The placebo response in studies of acute migraine

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE

Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet.

CONCLUSION

This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Add-on Alpha-Lipoic Acid on Migraine Prophylaxis in an Adolescent Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nutraceuticals like alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) may have potential benefits as prophylactic agents for adolescent migraine, with fewer adverse events than existing medications. The present study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of add-on ALA for prophylaxis in adolescent migraine. A randomized, open-label, add-on clinical trial was conducted with 60 adolescent migraineurs, who were randomized to receive flunarizine or flunarizine with an add-on ALA. A clinical evaluation of the frequency and severity of migraine, responder rate, Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (PedMIDAS) scoring, serum thiol, and serum calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) was performed both at baseline and following 12 weeks of treatment. The frequency of acute attacks of migraine decreased significantly (P = .001) in the test group compared with the control group. The responder rate was found to be significantly higher (80%) in the test group than in the control group (33.3%) (P = .001). The mean monthly migraine headache days in the test group showed a significant reduction (-7.7 days, 95%CI -9.1 to -6.3 days; P = .010). The severity of acute migraine attacks (mild, moderate, severe) also showed a significant reduction in the test group (P = .001). PedMIDAS scores showed significant improvement in the test group (P = .021), in comparison with the control group. Serum thiol levels were significantly increased in the test group (18 mmol/L, 95%CI 13.5 to 36.1 mmol/L; P = .001). Serum CGRP levels showed a significant reduction with adjunctive ALA therapy (-122.4 pg/mL, 95%CI -142.3 to -89.0 pg/mL; P = .006). Add-on ALA with flunarizine as a prophylactic agent for migraine in adolescents can improve clinical outcomes by improving clinical and biochemical parameters.

Usefulness of the placebo lead-in design for clinical trials with binary outcomes

BACKGROUND

In placebo-controlled clinical trials to develop new drugs for the treatment of psychiatric or neurological disorders, a high and sometimes greater-than-expected placebo response makes it difficult to show the superiority of an investigational drug over a corresponding placebo. To avoid such difficulty, a placebo lead-in design has been presented, but its usefulness has been open to discussion. Although the statistical properties of the placebo lead-in design are investigated in the context of continuous outcomes, whether these properties can be generalized for binary or ordinal cases remains unclear.

METHODS

We investigate whether the placebo lead-in design is useful in clinical trials with binary outcomes through mathematical formulae and a numerical investigation. Specifically, we compare the proportion of placebo responders, the drug-placebo difference, and the effect size between two populations: one enriched for placebo nonresponders and the other comprising the all-comers.

RESULTS

Under positive correlation of the data between the lead-in stage and the randomized stage for both treatment groups, we mathematically show that the proportion of responders in the population enriched for placebo nonresponders is less than that in the all-comers population, and whether the placebo lead-in design increases the drug-placebo difference depends on the variances of outcomes in both treatment groups as well as the correlations of the outcomes between two stages. Further, through a numerical investigation, we show that whether the placebo lead-in design increases the effect size strongly depends on the magnitude of the correlations and their difference.

CONCLUSION

If the correlation of the placebo-placebo group is much higher than that of the placebo-drug group, the placebo lead-in design is advantageous in most cases but has an impact on an estimand in placebo nonresponders. Therefore, we do not recommend using the placebo lead-in design for clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Teenagers' and parental attitudes towards the use of placebo pills

