Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition

Sustained benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: An analysis of the pooled Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the long-term (56-week) benefits of continuous onabotulinumtoxinA treatment response in individuals with chronic migraine (CM) who achieved reduction to <15 headache days/month with treatment.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data exploring reductions in monthly headache days to levels consistent with episodic migraine among those experiencing CM. Understanding the impact of sustained preventive treatment response in CM can provide important information about the impact of successful therapy.

METHODS

The two Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults included a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase and a 32-week open-label phase. Data were pooled to determine proportions of individuals with <15 headache days/month while on treatment during several time periods in the double-blind phase (Weeks 21-24; any 12 consecutive weeks; Weeks 13-24) and the entire study (Weeks 53-56; any 12 consecutive weeks; any 4-week period). We assessed the long-term impact on mean monthly headache days and changes from baseline on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1).

RESULTS

We analyzed 1384 participants with chronic migraine (double-blind: onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696; open-label: n = 688 [onabotulinumtoxinA]). The discontinuation rates prior to the completion of the full 56-week treatment period for onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo were 25.4% (n = 175) and 29.3% (n = 204), respectively. During Weeks 13-24 of the double-blind phase, significantly more onabotulinumtoxinA-treated (386/688 [56.1%]) than placebo-treated (342/696 [49.1%]) individuals had <15 headache days/month (p = 0.010), with fewer monthly headache days for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo responders. The proportions of participants achieving <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA were 60.9% (419/688) at Weeks 25-56, 81.1% (558/688) at Weeks 53-56, and 79.4% (546/688) during any consecutive 12-week period. Mean changes from baseline on the HIT-6 and MSQv2.1 questionnaire surpassed within-group minimal important difference thresholds in all periods. At Week 24, onabotulinumtoxinA-treated participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days during Weeks 21-24 had a greater mean HIT-6 score reduction (-6.5 vs. -1.4) and greater mean MSQv2.1 Role-Function Restrictive score improvements (21.3 vs. 6.4) than those who did not achieve <15 monthly headache days during the same period.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants who achieved <15 monthly headache days with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment achieved meaningful benefits in headache-related disability and migraine-specific quality of life compared with those who remained at or above the 15-monthly headache days threshold. Sustained benefits observed over 56 weeks support long-term onabotulinumtoxinA use for the prevention of CM.

Comparing Migraine Headache Index versus Monthly Migraine Days after Headache Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nerve deactivation surgery for the treatment of migraine has evolved rapidly over the past 2 decades. Studies typically report changes in migraine frequency (attacks/month), attack duration, attack intensity, and their composite score-the Migraine Headache Index-as primary outcomes. However, the neurology literature predominantly reports migraine prophylaxis outcomes as change in monthly migraine days (MMD). The goal of this study was to foster common communication between plastic surgeons and neurologists by assessing the effect of nerve deactivation surgery on MMD and motivating future studies to include MMD in their reported outcomes.

METHODS

An updated literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Scopus, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant articles. Data were extracted and analyzed from studies that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included. There was a significant overall reduction in MMDs [mean difference (MD), 14.11; 95% CI, 10.95 to 17.27; I 2 = 92%], total migraine attacks per month (MD, 8.65; 95% CI, 7.84 to 9.46; I 2 = 90%), Migraine Headache Index (MD, 76.59; 95% CI, 60.85 to 92.32; I 2 = 98%), migraine attack intensity (MD, 3.84; 95% CI, 3.35 to 4.33; I 2 = 98%), and migraine attack duration (MD, 11.80; 95% CI, 6.44 to 17.16; I 2 = 99%) at follow-up (range, 6 to 38 months).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the efficacy of nerve deactivation surgery on the outcomes used in both the plastic and reconstructive surgery and neurology literature.

Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in patients with burning mouth syndrome: a randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study

Background

The Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by a burning sensation in the oral mucous membranes. The etiology and pathophysiology of BMS is largely unexplained. To date, there is no evidence-based treatment strategy for BMS. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) represents a non-invasive treatment option with a low side effect profile that is approved for the treatment of pain, depression, anxiety disorder and insomnia. It has shown efficacy in studies for chronic pain such as fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of CES in combination with local transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) as an adjunct therapy in patients with BMS compared to sham stimulation.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study enrolled 22 patients, aged 18 years and over, with the diagnosis of BMS meeting the ICHD-3 criteria from August 2020 to June 2021. The study duration was 4 weeks (28 days) per participant. After randomization, the active group participants (n = 11) received a 100 μA CES treatment for 60 min a day whereas the devices in the Sham group did not emit electricity. Simple linear regression was used to determine whether the interventions promoted significant differences in pain intensity.

Results

The linear regression showed that the period of stimulation significantly predicted decrease in the intensity of pain in the active group [β = -0.036; t(26) = -7.219; p < 0.001] as in the sham group [β = -0.026; t(26) = -2.56; p < 0.017]. With the applied cutoff of 30% pain reduction within the stimulation period, both the active and sham groups had 36% responders (n = 4) (Fisher's exact test, p = 1.00). In both groups (active stimulation and sham group), a significant decrease in the intensity of pain, somatic symptoms and an improvement in sleep quality over the study period was observed. Subjects reported no adverse events during the study.

Conclusion

Although CES is an easily applicable and safe therapeutic option for chronic facial pain, active stimulation was not superior to sham stimulation. Among other reasons, this could be due to the short double-blinded treatment period, duration of the daily stimulation session or the small sample size.

Variation in Endpoints in FDA Medication Approvals: A Review of Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics and extent of variation of the endpoints used in trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of medications treating migraine.

METHODS

Using the Drugs@FDA online database, we identified novel prescription medications approved by the FDA between January 2001 and September 2022, for migraine with or without aura, for both acute and preventive treatment, and for episodic and chronic presentations. For each medication, we used the most recent FDA-approved labeling to identify indication, mechanism of action, mode of administration, manufacturer, approval year, number of pivotal trials, trial design, and primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixteen FDA-approved medications for the acute or preventive treatment of migraine were supported by 45 pivotal trials. There were 5 primary endpoint types: (1) change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline; (2) change in mean monthly migraine attacks from baseline; (3) change in mean monthly headache days from baseline; (4) mild to no pain After 2 hours; (5) pain free at 2 hours. There were 3 combinations of coprimary endpoints: (1) Headache Pain Free at 2 Hours and Most Bothersome Symptom Free at 2 Hours; (2) Pain Free at 2 Hours and Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 Hours Postdose; (3) Pain Free at 2 Hours and 2-24 Hours Sustained Pain Free and 2-Hour Pain Relief. Of the 8 preventive migraine medications, the timing of endpoint measurement included the full double-blind period, segments of the double-blind period, and the final month of the double-blind period.

DISCUSSION

Migraine medication trial endpoints were inconsistent within the same indication (episodic or chronic), mechanistic class, and route of administration, frustrating direct comparison among these medications. Furthermore, inconsistent definitions for the indications "episodic" and "chronic" migraine were also observed. Consistent endpoint selection for medications approved for preventive and acute migraine treatment would enhance the ability of patients, physicians, and payers to make informed choices among these medications.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

The quality of clinical trials is essential to advance treatment, inform regulatory decisions and meta-analysis. With the increased incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and the emergence of clinical trials for novel therapies in this condition, the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension aims to establish guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

The use of clinical scales and PROMs in headache disorders and migraine, summarizing their dissemination and operationalization

Measurements are an essential aspect of scientific research. This review will present clinical scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for headache disorders and migraine that have been endorsed by the International Headache Society (IHS) and are intended for use by both physicians and researchers. A clinical scale is a tool to assess a patient's condition or symptoms in a standardized and quantifiable way. Clinical scales are often used in research settings and can be used to track a patient's progress over time, monitor the effectiveness of treatment, and make decisions. They can be self-administered or completed by a healthcare professional. PROMs are tools used to evaluate a patient's health status, symptoms, and quality of life. These measures are completed by the patient and provide valuable information about the patient's perspective and experience of their condition. PROMs are increasingly used in clinical practice and research to improve patient-centered care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. This review also briefly covers the creation process, testing for reliability and validity, and interpreting the results of the use of clinical scales and PROMs in clinical and research settings in headache disorders. The first step in creating a clinical scale or PROM is to define the purpose of the scale and the population it is intended to assess. The next step is to identify the domains or areas that the scale will assess. Then, the items or questions that will be included in the scale need to be developed. These items should be relevant to the defined purpose and population of the scale and should be worded clearly and concisely. After the items have been developed, the scale or PROM can be administered to a sample of individuals in the target population. This allows researchers to assess the reliability and validity of the scale or PROM, as well as to make any necessary revisions.

Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PERSIST study

Background

Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy and good tolerability in patients with episodic migraine in previous phase 3 trials. We report results from the PERSIST study, which was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine from China, India, and Russia.

Methods

This phase 3 study was conducted at 40 centers in China (n = 26), India (n = 10), and Russia (n = 4). Eligible adult patients with episodic migraine were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monthly galcanezumab 120 mg (with 240 mg loading dose) or placebo during a double-blind, 3-month treatment period. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days (MHDs). Key secondary endpoints were the mean proportion of patients with ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% reductions from baseline in MHDs and mean change in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function-Restrictive domain score.

Results

In total, 520 patients were randomized and received at least one dose of galcanezumab (N = 261) or placebo (N = 259). The least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in monthly MHDs over 3 months was significantly greater with galcanezumab compared with placebo (-3.81 days vs. -1.99 days; p < 0.0001). Significantly greater mean proportions of patients with galcanezumab versus placebo had ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% reductions from baseline in MHDs (all p < 0.0001). The overall mean improvement from baseline in MSQ Role Function-Restrictive score over 3 months was significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo (p < 0.0001). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the galcanezumab and placebo group on any safety parameters except for a higher incidence of injection site pruritus (5.0% vs. 0.0%), injection site reaction (3.8% vs. 0.4%), and injection site discomfort (2.3% vs. 0.0%). TEAEs related to injection sites were mild in severity, except in 1 patient who had a moderate injection site reaction. Six serious adverse events were reported by 6 patients (2 galcanezumab, 4 placebo).

Conclusions

Galcanezumab 120 mg once monthly was effective and well tolerated in patients with episodic migraine from China, India, and Russia.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03963232 (PERSIST), registered May 24, 2019.

Predictive models for determining treatment response to nonprescription acute medications in migraine: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of acute treatment response for nonprescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) medications among people with migraine and develop improved models for predicting treatment response.

BACKGROUND

Pain freedom and sustained pain relief are important priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. OTC medications are widely used for migraine; however, it is not clear which treatment works best for each patient without going through the trial and error process.

METHODS

A prediction model development study was completed using the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, from participants who were aged ≥18, met criteria and headache day frequency for episodic migraine, did not take prescription medication for migraine, and used ≥1 of the following acute migraine medication classes: acetaminophen, aspirin, NSAIDs, or caffeine containing combination products (CCP). Two items from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire were used to evaluate treatment response, adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by a response to treatment ≥half the time at 2 h and 24 h post treatment, respectively. We identified predictors of adequate treatment response and developed models to predict probability of treatment response to each medication class.

RESULTS

The sample included 3852 participants (3038 [79.0%] females) with an average age of 45.0 years (SD = 12.8). Only 1602/3852 (41.6%) and 1718/3852 (44.6%) of the participants reported adequate 2hPF and 24hPR, respectively. Adequate treatment-response was significantly predicted by lower average headache pain intensity, less cutaneous allodynia, and lower depressive symptom scores. Lower migraine symptom severity was predictive of adequate 2hPF and fewer monthly headache days was predictive of adequate 24hPR. Among participants reporting OTC monotherapy (n = 2168, 56.3%) individuals taking CCP were more likely to have adequate 2hPF (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.95) and 24hPR (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18-1.88) in comparison with those taking acetaminophen. Predictive models were modestly predictive of responders to OTC medications (c-statistics = 0.65; 95% CI 0.62-0.68).

CONCLUSION

These results show that response to acute migraine treatments is not optimized in the majority of people with migraine treating with OTC medications. Predictive models can improve our ability to choose the best therapeutic option for individuals with episodic migraine and increase the proportion of patients with optimized response to treatments.

Migraine history and response to lasmiditan across racial and ethnic groups

OBJECTIVE

The robust enrollment in SPARTAN and SAMURAI provided the opportunity to present post-hoc descriptive details on migraine disease characteristics and treatment outcomes after treatment with lasmiditan, a selective serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist, in racial and ethnic subgroups.

METHODS

Descriptive data from racial (White [W](n = 3471) and Black or African American [AA](n = 792)) and ethnic (Hispanic or Latinx [HL](n = 775) and Non-Hispanic or Latinx [Non-HL](n = 3637)) populations are presented on pooled data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT2605174]). Patients were treated with lasmiditan (50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg) or placebo for a single migraine attack of moderate-to-severe intensity. Efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Safety was evaluated and reported by occurrences of adverse events.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics were generally similar across populations. W participants had longer migraine history than AA participants, and Non-HL participants had more migraine disability than HL participants. In the lasmiditan single-attack studies, AA participants waited longer than W participants to take study drug. A higher proportion of HL participants rated baseline migraine severity as severe compared to Non-HL participants. Response to lasmiditan was similar across racial and ethnic groups, including pain response, freedom from most bothersome symptom and migraine-related disability, and safety and tolerability. Across multiple outcomes, AA and HL participants tended to report more positive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in demographic and clinical characteristics across racial and ethnic groups. Similar lasmiditan efficacy and safety outcomes were observed in AA versus W participants, and in HL versus Non-HL participants. Small observed differences may be driven by a tendency toward a more positive response observed across all treatment groups by AA and HL participants.

The Role of Attachment Style, Adverse Childhood Experiences and Dissociation in Migraine

Migraine and chronic migraine are caused by a combination of modifiable and non-modifiable genetic, social, behavioral and environmental risk factors. Further research of possible modifiable risk factors for this headache disorder is merited, given its role as one of the leading causes of years lived with disability per year. The first aim of this online cross-sectional study was to investigate the psychosocial risk factors that predicted chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability in 507 Irish and UK participants, focusing specifically on childhood maltreatment, attachment and tendency to dissociate, or experience depressed mood and/or anxiety. Additionally, this study aimed to examine variables that mediated the relationships between these psychosocial risk factors and migraine chronicity or severe migraine-related disability. Adjusted binary logistic regression revealed that shutdown dissociation (Odds Ratio [OR] 4.57, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.66-7.85) and severe physical abuse (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.44-12.83 had significant odds of predicting migraine chronicity, while depression (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.86-5.77) significantly predicted severe migraine-related disability. Mediation analyses indicated that shutdown dissociation mediated the relationship between seven predictor variables and both chronicity and severe disability including possible predisposing factors emotional abuse, physical neglect, avoidant attachment and anxious attachment. These findings suggest that early life stressors (such as childhood trauma and avoidant attachment style), shutdown dissociation and depression may impact on migraine trajectory. To investigate whether these psychosocial factors are risk factors for migraine chronicity or disability, prospective research should be conducted in this area to account for fluctuations in migraine chronicity over time.

Effect of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden in Patients Who Had Previously Not Benefited from Migraine Preventive Medication (CONQUER Trial): A Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In evaluating therapies for migraine prevention, emphasis is placed on frequency and less attention is paid to duration or severity. Total pain burden (TPB) combines frequency, duration, and severity of migraine headache, and has the potential to further characterize the benefit of preventive treatment using a single composite measure. TPB was previously used to characterize response to galcanezumab (GMB) in patients with migraine. In this post hoc analysis we assessed the impact of GMB in lowering TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication.

METHODS

CONQUER trial patients (N = 462), 18-75 years old who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication, were randomized (1:1) to monthly placebo or GMB 120 mg with 240 mg loading dose. For each patient, monthly TPB in severity-weighted hours was calculated by multiplying migraine headache duration (hours) by maximum severity for each migraine headache day, then summing these daily scores over the month for the monthly score. Changes from baseline in monthly TPB across months 1-3 were analyzed. Spearman correlations between TPB and scores on the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) total and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) were assessed at baseline.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) baseline monthly TPB was 192.1 (158.3) and 188.2 (197.4) severity-weighted hours for GMB-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Across the 3-month double-blind period, GMB-treated patients experienced significantly greater mean reductions from baseline in monthly TPB compared with placebo-treated patients, both for mean change (GMB - 82.7, placebo - 15.8, p < 0.001) and percentage change (GMB - 38.6%, placebo 9.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, baseline TPB correlated with MSQ score (r = - 0.39) and MIDAS score (r = 0.40), suggesting good association of TPB with functional and disability outcomes.

