Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis

Stroke Risk Reduction in Migraine Patients Using Propranolol: Evidence from Two Large-Scale Real-World Data Analyses

Background

Propranolol, a non-selective beta-blocker, is commonly used for migraine prevention, but its impact on stroke risk among migraine patients remains controversial. Using two large electronic health records-based datasets, we examined stroke risk differences between migraine patients with- and without- documented use of propranolol.

Methods

This retrospective case-control study utilized EHR data from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and the All of Us Research Program. Migraine patients were first identified based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria using diagnosis codes. Among these patients, cases were defined as those with a primary diagnosis of stroke following the first diagnosis of migraine, while controls had no stroke after their first migraine diagnosis. Logistic regression models, adjusted for potential factors associated with stroke risk, assessed the association between propranolol use and stroke risk, stratified by sex and migraine subtype. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for stroke risk at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years from baseline.

Results

In the VUMC database, 378 cases and 15,209 controls were identified, while the All of Us database included 267 cases and 6,579 controls. Propranolol significantly reduced stroke risk in female migraine patients (VUMC: OR=0.52, p=0.006; All of Us: OR=0.39, p=0.007), but not in males. The effect was more pronounced for ischemic stroke and in females with migraines without aura (MO) (VUMC: OR=0.60, p=0.014; All of Us: OR=0.28, p=0.006). The Cox model showed lower stroke rates in propranolol-treated female migraine patients at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years (VUMC: HR=0.06-0.55, p=0.0018-0.085; All of Us: HR=0.23, p=0.045 at 10 years).

Conclusions

Propranolol is associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk, particularly ischemic stroke, among female migraine without aura patients. These findings suggest that propranolol may benefit stroke prevention in high-risk populations.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Pharmacological options for the treatment of chronic migraine pain

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition with symptoms typically consisting of unilateral and pulsating headache, sensitivity to sensory stimuli, nausea, and vomiting. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that migraine is the third most prevalent medical disorder and second most disabling neurological condition in the world. There are several options for preventive migraine treatments that include, but are not limited to, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, botulinum toxins, NSAIDs, riboflavin, and magnesium. Patients may also benefit from adjunct nonpharmacological options in the comprehensive prevention of migraines, such as cognitive behavior therapy, relaxation therapies, biofeedback, lifestyle guidance, and education. Preventative therapies are an essential component of the overall approach to the pharmacological treatment of migraine. Comparative studies of newer therapies are needed to help patients receive the best treatment option for chronic migraine pain.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in patients with migraine and tension headache: A cohort comparison study

Migraine headache is a common condition with an estimated lifetime prevalence of greater than 20%. While it is a well-established risk factor for cardiovascular disease and ischemic stroke, its association with subarachnoid hemorrhage is largely unexplored. We sought to compare the incidence of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in a cohort of migraine patients with a cohort of patients with tension headache. A cohort comparison study utilizing the MarketScan insurance claims database compared patients diagnosed with migraine who were undergoing treatment with abortive or prophylactic pharmacotherapy (treatment cohort) and patients diagnosed with tension headache who had never been diagnosed with a migraine and who were naïve to migraine pharmacotherapy (control cohort). Patients with major pre-existing risk factors for aSAH were excluded from the study, and minor risk factors such as smoking status and hypertension were accounted for using coarsened exact matching (CEM) and subsequent cox proportional-hazards (CPH) regression. More than 679,000 patients (~125,000 treatment and ~ 550,000 control) with an average follow-up of more than three years were analyzed for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. CPH regression on matched data showed that treated migraine patients had a significantly lower hazard of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage compared with tension headache patients (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19 - 0.86, p = 0.02). This large cohort comparison study, analyzing more than 679,000 patients, demonstrated that migraine patients undergoing pharmacologic treatment had a lower hazard of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage than patients diagnosed with tension headaches. Future work specifically focusing on migraine medications may identify the mechanisms underlying this association.

A genome-wide cross-phenotype meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure with migraine

Blood pressure (BP) was inconsistently associated with migraine and the mechanisms of BP-lowering medications in migraine prophylaxis are unknown. Leveraging large-scale summary statistics for migraine (N_cases/N_controls = 59,674/316,078) and BP (N = 757,601), we find positive genetic correlations of migraine with diastolic BP (DBP, r_g = 0.11, P = 3.56 × 10⁻⁰⁶) and systolic BP (SBP, r_g = 0.06, P = 0.01), but not pulse pressure (PP, r_g = −0.01, P = 0.75). Cross-trait meta-analysis reveals 14 shared loci (P ≤ 5 × 10⁻⁰⁸), nine of which replicate (P < 0.05) in the UK Biobank. Five shared loci (ITGB5, SMG6, ADRA2B, ANKDD1B, and KIAA0040) are reinforced in gene-level analysis and highlight potential mechanisms involving vascular development, endothelial function and calcium homeostasis. Mendelian randomization reveals stronger instrumental estimates of DBP (OR [95% CI] = 1.20 [1.15–1.25]/10 mmHg; P = 5.57 × 10⁻²⁵) on migraine than SBP (1.05 [1.03–1.07]/10 mmHg; P = 2.60 × 10⁻⁰⁷) and a corresponding opposite effect for PP (0.92 [0.88–0.95]/10 mmHg; P = 3.65 × 10⁻⁰⁷). These findings support a critical role of DBP in migraine susceptibility and shared biology underlying BP and migraine.