The placebo response a significant therapeutic improvement after a placebo intervention - can be high in children. The question arises of how optimal advantages of placebo treatment in pediatric clinical care be achieved. In this era of shared-decision making, it is important to be aware of patients' and parental attitudes. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess teenagers' and parental views on the use of placebo pills in pediatric clinical care. All patients (aged 12-18 years) and parents of children (aged 0-18 years), visiting the pediatric outpatient clinic between March 2020 through December 2020, were invited to participate in this study multicenter survey study. Of 1644 distributed questionnaires: 200/478 (47%) teenagers and 456/1166 (45%) parents filled out the complete survey. More parents were positive towards prescribing placebo medication than teenagers (80% vs. 71%, p = .019), especially when the clinician disclosed the use of a placebo to parents and teenagers, respectively (76% vs. 55%, p = .019). Increasing age of teenagers was positively associated with the willingness for placebo interventions (OR 0.803, 95%CI 0.659-0.979), as was a higher level of parental education (OR 0.706, 95%CI 0.526-0.949).  Conclusion: This study emphasizes the willingness of teenagers and parents to receive placebo medication. Placebo medication becoming more acceptable and integrated into daily care may contribute to a decrease in medication use. What is Known: • A placebo is a treatment without inherent power to produce any therapeutic effect, but can result in significant therapeutic improvement, the so-called placebo response. • Treatment response rates after placebo interventions in children can be high, ranging from 41 to 46% in pediatric trials. What is New: • Most teenagers (71%) and parents (80%) find it appropriate for healthcare professionals to prescribe placebo medication. • Compared to adult care, pediatrics has a unique feature to disclose placebo treatment to parents while concealing it for the young patient: the majority of teenagers (85%) and parents (91%) agree to disclose placebo treatment to parents exclusively.

A randomized controlled pilot study of intranasal lidocaine in acute management of paediatric migraine and migraine-like headache

Objectives

This study was aimed to determine the sample size required to conduct an efficacy randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate superiority of intranasal (IN) lidocaine to placebo as an analgesic option for children presenting to the paediatric emergency department (PED) with migraine or posttraumatic headache with migraine features and to evaluate study protocol feasibility.

Study Design

This study is a double-blind RCT of children aged 7 to 16 years at a single-centre PED. Thirty-two participants were randomized to receive either IN 2% lidocaine or 0.9% sodium chloride. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with a Verbal Numeric Rating Scale pain score of <4 at 30 and 60 minutes post-IN therapy. Primary outcome data were analyzed using a test of differences between proportions. Secondary objectives included assessing the feasibility of our study protocol by evaluating recruitment rates, adverse drug events, and PED length of stay (LOS).

Results

Six of 17 participants in the lidocaine group and 2 of 15 in the placebo group were treated successfully. Using these proportions with 95% confidence intervals and 80% power, the sample size required to find a significant difference between proportions would be 67 participants per arm. Our enrolment rate was 55% and there were no serious adverse drug events. The median PED LOS was similar between groups.

Conclusion

We determined the sample size required to conduct a definitive RCT to evaluate the superiority of IN lidocaine to placebo and found the study protocol is feasible but identified important considerations in PED migraine trial design.

Drug Development for Rare Paediatric Epilepsies: Current State and Future Directions

Rare diseases provide a challenge in the evaluation of new therapies. However, orphan drug development is of increasing interest because of the legislation enabling facilitated support by regulatory agencies through scientific advice, and the protection of the molecules with orphan designation. In the landscape of the rare epilepsies, very few syndromes, namely Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and West syndrome, have been subject to orphan drug development. Despite orphan designations for rare epilepsies having dramatically increased in the past 10 years, the number of approved drugs remains limited and restricted to a handful of epilepsy syndromes. In this paper, we describe the current state of orphan drug development for rare epilepsies. We identified a large number of compounds currently under investigation, but mostly in the same rare epilepsy syndromes as in the past. A rationale for further development in rare epilepsies could be based on the match between the drug mechanisms of action and the knowledge of the causative gene mutation or by evidence from animal models. In case of the absence of strong pathophysiological hypotheses, exploratory/basket clinical studies could be helpful to identify a subpopulation that may benefit from the new drug. We provide some suggestions for future improvements in orphan drug development such as promoting paediatric drug investigations, better evaluation of the incidence and the prevalence, together with the natural history data, and the development of new primary outcomes.

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis-testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis-testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease-related agitation.

Survey on treatments for primary headaches in 13 specialized juvenile Headache Centers: The first multicenter Italian study

AIM

The purpose of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the use and the self-perceived efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with primary headaches.

METHODS

Study of a cohort of children and adolescents diagnosed with primary headache, consecutively referred to 13 juvenile Italian Headache Centers. An ad hoc questionnaire was used for clinical data collection.