CONCLUSION

GMB reduced mean TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03559257.

Parenteral NSAIDs for acute treatment of migraine: Adherence to the IHS guidelines for controlled trials

Background:

Parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are important alternatives to oral NSAIDs, especially in patients with severe migraine who have emesis or gastroparesis. With increasing research on using parenteral NSAIDs for acute migraine, it is critical to examine the quality of these studies. Our goal was to assess the adherence of these trials to the International Headache Society (IHS) controlled trial guidelines for acute treatment of migraine.

Methods:

We queried PubMed for clinical trials investigating parenteral NSAIDs for acute treatment of migraine in adult patients. We developed a 14-point scoring system based on the essential components of the IHS guidelines. To date, four versions of the IHS’s Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks have been published. Each trial was evaluated with the appropriate edition of the guidelines.

Results:

We identified 216 studies and assessed 27 eligible clinical trials. The mean score was 6.7 ± 2.1 (2–11). Most trials followed the IHS migraine diagnosis criteria (85.2%), but only six (22.2%) selected patients based on the recommended headache frequency. Most trials were randomized (88.8%), but fewer were double-blinded (74.1%) or placebo-controlled (11.1%). Almost every trial clearly explained the pain scale (96.3%), and three-quarters (77.8%) assessed headache-associated symptoms. However, no trial utilized the recommended primary endpoint: pain-freedom at 2-hours.

Conclusions:

Most clinical trials on parenteral NSAIDs for acute migraine did not fully adhere to the IHS recommendations. Future studies should pay special attention to the IHS guideline to improve the quality of clinical trials for the acute treatment of migraine.

Scheme optimization of acupoints compatibility and influence factors of the effect

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture may be a clinically effective treatment for insomnia. We will perform a multicenter, large-scale, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial to compare the differences in the clinical efficacy between the use of singleacupoints and compatibilityacupoints in the treatment of primary insomnia.

METHODS/DESIGN

A total of 333 participants will be randomly assigned to 2 acupoint treatment groups or 1 nonacupoint control group in a 1:1:1 ratio by a central stochastic system. The acupuncture groups are: the single acupoint group: Shenmen (HT7); and he compatibility acupoint group: Shenmen (HT7), Baihui (DU20), and Sanyinjiao (SP6). The observation period of this trial will be 10 weeks. All patients will be followed for 1 week before randomization (baseline phase). After randomization, the patients will receive 30 minutes of electro-acupuncture once per day for 5 weeks. In the fourth week after the treatment, follow-up will be performed once. The primary outcome will be the Pittsburgh sleep quality index score at 1 week before randomization and 2 and 8 weeks after randomization. The secondary outcomes will include data from sleep diaries, Athens insomnia scale scores, ShortForm-36 Health Survey scores, electroencephalogram technology results and polysomnogram) results. Patients will be required to complete a sleep diary every day during the treatment period. Patients will also undergo electroencephalogram technology and polysomnogram 1 week before randomization and 5 weeks after randomization. The other secondary outcomes will be measured 1 week before randomization and 5 and 9 weeks after randomization.

DISCUSSION

This trial will be helpful in identifying whether acupuncture at compatibility acupoints is more effective than acupuncture at single acupoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.govNCT02448602, Registered 5May 2015, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02448602?term=NCT02448602&rank=1.

Intravenous ibuprofen for acute treatment of migraine: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) Ibuprofen for acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND

IV nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are an alternative to oral NSAIDs, especially in patients with severe migraine who have emesis or gastroparesis. To date, only three IV NSAIDs (ketorolac, ibuprofen, and meloxicam) are available in the United States for use in moderate and severe pain, but no placebo-controlled trial is available for migraine. We performed a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IV ibuprofen as an acute treatment of migraine (NCT01230411).

METHODS

Individuals with episodic migraine were screened at the Jefferson Headache Center. Qualified subjects were treated for migraine attacks within 2-72 h following the headache onset with either 800 mg of IV ibuprofen or placebo in 250 ml saline bolus. Migraine pain intensity (4-point Likert scale) and associated symptoms were assessed at predetermined time points (0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 24 h). The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 h after infusion. Important secondary endpoints included pain freedom at 2 h, sustained relief over 24 h, use of rescue therapy, and absence of associated symptoms. Adverse events (AEs) were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-four participants were enrolled between 2011 and 2017. Forty-four subjects (female 33/44; 75.0%) with mean (SD) age 41.0 (11.2)   11.2 years came for the treatment. All treated subjects (n = 44) were included in the analysis. Among them, 23 were randomized to receive IV ibuprofen. Both groups were demographically similar except for longer migraine duration (i.e., years lived with disease) in the active treatment than in the placebo group. At 2 h posttreatment, pain relief was found in 74% (17/23) and 48% (10/21) after IV ibuprofen and placebo, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% CI: 0.88-11.0; p = 0.078). Other secondary endpoints at 2 and 24 h were not significant. The longitudinal repeated-measures analysis within 2 h on ibuprofen treatment showed significant pain relief (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.08-5.7; p = 0.033) and absence of associated symptoms: photophobia (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.57-10.3; p = 0.004), phonophobia (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.16-8.4; p = 0.025), and osmophobia (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.01-11.8; p = 0.048). AEs were observed in seven subjects in both groups, with arm pain being the most common. No serious AE was reported.

CONCLUSION

This study did not meet the primary endpoint but showed pain relief and elimination of several associated symptoms within 2 h on repeated-measures analysis. Although limited by small sample size and high placebo response, our results indicate that IV ibuprofen may be a safe and effective option for acute treatment of migraine, but more extensive studies are necessary.

Naratriptan is as effective as sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks when used properly. A mini-review

BACKGROUND

Naratriptan, marketed in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, is generally regarded as a less-effective triptan with a slower onset of action than most other triptans in the treatment of migraine attacks. In this review, naratriptan will be compared with sumatriptan, the standard triptan.

METHODS

Papers on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics and results from comparative clinical trials with oral and subcutaneous naratriptan versus other triptans were retrieved from PubMed.

RESULTS

Naratriptan and sumatriptan have similar effects in relevant animal models. In a randomized controlled trial, oral naratriptan 2.5 mg is less effective than oral sumatriptan 100 mg after both 2 h and 4 h. In contrast, oral naratriptan 10 mg has a similar time-effect curve as oral sumatriptan 100 mg, in both its steepness and the efficacy at 2 h and 4 h. Subcutaneous naratriptan 10 mg (88% pain free at 2 h) was in one trial superior to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg (55% pain free at 2 h).

CONCLUSION

Naratriptan was marketed for the treatment of migraine attacks as the "gentle triptan" in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, a dose with no more adverse events than placebo. This low dose results in the slow onset of action and low efficacy of oral naratriptan, but in high doses oral naratriptan is similar to oral sumatriptan. Based on one randomized controlled trial, subcutaneous naratriptan has probably the greatest effect of any triptan.

Patent foramen ovale closure in stroke patients with migraine in the CLOSE trial. The CLOSE-MIG study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The efficacy of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to reduce the frequency of migraine attacks remains controversial.

METHODS

This was a planned sub-study in migraine patients enrolled in a randomized, clinical trial designed to assess the superiority of PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy over antiplatelet therapy alone to prevent stroke recurrence in patients younger than 60 years with a PFO-associated cryptogenic ischaemic stroke. The main outcome was the mean annual number of migraine attacks in migraine patients with aura and in those without aura, as recorded at each follow-up visit by study neurologists.

RESULTS

Of 473 patients randomized to PFO closure or antiplatelet therapy, 145 (mean age 41.9 years; women 58.6%) had migraine (75 with aura and 70 without aura). Sixty-seven patients were randomized to PFO closure and 78 to antiplatelet therapy. During a mean follow-up of about 5 years, there were no differences between antiplatelet-only and PFO closure groups in the mean annual number of migraine attacks, both in migraine patients with aura (9.2 [11.9] vs. 12.0 [19.1], p = 0.81) and in those without aura (12.1 [16.1] vs. 11.8 [18.4], p > 0.999). There were no differences between treatment groups regarding cessation of migraine attacks, migraine-related disability at 2 years and use of migraine-preventive drugs during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In young and middle-aged adults with PFO-associated cryptogenic stroke and migraine, PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the mean annual number of migraine attacks compared to antiplatelet therapy alone, in migraine patients both with and without aura.