The association between blood pressure (BP) and migraine is poorly understood. Here, the authors explore this relationship using summary-level GWAS data for BP and migraine. Cross-trait meta-analysis reveals shared loci between BP and migraine, while Mendelian randomization suggests that diastolic BP specifically plays a key role in migraine susceptibility.

β-adrenoreceptors and the risk of Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

β-adrenoceptors are widely expressed in different human organs, mediate important body functions and are targeted by medications for various diseases (such as coronary heart disease and heart attack) and many β-adrenoceptor acting drugs are listed on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. β-adrenoceptor antagonists are used by billions of patients with neurological disorders, primarily for the treatment of migraine and action tremor (mainly essential tremor), worldwide.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

An observational study reported a link between the chronic use of the β-adrenoceptor antagonist propranolol and an increased risk of Parkinson's disease, while the chronic use of the β-adrenoceptor agonists was associated with a decreased risk. Further support of this association was provided by a dose-dependent decrease in the risk of Parkinson's disease with chronic β-adrenoceptor agonist (eg, salbutamol) use, and by functional data indicating a possible underlying molecular mechanism. Five additional epidemiological studies have examined the modulation of the risk of Parkinson's disease as a result of the use of β-adrenoceptor-acting drugs in different populations. Overall, similar estimates but different interpretations of the associations were provided. Several findings suggest that the increase in risk of Parkinson's disease associated with β-adrenoceptor antagonists use can be explained by reverse causation because prodromal Parkinson's disease is often associated with non-specific action tremor, which is usually treated with propranolol. The lower risk of Parkinson's disease seen in patients receiving β-adrenoceptor agonists is likely to be indirectly mediated by smoking because smoking has a strong inverse association with Parkinson's disease (people that smoke have a reduced risk of developing Parkinson's disease). Smoking also causes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is treated with β-adrenoceptor-agonist medications. Even if causal, the effect of β-adrenoceptor antagonists on the risk of Parkinson's disease would be small compared with other Parkinson's disease risk factors and would be similar to the risk evoked by pesticide exposure. The estimated risk of Parkinson's disease because of β-adrenoceptor antagonists use corresponds to one case in 10 000 patients after 5 years of propranolol use, and would be considered a very rare adverse effect. Thus, not using β-adrenoceptor antagonists would severely harm patients with recommended indications, such as heart disease or migraine. Similarly, 50 000 people would have to be treated for 5 years with salbutamol to prevent Parkinson's disease in one patient, suggesting that primary preventive therapy studies on disease modification are not warranted. WHERE NEXT?: Epidemiological evidence for a causal relationship between use of β2-adrenoceptor antagonists and the increased risk of Parkinson's disease is weak, with other explanations for the association being more probable. Future observational studies are warranted to clarify this association. However, given the very low risk associated with propranolol, most clinicians are unlikely to change their treatment approach.

Do β-adrenoreceptor blocking drugs associate with reduced risk of symptomatic osteoarthritis and total joint replacement in the general population? A primary care-based, prospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

INTRODUCTION

To investigate if β-adrenoreceptor blocking drug (β-blocker) prescription reduces the risk of knee or hip osteoarthritis, total joint replacement and analgesic prescription.

SETTING

Primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Two separate analyses will be performed. Study 1 will be on the association between β-blocker prescription and incident knee/hip osteoarthritis. Inclusion criteria will be age ≥40 years. Exposed participants will be those with ≥2 continuous β-blocker prescriptions, and the index date will be the date of the first prescription of β-blocker. Unexposed participants will include up to four controls matched for age, sex, general practice surgery and propensity score for β-blocker prescription. Exclusion criteria will include contraindications to β-blockers, consultations for osteoarthritis or potent analgesic prescription before the index date. Outcomes will be knee osteoarthritis (primary outcome), hip osteoarthritis, knee pain and hip pain. Study 2 will be on the association between β-blocker prescription and total joint replacement and analgesic prescription in people with osteoarthritis. Inclusion criteria will be age ≥40 years, knee or hip osteoarthritis, and index date will be as in study 1. Unexposed participants will be as in study 1, additionally matched for consultation for knee or hip osteoarthritis prior to the index date. Exclusion criteria will include contraindications to β-blockers and osteoarthritis in other joints prior to the index date. Outcomes will be total knee replacement (primary outcome), total hip replacement and new analgesic prescription.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Kaplan-Meier curves will be plotted, and Cox proportional HRs and 95% CIs will be calculated. Stratified analysis will be performed by class of β-blocker, intrinsic sympathomimetic effect and indication(s) for prescription.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was ethically approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medicines and Healthcare Authority (Ref 18_227R). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

SUMMARY

This prospective cohort study will evaluate the analgesic potential of commonly used drugs for osteoarthritis pain.

Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of botulinum toxin for the prevention of migraine

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of botulinum toxin for prevention of migraine in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of botulinum toxin compared with placebo, active treatment or clinically relevant different dose for adults with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without the additional diagnosis of medication overuse headache.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Cochrane methods were used to review double-blind RCTs. Twelve week post-treatment time-point data was analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials (n=4190) were included. Trial quality was mixed. Botulinum toxin treatment resulted in reduced frequency of -2.0 migraine days/month (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, n=1384) in chronic migraineurs compared with placebo. An improvement was seen in migraine severity, measured on a numerical rating scale 0 to 10 with 10 being maximal pain, of -2.70 cm (95% CI -3.31 to -2.09, n=75) and -4.9 cm (95% CI -6.56 to -3.24, n=32) for chronic and episodic migraine respectively. Botulinum toxin had a relative risk of treatment related adverse events twice that of placebo, but a reduced risk compared with active comparators (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) and a low withdrawal rate (3%). Although individual trials reported non-inferiority to oral treatments, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin reduces migraine frequency by 2 days/month and has a favourable safety profile. Inclusion of medication overuse headache does not preclude its effectiveness. Evidence to support or refute efficacy in episodic migraine was not identified.

Identification of novel analgesics through a drug repurposing strategy

The identification of new indications for approved or failed drugs is a process called drug repositioning or drug repurposing. The motivation includes overcoming the productivity gap that exists in drug development, which is a high-cost–high-risk process. Repositioning also includes rescuing drugs that have safely entered the market but have failed to demonstrate sufficient efficiency for the initial clinical indication. Considering the high prevalence of chronic pain, the lack of sufficient efficacy and the safety issues of current analgesics, repositioning seems to be an attractive approach. This review presents example of drugs that already have been repositioned and highlights new technologies that are available for the identification of additional compounds to stimulate the curiosity of readers for further exploration.

Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study's purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache.

METHODS

Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Science, clinical trial registries, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP were searched through 21 August 2018, for randomized trials in which at least one comparison was a beta-blocker for the prevention of migraine or tension-type headache in adults. The primary outcome, headache frequency per month, was extracted in duplicate and pooled using random effects models.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This study included 108 randomized controlled trials, 50 placebo-controlled and 58 comparative effectiveness trials. Compared to placebo, propranolol reduced episodic migraine headaches by 1.5 headaches/month at 8 weeks (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.65) and was more likely to reduce headaches by 50% (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) found that these outcomes were unlikely to be due to a Type I error. A network analysis suggested that beta-blocker's benefit for episodic migraines may be a class effect. Trials comparing beta-blockers to other interventions were largely single, underpowered trials. Propranolol was comparable to other medications known to be effective including flunarizine, topiramate and valproate. For chronic migraine, propranolol was more likely to reduce headaches by at least 50% (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.3). There was only one trial of beta-blockers for tension-type headache.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that propranolol is better than placebo for episodic migraine headache. Other comparisons were underpowered, rated as low-quality based on only including single trials, making definitive conclusions about comparative effectiveness impossible. There were few trials examining beta-blocker effectiveness for chronic migraine or tension-type headache though there was limited evidence of benefit.

REGISTRATION

Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).

Propranolol: A 50-Year Historical Perspective

Propranolol is a beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist that was developed by the British scientist Sir James Black primarily for the treatment of angina pectoris, more than 50 years ago. It was not long before several other cardiovascular as well as noncardiovascular therapeutic uses of propranolol were discovered. Propranolol soon became a powerful tool for physicians in the treatment of numerous conditions such as hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, migraine, portal hypertension, anxiety, essential tremors, hyperthyroidism, and pheochromocytoma. Owing to its action at multiple receptor sites, propranolol exerts several central and peripheral effects and is therefore useful in various conditions. Right from reduction in postmyocardial mortality to control of anxiety in performers, propranolol plays an important role in a plethora of medical conditions. Interestingly, even today, newer indications of this age-old drug are being discovered. Moreover, propranolol treatment has been found to be cost-effective when compared to other corresponding treatment options for individual indications. In this article, we attempt to recount the journey of propranolol right from its inception to the present day.

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.

Use of melatonin versus valproic acid in prophylaxis of migraine patients: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Melatonin is known to be effective in curing migraine.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of melatonin versus sodium valproate in the prophylaxis of chronic migraine.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients with chronic migraine who were divided into three equal sized groups, and baseline therapy with nortriptyline (10-25 mg) and propranolol (20-40 mg) was used. Patients in groups A, B, and C were adjunctively treated daily with 3 mg melatonin, 200 mg sodium valproate, and a placebo, respectively. The patients underwent treatment for 2 months and follow-up was done at baseline (baseline), first (I) and second month (II). Attack frequency (AF), attack duration, attack severity, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score (within 3 months in two steps), analgesic intake, and drug side effects between the groups and during follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

