Efficacy and tolerability in migraine prophylaxis of flunarizine in reduced doses: a comparison with propranolol 160 mg daily

Voltage-gated Calcium Channels as Potential Therapeutic Targets in Migraine

Migraine is a complex and highly incapacitating neurological disorder that affects around 15% of the general population with greater incidence in women, often at the most productive age of life. Migraine physiopathology is still not fully understood, but it involves multiple mediators and events in the trigeminovascular system and the central nervous system. The identification of calcitonin gene-related peptide as a key mediator in migraine physiopathology has led to the development of effective and highly selective antimigraine therapies. However, this treatment is neither accessible nor effective for all migraine sufferers. Thus, a better understanding of migraine mechanisms and the identification of potential targets are still clearly warranted. Voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) are widely distributed in the trigeminovascular system, and there is accumulating evidence of their contribution to the mechanisms associated with headache pain. Several drugs used in migraine abortive or prophylactic treatment target VGCCs, which probably contributes to their analgesic effect. This review aims to summarize the current evidence of VGGC contribution to migraine physiopathology and to discuss how current pharmacological options for migraine treatment interfere with VGGC function. PERSPECTIVE: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) represents a major migraine mediator, but few studies have investigated the relationship between CGRP and VGCCs. CGRP release is calcium channel-dependent and VGGCs are key players in familial migraine. Further studies are needed to determine whether VGCCs are suitable molecular targets for treating migraine.

Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis

Background

Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature.

Methodology

We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references.

Results

By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions.

Conclusion

Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine.

Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine imposes a substantial global burden, impacting patients and society. Pharmacotherapy, as a primary treatment, entails specific adverse reactions. Emphasizing these reactions is pivotal for improving treatment strategies and enhancing patients' well-being. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis of relevant literature.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a comprehensive search on the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science, restricting the literature for analysis based on criteria such as document type, publication date, and language. Subsequently, we utilized various analytical tools, including VOSviewer, Scimago Graphica, the R package 'bibliometrix', CiteSpace, and Excel programs, for a meticulous examination and systematic organization of data concerning journals, authors, countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and references.

RESULTS

By August 31, 2023, the literature was distributed across 379 journals worldwide, authored by 4,235 individuals from 1726 institutions. It featured 2,363 keywords and 38,412 references. 'HEADACHE' led in publication count, with 'SILBERSTEIN S' as the most prolific author. The United States ranked highest in publication volume, with 'UNIV COPENHAGEN' leading among institutions.

CONCLUSION

Our research findings indicate that researchers in the field continue to maintain a focus on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system and explore diverse mechanisms for drug development through the application of novel biotechnological approaches. Furthermore, it is imperative to enhance the assessment of clinical trial outcomes, consistently monitor the efficacy and safety of prominent drugs such as Erenumab and Fremanezumab. There is a need for further evaluation of acute and preventive treatments tailored to different populations and varying types of migraine.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine

OBJECTIVE

Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

Emerging drugs for the preventive treatment of migraine: a review of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a leading cause of years lived with disability and preventive strategies represent a mainstay to reduce health-related disability and improve quality of life of migraine patients. Until a few years ago, migraine prevention was based on drugs developed for other clinical indications and relocated in the migraine therapeutic armamentarium, characterized by unfavourable tolerability profiles. The advent of monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists, has been a turning point in migraine prevention owing to advantageous efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles.Nevertheless, while in an ideal scenario a drug characterized by significant greater efficacy and tolerability compared to existing therapeutic strategies should be adopted as a first-line treatment, cost-effectiveness analyses available for monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway tend to limit their administration to more severe migraine phenotypes.

AREAS COVERED

The present narrative review aim to provide a critical appraisal of phase II and III CGRP-mAbs and gepants trials to analyse their use in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway and gepants can be undoubtedly considered top-of-the-range treatments, there are still issues deserving to be addressed in the coming years as the risk of off-target effects as well as their economic sustainability based on the considerable migraine burden.

