Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in October 2013 on 'Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults'.Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. It affects two to three times more women than men, and is most common in the age range 30 to 50 years. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) to 28 October 2015, MEDLINE (via Ovid) from 1946 to 28 October 2015, and EMBASE (via Ovid) from 1974 to 28 October 2015, and two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using sumatriptan plus naproxen to treat a migraine headache episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new study (43 participants), but it did not contribute any data for analysis. The review included 13 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity. Twelve studies contributed data for analyses: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. We judged only one small study to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated; it did not contribute to any analyses.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of pain-free and headache relief at two hours. The NNT for pain-free at two hours was 3.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.5) when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 (4.3 to 5.7) when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo (moderate quality evidence).Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than with sumatriptan (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review were not changed. Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone were not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.

Influence of hydrotherapy on clinical and cardiac autonomic function in migraine patients

Background:

Migraine is associated with autonomic symptoms. The growing body of literature suggests that the dysfunctional autonomic nervous system might play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of migraine. Thermal therapies have been hypothesized to modulate these changes and alleviate pain. However, data regarding the efficacy of hydrotherapy in migraine remain scant. We evaluated the effect of add on hydrotherapy procedure (a hot arm and foot bath with ice massage to head) in migraine patients.

Methods:

Forty chronic migraine patients fulfilling the International Classification of Headache Disorders II criteria were recruited from the neurology outpatient clinic. Patients were randomized to receive either hydrotherapy plus conventional pharmacological care (n = 20) or conventional medication only (n = 20). Hydrotherapy group received treatment with hot arm and foot bath (103°F to 110°F) and ice massage to head daily for 20 min for 45 days. Patients were assessed using headache impact test (HIT), visual analog scale for pain and cardiac autonomic function by heart rate variability (HRV) before and after intervention period.

Results:

There was a significant decrease in HIT score, frequency, and intensity of headaches following treatment in both the groups. However, it was more evident in add on hydrotherapy group compared to pharmacological treatment alone group. There was also significant improvement in the HRV parameters. In particular, there was a significant decrease in heart rate (P = 0.017), increase in high frequency (HF) (P = 0.014) and decrease in low frequency/HF ratio (P = 0.004) in add on hydrotherapy group.

Conclusion:

Our study shows that add on hydrotherapy enhanced the vagal tone in addition to reducing the frequency and intensity of headaches in migraine patients.

Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Migraine and cluster headaches are severe and disabling. Migraine affects up to 18% of women, while cluster headaches are much less common (0.2% of the population). A number of acute and prophylactic therapies are available. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is the therapeutic administration of 100% oxygen at environmental pressures greater than one atmosphere, while normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) is oxygen administered at one atmosphere. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2008 under the title 'Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen for migraine and cluster headache'.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of the following databases up to 15 June 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. For the original review we searched the following databases up to May 2008: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DORCTIHM, and reference lists from relevant articles. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted researchers to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing HBOT or NBOT with one another, other active therapies, placebo (sham) interventions, or no treatment in participants with migraine or cluster headache.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 11 trials with 209 participants. Five trials (103 participants) compared HBOT versus sham therapy for acute migraine, three trials compared NBOT to sham therapy or ergotamine tartrate for cluster headache (145 participants), two trials evaluated HBOT for cluster headache (29 participants), and one trial (56 participants) compared NBOT to sham for a mixed group of headache. The risk of bias varied considerably across these trials but in general trial quality was poor to moderate. One trial may not have been truly randomised and two included studies were reported as abstracts only. Seven trials did not indicate allocation concealment or randomisation method. Notably, 10 of the 11 trials used a sham comparator therapy and masked the outcome assessor to allocation.We pooled data from three trials, which suggested that HBOT was effective in relieving migraine headaches compared to sham therapy (risk ratio (RR) 6.21, 95% CI 2.41 to 16.00; 58 participants, three trials). The quality of evidence was low, having been downgraded for small crossover studies with incomplete reporting. There was no evidence that HBOT could prevent migraine episodes, reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting, or reduce the requirement for rescue medication. There was no evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of cluster headache (RR 11.38, 95% CI 0.77 to 167.85; P = 0.08) (one trial), but this trial had low power.NBOT was effective in terminating cluster headache compared to sham in a single small study (RR 7.88, 95% CI 1.13 to 54.66), but not superior to ergotamine administration in another small trial (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.46; P = 0.16). A third trial reported a statistically significant difference in the proportion of attacks successfully treated with oxygen (117 of 150 attacks were successfully treated with NBOT (78%) versus 30 of 148 attacks treated with NBOT (20%)). The proportion of responders was consistent across these three trials, and suggested more than 75% of headaches were likely to respond to NBOT.No serious adverse events during HBOT or NBOT were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, two new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. There was some evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of acute migraine in an unselected population, and some evidence that NBOT was similarly effective in cluster headache. Given the cost and poor availability of HBOT, more research should be done on patients unresponsive to standard therapy. NBOT is cheap, safe, and easy to apply, so will probably continue to be used despite the limited evidence in this review.

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.