The mean of monthly AF (melatonin: baseline: 4.2, I: 3.1, II: 2.5, p = 0.018; valproate: baseline: 4.3, I: 3.1, II: 2.3, p = 0.001; placebo: baseline: 4.1, I: 3.8, II: 3.8 p = 0.211), attack duration (hr) (melatonin: baseline: 19.8, I: 10.1, II: 8.7, p < 0.001; valproate: baseline: 19.5, I: 10.2, II: 8.8, p < 0.001; placebo: baseline: 19.6, I: 15.4, II: 14.1, p = 0.271), attack severity (melatonin: baseline: 7.3, I: 5.4, II: 3.5, p < 0.001; valproate: baseline: 7.4, I: 5.3, II: 3.4, p = 0.000; placebo: baseline: 7.3, I: 6.4, II: 6, p = 0.321), and MIDAS score (melatonin: baseline: 15.2, II: 8.9, p = 0.005; valproate: baseline: 16.1, II: 8.3, p = 0.001; placebo: baseline: 16, II: 12.1, p = 0.44), were significantly reduced in the melatonin and sodium valproate groups, but not in the placebo groups. Adverse events were reported in 11 patients (10.47%): 2 (5.71%) during melatonin treatment, 8 (22.85%) during valproate, and 1 (2.85%) during placebo.

CONCLUSION

The adjuvant treatment with melatonin was found to be superior to the placebo and had the same clinical efficacy as sodium valproate, but with higher tolerability. Melatonin may prove to be an efficient substitute for sodium valproate, as a chronic migraine prophylaxis.

Chronic Daily Headache: Mechanisms and Principles of Management

Primary headache is a common malady that is often under-recognized and frequently inadequately managed in spite of the fact that it affects up to 95 % of the population in a lifetime. Many forms of headache, including episodic tension and migraine headaches, if properly diagnosed, are reasonably amenable to treatment, but a smaller, though not insignificant, percent of the population suffer daily from a chronic, intractable form of headache that destroys one's productivity and quality of life. These patients are frequently seen in neurological practices at a point when treatment options are limited and largely ineffective. In the following review, we will discuss mechanisms drawn from recent studies that address the transition from acute to chronic pain that may apply to the transformation from episodic to chronic daily headaches which may offer opportunities for preempting headache transformation.

Chronic migraine: risk factors, mechanisms and treatment

Chronic migraine has a great detrimental influence on a patient's life, with a severe impact on socioeconomic functioning and quality of life. Chronic migraine affects 1-2% of the general population, and about 8% of patients with migraine; it usually develops from episodic migraine at an annual conversion rate of about 3%. The chronification is reversible: about 26% of patients with chronic migraine go into remission within 2 years of chronification. The most important modifiable risk factors for chronic migraine include overuse of acute migraine medication, ineffective acute treatment, obesity, depression and stressful life events. Moreover, age, female sex and low educational status increase the risk of chronic migraine. The pathophysiology of migraine chronification can be understood as a threshold problem: certain predisposing factors, combined with frequent headache pain, lower the threshold of migraine attacks, thereby increasing the risk of chronic migraine. Treatment options include oral medications, nerve blockade with local anaesthetics or corticoids, and neuromodulation. Well-defined diagnostic criteria are crucial for the identification of chronic migraine. The International Headache Society classification of chronic migraine was recently updated, and now allows co-diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. This Review provides an up-to-date overview of the classification of chronic migraine, basic mechanisms and risk factors of migraine chronification, and the currently established treatment options.

Betahistine for symptoms of vertigo

BACKGROUND

Vertigo is a symptom in which individuals experience a false sensation of movement. This type of dizziness is thought to originate in the inner ear labyrinth or its neural connections. It is a commonly experienced symptom and can cause significant problems with carrying out normal activities. Betahistine is a drug that may work by improving blood flow to the inner ear. This review examines whether betahistine is more effective than a placebo at treating symptoms of vertigo from different causes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of betahistine in patients with symptoms of vertigo from different causes.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 8); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The date of the search was 21 September 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of betahistine versus placebo in patients of any age with vertigo from any neurotological diagnosis in any settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with reduction in vertigo symptoms (considering together the intensity, frequency and duration those symptoms).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies, with a total of 1025 participants; 12 studies were published (567 patients) and five were unpublished (458 patients). Sixteen studies including 953 people compared betahistine with placebo. All studies with analysable data lasted three months or less. The majority were at high risk of bias, but in some the risk of bias was unclear. One study, at high risk of bias, included 72 people with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and compared betahistine with placebo; all patients also had particle repositioning manoeuvres. The studies varied considerably in terms of types of participants, their diagnoses, the dose of betahistine and the length of time it was taken for, the study methods and the way any improvement in vertigo symptoms was measured. Using the GRADE system, we judged the quality of evidence overall to be low for two outcomes (proportion of patients with improvement and proportion with adverse events).Pooled data showed that the proportion of patients reporting an overall reduction in their vertigo symptoms was higher in the group treated with betahistine than the placebo group: risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.60; 606 participants; 11 studies). This result should be interpreted with caution as the test for statistical heterogeneity as measured by the I(2) value was high.Adverse effects (mostly gastrointestinal symptoms and headache) were common but medically serious events in the study were rare and isolated: there was no difference in the frequency of adverse effects between the betahistine and placebo groups, where the rates were 16% and 15% respectively (weighted values, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.40; 819 participants; 12 studies).Sixteen per cent of patients from both the betahistine and the placebo groups withdrew (dropped out) from the studies (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; 481 participants; eight studies).Three studies looked at objective vestibular function tests as an outcome; the numbers of participants were small, techniques of measurement very diverse and reporting details sparse, so analysis of this outcome was inconclusive.We looked for information on generic quality of life and falls, but none of the studies reported on these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low quality evidence suggests that in patients suffering from vertigo from different causes there may be a positive effect of betahistine in terms of reduction in vertigo symptoms. Betahistine is generally well tolerated with a low risk of adverse events. Future research into the management of vertigo symptoms needs to use more rigorous methodology and include outcomes that matter to patients and their families.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsant drugs for migraine prophylaxis