Revisiting Migraine: The Evolving Pathophysiology and the Expanding Management Armamentarium

Migraine affects about one billion people worldwide yearly and is one of the most common neurologic illnesses, with a high prevalence and morbidity, particularly among young adults and females. Migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including stress, sleep difficulties, and suicidal ideation. Migraine, despite its widespread occurrence, is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Because of the complicated and primarily unknown mechanisms of migraine formation, several social and biological risk factors, such as hormone imbalances, genetic and epigenetic impacts, and cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune illnesses, have been proposed. Through the mid-20th century diversion of the now-defunct vascular theory, the pathophysiology of migraine has developed from a historical study of the "humours" to a distinct entity as a neurological disorder. The range of therapeutic targets has broadened significantly, increasing the number of specialized clinical trials. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful research has resulted in the identification of major therapeutic classes: (i) triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, (ii) gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, (iii) ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, (iv) CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and (v) glurants, mGlu5 modulators, with further targets being explored. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent literature on epidemiology and risk factors and exposes knowledge gaps.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine: part II

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1 billion people worldwide and > 30 million Brazilians; besides, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The need to disseminate knowledge about the prophylactic treatment of migraine is known, so the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe, in the Portuguese acronym) appointed a committee of authors with the objective of establishing a consensus with recommendations on the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine based on articles from the world literature as well as from personal experience.

METHODS

Meetings were held entirely online, with the participation of 12 groups that reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of drugs and, at the end, met to read and finish the document. The drug classes studied in part II of this Consensus were: antihypertensives, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, other drugs, and rational polytherapy.

RESULTS

From this list of drugs, only candesartan has been established as effective in controlling episodic migraine. Flunarizine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and pizotifen were defined as likely to be effective, while lisinopril, enalapril, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, quetiapine, atorvastatin, simvastatin, cyproheptadine, and melatonin were possibly effective in prophylaxis of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an effort by the scientific community to find really effective drugs in the treatment of migraine, given the large number of drugs tested for this purpose, we still have few therapeutic options.

Inhibiting Endocannabinoid Hydrolysis as Emerging Analgesic Strategy Targeting a Spectrum of Ion Channels Implicated in Migraine Pain

Migraine is a disabling neurovascular disorder characterized by severe pain with still limited efficient treatments. Endocannabinoids, the endogenous painkillers, emerged, alternative to plant cannabis, as promising analgesics against migraine pain. In this thematic review, we discuss how inhibition of the main endocannabinoid-degrading enzymes, monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), could raise the level of endocannabinoids (endoCBs) such as 2-AG and anandamide in order to alleviate migraine pain. We describe here: (i) migraine pain signaling pathways, which could serve as specific targets for antinociception; (ii) a divergent distribution of MAGL and FAAH activities in the key regions of the PNS and CNS implicated in migraine pain signaling; (iii) a complexity of anti-nociceptive effects of endoCBs mediated by cannabinoid receptors and through a direct modulation of ion channels in nociceptive neurons; and (iv) the spectrum of emerging potent MAGL and FAAH inhibitors which efficiently increase endoCBs levels. The specific distribution and homeostasis of endoCBs in the main regions of the nociceptive system and their generation ‘on demand’, along with recent availability of MAGL and FAAH inhibitors suggest new perspectives for endoCBs-mediated analgesia in migraine pain.

Pharmacological treatment of migraine: Drug classes, mechanisms of action, clinical trials and new treatments

Migraine is the sixth most prevalent disease globally, a major cause of disability, and it imposes an enormous personal and socioeconomic burden. Migraine treatment is often limited by insufficient therapy response, leading to the need for individually adjusted treatment approaches. In this review, we analyse historical and current pharmaceutical development approaches in acute and chronic migraine based on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs and those under investigation. The development of migraine therapeutics has significantly intensified during the last 3 years, as shown by our analysis of the trends of drug development between 1970 and 2020. The spectrum of drug targets has expanded considerably, which has been accompanied by an increase in the number of specialised clinical trials. This review highlights the mechanistic implications of FDA-approved and currently investigated drugs and discusses current and future therapeutic options based on identified drug classes of interest.

