baseline, MMD decreased by 9.5 days (95% CI, 5.2–13.8; p < 0.001) at 1 month, 8.6 days (95% CI, 0.8–16.5; p = 0.036) at 2 months, 8.6 days (95% CI, 1.1–16.0; p = 0.030) at 3 months, and 9.9 days (95% CI, 3.2–16.6; p = 0.009) at 4 months (Fig. 3a). The 50% RR was 70% (95% CI, 34.8–93.3) at 1 month, 50.0% (95% CI, 15.7–84.3) at 2 months, 44.4% (95% CI, 13.7–78.8) at 3 months, and 60.0% (95% CI, 26.2–87.8) at 4 months; the 100% RR was not observed (Fig. 3b).

Quarterly (n = 10)

5 EM patients (26.3%) and 5 CM patients (50.0%), comprising 34.5% of studied patients, chose one dose of fremanezumab as the first dose and a quarterly dose of fremanezumab as the second dose. At baseline, the average MMD was 14.4 ± 8.6 days/month. Compared with this baseline, MMD decreased by 8.5 days (95% CI, 4.0–13.0; p = 0.002) at 1 month, 9.7 days (95% CI, 4.3–15.1; p = 0.003) at 2 months, 8.4 days (95% CI, 2.2–14.6; p = 0.015) at 3 months, and 8.5 days (95% CI, 3.6–13.4; p = 0.004) at 4 months (Fig. 4a). The 50% RR was 80.0% (95% CI, 44.4–97.5) at 1 month, 75.0% (95% CI, 34.9–96.8) at 2 months, 55.6% (95% CI, 21.2–86.3) at 3 months, and 70.0% (95% CI, 34.8–93.3) at 4 months; the 100% RR was 20.0% (95% CI, 2.5–55.6) at 4 months (Fig. 4b). At 1 month, the 50% RR of the patients who received one dose a month and the following quarterly doses was higher than that of those who received only monthly doses, but the result was not statistically significant (80% (95% CI, 44.4–97.5) vs 57.9% (95% CI, 33.5–79.7); p = 0.234) (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Efficacy of fremanezumab for quarterly patients. Patients received fremanezumab (225 mg) as the first dose and a quarterly dose of fremanezumab (675 mg) as the second dose. a Changes in MMD from baseline. *Significant difference compared with baseline. * adjusted p < 0.05; **adjusted p < 0.01; ***adjusted p < 0.001. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Abbreviations. MMD, monthly migraine days; 1 M, 1 month; 2 M, 2 months; 3 M, 3 months; 4 M, 4 months. b Responder rates. Proportion of patients with responder rates of 25, 50, 75, and 100

Full size image

Associated symptoms

An improvement in photophobia was recorded in 68.4% (95% CI, 43.4–87.4), 52.6% (95% CI, 28.9–75.6), 57.9% (95% CI, 33.5–79.7), and 57.9% (95%CI, 33.5–79.7) of the patients at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months, respectively. An improvement in phonophobia was recorded in 56.5% (95% CI, 34.5–76.8), 50.0% (95% CI, 28.2–71.8), 54.5% (95% CI, 32.2–75.6), and 47.8% (95% CI, 26.8–69.4) of the patients at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months, respectively. An improvement in nausea/vomiting was recorded in 65.0% (95% CI, 40.8–84.6), 55.0% (95% CI, 31.5–76.9), 65.0% (95%CI, 40.8–84.6), and 65.0% (95% CI, 40.8–84.6) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months, respectively (Fig. 5). Photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea/vomiting disappeared in 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6–56.6), 39.1% (95% CI, 19.7–61.5), and 45.0% (95% CI, 23.1–68.5) of the patients with symptoms at baseline, respectively, at 4 months (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Improvement and disappearance of the associated symptoms. A Photophobia, B Phonophobia, and C Nausea/vomiting

Full size image

Safety

All patients received fremanezumab at least once on the forearm (Table 3a). Eight (28.6%), eight (28.6%), six (31.6%) and, six (31.6%) patients showed injection site reactions after the first, second, third, and fourth injections, respectively. During 4 months, 16 (55.2%) patients had at least one episode of injection site reaction. The injection site reactions were mild to moderate, except in two patients who experienced severe redness and swelling (Table 3b). Swelling was the most commonly reported injection site reaction (Table 3c). Adverse events other than injection site reactions are shown in Table 4.

Table 3 Injection site and injection site reaction after fremenezumab
Full size table
Table 4 Other adverse events
Full size table

Satisfaction level

Among patients who were administered fremanezumab, 15 (51.7%) were very satisfied with the therapy, 10 (34.5%) were somewhat satisfied, and 4 (13.8%) were unsatisfied.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the second RW study focusing solely on fremanezumab in Asian patients with migraine to be reported in an international journal [19]. Our results suggest that fremanezumab is effective and safe in the Japanese population.