July 2015: This review has been split and updated in a series of four new reviews (Linde 2013a; Linde 2013b; Linde 2013c; Linde 2013d). Readers are referred to those reviews for updated results. This review will not be updated.

May 2016: This review has now been withdrawn as it has been replaced by the four new titles listed above.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Neurostimulation in the treatment of primary headaches

There is increasing interest in using neurostimulation to treat headache disorders. There are now several non-invasive and invasive stimulation devices available with some open-label series and small controlled trial studies that support their use. Non-invasive stimulation options include supraorbital stimulation (Cefaly), vagus nerve stimulation (gammaCore) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (SpringTMS). Invasive procedures include occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and ventral tegmental area deep brain stimulation. These stimulation devices may find a place in the treatment pathway of headache disorders. Here, we explore the basic principles of neurostimulation for headache and overview the available methods of neurostimulation.

Evidence-Based Treatments for Adults with Migraine

Migraine, a significantly disabling condition, is treated with acute and preventive medications. However, some individuals are refractory to standard treatments. Although there is a host of alternative management options available, these are not always backed by strong evidence. In fact, most of the drugs used in migraine were initially designed for other purposes. Whilst effective, the benefits from these medications are modest, reflecting the need for newer and migraine-specific therapeutic agents. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of novel treatments, of which noninvasive neuromodulation appears to be the most attractive given its ease of use and excellent tolerability profile. This paper reviews the evidence behind the available treatments for migraine.

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications.

DESIGN

We performed a network meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and quality was assessed using both the JADAD and Cochrane Risk of Bias instruments. Data were pooled and network meta-analysis performed using random effects models.

DATA SOURCES

PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included randomized controlled trials of adults with migraine headaches of at least 4 weeks in duration.

RESULTS

Placebo controlled trials included alpha blockers (n = 9), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 3), angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 3), anticonvulsants (n = 32), beta-blockers (n = 39), calcium channel blockers (n = 12), flunarizine (n = 7), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 6), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 1) serotonin agonists (n = 9) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 11). In addition there were 53 trials comparing different drugs. Drugs with at least 3 trials that were more effective than placebo for episodic migraines included amitriptyline (SMD: -1.2, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.82), -flunarizine (-1.1 headaches/month (ha/month), 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.67), fluoxetine (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.17), metoprolol (-0.94 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.46), pizotifen (-0.43 ha/month, 95% CI: -0.6 to -0.21), propranolol (-1.3 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.62), topiramate (-1.1 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.9 to -0.73) and valproate (-1.5 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.1 to -0.8). Several effective drugs with less than 3 trials included: 3 ace inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril, captopril), two angiotensin receptor blockers (candesartan, telmisartan), two anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, levetiracetam), and several beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol). Network meta-analysis found amitriptyline to be better than several other medications including candesartan, fluoxetine, propranolol, topiramate and valproate and no different than atenolol, flunarizine, clomipramine or metoprolol.

CONCLUSION

Several drugs good evidence supporting efficacy. There is weak evidence supporting amitriptyline's superiority over some drugs. Selection of prophylactic medication should be tailored according to patient preferences, characteristics and side effect profiles.

Drug therapy in headache

All physicians will encounter patients with headaches. Primary headache disorders are common, and often disabling. This paper reviews the principles of drug therapy in headache in adults, focusing on the three commonest disorders presenting in both primary and secondary care: tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache. The clinical evidence on the basis of which choices can be made between the currently available drug therapies for acute and preventive treatment of these disorders is presented, and information given on the options available for the emergency parenteral treatment of refractory migraine attacks and cluster headache.

The diagnosis and treatment of chronic migraine

Migraine is the most common disabling brain disorder. Chronic migraine, a condition characterized by the experience of migrainous headache on at least 15 days per month, is highly disabling. Patients with chronic migraine present to primary care, are often referred for management to secondary care, and make up a large proportion of patients in specialist headache clinics. Many patients with chronic migraine also have medication overuse, defined as using a compound analgesic, opioid, triptan or ergot derivative on at least 10 days per month. All doctors will encounter patients with chronic headaches. A basic working knowledge of the common primary headaches, and a rational manner of approaching the patient with these conditions, allows a specific diagnosis of chronic migraine to be made quickly and safely, and by making this diagnosis one opens up a substantial number of acute and preventive treatment options. This article discusses the current state of management of chronic migraine.