Behavioral effects and mechanisms of migraine pathogenesis following estradiol exposure in a multibehavioral model of migraine in rat

Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders, leading to more than 1% of total disability reported and over 68 million visits to emergency rooms or physician's offices each year in the United States. Three times as many women as men have migraine, and while the mechanism behind this is not well understood, 17β-estradiol (estradiol) has been implicated to play a role. Studies have demonstrated that exposure to estrogen can lead to activation of inflammatory pathways, changes in sodium gated channel activity, as well as enhanced vasodilation and allodynia. Estradiol receptors are found in trigeminal nociceptors, which are involved in signaling during a migraine attack. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of estradiol in migraine pathogenesis utilizing a multibehavioral model of migraine in rat. Animals were surgically implanted with a cannula system to induce migraine and behavior was assessed following exposure to a proestrus level of estradiol for total locomotor activity, light and noise sensitivity, evoked grooming patterns, and enhanced acoustic startle response. Results demonstrated decreased locomotor activity, increased light and noise sensitivity, altered facial grooming indicative of allodynia and enhanced acoustic startle. Further examination of tissue samples revealed increased expression of genes associated with inflammation and vasodilation. Overall, this study demonstrates exacerbation of migraine-like behaviors following exposure to estradiol and helps further explain the underlying mechanisms behind sex differences found in this common neurological disorder.

Sumatriptan (all routes of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults - overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. It is available for administration by four different routes: oral, subcutaneous, intranasal, and rectal.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise evidence from four Cochrane intervention reviews on the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults by four routes of administration (oral, subcutaneous, intranasal, and rectal) compared with both placebo and active comparators.

METHODS

The included reviews were written by the authors of this overview; no additional searching was carried out. All included reviews were conducted according to a standard protocol and reported a standard set of outcomes. From each individual review we extracted results for pain relief at different levels, and adverse events. No additional statistical comparison was undertaken as part of the overview. We focused on the most important findings for doses and routes licensed in North America or Europe (oral 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg; subcutaneous 4 mg, 6 mg; intranasal 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg; rectal 25 mg).

MAIN RESULTS

Included reviews provided data for 18 different dose and route of administration combinations in 52,236 participants. Data for the primary outcomes sought were generally well reported, and involved adequate numbers of participants to give confidence in the results, except for the rectal route of administration, where numbers were low.Subcutaneous administration was the most effective, with pain reduced from moderate or severe to none by two hours in almost 6 in 10 people (59%) taking 6 mg sumatriptan, compared with approximately 1 in 7 (15%) taking placebo; the number needed to treat (NNT) was 2.3 (95% confidence interval 2.1 to 2.4) with 2522 participants in the analysis. The most commonly used doses of oral, rectal, and intranasal sumatriptan also provided clinically useful pain relief, with the oral 50 mg dose providing complete relief of pain in almost 3 in 10 people (28%) compared with about 1 in 10 (11%) after placebo (NNT 6.1 (5.5 to 6.9) in 6447 participants). Subcutaneous administration provided more rapid pain relief than the other routes. Taking medication early, when pain was mild, was more effective than waiting until the pain was moderate or severe.The most effective dose of sumatriptan for each route of administration for the outcome of headache relief (pain reduced from moderate or severe to none or mild) at two hours was oral 100 mg (NNT 3.5 (3.2 to 3.7) in 7811 participants), subcutaneous 6 mg (NNT 2.1 (2.0 to 2.2) in 2738 participants), intranasal 20 mg (NNT 3.5 (3.1 to 4.1) in 2020 participants), and rectal 25 mg (NNT 2.4 (1.9 to 3.4) in 240 participants).Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate severity, of short duration, and more common with subcutaneously administered sumatriptan and higher doses of oral and intranasal sumatriptan than with other dose and route combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sumatriptan is an effective abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, but is associated with increased adverse events relative to placebo. The route of administration influences efficacy, particularly within the first hour after administration. Subcutaneous sumatriptan shows the greatest efficacy in terms of pain relief, but at the expense of relatively high levels of adverse events, and with a high financial cost compared with other routes. Information about the relative efficacy of the different routes of administration for different outcomes should help to inform decisions about the suitability of sumatriptan as a migraine treatment, as well as about the most appropriate way to administer the treatment for individual patients.

Naproxen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Naproxen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); its efficacy in acute migraine has not been established by systematic reviews. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of naproxen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) and reference lists, for studies to 22 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using naproxen alone or with an antiemetic to treat a migraine headache episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies using naproxen 275 mg, 500 mg, or 825 mg to treat attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity. Overall, 1241 participants took naproxen (275 mg to 825 mg), 229 took sumatriptan 50 mg, 173 took naratriptan 2.5 mg, and 1092 took placebo. No studies combined naproxen with an antiemetic. Studies using naproxen 275 mg provided no useable data for analysis.Naproxen (500 mg and 825 mg) was better than placebo for pain-free response and headache relief. At two hours, the NNT for pain-free response was 11 (17% response with naproxen, 8% with placebo; risk ratio 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.6), moderate quality) and for headache relief was 6.0 (45% response with naproxen, 29% with placebo; risk ratio 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8), moderate quality). The NNT for sustained pain-free response during the 24 hours post dose was 19 (12% response with naproxen, 6.7% with placebo), and for sustained headache relief during the 24 hours post dose was 8.3 (30% response with naproxen, 18% with placebo). Analysing only the lower dose of 500 mg of naproxen did not significantly change the results. Adverse events, which were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal, were more common with naproxen than with placebo when the 500 mg and 825 mg doses were considered together, but not when the 500 mg dose was analysed alone.There were insufficient data for analysis of naproxen compared with sumatriptan, and no data suitable for analysis of naproxen compared with naratriptan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 11 for pain-free response at two hours suggests that it is not a clinically useful treatment. Cochrane reviews examining other commonly used analgesics for acute migraine have reported better (lower) NNT results for the same outcome. Naproxen is not clinically useful as a stand-alone analgesic in acute migraine, as it is effective in fewer than 2 people in 10.