Chronic Migraine: An Update on Diagnosis and Management

Background

Chronic migraine is an under-recognized and under-treated disorder. A greater understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and transformation to chronic migraine has led to the first targeted treatments for chronic migraine. In this review, we review current approaches to the diagnosis and management of chronic migraine and discuss recent and emerging novel therapies.

Objective

The aim of this study was to provide an update on the diagnosis and management of chronic migraine.

Methods and Material

The PubMed database was searched for relevant articles published on or before October 2020.

Results and Conclusions

Chronic migraine is an under-recognized and under-treated disorder. Prompt diagnosis and appropriate management can lead to a significant improvement in the quality of life with subsequent socioeconomic benefits.

Efficacy of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis: a trial sequential meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture is commonly used for migraine prophylaxis; however, evidence of its efficacy was equivocal.

AIM

We aimed to evaluated the efficacy of acupuncture in migraine prophylaxis and calculated the required information size (RIS) to determine whether further clinical studies are required.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane library, EMBASE and PubMed from inception to April 23th, 2020. Randomized trials that compared acupuncture with conventional drug therapy or sham acupuncture were included. The primary outcome was migraine episodes. Secondary outcomes were responder rate and adverse event.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (n = 3380) met the inclusion criteria. When it comes to migraine episodes, Acupuncture was superior over sham acupuncture [SMD = - 0.29, 95% CI (- 0.47 to - 0.11), P = 0.002] after treatment, while the difference between acupuncture and prophylactic drugs was not significant [SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI (- 0.42 to 0.00), P = 0.06].Both TSA graphs indicated that more RCTs are needed. As for responder rate, the results after treatment showed that acupuncture was statistically significantly better than sham acupuncture [RR 1.30, 95% CI (1.09-1.55), P = 0.003] as well as conventional drugs [RR 1.24, 95% CI (1.04-1.48), P = 0.01]. Both of their cumulative Z-curves intersected with the trial sequential monitoring boundaries favoring acupuncture. Compared to prophylactic medication, acupuncture can cause less adverse events [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.14-0.81), P = 0.01].

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture can reduce migraine episodes compared to sham one and can be an alternative and safe prophylactic treatment for conventional drugs therapy, but it should be further verified through more RCTs. Available studies suggested acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture and conventional drugs in terms of responder rate as verified by TSA.

Enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction in episodic migraine: a randomized clinical trial with magnetic resonance imaging outcomes

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR+) vs stress management for headache (SMH). We performed a randomized, assessor-blind, clinical trial of 98 adults with episodic migraine recruited at a single academic center comparing MBSR+ (n = 50) with SMH (n = 48). MBSR+ and SMH were delivered weekly by group for 8 weeks, then biweekly for another 8 weeks. The primary clinical outcome was reduction in headache days from baseline to 20 weeks. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes included activity of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and cognitive task network during cognitive challenge, resting state connectivity of right dorsal anterior insula to DLPFC and cognitive task network, and gray matter volume of DLPFC, dorsal anterior insula, and anterior midcingulate. Secondary outcomes were headache-related disability, pain severity, response to treatment, migraine days, and MRI whole-brain analyses. Reduction in headache days from baseline to 20 weeks was greater for MBSR+ (7.8 [95% CI, 6.9-8.8] to 4.6 [95% CI, 3.7-5.6]) than for SMH (7.7 [95% CI 6.7-8.7] to 6.0 [95% CI, 4.9-7.0]) (P = 0.04). Fifty-two percent of the MBSR+ group showed a response to treatment (50% reduction in headache days) compared with 23% in the SMH group (P = 0.004). Reduction in headache-related disability was greater for MBSR+ (59.6 [95% CI, 57.9-61.3] to 54.6 [95% CI, 52.9-56.4]) than SMH (59.6 [95% CI, 57.7-61.5] to 57.5 [95% CI, 55.5-59.4]) (P = 0.02). There were no differences in clinical outcomes at 52 weeks or MRI outcomes at 20 weeks, although changes related to cognitive networks with MBSR+ were observed. Enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction is an effective treatment option for episodic migraine.

Failure of preventive treatments in migraine: an observational retrospective study in a tertiary headache center

Background

Although the criteria for acute migraine treatment and prevention have been well described, there are still unmet needs, general underuse and low benefits of preventive drugs.