[Role of antihypertensive drugs in the treatment of migraine]

The treatment of migraine depends on the frequency, severity and concomitant diseases. There are several specific drugs developed for migraine prevention in addition to the additive antimigraine effects of some other non-specific drugs. The aim of this literature-based review is to summarize the possible antimigraine properties of different antihypertensive agents (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, etc.) focusing on the possible side effects (avoidance of beta blockers in the absence of heart disease, possible antiparkinson effect of calcium channel blockers, additive effect of drugs modifying the renin-angiotensin system activity, etc.). Current evidence supports the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (mainly lisinopril) and angiotensin receptor blockers (mainly candesartan) for long-term migraine prevention and blood pressure control. Long-term beta-blocker treatment should be avoided in the absence of ischemic heart disease due to possible unfavourable cardiovascular effects.

Improvement of migraine symptoms with a proprietary supplement containing riboflavin, magnesium and Q10: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial

Background

Non-medical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments are recommended for the prevention of migraine. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo controlled, multicenter trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a proprietary nutritional supplement containing a fixed combination of magnesium, riboflavin and Q10 as prophylactic treatment for migraine.

Methods

130 adult migraineurs (age 18 – 65 years) with ≥ three migraine attacks per month were randomized into two treatment groups: dietary supplementation or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The treatment period was 3 months following a 4 week baseline period without prophylactic treatment. Patients were assessed before randomization and at the end of the 3-month-treatment-phase for days with migraine, migraine pain, burden of disease (HIT-6) and subjective evaluation of efficacy.

Results

Migraine days per month declined from 6.2 days during the baseline period to 4.4 days at the end of the treatment with the supplement and from 6.2.days to 5.2 days in the placebo group (p = 0.23 compared to placebo). The intensity of migraine pain was significantly reduced in the supplement group compared to placebo (p = 0.03). The sum score of the HIT-6 questionnaire was reduced by 4.8 points from 61.9 to 57.1 compared to 2 points in the placebo-group (p = 0.01). The evaluation of efficacy by the patient was better in the supplementation group compared to placebo (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Treatment with a proprietary supplement containing magnesium, riboflavin and Q10 (Migravent® in Germany, Dolovent® in USA) had an impact on migraine frequency which showed a trend towards statistical significance. Migraine symptoms and burden of disease, however, were statistically significantly reduced compared to placebo in patients with migraine attacks.

Vitamin supplementation as possible prophylactic treatment against migraine with aura and menstrual migraine

Migraine is the most common form of headache disorder globally. The etiology of migraine is multifactorial, with genetic components and environmental interactions considered to be the main causal factors. Some researchers postulate that deficits in mitochondrial energy reserves can cause migraine or an increase in homocysteine levels can lead to migraine attacks; therefore, vitamins could play a vital role in migraine prevention. For instance, riboflavin influences mitochondrial dysfunction and prevents migraine. Genes such as flavoenzyme 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), especially the C677T variant, have been associated with elevated plasma levels of homocysteine and migraine with aura. Homocysteine catalyzation requires the presence of vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and folic acid, which can decrease the severity of migraine with aura, making these vitamins potentially useful prophylactic agents for treating migraine with aura. Menstrual migraine, on the other hand, is associated with increased prostaglandin (PG) levels in the endometrium, indicating a role for vitamin E, which is an anti-PG. Vitamin C can also be used as a scavenger of reactive oxygen species for treating neurogenic inflammation in migraine patients. This paper reviews possible therapies based on vitamin supplementation for migraine prophylaxis, focusing on migraine with aura and menstrual migraine.

[Current state of knowledge and developments in the prophylaxis and acute treatment of migraine]

For the acute treatment of the headache phase of a migraine attack, a variety of different pharmacotherapeutic treatment options exist. These range from nonspecifically acting non-opioid analgesics (e.g., paracetamol) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory substances (e.g., acetylsalicylic acid, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac) to agents specifically interfering with the serotonin system (ergot alkaloids such as ergotamine and its derivatives, triptans). In patients with significant emesis co-occurring during an attack, additional antiemetics such as metoclopramide or domperidone may be administered. In migraine prophylaxis, largely divergent agents, e.g., β-adrenoceptor antagonists, Ca-antagonists, or anticonvulsants, are commonly used. The diversity of these compounds may help the treating physician to tailor prophylactic treatment to the patient's individual needs. The treatment success of the individual patient is difficult to predict both in acute and prophylactic migraine treatment. Apart from contraindications or associated side effects of a particular substance, the individual patient's response to treatment is therefore a major determinant in selecting the suitable medication.