RESULTS

Among 706 patients with primary headaches included in the study, 637 cases with a single type of headache (migraine 76% - with and without aura in 10% and 67% respectively; tension-type headache 24%) were selected (mean age at clinical interview: 12 years). Acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (in particular ibuprofen) were commonly used to treat attacks, by 76% and 46% of cases respectively. Triptans were used overall by 6% of migraineurs and by 13% of adolescents with migraine, with better efficacy than acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Preventive drugs were used by 19% of migraineurs and by 3% of subjects with tension-type headache. In migraineurs, flunarizine was the most frequently used drug (18%), followed by antiepileptic drugs (7%) and pizotifen (6%), while cyproheptadine, propanolol and amitriptyline were rarely used. Pizotifen showed the best perceived efficacy and tolerability. Melatonin and nutraceuticals were used by 10% and 32% of subjects, respectively, both for migraine and tension-type headache, with good results in terms of perceived efficacy and tolerability. Non-pharmacological preventive treatments (i.e. relaxation techniques, biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral therapy, acupuncture) were used only by 10% of cases (migraine 9%, tension-type headache 15%).

DISCUSSION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, especially ibuprofen, should be preferred to acetaminophen for acute attacks of migraine or tension-type headache, because they were usually more effective and well tolerated. Triptans could be used more frequently as first or almost second choice for treating migraine attack in adolescents. Non-pharmacological preventive treatments are recommended by some pediatric guidelines as first-line interventions for primary headaches and their use should be implemented in clinical practice. Prospective multicenter studies based on larger series are warranted to better understand the best treatment strategies for young people with primary headaches.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

DISCUSSION

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.

The development and assessment of biological treatments for children

The development of biological agents with specific immunological targets has revolutionized the treatment of a wide variety of paediatric diseases where traditional immunosuppressive agents have been partly ineffective or intolerable. The increasing requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake paediatric studies has provided impetus for studies of biologics in children. The assessment of biological agents in children to date has largely relied upon randomized controlled trials using a withdrawal design, rather than a parallel study design. This approach has been largely used due to ethical concerns, including use of placebo treatments in children with active chronic disease, and justified on the basis that treatments have usually already undergone robust assessment in related adult conditions. However, this study design limits the reliability of the data and can confuse the interpretation of safety results. Careful ongoing monitoring of safety and efficacy in real-world practice through national and international biologics registries and robust reporting systems is crucial. The most commonly used biological agents in children target tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, interleukin-6 and cytotoxic lymphocyte-associated antigen-4. These agents are most frequently used in paediatric rheumatic diseases. This review discusses the development and assessment of biologics within paediatric rheumatology with reference to the lessons learned from use in other subspecialties.

Placebo and nocebo responses in drug trials of epilepsy

Placebo response can be defined as any therapeutic change on placebo, while the nocebo response is any ill effect during placebo exposure. Several meta-analytic approaches have investigated the extent of placebo response in randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials of focal epilepsies. Placebo response rates (proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement of seizures versus baseline) ranging from 9.9% up to 15.2% have been reported. Interestingly, a sham response of 15.8% has been noted in trials of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Recently, nocebo response rates of 60.3% and 3.9% were noted, which were defined as the proportion of patients with adverse events (AEs) and those withdrawing because of intolerable AEs, respectively. Factors which were found to influence placebo response were as follows: the year of publication (with more recent studies showing higher rates of placebo response), some clinical characteristics of recruited patients (lower placebo response rates with a history of 7 or more prior lifetime AEDs, a high baseline seizure frequency, prior epilepsy surgery, and higher age at diagnosis), trial design and statistical analysis, and whether studies have been conducted in children or adults. Furthermore, placebo and nocebo rates were correlated with respective seizure outcome and adverse events of the experimental AED. Several mechanisms of placebo and nocebo responses are discussed. Specifically, the role of positive or negative expectations of patients and of investigators may influence the placebo and the nocebo response. Finally, recommendations are given on how to address placebo and nocebo responses in clinical practice.

Nocebo effect in randomized clinical trials of antidepressants in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of adverse events between active and placebo arms of randomized clinical trials in depressive children and adolescents (C&A) with antidepressant treatments, in order to look for similarities in both groups that allow to establish a possible nocebo effect.