Patient-reported outcome measures in core outcome sets targeted overlapping domains but through different instruments

OBJECTIVE

There is no comprehensive assessment of which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended in core outcome sets (COS), and how they should be measured. The aims of this study are to review COS that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), identify their target health domains, main characteristics, and their overlap within and across different disease areas.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We selected COS studies collected in a publicly available database that included at least one recommended PROM. We gathered information on study setting, disease area, and targeted outcome domains. Full-text of recommended instruments were obtained, and an analysis of their characteristics and content performed. We classified targeted domains according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 94 COS studies that recommended 323 unique instruments, of which: 87% were included in only one COS; 77% were disease-specific; 1.5% preference-based; and 61% corresponded to a full questionnaire. Most of the instruments covered broad health-related constructs, such as global quality of life (25%), physical functioning (22%), emotional functioning and wellbeing (7%).

CONCLUSION

The wealth of recommended instruments observed even within disease areas does not fit with a vision of systematic, harmonized collection of PROM data in COS within and across disease areas.

The Altered Functional Connectivity With Pain Features Integration and Interaction in Migraine Without Aura

Introduction

Migraine without aura (MwoA) is a primary type of migraine, a common disabling disorder, and a disabling neurological condition. The headache is a complex experience, a common form of pain, in which multiple sensory information dimensions are combined to provide a unified conscious event. Migraine ictal have unique neuroimage biomarkers, but the brain is also affected during the inter-ictal phase. According to the current studies, a hypothesis was constructed that the altered integration of pain spatial and intensity information impacts headache intensity in the inter-ictal period.

Methods

In this study, we applied theory-based region-to-region functional connectivity (FC) analyses to compare the differences in resting-state FC between MwoA participants and healthy controls with the pain integration hypothesis. After the correlation matrices between FC edges and clinical symptoms were constructed, the moderating effect and simple slope tests were investigated to explain whether and how the dysfunction of pain features discrimination affects the clinical symptoms.

Results

Functional connectivity analyses showed significantly decreased FC edges between the left dorsolateral superior frontal gyrus (SFGdor) and left insula, and an increased FC edge between the left SFGdor and bilateral angular gyrus. The correlation matrix showed no significant correlation between significantly altered FC edge and headache duration, frequency, Zung self-rating anxiety scale, and Zung self-rating depression scale. Only one significantly altered edge in the MwoA condition was significantly correlated with headache intensity. Moderating Module 1 and 2 manifested the moderator variable (altered rs-FC edge) moderated the link between the normal edges and headache intensity.

Conclusion

The pain features integration processes in migraineurs vary from HCs, related to the clinical symptoms during a migraine attack. Moreover, the clinical symptoms will be affected by one or more discrimination modules. And the spatial or intensity discrimination modules have a higher impact when combined with another module on clinical symptoms than the single module.

Effectiveness of Standard Combination Therapy in Pediatric Migraine

BACKGROUND

A combination of parenteral medications (often referred to as standard combination therapy) is frequently used in the treatment of acute migraine in the pediatric emergency department (PED). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the two-hour, 24-hour, and seven-day impact of one such regimen on pain in children who present to the PED. Standard combination therapy for purposes of our study is defined as a bolus of intravenous saline, and a combination of intravenous ketorolac, prochlorperazine, and diphenhydramine.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 120 children between the ages seven and 18 years who presented to the PED with migraine, whose parents could read and understand the consent form in English, and who were treated with standard combination therapy. The primary outcome measure for this study was the change in severity of pain as noted by the child using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised. We analyzed normally distributed continuous variables by mean and standard deviation, whereas non-normally distributed continuous variables are reported by median and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Nonparametric Friedman testing on the entire cohort (n = 120) noted that there was a statistically significant change in the Faces pain scale from before administration of standard combination therapy to the two-hour, 24-hour, and one-week time point with a reduction in pain score of 87.5%, 100%, and 50%, respectively, at the three time points.

CONCLUSIONS

This study noted moderate relief of pain after administration of standard combination therapy, which persisted at one-week after administration.

Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.

METHOD

A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices.

RESULTS

Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed substantially across publications.

CONCLUSION

Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.

Health technology assessment for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: A position statement of the International Headache Society

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society presents the first Health Technology Assessment for the Acute Treatment of Migraine Attacks and Prevention of Migraine. Health technology assessments are systematic evaluations of the properties, effects, and consequences of healthcare technologies; this position statement is designed to inform decision makers about access to and reimbursement for medications and devices for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This position statement extends beyond the already available guidelines on randomized controlled trials for migraine to incorporate real-world evidence and a synthetic approach for considering multiple data sources and modelling methods when assessing the value of migraine treatments.

Effectiveness and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for preventive treatment of episodic migraine: a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled phase 2 trial (Magnet-EM)

Background

This is a phase II randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for preventive treatment of episodic migraine amongst migraine subjects.

Methods

Subjects age 18 to 60 years will undergo a baseline evaluation to establish the diagnosis of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorder 3rd Edition (ICHD-3). Those who fulfil the ICHD-3 criteria for episodic migraine and compliant to the headache diary during a month run-in period will be enrolled. A total of 76 subjects will be randomised to receive either transcranial magnetic stimulation or sham stimulation for 5 sessions within 2 weeks duration. Follow-up sessions will be conducted monthly for three consecutive months. Prior to treatment, subjects will be required to fill up questionnaires and undergo few procedures such as electroencephalography, transcranial Doppler ultrasound and biochemical analysis for serum serotonin, serum calcitonin gene-related peptide and serum beta-endorphin. These procedures will be repeated at month 3 after receiving the last treatment. The primary outcome measure of this study is the difference in mean monthly migraine days at baseline and at months 1, 2 and 3 after treatment sessions.

Discussion

Following evidence from previous studies showing restoration of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activation to almost normal level, the rTMS intervention will target left DLPFC in this study. An intermediate duration of treatment sessions is selected for this study. It is set to five treatment sessions given within 2 weeks duration.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03556722. Registered on 14 June 2018

Impact of galcanezumab on total pain burden: findings from phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic or chronic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN trials)

Background

Focus on the frequency of migraine pain may undervalue the total burden of migraine as pain duration and severity may present unique, additive burden. A composite measure of total pain burden (TPB; frequency, severity, and duration) may provide a more comprehensive characterization of pain burden and treatment response in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The impact of galcanezumab versus placebo on TPB among patients with EM or CM was analyzed.

Methods

Patients from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled episodic (two 6-month studies pooled) and chronic migraine (3-month) studies received once-monthly subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg or placebo. A post hoc analysis of TPB for a given month was calculated as severity-weighted duration by multiplying duration (hours) and maximum pain severity (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) of migraine for each day and summing these over the days in a month. Least square mean change from baseline in monthly TPB across Months 1–6 (EM, N = 444 galcanezumab, N = 894 placebo) and Months 1–3 (CM, N = 278 galcanezumab, N = 558 placebo) were compared using a mixed-model repeated measures model. Correlation of the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) to TPB at baseline was assessed.

Results

At baseline, the duration of migraine on a given migraine headache day accounted for the greatest unique proportion of variability (EM, 57.4% and CM, 61.1%) to TPB after adjusting for frequency of migraine headache days and maximum pain severity. The decrease from baseline in monthly TPB was greater with galcanezumab than placebo for patients with EM (68.6 versus 36.2) and CM (102.6 versus 44.4). The average percent reduction of TPB from baseline was significantly greater with galcanezumab compared with placebo in patients with EM (50.8% versus 17.2%) and CM (29.7% versus 11.0%). In patients with EM and CM, TPB correlated with MSQ total score (r = − 0.35 and r = − 0.37) and MIDAS (r = 0.34 and r = 0.32).

Conclusions

Greater reduction in TPB was seen in patients with EM and CM treated with galcanezumab 120 mg once-monthly injection relative to placebo. Discussing TPB supports patient-centric conversations regarding treatment expectations when clinicians are evaluating options for migraine prevention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: #NCT02614183 (I5Q-MC-CGAG; EVOLVE-1), #NCT02614196 (I5Q-MC-CGAH; EVOLVE-2), and #NCT02614261 (I5Q-MC-CGAI; REGAIN) – all 3 trials were registered on 23 November 2015.