A comparative study of candesartan versus propranolol for migraine prophylaxis: A randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, double cross-over study

Objective

The objective of this article is to see whether the effect of candesartan for migraine prevention, shown in one previous study, could be confirmed in a new study, and if so, whether the effect was comparable to that of propranolol (non-inferiority analysis), and whether adverse events were different.

Methods

In a randomised, triple-blind, double cross-over study, 72 adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine went through three 12-week treatment periods on either candesartan 16 mg, propranolol slow-release 160 mg, or placebo. The main outcome measures were days with migraine headache per four weeks (primary outcome), days with headache, hours with headache, proportion of responders (>50% reduction of migraine days from baseline), and adverse events.

Results

In the modified intention-to treat-analysis, candesartan and propranolol were both superior to placebo: 2.95 (95% confidence interval: 2.35–3.55%) and 2.91 (2.36–3.45%), versus 3.53 (2.98–4.08%) for migraine days per month ( p = 0.02 for both comparisons, Wilcoxon's paired signed rank test, blinded statistical analysis). Candesartan was non-inferior to propranolol (and vice versa). The proportion of responders was significantly higher on candesartan (43%) and propranolol (40%) than on placebo (23%) ( p = 0.025 and <0.050, respectively). There were more adverse events on candesartan ( n = 133%) and propranolol ( n = 143%) than on placebo ( n = 90%), and the adverse event profiles of the active substances differed somewhat.

Conclusion

It is confirmed that candesartan 16 mg is effective for migraine prevention, with an effect size similar to propranolol 160 mg, and with somewhat different adverse events. Trial registration: EUDRACT (2008-002312-7), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00884663).

The association of migraine with menstrually related mood disorders and childhood sexual abuse

BACKGROUND

Both female reproductive hormones and childhood sexual abuse (CSA) are implicated in migraine and in menstrually related mood disorders (MRMD). We examined the association of migraine, including migraine with aura (MA), and history of MRMD or CSA.

METHODS

A total of 174 women (mean age 33.9 ± 7.6 years) in this cross-sectional study were evaluated for (1) current MRMD using prospective daily ratings; (2) history of CSA using structured interview; and (3) MA and migraine without aura using the International Classification of Headaches Disorders II criteria.

RESULTS

Ninety-six women met MRMD criteria (21 of whom had history of CSA) and 78 women were non-MRMD controls (16 with CSA histories). Migraine with aura was more prevalent in women with MRMD when compared to non-MRMD controls (11/88 and 0/86, respectively, p=0.001). In MRMD women only, a CSA history was associated with higher MA rates (6/21 and 5/67, respectively, p=0.019). A combination of current MRMD diagnosis and a history CSA was associated with increased risk for MA, even after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio=12.08, 95% confidence interval 2.98-48.90, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with MRMD may be vulnerable to the development of MA, and a history of CSA in women with a MRMD appears to increase that vulnerability. MRMDs and MA should be included among other poor mental and physical health outcomes of an abuse history. Routine screening for abuse histories would potentially improve identification of women with increased risk of experiencing abuse-related disorders.

Prophylactic Treatment of Migraine

Migraine is a common chronic neurological disease characterized by episodic attacks of headache and associated symptoms. The pharmacological treatment of migraine may be acute or prophylactic, and patients with frequent, severe headaches often require both approaches. Prophylactic treatment is used to reduce the frequency, duration, or severity of attacks, to enhance the benefits of acute treatments, and to improve patient's ability to function normally. Prophylactic treatment may also prevent progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine and may result in reductions in health-care cost. The currently available pharmacological options for migraine prophylaxis include a wide array of medications. The major medication groups for prophylactic treatment include β-blockers, anticonvulsant, drugs such as topiramate and valproate, antidepressant drugs, such as amitriptyline and selective serotonin and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), calcium channel antagonists and neurotoxins. The agent for prophylactic treatment should be chosen based on the efficacy and side-effect profile of the drug, and the patient's coexistent and comorbid conditions.

Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105-190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version.

[Considerations about the efficacy of psychopharmacological drugs]

Current systematic reviews yielded relatively small efficacy effect sizes of different psychopharmacological agents compared to placebo. It seems that these effect sizes have decreased compared to earlier meta-analyses. We speculate about factors explaining the decrease of effect size such as lower methodological requirements for earlier randomised controlled trials, but in particular enormous methodological problems of current trials such as chronic patient populations, exclusion of severely ill patients by the protocols, sponsoring by the pharmaceutical industry and so-called professional patients. A few examples from general medicine are used to illustrate that the effect sizes of other medications are often also surprisingly small. Psychotropic drugs are efficacious, but they need to be prudently applied according to evidence-based criteria.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study

Background

Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy.

Methods

A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis.

Results

For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine.

Conclusion

In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine.