METHODS

Systematic search strategy (January 1974-March 2013) in electronic databases, conference abstracts, and reference list of systematic reviews and included studies to identify parallel randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants in C&A (<19 years) with major depressive disorder, and one or more interventions of any orally administered antidepressant. The pooled adverse events were calculated based on a fixed-effect model and statistical analysis involved the risk ratio (RR) of adverse events, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the review, of which seven studies with a sample of 1911 patients had data to include in the meta-analysis. There was similar risk for the incidence of adverse events between non-active and active group (global RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.97-1.11).

CONCLUSION

Depressive C&A allocated to placebo or active group had similar risk to develop adverse events. These similarities in both groups are attributed to the nocebo effect. It is of note that defining "nocebo" effects is challenging in clinical populations because adverse effects may be attributed to the intervention or may be manifestation of the disease itself. The inclusion of a no-treatment arm may be warranted. Nocebo effects are likely when adverse events of placebo mimic the adverse events of active treatment, as was the case here.

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant in children with cyclical vomiting syndrome

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant (Emend, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Haarlem, the Netherlands), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, prevents vomiting in a range of conditions. No data are available on its use in children with cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS).

AIM

We investigated the efficacy of aprepitant as prophylactic treatment or acute intervention in CVS children refractory to conventional therapies.

METHODS

Forty-one children (median age: 8 years) fulfilling NASPGHAN criteria treated acutely (RegA) or prophylactically (RegP) with aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcome was the clinical response (decrease in frequency and intensity of CVS episodes). Secondary outcomes were: number of CVS episodes/year, number of hospital admissions/year, CVS episode duration, number of vomits/h, symptom-free interval length (days), and school attendance percentage. The follow-up period was 18-60 months.

RESULTS

Sixteen children received RegP and 25 RegA. One child on RegP stopped treatment due to severe migraine. At 12-months on intention-to-treat analysis, 13 children on RegP (81%) achieved either complete (3/16, 19%) or partial (10/16, 62%) clinical response. On RegA, 19 children (76%) had either complete (3/25, 12%) or partial (16/25, 64%) response (P = 0.8 vs. RegP). In both RegP and RegA, there was a significant decrease in CVS episodes/year, hospital admission number/year, CVS episode length, number of vomits/h, as well as an increase in symptom-free interval duration and school attendance percentage. Side effects were reported only in RegP (5/16, 31%) including hiccough (3/16, 19%), asthenia/fatigue (2/16, 12.5%), increased appetite (2/16, 12.5%), mild headache (1/16, 6%) and severe migraine (1/16, 6%).

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant appears effective for both acute and prophylactic management of paediatric cyclical vomiting syndrome refractory to conventional therapies.

Oral sumatriptan for migraine in children and adolescents: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel group study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two doses of oral sumatriptan vs placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no approved prescription medication in Japan for the treatment of migraine in children and adolescents.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, outpatient, single-attack, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Eligible patients were children and adolescents aged 10 to 17 years diagnosed with migraine with or without aura (ICHD-II criteria 1.1 or 1.2) from 17 centers. They were randomized to receive sumatriptan 25 mg, 50 mg or placebo (1:1:2). The primary efficacy endpoint was headache relief by two grades on a five-grade scale at two hours post-dose.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients from 17 centers in Japan were enrolled and randomized to an investigational product in double-blind fashion. Of these, 144 patients self-treated a single migraine attack, and all provided a post-dose efficacy assessment and completed the study. The percentage of patients in the full analysis set (FAS) population who report pain relief at two hours post-treatment for the primary endpoint was higher in the placebo group than in the pooled sumatriptan group (38.6% vs 31.1%, 95% CI: -23.02 to 8.04, P  = 0.345). The percentage of patients in the FAS population who reported pain relief at four hours post-dose was higher in the pooled sumatriptan group (63.5%) than in the placebo group (51.4%) but failed to achieve statistical significance ( P  = 0.142). At four hours post-dose, percentages of patients who were pain free or had complete relief of photophobia or phonophobia were numerically higher in the sumatriptan pooled group compared to placebo. Both doses of oral sumatriptan were well tolerated. No adverse events (AEs) were serious or led to study withdrawal. The most common AEs were somnolence in 6% (two patients) in the sumatriptan 25 mg treatment group and chest discomfort in 7% (three patients) in the sumatriptan 50 mg treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistically significant improvement between the sumatriptan pooled group and the placebo group for pain relief at two hours. Oral sumatriptan was well tolerated.