The efficacy of fremanezumab has been confirmed in randomized controlled trials, such as the HALO-EM and CM studies. In the HALO-EM study, the change in MMD was -3.7 days/month for monthly dosing and -3.4 days/month for quarterly dosing, and the 50% RR was 47.7% for monthly dosing and 44.4% for quarterly dosing [6]. In the HALO-CM study, the change in MHD was -4.6 days/month for monthly dosing and -4.3 days/month for quarterly dosing, and the 50% RR was 40.8% for monthly dosing and 37.6% for quarterly dosing [8]. clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of fremanezumab in Japanese and Korean patients with EM and CM. In the EM study, the change in MMD was -4.0 days/month for monthly dosing and -4.0 days/month for quarterly dosing, and the 50% RR was 41.3% for monthly dosing and 45.3% for quarterly dosing [10]. In the CM study, the change in headache days of at least moderate severity per month was -4.1 days/month for monthly dosing and -4.1 days/month for quarterly dosing, and the 50% RR was 29.0% for monthly dosing and 29.1% for quarterly dosing [9]. The efficacy (EM: -3.8 MMD and 50% RR of 52.6%; CM: -9.9 MMD and 50% RR of 60.0%) was better in this RW study than that in the above clinical trials.

There was a multicenter RW cohort study on fremanezumab efficacy published in Italy [14], wherein 67.9% of the patients had CM, whereas only 34.5% of the patients in the present study had CM. At baseline, MMD/MHD was 17.0 ± 6.2 in the Italy study, while MMD was 12.6 ± 7.2 in this study. In terms of the unsuccessful previous preventive drugs, the percentage of patients with \(\ge\) 3 failures was 92.0% in Italy and 20.6% in this study. Onabotulinumtoxin A was used in previous studies (Italy, 6.9%) but not in the current study. As for the 50% RR at 3 months, the 50% RR was considered as 64.2% in the Italian study [14]. The 50% RR at 3 months was 53.6% in the present study. Previous studies reported that the total number of prior treatment failures is a negative predictor of response [18, 20, 24, 25]. Therefore, the 50% RR in this study would have been expected to be higher than that reported by the Italian study, but the numbers were similar between two studies. This may be due to the difference in the way of assessing endpoints (i.e. MMD/MHD for EM/CM in Italian study, and MMD in our study).

There have been RW studies on CGRPmAbs, including fremanezumab, in Japan [17, 18]. In Suzuki's study (228 patients: 45 erenumab, 123 fremanezumab, and 60 galcanezumab), the 50% RR at 3 months was 48.2% [18], which is similar to our study (53.6%). Recently, another paper from Japan solely focusing on fremanezumab has been published [19]. As for the 50% RR at 4 months, our study and the recent study showed similar numbers (56.6% and 55.2%) suggesting adequate efficacy of fremanezumab in Japanese real-world population [19].

In our study, 10 patients started with fremanezumab 225 mg as the first dose and changed to fremanezumab 675 mg (quarterly dosing) from the second month. These patients showed sustained benefit with a high 50% RR (1 month: -8.5 MMD and 50% RR of 80.0%; 4 months: -8.5 MMD and 50% RR of 70.0%). In this RW study, it is not recommended to compare monthly vs quarterly dosing due to the possible selection bias. The dosing change was based on patients’ preferences. Those who preferred a quarterly dose in the beginning may have chosen to continue with the monthly dose if they were suspicious of the effect at 1 month, ending up in the monthly injection group.

All three associated symptoms improved in the present study. In the Phase 3 HALO-EM study, fremanezumab reduced all three associated symptoms after 4 weeks. Fremanezumab significantly reduced the monthly average number of days with photophobia and phonophobia and nausea or vomiting from baseline for monthly (-3.0 ± 0.23 days, -3.0 ± 0.22 days, -2.1 ± 0.19 days) and quarterly (-2.8 ± 0.23 days, -2.7 ± 0.22 days, -1.9 ± 0.19 days) dosing strategies during the 12-week treatment period [26]. Efficacy for associated symptoms was also observed at 1 month in this study. The rates of improvement in the associated photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea/vomiting were 68.4%, 56.5%, and 65.0% at 1 month, respectively, and 57.9%, 47.8%, and 65.0% at 4 months, respectively.

As for adverse reactions, injection site reactions were reported more frequently (up to 55.2% reported at least once) in our study compared to other real-world studies (< 9%) [14, 15, 19]. This may be due to the difference in study design. We asked about the status of adverse events especially about injection site reaction using questionnaire for each visit. We speculate that the use of a questionnaire probably increased the reporting rate of adverse event.