Benefits Beyond Headache Days With OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment: A Pooled PREEMPT Analysis

Introduction

The double-blind, phase 3 PREEMPT trials demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine. This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA on clinically meaningful changes in headache severity, headache-related impact, and quality of life.

Methods

Pooled, 24-week data were used to determine percentages of patients meeting responder criteria for the change in headache days (≥ 50% reduction in headache-day frequency), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6; ≥ 5-point improvement), MSQ Role Function-Restrictive (MSQ-RFR; ≥ 10.9-point improvement), and Average Daily Headache Severity (ADHS; ≥ 1-point improvement on a 4-point ordinal scale [0 = no pain, 3 = severe pain]).

Results

In the pooled analysis population (N = 1384; onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696), significantly more patients treated with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with placebo were responders on HIT-6 (40.8 vs. 25.3%), MSQ-RFR (59.0 vs. 40.2%), and ADHS (35.5 vs. 22.4%) measures, and achieved traditional ≥ 50% reduction in headache days (44.8 vs. 34.2%; all P < 0.001). At least one responder criterion was met by 72.1% and 56.6% of onabotulinumtoxinA- and placebo-treated patients, respectively; all four were met by 20.4% and 8.6%, respectively (P < 0.001). Linear regression analysis showed that approximately 20% of the variance in HIT-6 and MSQ-RFR improvement was explained by improvement in headache days.

Conclusions

Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA for 24 weeks was associated with clinically meaningful benefits beyond reduction in headache days; including reductions in headache severity and headache-related impact, and improved quality of life. While 45% of patients met responder criteria for monthly headache days, over 70% had clinically meaningful improvements on at least one outcome measure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00156910 (PREEMPT 1) and NCT00168428 (PREEMPT 2)

The Impact of OnabotulinumtoxinA vs. Placebo on Efficacy Outcomes in Headache Day Responder and Nonresponder Patients with Chronic Migraine

Introduction

The phase 3 PREEMPT trials demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA for headache prevention in adults with chronic migraine. OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced headache frequency from baseline vs. placebo at 24 weeks; however, this measure may not fully capture the benefits of treatment. We evaluated the impact of onabotulinumtoxinA on patient-reported outcomes according to headache responder status.

Methods

A post hoc analysis pooled 24-week data from the placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind treatment phases of the PREEMPT trials. Patients were stratified by randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA vs. placebo) and headache day responder status (responder vs. nonresponder). Headache day responders had a ≥ 50% headache day reduction from baseline measured at weeks 21–24. Outcomes evaluated were patient-reported reductions in moderate-to-severe headache days, Headache Impact Test, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Missing values were estimated using a modified last-observation-carried-forward approach.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (N = 1384; onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696), headache day responder rates were 308/688 (45%) for onabotulinumtoxinA- and 238/696 (34%) for placebo-treated patients. At 24 weeks compared with baseline, onabotulinumtoxinA nonresponders showed significantly (all P < 0.01) greater mean (standard error) reductions vs. placebo nonresponders in moderate-to-severe headache days (– 3.5 [0.2] vs. − 2.4 [0.2]) and Headache Impact Test scores (– 2.3 [0.3] vs. – 0.8 [0.2]), and greater mean improvements in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire domains (Restrictive, 8.8 [1.0] vs. 2.9 [0.8]; Preventive, 6.0 [1.0] vs. 1.8 [0.8]; Emotional, 8.5 [1.3] vs. 2.8 [1.1]). Moderate-to-severe headache day and headache impact differences between nonresponder groups were evident at week 4 and sustained through week 24.

Conclusions

Relative to placebo nonresponders, onabotulinumtoxinA nonresponders experienced significant reductions in moderate-to-severe headache days and disability and improvement in quality of life, implying that the full benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA are not captured by headache day reduction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00156910 (PREEMPT 1) and NCT00168428 (PREEMPT 2).

Onset of action in placebo-controlled migraine attacks trials: A literature review and recommendation

BACKGROUND

Migraine patients want acute treatment to provide complete relief of the migraine attack within 30 minutes. Traditionally, "speed of onset of effect" is evaluated by estimating the time-point for first statistical separation of drug and placebo. The estimated onset of effect can be a few percent difference of patients being pain free in very large randomised, controlled trials. This difference, however, can be clinically irrelevant.

METHODS

Placebo-controlled randomised, controlled trials with pain freedom results from 30 min to 2-4 hours were retrieved from the literature. For each time-point, the therapeutic gain (drug minus placebo) (TG) was calculated. Therapeutic gain for being pain free of 5% was chosen for the definition of "onset of action", since this is approximately 1/3 of the 16% TG and 1/4 of 21% of TG for sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 22 time-effect curves based on randomised, controlled trials were analysed. Based on the "onset of action" of 5% pain freedom, the evaluated drugs and administration forms can be classified as follows: i) Early time to onset, ≤30 min (three randomised, controlled trials); ii) medium time to onset, 60 min (nine randomised, controlled trials); iii) delayed time to onset, 90-120 min (10 randomised, controlled trials).

CONCLUSION

Only three non-oral administration forms with a triptan (subcutaneous sumatriptan and nasal zolmitriptan) resulted in an "onset of action" at ≥30 min; in the future, early onset of action should be a priority in the development of new drugs or new administration-forms for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine attacks in episodic migraine in adults

Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently the Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine (2018), the Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults (2019), and Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents (2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine headache in Japanese patients with episodic migraine: A phase 2 randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective:

This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in comparison with placebo for the prevention of migraine in Japanese patients with episodic migraine.

Methods:

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, which was conducted over 6 months, randomized adult patients received subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab (120 mg n = 115, 240 mg n = 114) or placebo ( n = 230) once monthly. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days. The key secondary outcome measures were response rates (≥50%, ≥75%, and 100%); the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive score; monthly migraine headache days requiring acute treatment; and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S).

Results:

The mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days over months 1–6 was significantly ( p < 0.001) greater for the 120-mg galcanezumab dose (−3.60 days) and the 240-mg galcanezumab dose (−3.36 days) compared with placebo (−0.59 days). Both the 120-mg and 240-mg doses of galcanezumab were superior compared with placebo for each of the key secondary endpoints except for PGI-S (only the 240-mg dose was superior). The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were local injection-site reactions; erythema, swelling, pruritus, and pain were more commonly reported by patients who were treated with galcanezumab than those treated with placebo.

Conclusion:

The number of monthly migraine headache days was reduced with both doses of galcanezumab, and both doses were safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with episodic migraine.

Contract-relax technique compared to static stretching in treating migraine in women: A randomized pilot trial

INTRODUCTION

Physical therapy is often used by patients with headache, including modalities such as muscle stretching exercises.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of a pilot trial aimed at determining the efficacy of the proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) contract-relax technique compared to static stretching for treating migraineurs.

METHODS

This pilot trial allocated 30 migraineur women (23 ± 4 years) into PNF (n = 15) and static stretching groups (n = 15). The interventions were performed twice a week (16 sessions, 8 weeks). The feasibility outcomes included successful random allocation of 30 patients during a 12-month period, the proportion of eligible patients randomly assigned to each group, and the proportion of those who completed the 30-day follow-up. The outcomes of headache characteristics; medication intake; severity of migraine-related disability; neck disability; cervical mobility; pressure pain threshold; adverse effects and global perception of change were evaluated at baseline, after the end of treatment and after 30-day follow-up.

RESULTS

The recruitment rate was 4.66% participants/month. The proportion of eligible patients randomly assigned to each group and for those who completed the 30-day follow-up was 88.23% and 100%, respectively. Both groups improved in headache-related outcomes. The perception of change was important for 67% of the PNF group and 47% of the static stretching group. No differences were found between groups regarding the studied outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This is a feasible pilot trial. The PNF contract-relax technique was no more effective than static stretching for treating migraine, but both techniques improved the headache, the severity of migraine-related disability and the satisfaction after treatment.

Unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent and chronic disease associated with high rates of disability and significant financial and socioeconomic burden. Current acute treatments for migraine attacks include both migraine-specific (e.g., triptans, ergotamines) and nonspecific (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) medications; however, significant unmet treatment needs remain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to characterize the nature and drivers of unmet treatment needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and describe emerging migraine-specific treatments, that is, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were conducted using search terms for studies of unmet migraine treatment needs and CGRP receptor antagonists. Additionally, studies presented at recent headache-focused congresses were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of people with migraine report at least 1 unmet treatment need. Many people are unable to use migraine-specific or nonspecific agents because of contraindications, precautions, and tolerability issues. Disease burden (disability, headache severity/frequency) remains high even in those receiving migraine-specific medications. The oral CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and disability, with a low adverse event profile, similar to placebo.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The availability and use of CGRP receptor antagonists may help reduce the extent of unmet needs in the treatment of migraine attacks, resulting in more patients receiving treatment and better outcomes for people with migraine. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to increase rates of migraine diagnosis/treatment (another key unmet need), using consensus guidelines to guide their approach.

Ubrogepant, an Acute Treatment for Migraine, Improved Patient-Reported Functional Disability and Satisfaction in 2 Single-Attack Phase 3 Randomized Trials, ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient-reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change.

BACKGROUND

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co-primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient-reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient-relevant outcomes.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-attack trials in adults (18-75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant-treated participants vs placebo-treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient-centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.

Have the IHS Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks been followed? Laying the ground for the 4th edition

Background

The International Headache Society (IHS) has published four editions of Guidelines for acute clinical trials in migraine in the past 28 years. This continuous update process has been driven by the increasing amount of scientific data in the field of migraine and by the need to continuously improve the quality of trials.

Objectives

To illustrate: i) the results of the analysis on the adherence of published trials to the 3rd edition published in 2012, in order to identify the critical areas that needed to be addressed in the 4th edition and ii) the changes introduced in this latter edition for improving adherence and methodology robustness.

Methods

We searched and reviewed all controlled trials on acute treatment of migraine published in the period 2012–2018 and we assessed their adherence to the 3rd edition of the IHS Guidelines using a score system based on the most important recommendations. Afterwards, we compared the two editions of the Guidelines and assessed the changes between them.

Results

We included data from 24 controlled clinical trials. Most trials had a randomized double-blind controlled (RDB) design, while a minority (16.7%) were non-randomized double-blind trials. Less than half (44.6%) of the RDB trials used the recommended “pain-free at 2 hours” endpoint as the primary efficacy measure. Trial design and evaluation of results were the areas that diverged the most from the recommendations.

Conclusion

Adherence to IHS guidelines for clinical trials has been suboptimal so far. The new edition has been adapted and optimized to facilitate uptake and strengthen the quality of evidence.

The crossover design for migraine preventives: an analyses of four randomized placebo-controlled trials

Aims

To evaluate the crossover design in migraine preventive treatment trials by assessing dropout rate, and potential period and carryover effect in four placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

In order to increase statistical power, the study combined data from four different RCTs performed from 1998 to 2015 at St. Olavs Hospital, Norway. Among 264 randomized patients, 120 received placebo treatment before and 144 after active treatment.

Results

Only 26 (10%) dropped out during the follow-up period of 30–48 weeks, the majority (n = 19) in the first 12 weeks. No period effect was found, since the treatment sequence did not influence the responder rate after placebo treatment, being respectively for migraine 30.5% vs. 27.4% (p = 0.59) and for headache 25.0% vs. 24.8% (p = 0.97, Chi-square test) when placebo occurred early or late. Furthermore, no carryover effect was identified, since the treatment sequence did not influence the treatment effect (difference between placebo and active treatment). There was no significant difference between those who received active treatment first and those who received placebo first with respect to change in number of days per 4 week of headache (− 0.9 vs. -1.3, p = 0.46) and migraine (− 1.2 vs. -0.9, p = 0.35, Student’s t-test).

Conclusions

Summary data from four crossover trials evaluating preventive treatment in adult migraine showed that few dropped out after the first period. No period or carryover effect was found. RCT studies with crossover design can be recommended as an efficient and cost-saving way to evaluate potential new preventive medicines for migraine in adults.

The spectrum of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and subgroup analysis of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response

Objective

To assess the efficacy of erenumab across the spectrum of response thresholds (≥50%, ≥75%, 100%) based on monthly migraine days (MMD) reduction in patients with chronic migraine from a 12-week, randomized study (NCT02066415).

Methods

Patients (n = 667) received (3:2:2) placebo or erenumab 70/140 mg once-monthly. The proportion of patients achieving a given response threshold was assessed. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to contextualize the actual treatment benefit in subgroups of patients achieving (or not) specified response thresholds. Outcome measures included MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) and disability.

Results

The proportion of patients responding to erenumab exceeded that of placebo at the ≥50% and ≥75% response thresholds. At month 3, 39.9% and 41.2% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥50% response versus placebo (23.5%). Similarly, at month 3, 17.0% and 20.9% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% response versus placebo (7.8%). Compared with the overall erenumab-treated population (change in MMD: −6.6 [both 70 and 140 mg]), ≥50% responders showed MMD reductions of −12.2/−12.5 for 70 mg/140 mg versus −2.6/−2.2 for those not achieving ≥50% response. ≥75% responders showed MMD reductions of −13.9/−14.8 for 70 mg/140 mg versus −5.0/−4.3 for those not achieving ≥75% response. Relative improvements in MSMD and disability were observed in responders versus overall erenumab-treated population.

Conclusion

For erenumab-treated patients achieving ≥50% response, the actual reduction in MMD was almost twice that of the overall population. These findings provide context for setting realistic expectations regarding actual treatment benefit experienced by patients responding to treatment.

Why is the therapeutic effect of acute antimigraine drugs delayed? A review of controlled trials and hypotheses about the delay of effect

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral drug treatment of migraine attacks, efficacy is evaluated after 2 hours. The effect of oral naratriptan 2.5 mg with a maximum blood concentration (Tmax ) at 2 hours increases from 2 to 4 hours in RCTs. To check whether such a delayed effect is also present for other oral antimigraine drugs, we hand-searched the literature for publications on RCTs reporting efficacy. Two triptans, 3 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), a triptan combined with an NSAID and a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist were evaluated for their therapeutic gain with determination of time to maximum effect (Emax ). Emax was compared with known Tmax from pharmacokinetic studies to estimate the delay to pain-free. The delay in therapeutic gain varied from 1-2 hours for zolmitriptan 5 mg to 7 hours for naproxen 500 mg. An increase in effect from 2 to 4 hours was observed after eletriptan 40 mg, frovatriptan 2.5 mg and lasmiditan 200 mg, and after rizatriptan 10 mg (Tmax  = 1 h) from 1 to 2 hours. This strongly indicates a general delay of effect in oral antimigraine drugs. A review of 5 possible effects of triptans on the trigemino-vascular system did not yield a simple explanation for the delay. In addition, Emax for triptans probably depends partly on the rise in plasma levels and not only on its maximum. The most likely explanation for the delay in effect is that a complex antimigraine system with more than 1 site of action is involved.

Evaluation of Galcanezumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine: The EVOLVE-1 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Migraine is a disabling neurological disease characterized by severe headache attacks. Treatment options reduce migraine frequency for many patients, but adverse effects lead to discontinuation in many patients.

Objective

To demonstrate that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the prevention of episodic migraine with or without aura.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The EVOLVE-1 (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine 1) trial was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (January 11, 2016, to March 22, 2017) trial comparing galcanezumab (120 mg and 240 mg) vs placebo. Patients received treatments once monthly for 6 months (subcutaneous injection via prefilled syringe) and were followed up for 5 months after their last injection. It was a multicenter, clinic-based study involving 90 sites in North America. Participants in the study were adults (aged 18 to 65 years) with at least a 1-year history of migraine, 4 to 14 migraine headache days per month and a mean of at least 2 migraine attacks per month within the past 3 months, and were diagnosed prior to age 50 years. During the study, no other preventive medications were allowed. A total of 1671 patients were assessed; 809 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria, and 858 were included in the intent-to-treat population.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (2:1:1) to monthly placebo, galcanezumab, 120 mg, and galcanezumab, 240 mg.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the treatment period. Secondary measures included at least 50%, at least 75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine headache days, migraine headache days with acute medication use, and scores from the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Severity, and Migraine Disability Assessment. Treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events were reported.