Placebo effect in child and adolescent psychiatric trials

Much literature has been written in the field of child psychiatry regarding the placebo as a tool to test drug efficacy in clinical trials, but quite little regarding the placebo effect itself or its clinical use in child psychiatry. In this article, we aim to critically review the literature regarding the placebo effect in children and adolescents with mental disorders, focusing especially on factors influencing the placebo effect and how they may influence the interpretation of clinical trials. The placebo effect seems to be more marked in children than adults, and particularly in children and adolescents with depression, although it is pervasive across ages and is present in non-psychiatric conditions as well. The use of a placebo in clinical trials as a comparator with drugs that have moderate efficacy at most makes it difficult to obtain positive results, and much effort is needed to design very high quality clinical trials that may overcome the limitations of using a placebo. In addition, the placebo effect across ages and clinical conditions must be tested directly (compared with no treatment whenever possible), in order to characterise which placebos work for what and to determine their use in clinical settings.

Biofeedback therapy for pediatric headache: factors associated with response

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to measure the effect of biofeedback therapy on pediatric headache and to identify factors associated with response to biofeedback therapy.

BACKGROUND

In the United States, 17% of children have frequent or severe headaches. Biofeedback therapy (BFT) appears to be an effective treatment for headaches in adults and is often recommended for children with headaches, but there are few data in the pediatric population. It is also not clear which patients are most likely to benefit from biofeedback therapy.

METHODS

We examined the records of patients, aged 8 to 18 years old, who were referred to a pediatric BFT clinic for management of headache between 2004 and 2008. We extracted data regarding patient and headache characteristics, medication use, family history, and measures of depression, anxiety, and somatization. Chronic headache was defined as ≥4 headache days/week. Positive response to biofeedback was defined as a 50% reduction in number of headache days/week or hours/week, or ≥3-point decrease in severity (0-10 scale) between first and last visits. We analyzed the responder rate for those with episodic and chronic headaches and performed multivariable analysis to determine what factors were associated with headache response to biofeedback therapy.

RESULTS

We analyzed records from 132 children who attended ≥2 biofeedback sessions. Median headache frequency dropped from 3.5 to 2 headache days/week between the first and last visits. The response rate was 58% overall; 48% for chronic headaches and 73% episodic headaches. In multivariate analysis, ability to raise hand temperature by >3°F at the last visit and use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were associated with a positive response, and preventive medication use was associated with nonresponse. Anxiety, depression, and somatization were not significantly associated with response to biofeedback therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback therapy appears to be an effective treatment for children and adolescents with both episodic and chronic headaches. Further study is warranted to compare biofeedback with other treatments for chronic pediatric headache. Use of SSRIs appears to be associated with a positive response to biofeedback therapy, but the reasons for this relationship are unclear and merit further study.

Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan in pediatric migraineurs: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using a novel adaptive enrichment design

Background

Treatment options for children and adolescents with migraine are limited. This study evaluated rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents.

Methods

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in migraineurs 6–17 years old with unsatisfactory response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen/paracetamol. The trial included a double-blind run-in with weight-based rizatriptan dosing (5 mg for <40 kg, 10 mg for ≥40 kg). In the Stage 1 run-in, patients were randomized in a ratio of 20:1 placebo:rizatriptan and were instructed to treat within 30 minutes of a moderate/severe migraine. Patients with mild/no pain after 15 minutes of treatment (responders) took no further study medication, whereas patients with moderate/severe pain (non-responders) proceeded to take study medication in Stage 2. Non-responders who received placebo in Stage 1 were randomized 1:1 to rizatriptan:placebo, whereas non-responders who received rizatriptan in Stage 1 were allocated to placebo in Stage 2. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 hours after Stage 2 dose in 12–17-year-olds.

Results

A higher proportion of 12–17-year-olds on rizatriptan had pain freedom at 2 hours compared with those on placebo: 87/284 (30.6%) versus 63/286 (22.0%), odds ratio = 1.55 [95% CI: 1.06 to 2.26], p = 0.025. Adverse events within 14 days of dose in 12–17-year-olds were similar for rizatriptan and placebo. The pattern of findings was similar in 6–17-year-olds.