No serious adverse events were observed in patients who received fremanezumab, and the most frequent adverse events were injection site reactions. However, three patients discontinued fremanezumab due to side effects (constipation, pruritus, and skin rash). In our previous galcanezumab RW study, the most frequent injection reaction was pain, while in this study, the most frequent injection reaction was swelling [16]. This difference may be due to differences in the injection devices (galcanezumab, auto-injector; fremanezumab, syringe at the time of the study).

Satisfaction rate (very satisfied and somewhat satisfied) was high at 86.2%. High satisfaction rates with anti-CGRPmAbs have also been reported [27]. Considering those who discontinued fremanezumab owing to adverse events and ineffectiveness, the satisfaction rate was still high at 73.5% in our current study. These numbers are compatible with our report on satisfaction levels with galcanezumab (74.5%) [16].

This study has several strengths. It is the second RW study from Asia that describes the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab solely in migraines. Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the efficacy of changing the dosage from monthly to quarterly. Additionally, we analyzed the improvement in migraine-associated symptoms with fremanezumab, which has not been previously studied in the RW setting.

However, this study had limitations including a small sample size, retrospective nature, single-center design, short observation period of 4 months, and selection bias regarding different schedules of administration. The primary endpoint (migraine days) was mainly assessed with questionnaires and not by the actual headache diaries, which were only checked in some cases [16, 20]. Thus, further studies are necessary to elucidate the effects of fremanezumab.

Conclusions

This study revealed that fremanezumab is effective and safe for migraine prevention in Japan. Fremanezumab also improved migraine-associated symptoms in approximately half of the patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CGRP:

Calcitonin gene-related peptide

CGRPmAb:

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies

EM:

Episodic migraine

CM:

Chronic migraine

RR:

Responder rate

RW:

Real-world

ICHD-3:

International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition

GAD-7:

Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7

PHQ-9:

Patient Health Questionnaire-9

MMD:

Monthly migraine days

MHD:

Monthly headache days

AMD:

Monthly acute medication days

NRS:

Numerical rating scale

MOH:

Medication-overuse headache

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. GBD 2016 Headache Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:954–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sakai F, Igarashi H. Prevalence of migraine in Japan: a nationwide survey. Cephalalgia. 1997;17:15–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Jensen R, Uluduz D, Katsarava Z, Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. Migraine remains second among the world’s causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD 2019. J Headache Pain. 2020;21:137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Edvinsson L, Goadsby PJ. Discovery of CGRP in relation to migraine. Cephalalgia. 2019;39:331–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sacco S, Amin FM, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, et al. European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Bigal ME, Yeung PP, Goadsby PJ, Blankenbiller T, et al. Effect of fremanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic migraine: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:1999–2008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrari MD, Diener HC, Ning X, Galic M, Cohen JM, Yang R, et al. Fremanezumab versus placebo for migraine prevention in patients with documented failure to up to four migraine preventive medication classes (FOCUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1030–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Bigal ME, Yeung PP, Goadsby PJ, Blankenbiller T, et al. Fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2113–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sakai F, Suzuki N, Kim B, Igarashi H, Hirata K, Takeshima T, et al. Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in Japanese and Korean patients. Headache. 2021;61:1092–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sakai F, Suzuki N, Kim BK, Tatsuoka Y, Imai N, Ning X, et al. Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for episodic migraine prevention: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in Japanese and Korean patients. Headache. 2021;61:1102–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Saigoh K, et al. Fremanezumab for episodic migraine prevention in Japanese patients: subgroup analysis from two international trials. J Pain Res. 2023;16:1673–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Saigoh K, et al. Fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention in japanese patients: subgroup analysis from two international trials. J Pain Res. 2023;16:1311–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Guidelines for promotion of optimal use of fremanezumab. Accessed 24 February 2023; published 2021.

  14. Barbanti P, Egeo G, Aurilia C, d’Onofrio F, Albanese M, Cetta I, et al. Fremanezumab in the prevention of high-frequency episodic and chronic migraine: a 12-week, multicenter, real-life, cohort study (the FRIEND study). J Headache Pain. 2022;23:46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Barbanti P, Egeo G, Aurilia C, Torelli P, Finocchi C, d’Onofrio F, et al. Early and sustained efficacy of fremanezumab over 24-weeks in migraine patients with multiple preventive treatment failures: the multicenter, prospective, real-life FRIEND2 study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24:30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Takizawa T, Ohtani S, Watanabe N, Miyazaki N, Ishizuchi K, Sekiguchi K, et al. Real-world evidence of galcanezumab for migraine treatment in Japan: a retrospective analysis. BMC Neurol. 2022;22:512.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ito Y, Mitsufuji T, Okada M, Fujita S, Yokoyama R, Kawasaki H, Yamamoto T. Early Effect of Calcitonin Generelated Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine with Medication Overuse: A Single-center Retrospective Study. Intern Med; 2023. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.1471-22. Epub ahead of print.