The effect of antihypertensive treatment on headache and blood pressure variability in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Antihypertensive drugs reduce headache but it is unclear whether there are differences between drug classes. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) decrease variability in systolic blood pressure (SBPV) and stroke risk more than other classes, possibly due to decreased vascular tone. If so, there might be a correlation between drug-class effects on variability in SBP and on headache. We determined antihypertensive class effects on SBPV and headache during follow-up in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. We determined pooled estimates of treatment effect on group variability in BP (variance ratio, VR) and on the odds ratio for headache (OR) by random-effects meta-analysis. Antihypertensive drugs reduced the incidence of headache compared to placebo (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.82, p < 0.0001, 198 comparisons, 43,672 patients), but there was significant heterogeneity between drug classes (p = 0.0007) with a greater effect of beta-blockers compared to placebo (VR = 0.49, 0.33-0.68, p < 0.0001, 16 trials) or all other drug classes (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.85, p = 0.0002, 49 trials) and a lack of effectiveness of CCBs (vs. placebo-OR = 0.95, 0.79-1.15, 65 trials; vs. other drugs-OR = 1.19, 1.05-1.35, p = 0.009, 101 trials). Drug-class effects on headache were opposite to effects on variability in SBP (vs. other drugs: CCB-VR = 0.81, 0.71-0.85, p < 0.0001; beta-blocker VR = 1.17, 1.07-1.28, p < 0.0001), but were unrelated to differences in mean SBP. Antihypertensive drugs reduce headache but the effect differs between classes, corresponding to their effects on SBPV and the risk of stroke. This may partly be explained by consistent antihypertensive class effects on vascular tone in the peripheral (variability) and cerebrovascular circulations (headache).

Headache in pregnancy: a nuisance or a new sense?

Headache is a very commonly encountered symptom in pregnancy and is usually due to primary headache disorders which are benign in nature. It can however be quite debilitating for some women who may need therapeutic treatment of which there are several options safe to use in pregnancy. It is equally important though to recognise that headache may be a sign of serious underlying pathology. This paper aims to provide a clinically useful guidance for differentiation between primary and secondary headaches in pregnancy. The primary headache disorders and their management in pregnancy are explored in depth with brief overviews of the causes for secondary headaches and their further investigation and management.

Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of psychopharmacological treatments has been called into question. Psychiatrists are unfamiliar with the effectiveness of common medical drugs.

AIMS

To put the efficacy of psychiatric drugs into the perspective of that of major medical drugs.

METHOD

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews on the efficacy of drugs compared with placebo for common medical and psychiatric disorders, and systematically presented the effect sizes for primary efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 94 meta-analyses (48 drugs in 20 medical diseases, 16 drugs in 8 psychiatric disorders). There were some general medical drugs with clearly higher effect sizes than the psychotropic agents, but the psychiatric drugs were not generally less efficacious than other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Any comparison of different outcomes in different diseases can only serve the purpose of a qualitative perspective. The increment of improvement by drug over placebo must be viewed in the context of the disease's seriousness, suffering induced, natural course, duration, outcomes, adverse events and societal values.

A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients' scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions' cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was -1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective.

INTERPRETATION

An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.).

Beta-blocker migraine prophylaxis affects the excitability of the visual cortex as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation

The objective of this study is to assess effects of beta-blocker migraine prophylaxis on cortical excitability determined by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Phosphene and motor thresholds (PT, MT) were investigated in 29 patients with migraine, in 15 of them prior to and following preventive medication with metoprolol and in 14 patients without prophylaxis. Following prophylaxis headache frequency significantly decreased (p = 0.005) and mean PT were significantly increased (51.5 ± 7.5 vs. 63.6 ± 8.4%) compared to patients without preventive treatment (53.7 ± 5.3 vs. 52.3 ± 6.3%; p = 0.040). Mean MT did not significantly differ either between groups or due to treatment. In the group of all patients, a significant inverse correlation between headache frequency and the level of PT was found (R = -0.629; p < 0.01). There was, however, no significant correlation in the subgroups of patients. We conclude that (a) clinical efficacy of beta-blocker treatment in migraine could be (at least partly) linked to its ability to modulate the excitability of the visual cortex and (b) the PT determined by TMS appears suitable to assess the effects of prophylaxis on cortical excitability in the individual patient. This may be useful in clinical trials investigating migraine preventive drugs.

Concomitant medication of psychoses in a lifetime perspective

OBJECTIVE

Patients treated with antipsychotic drugs often receive concomitant psychotropic compounds. Few studies address this issue from a lifetime perspective. Here, an analysis is presented of the prescription pattern of such concomitant medication from the first contact with psychiatry until the last written note in the case history documents, in patients with a diagnosis of psychotic illness.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive analysis of all case history data of 66 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychotic disorders.

RESULTS

Benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related anxiolytic drugs had been prescribed to 95% of the patients, other anxiolytics, sedatives or hypnotic drugs to 61%, anti-parkinsonism drugs to 86%, and antidepressants to 56% of the patients. However, lifetime doses were small and most of the time patients had no concomitant medication. The prescribed lifetime dose of anti-parkinsonism drugs was associated with that of prescribed first-generation but not second-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Most psychosis patients are sometimes treated with concomitant drugs but mainly over short periods. Lifetime concomitant add-on medication at the individual patient level is variable and complex but not extensive.