Conclusion

Rizatriptan demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over placebo in eliminating pain and was generally well tolerated in migraineurs aged 12–17 and 6–17 years.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01001234

Placebo and other psychological interactions in headache treatment

We present a theory according which a headache treatment acts through a specific biological effect (when it exists), a placebo effect linked to both expectancy and repetition of its administration (conditioning), and a non-specific psychological effect. The respective part of these components varies with the treatments and the clinical situations. During antiquity, suggestions and beliefs were the mainstays of headache treatment. The word placebo appeared at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Controversies about its effect came from an excessive interpretation due to methodological bias, inadequate consideration of the variation of the measure (regression to the mean) and of the natural course of the disease. Several powerful studies on placebo effect showed that the nature of the treatment, the associated announce, the patients' expectancy, and the repetition of the procedures are of paramount importance. The placebo expectancy is associated with an activation of pre-frontal, anterior cingular, accumbens, and periacqueducal grey opioidergic neurons possibly triggered by the dopaminergic meso-limbic system. In randomized control trials, several arms design could theoretically give information concerning the respective part of the different component of the outcome and control the natural course of the disease. However, for migraine and tension type headache attacks treatment, no three arm (verum, placebo, and natural course) trial is available in the literature. Indirect evidence of a placebo effect in migraine attack treatment, comes from the high amplitude of the improvement observed in the placebo arms (28% of the patients). This figure is lower (6%) when using the harder criterium of pain free at 2 h. But these data disregard the effect of the natural course. For prophylactic treatment with oral medication, the trials performed in the last decades report an improvement in 21% of the patients in the placebo arms. However, in these studies the duration of administration was limited, the control of attacks uncertain as well as the evolution of the co-morbid psycho-pathology. Considering the reviews and meta-analysis of complex prophylactic procedures, it must be concluded that their effect is mostly linked to a placebo and non-specific psychological effects. Acupuncture may have a slight specific effect on tension type headache, but not on migraine. Manual therapy studies do not exhibit difference between manipulation, mobilization, and controls; touch has no proven specific effect. A comprehensive efficacy review of biofeedback studies concludes to a small specific effect on tension type headache but not on migraine. A review of behavioral treatment conclude to an interesting mean improvement but did not demonstrated a specific effect with the exception of a four arm study including a pseudo meditation control group. Expectation-linked placebo, conditioning, and non-specific psychological effects vary according clinical situations and psychological context; likely low in RCT, high after anempathic medical contact, and at its maximum with a desired charismatic healer. The announcements of doctors strongly influence the beliefs of patients, and in consequence their pain and anxiety sensibilities; this modulates the amplitude of the placebo and the non-specific psychological effects and is therefore a major determinant of the therapeutic success. Furthermore, any repetitive contact, even through a placebo, may interfere positively with the psychopathological co-morbidity. One has to keep in mind that the non-specific psychological interactions play a major role in the improvement of the majority of the headache sufferers.

StaR Child Health: developing evidence-based guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric trials

Standards for Research in (StaR) Child Health was founded in 2009 to address the paucity and shortcomings of pediatric clinical trials. This initiative involves international experts who are dedicated to developing practical, evidence-based standards to enhance the reliability and relevance of pediatric clinical research. Through a systematic "knowledge to action" plan, StaR Child Health will make efforts to improve and expand the evidence base for child health across the world.

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline in children with functional gastrointestinal disorders

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are no prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pharmacologic trials for the treatment of pain-predominant functional gastrointestinal disorders in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of amitriptyline in children with pain-predominant functional gastrointestinal disorders.

METHODS

In this multicenter placebo-controlled trial, children with irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia were randomized to 4 weeks of placebo or amitriptyline (10 mg/d, weight <35 kg; 20 mg/d, weight >35 kg). Assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms, psychological traits, and daily activities occurred before and after intervention. Pain was assessed daily with self-report diaries. The primary outcome was overall response to treatment (child's assessment of pain relief and sense of improvement). Secondary outcomes were effect on psychosocial traits and daily functioning.