Results

Of the 1671 patients assessed, 858 (mean age, 40.7 years; 718 women [83.7%]) met study entry criteria and received at least 1 dose of investigational product. The primary objective was met for both galcanezumab doses; treatment with galcanezumab significantly reduced monthly migraine headache days (both P < .001) by 4.7 days (120 mg) and 4.6 days (240 mg) compared with placebo (2.8 days). All key secondary objectives were also significant after multiplicity adjustment. There were no meaningful differences between 120-mg and 240-mg doses of galcanezumab on measures of efficacy. Completion rate during treatment was high (81.9%; n = 718), and the incidence of discontinuation owing to adverse events was less than 5% across all treatment groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg monthly injections provided clinical benefits and improved functioning. The incidence rate of adverse events was low, demonstrating the favorable tolerability profile of galcanezumab.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614183.

Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurological problem associated with the highest burden amongst neurological conditions in terms of years lived with disability. Medications can be used as prophylaxis or rescue medicines, but are costly and not always effective. A range of psychological interventions have been developed to manage migraine.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from their inception until July 2018, and trials registries in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand for randomised controlled trials of any psychological intervention for adults with migraine.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a psychological therapy for people with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without aura. Interventions could be compared to another active treatment (psychological or medical), an attention-placebo (e.g. supportive counselling) or other placebo, routine care, or waiting-list control. We excluded studies where fewer than 15 participants completed each arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and outcome data at post-treatment and the longest available follow-up. We analysed intervention versus control comparisons for the primary outcome of migraine frequency. We measured migraine frequency using days with migraines or number of migraine attacks measured in the four weeks after treatment. In addition, we analysed the following secondary outcomes: responder rate (the proportion of participants with a 50% reduction in migraine frequency between the four weeks prior to and the four weeks after treatment); migraine intensity; migraine duration; migraine medication usage; mood; quality of life; migraine-related disability; and proportion of participants reporting adverse events during the treatment. We included these variables, where available, at follow-up, the timing of which varied between the studies. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 21 RCTs including 2482 participants with migraine, and we extracted meta-analytic data from 14 of these studies. The majority of studies recruited participants through advertisements, included participants with migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and those with and without aura. Most intervention arms were a form of behavioural or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The majority of comparator arms were no treatment, routine care or waiting list. Interventions varied from one 20-minute session to 14 hours of intervention. No study had unequivocally low risk of bias; all had at least one domain at high risk of bias, and 20 had two to five domains at high risk. Reporting of randomisation procedures and allocation concealment were at high or unclear risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of evidence for outcomes to very low, due to very serious limitations in study quality and imprecision. Reporting in trials was poor; we found no preregistrations stipulating the outcomes, or demonstrating equivalent expectations between groups. Few studies reported our outcomes of interest, most only reported outcomes post treatment; follow-up data were sparse.Post-treatment effectsWe found no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions for migraine frequency in number of migraines or days with migraine (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.13; 4 studies, 681 participants; very low-quality evidence).The responder rate (proportion of participants with migraine frequency reduction of more than 50%) was greater for those who received a psychological intervention compared to control: 101/186 participants (54%) with psychological therapy; 37/152 participants (24%) with control (risk ratio (RR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.98; 4 studies, 338 participants; very low-quality evidence). We found no effect of psychological therapies on migraine intensity (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; 4 studies, 685 participants). There were no data for migraine duration (hours of migraine per day). There was no effect on migraine medication usage (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.24; 2 studies, 483 participants), mood (mean difference (MD) 0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.49; 4 studies, 432 participants), quality of life (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26; 4 studies, 565 participants), or migraine-related disability (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.00; 6 studies, 952 participants). The proportion of participants reporting adverse events did not differ between those receiving psychological treatment (9/107; 8%) and control (30/101; 30%) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.85; 2 studies, 208 participants). Only two studies reported adverse events and so we were unable to draw any conclusions.We rated evidence from all studies as very low quality.Follow-upOnly four studies reported any follow-up data. Follow-ups ranged from four months following intervention to 11 months following intervention. There was no evidence of an effect on any outcomes at follow-up (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 21 studies of psychological interventions for the management of migraine. We did not find evidence that psychological interventions affected migraine frequency, a result based on four studies of primarily brief treatments. Those who received psychological interventions were twice as likely to be classified as responders in the short term, but this was based on very low-quality evidence and there was no evidence of an effect of psychological intervention compared to control at follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on medication usage, mood, migraine-related disability or quality of life. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on migraine frequency in the short-term or long-term. In terms of adverse events, we were unable to draw conclusions as there was insufficient evidence. High and unclear risk of bias in study design and reporting, small numbers of participants, performance and detection bias meant that we rated all evidence as very low quality. Therefore, we conclude that there is an absence of high-quality evidence to determine whether psychological interventions are effective in managing migraine in adults and we are uncertain whether there is any difference between psychological therapies and controls.

Abnormal thalamocortical network dynamics in migraine

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the dynamic functional connectivity of thalamocortical networks in interictal migraine patients and whether clinical features are associated with abnormal connectivity.

METHODS

We investigated dynamic functional network connectivity (dFNC) of the migraine brain in 89 interictal migraine patients and 70 healthy controls. We focused on the temporal properties of thalamocortical connectivity using sliding window cross-correlation, clustering state analysis, and graph-theory methods. Relationships between clinical symptoms and abnormal dFNC were evaluated using a multivariate linear regression model.

RESULTS

Five dFNC brain states were identified to characterize and compare dynamic functional connectivity patterns. We demonstrated that migraineurs spent more time in a strongly interconnected between-network state, but they spent less time in a sparsely connected state. Interestingly, we found that abnormal posterior thalamus (pulvinar nucleus) dFNC with the visual cortex and the precuneus were significantly correlated with headache frequency of migraine. Further topologic measures revealed that migraineurs had significantly lower efficiency of information transfer in both global and local dFNC.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated a transient pathologic state with atypical thalamocortical connectivity in migraineurs and extended current findings regarding abnormal thalamocortical networks and dysrhythmia in migraine.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents, 1st edition

Background

Because the results of clinical trials of investigational treatments influence regulatory policy, prescribing patterns, and use in clinical practice, high quality trials are an essential component of the evidence base for migraine. The International Headache Society has published guidelines for clinical trials in adults with migraine since 1991. With multiple issues specific to children and adolescents with migraine, as well as the emergence of novel trial designs and advances in pharmaceuticals, biologics, devices, and behavioural interventions, there is a need for guidance focusing on issues specific to the conduct of clinical trials in children and adolescents with migraine.

Objectives

The objective of these guidelines is to provide a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the design, conduct, and reporting of well-controlled clinical trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents.

Methods

The development of these guidelines was based on guidelines previously published by the International Headache Society and regulatory bodies. The recommendations are evidence-based, where available. The process included consultations among various committees, roundtable discussions among stakeholders (lay people and the pharmaceutical industry), and open consultation with the IHS membership on the final draft.

Results

A series of recommendations addressing the major issues in clinical trials in children and adolescents with migraine is provided. Recommendations are supported by evidence-based practice and validated methodologies, where available. Supporting comments are provided to clarify ambiguities.

Conclusions

These guidelines should be consulted and used in designing and conducting clinical trials of preventive treatments in children and adolescents with migraine.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of migraine

BACKGROUND

The role of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for prevention of migraine is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerised search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through December 2017 for randomised trials evaluating PFO closure versus control in patients with migraine headaches (with or without aura). The main study outcome was the reduction in monthly migraine attacks after PFO closure compared with the control group.

RESULTS

The final analysis included three randomised trials with a total of 484 patients. Reduction in monthly migraine attacks was higher in PFO closure compared with the control group (standardised mean difference-SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06-0.43; p = .01). There was higher reduction of monthly migraine days in PFO closure group compared with control group (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.08-0.53; p = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in complete resolution of migraine attacks (OR: 3.67; 95% CI: 0.66-20.41; p = .14) and in responders' rate (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.76-4.85; p = .17) between PFO closure and control groups. In patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura, there was an observed reduction in migraine attacks in PFO closure compared with control groups (SMD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.07-1.65; p = .03).

CONCLUSION

PFO closure might be beneficial in migraine patients by reducing migraine attacks and migraine days, especially in patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura. However, those benefits were not associated with an improvement in responders' rate or complete resolution of migraine; raising concerns on the magnitude of clinical benefit of PFO closure in migraine prevention.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults: Fourth edition

The quality of clinical trials is an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. Scientific and clinical developments in headache medicine led to second and third editions in 2000 and 2012, respectively. The current, fourth edition of the Guidelines retains the structure and much content from previous editions. However, it also incorporates evidence from clinical trials published after the third edition as well as feedback from meetings with regulators, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and patient associations. Its final form reflects the collective expertise and judgement of the Committee. These updated recommendations and commentary are intended to meet the Society's continuing objective of providing a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Efficacy of psychological treatment for headache disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headache disorder is not only a common complaint but also a global burden. Pharmacotherapeutic and non-pharmacotherapeutic approaches have been developed for its treatment and prophylaxis. The present study included a systematic review of psychological treatments for primary headache disorder accessible in Korea.