  18. Suzuki K, Suzuki S, Shiina T, Tatsumoto M, Fujita H, Haruyama Y, et al. Effectiveness of three calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: a 12-month, single-center, observational real-world study in Japan. Cephalalgia. 2023;43:3331024231177649.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Suzuki S, et al. Real-world experience with monthly and quarterly dosing of fremanezumab for the treatment of patients with migraine in Japan. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1220285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ihara K, Ohtani S, Watanabe N, Takahashi N, Miyazaki N, Ishizuchi K, et al. Predicting response to CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine in Japan: a single-centre retrospective observational study. J Headache Pain. 2023;24:23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Muramatsu K, Seiryo N, Muramatsu Y, Miyaoka H, Fuse K, Yoshine F, et al. Validation and utility of Japanese version of the GAD-7. PANMINERVA medica. Admin Book 20th World Congress on Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 51; 2009. p. 79.

  22. Doi S, Ito M, Takebayashi Y, Muramatsu K, Horikoshi M. Factorial validity and invariance of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) among populations with and without self-reported psychiatric diagnostic status. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1741.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Muramatsu K, Miyaoka H, Kamijima K, Muramatsu Y, Tanaka Y, Hosaka M, et al. Performance of the Japanese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (J-PHQ-9) for depression in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2018;52:64–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baraldi C, Castro FL, Cainazzo MM, Pani L, Guerzoni S. Predictors of response to erenumab after 12 months of treatment. Brain Behav. 2021;11:e2260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zecca C, Cargnin S, Schankin C, Giannantoni NM, Viana M, Maraffi I, et al. Clinic and genetic predictors in response to erenumab. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29:1209–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Yeung PP, Sakai F, Aycardi E, Blankenbiller T, et al. Effects of fremanezumab on the use of acute headache medication and associated symptoms of migraine in patients with episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2020;40:470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. López-Bravo A, Oliveros-Cid A, Sevillano-Orte L. Treatment satisfaction with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies as a new patient-reported outcome measure: a real-life experience in migraine. Acta Neurol Scand. 2022;145:669–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Shungo Imai and Mr. Hayato Kizaki of the Division of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy for insightful discussion and comments.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant number 22K15693 to TT) and JST CREST (Grant Number JPMJCR22N1 to SH).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan

    Seiya Ohtani, Narumi Watanabe, Keiko Ihara, Nobuyuki Takahashi, Kei Ishizuchi, Jin Nakahara & Tsubasa Takizawa

  2. Division of Drug Informatics, Keio University Faculty of Pharmacy, 1-5-30 Shibakoen, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8512, Japan

    Seiya Ohtani & Satoko Hori

  3. Biostatistics Unit, Clinical and Translational Research Center, Keio University Hospital, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan

    Naoki Miyazaki & Ryo Takemura

Authors
  1. Seiya Ohtani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narumi Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keiko Ihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nobuyuki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Naoki Miyazaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kei Ishizuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ryo Takemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Satoko Hori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jin Nakahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tsubasa Takizawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TT designed and conceptualized the study. TT, NW, NT and KIs acquired data. SO, NW, KIh, NT, NM, KIs, RT, SH, JN and TT participated in the data analysis (especially NM, SO and RT) and/or interpretation. SO and TT drafted the manuscript. NW, KIh, NT, NM, KIs, RT, SH, JN and TT revised the manuscript for intellectual content. The authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsubasa Takizawa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by Ethics Committee of the Keio University School of Medicine (approval number: 20211144). Patients were informed about this observational study via the institute’s website, and they could opt out of the study. The need for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Keio University School of Medicine, in accordance with national regulations (Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

TT is a consultant/advisor and/or served as advisory board for Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer and Teijin. TT received speaker honoraria from Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Kowa, Kyowa Kirin, Eisai, UCB Japan, Takeda, and Santen Pharmaceutical and research funding from Eli Lilly and Tsumura outside the submitted work. JN received honoraria and research scholarships from Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. Other authors have nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1.

Questionnaire.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Figure 2.

Responder rates at 1M for monthly and quarterly patients.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohtani, S., Watanabe, N., Ihara, K. et al. Real-world evidence of fremanezumab for treating migraine in Japan: a retrospective study. BMC Neurol 23, 404 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-023-03449-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-023-03449-3

Keywords

BMC Neurology

ISSN: 1471-2377

Contact us