RESULTS

Ninety children were enrolled, and 83 completed the study (placebo, 40 children [30 girls]; drug, 43 children [35 girls]). A total of 63% of patients reported feeling better and 5% feeling worse in the amitriptyline arm compared with 57.5% feeling better and 2.5% feeling worse in the placebo arm (P = .63). Pain relief was excellent in 7% and good in 38% of children receiving placebo compared with excellent in 15% and good in 35% of children treated with amitriptyline (P = .85). Logistic regression analysis of those reporting excellent or good response versus fair, poor, or failed response showed no difference between amitriptyline and placebo (P = .83). Children who had more severe pain at baseline in both groups (P = .0065) had worse outcome. Amitriptyline reduced anxiety scores (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both amitriptyline and placebo were associated with excellent therapeutic response. There was no significant difference between amitriptyline and placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. Patients with mild to moderate intensity of pain responded better to treatment.

Are there placebo effects in the medication treatment of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder?

Placebos have been shown to produce significant positive changes in several health and mental health problems, referred to as placebo effects. Although it is well established that stimulant medication is an empirically supported treatment for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), little is known about the role of placebos in the medication treatment of children with ADHD. This article reviews existing studies that evaluate whether placebos produce significant changes in children with ADHD. Published literature and the author's own empirical work were used to evaluate whether placebo effects are present in the medication treatment of children with ADHD. There is little evidence that placebos produce significant changes in the behavior or cognition of elementary school-age children with ADHD. However, there may be significant placebo effects in adults who evaluate children with ADHD. Evidence suggests that parents and teachers tend to evaluate children with ADHD more positively when they believe the child has been administered stimulant medication and they tend to attribute positive changes to medication even when medication has not actually been administered. Several viable mechanisms for these placebo effects are suggested.

Management of pediatric migraine: Current concepts and controversies

Migraine in children and adolescents is a common condition. Emerging knowledge about the pathophysiology of migraine is leading to new targeted treatments toward specific mechanisms of migraine. This review explores the evidence for different treatments for pediatric migraine including the periodic syndromes of childhood that commonly represent precursors to migraine.

Greater response to placebo in children than in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis in drug-resistant partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines establishing the need to perform comprehensive paediatric drug development programs, pivotal trials in children with epilepsy have been completed mostly in Phase IV as a postapproval replication of adult data. However, it has been shown that the treatment response in children can differ from that in adults. It has not been investigated whether differences in drug effect between adults and children might occur in the treatment of drug-resistant partial epilepsy, although such differences may have a substantial impact on the design and results of paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Three electronic databases were searched for RCTs investigating any antiepileptic drug (AED) in the add-on treatment of drug-resistant partial epilepsy in both children and adults. The treatment effect was compared between the two age groups using the ratio of the relative risk (RR) of the 50% responder rate between active AEDs treatment and placebo groups, as well as meta-regression. Differences in the response to placebo and to active treatment were searched using logistic regression. A comparable approach was used for analysing secondary endpoints, including seizure-free rate, total and adverse events-related withdrawal rates, and withdrawal rate for seizure aggravation. Five AEDs were evaluated in both adults and children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy in 32 RCTs. The treatment effect was significantly lower in children than in adults (RR ratio: 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.89]; p = 0.02 by meta-regression). This difference was related to an age-dependent variation in the response to placebo, with a higher rate in children than in adults (19% versus 9.9%, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed in the response to active treatment (37.2% versus 30.4%, p = 0.364). The relative risk of the total withdrawal rate was also significantly lower in children than in adults (RR ratio: 0.65 [95% CI 0.43-0.98], p = 0.004 by metaregression), due to higher withdrawal rate for seizure aggravation in children (5.6%) than in adults (0.7%) receiving placebo (p < 0.001). Finally, there was no significant difference in the seizure-free rate between adult and paediatric studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy receiving placebo in double-blind RCTs demonstrated significantly greater 50% responder rate than adults, probably reflecting increased placebo and regression to the mean effects. Paediatric clinical trial designs should account for these age-dependent variations of the response to placebo to reduce the risk of an underestimated sample size that could result in falsely negative trials.