METHODS

We included English and Korean articles from EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library database, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycArticles and Korean database, KoreaMed and KMBASE which studied primary headache and medication-overuse headache. The primary efficacy measure was the number of headache days per month, while secondary efficacy measures were the number of headache attacks per week, headache index, treatment response rate, and migraine disability assessment. The meta-analysis was performed using R 3.5.1. to obtain pooled mean difference and pooled relative risk with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and dichotomous data, respectively.

RESULTS

From 12,773 identified articles, 27 randomized clinical trials were identified. Primary outcome showed significant superiority of psychological treatments (pooled mean difference = - 0.70, 95% CI [- 1.22, - 0.18]). For the secondary outcomes, the number of headache attacks (pooled mean difference = - 1.15, 95% CI [- 1.63, - 0.67]), the headache index (pooled mean difference = - 0.92, 95% CI [- 1.40 to - 0.44]) and the treatment response rate (pooled relative risk = 3.13, 95% CI [2.24, 4.37]) demonstrated significant improvements in the psychological treatment group over the control group.

CONCLUSION

Psychological treatments for primary headache disorder reduced headache frequency and the headache index. Future research using standardized outcome measures and strategies for reducing bias is needed.

The Programme for the Evaluation of Patient Care with Acupuncture (Pep-Ac) – a Project Sponsored by Ten German Social Health Insurance Funds

Objective

The aim of the Programme for the Evaluation of Patient care with Acupuncture (PEP-Ac) was to investigate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in patients with the following three indications: chronic headache, chronic low back pain and chronic osteoarthritic pain. This article provides an overview of the results of the whole programme.

Methods

The programme included five randomised trials, a large observational study, a survey of physicians providing acupuncture, and three systematic reviews.

Results

The results show that, for all three indications, acupuncture, when compared to no treatment, produces a clear benefit that lasts for at least several months. However the effects of point-specific acupuncture only offered a significant advantage over minimal acupuncture in the treatment of OA knee.

Conclusions

The evidence from these trials – on the one hand, a clear overall effect of acupuncture and on the other hand, the lack of evidence supporting its superiority over sham acupuncture for all indications except osteoarthritis of the knee – leaves a considerable amount of room for interpretation.

The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide healthcare professionals with updated guidance in the use of novel preventive and acute treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The principles of preventive and acute pharmacotherapy for patients with migraine have been outlined previously, but the emergence of new technologies and treatments, as well as new formulations of previously established treatments, has created a need for an updated guidance on the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This statement is based on a review of existing guidelines and principles for preventive and acute treatment of migraine, as well as the results of recent clinical trials of drugs and devices for these indications. Input was sought from health insurance providers, employers, pharmacy benefit service companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, patients, and patient advocates. Expert clinicians and researchers in the field of headache medicine from across North America and the European Union provided input and feedback.

RESULTS

The principles of pharmacologic preventive treatment of migraine with oral treatments have been as follows: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; start with a low dose and titrate slowly; reach a therapeutic dose if possible; allow for an adequate treatment trial duration; establish expectations of therapeutic response and adverse events; and maximize adherence. Newer injectable treatments may work faster and may not need titration. The principles of acute treatment include: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; treat early after the onset of a migraine attack; choose a nonoral route of administration for selected patients; account for tolerability and safety issues; consider self-administered rescue treatments; and avoid overuse of acute medications. Neuromodulation and biobehavioral therapy may be appropriate for preventive and acute treatment, depending on the needs of individual patients. Neuromodulation may be useful for patients who prefer nondrug therapies or who respond poorly, cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement updates prior recommendations and outlines the indications for initiating, continuing, combining, and switching preventive and acute treatments of migraine.

Protocol and methods for testing the efficacy of well-being therapy in chronic migraine patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Chronic migraine is a chronic medical condition associated with resistance to pharmacological treatment and poor benefits from the psychological interventions studied to date, including acceptance and commitment therapy or mindfulness. This manuscript describes the rationale and methods for a pilot feasibility study designed to (1) establish and (2) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of research procedures and interventions to investigate whether well-being therapy improves outcomes relative to a control condition.

Methods

The current intervention will use a randomized controlled trial design, wherein 30 outpatients with chronic migraine will be randomized (1:1) to well-being therapy (n = 15) or to a control condition (n = 15). Primary outcomes include the level of disability caused by migraine and the frequency, duration, and intensity of migraine attacks; the secondary outcomes focus on anxiety, depression, psychological well-being, euthymia, and distress. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after sessions 4 and 8, and at 3-month follow-up. The Ethical Review Boards at the University-Hospital Careggi has approved the study (5th December 2017).

Discussion

Identifying medium-term interventions able to improve chronic migraine is relevant to manage this illness. The present randomized trial might represent a step forward for managing chronic migraine by means of psychological interventions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT03404336. Registered on 19 January 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2944-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-dose Ketamine Does Not Improve Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

Introduction

Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with migraine headaches. Although low-dose ketamine demonstrates analgesic efficacy for acute pain complaints in the ED, headaches have historically been excluded from these trials. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of low-dose ketamine for treatment of acute migraine in the ED.

Methods

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated adults 18 to 65 years of age with acute migraine at a single academic ED. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.2 milligrams per kilogram of intravenous (IV) ketamine or an equivalent volume of normal saline. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores, categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, side effects, and adverse events were assessed at baseline (T0) and 30 minutes post-treatment (T30). The primary outcome was between-group difference in NRS score reduction at 30 minutes.

Results

We enrolled 34 subjects (ketamine=16, placebo=18). Demographics were similar between treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference in NRS score reductions between ketamine and placebo-treated groups after 30 minutes. Median NRS score reductions at 30 minutes were 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 2.25) for the ketamine group and 2.0 (IQR 0 to 3.75) for the placebo group. Between-group median difference at 30 minutes was −1.0 (IQR −2 to 1, p=0.5035). No significant differences between treatment groups occurred in categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, rescue medication request rate, and treatment satisfaction. Side Effect Rating Scale for Dissociative Anesthetics scores in the ketamine group were significantly greater for generalized discomfort at 30 minutes (p=0.008) and fatigue at 60 minutes (p=0.0216). No serious adverse events occurred in this study.

Conclusion

We found that 0.2mg/kg IV ketamine did not produce a greater reduction in NRS score compared to placebo for treatment of acute migraine in the ED. Generalized discomfort at 30 minutes was significantly greater in the ketamine group. Overall, ketamine was well tolerated by migraine-suffering subjects. To optimize low-dose ketamine as an acute migraine treatment, future studies should investigate more effective dosing and routes of administration.

Migraine and Non-Migraine Headaches Following Diagnostic Catheter-Based Cerebral Angiography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

No reliable estimates of headaches following catheter-based cerebral angiography are available. We performed an observational cohort study to ascertain the frequency and type of headaches following catheter-based cerebral angiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent cerebral angiography through the transfemoral (or infrequently radial) route were included. Each patient underwent a brief neurological assessment after the procedure and more detailed assessment was performed if any patient reported occurrence of a headache. The headaches were classified as migraine if the diagnostic criteria specified by International Headache Society were met. The headache severity was classified using a visual numeric rating scale and time to reach pain free status for 2 consecutive hours was ascertained.

RESULTS

Migraine headaches occurred in 5 (3.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.2%) of 158 patients who underwent cerebral angiography. The median severity of migraine headaches was 10/10 and time to resolution of headaches was 120 minutes (range 60-360 minutes). Migraine headaches occurred in 4 (18.1%, 95% CI 5.2-40.3%) of 22 patients with a history of migraine and 4 (23.5%, 95% CI 6.8-50%) of 17 patients with regular migraine headaches (≥1 episodes per month). Headaches occurred in 6 (3.8%, 95% CI 1.8-8.0%) patients who did not meet the criteria for migraine headaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide occurrence rates of migraine headaches, an under-recognized adverse event, in patients undergoing catheter-based cerebral angiography.