The aim of the present study was to retrospectively observe the short-term effect of preventive treatment in a cohort of migraine patients attending a tertiary headache center, using data from electronic medical records.

Methods

This was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in a tertiary headache center. Data were extracted from an electronic dataset collected from January 2009 to December 2019. The main selection criteria were as follows: age of 18–75 years; diagnosis of migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA) or chronic migraine (CM); a control visit 3 months after the first access; and prescription of preventive treatment with level of evidence 1 as reported by Italian guidelines. As the primary outcome, we considered the change in the frequency of headache at the follow-up visit. Then, as secondary outcome measures, we used disability scores, intensity of headache, and allodynia. As predictive factors, we considered age, migraine duration, sex, headache frequency, allodynia, anxiety and depression at baseline, and comorbidity with fibromyalgia.

Results

Among the 6430 patients screened, 2800 met the selection criteria, 1800 returned to the follow-up visit, 550 withdrew because of adverse events, and 1100 were included the analysis. One hundred thirty-four patients had a frequency reduction of 50% or more. Flunarizine was used for less severe migraine, with a better effect compared to those of other drugs (odds ratio: 1.48; p: 0.022). Low headache frequency and absent or mild allodynia predicted a better outcome.

Conclusions

The mild effect of preventive drugs on migraine features and even the number of patients who were lost to follow-up or dropped out because of adverse events confirm that in severe and chronic patients, the first line of prevention can only delay a more focused therapeutic approach.

Low-dose sodium valproate versus low-dose propranolol in prophylaxis of common migraine headache: A randomized, prospective, parallel, open-label study

CONTEXT:

Migraine is the second most common headache disorder. However, prophylactic therapy remains underutilized.

AIMS:

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose sodium valproate and low-dose propranolol sustained release (SR) in the prophylaxis of common migraine headache.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

The study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching institute. It was a randomized, prospective, parallel, open-label, clinical study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

The study included 60 patients with common migraine headaches (≥2 attacks/month) treated for 12 weeks. The patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups treated by sodium valproate 500 mg/day and propranolol SR 40 mg/day, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of responders (i.e., >50% decrease in mean headache frequency) at the end of 12 weeks and decrease in mean headache frequency (per 4 weeks) at the end of 12 weeks. The patients were assessed at 0, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of the study.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

Intention-to-treat analysis was used for all the statistical analysis.

RESULTS:

Fifty-five patients completed the study. At the end of the treatment, both sodium valproate and propranolol caused a significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headache. Propranolol caused significantly greater reduction in the severity of headache (P = 0.0410) than sodium valproate. The percentage of responders was 60% in sodium valproate group and 70% in propranolol group. Drowsiness was the most common adverse effect noted in both the groups.

CONCLUSION:

Both sodium valproate and propranolol significantly reduced frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headache, but propranolol caused significantly greater reduction in the severity of headache compared to sodium valproate. Both the medications were well tolerated and did not result in discontinuation.

Flunarizine as prophylaxis for episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Based on few clinical trials, flunarizine is considered a first-line prophylactic treatment for migraine in several guidelines. In this meta-analysis, we examined the pooled evidence for its effectiveness, tolerability, and safety. Prospective randomized controlled trials of flunarizine as a prophylaxis against migraine were identified from a systematic literature search, and risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Reduction in mean attack frequency was estimated by calculating the mean difference (MD), and a series of secondary outcomes-including adverse events (AEs)-were also analyzed. The database search yielded 879 unique records. Twenty-five studies were included in data synthesis. We scored 31/175 risk of bias items as "high," with attrition as the most frequent bias. A pooled analysis estimated that flunarizine reduces the headache frequency by 0.4 attacks per 4 weeks compared with placebo (5 trials, 249 participants: MD -0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.26). Analysis also revealed that the effectiveness of flunarizine prophylaxis is comparable with that of propranolol (7 trials, 1151 participants, MD -0.08; 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.18). Flunarizine also seems to be effective in children. The most frequent AEs were sedation and weight increase. Meta-analyses were robust and homogenous, although several of the included trials potentially suffered from high risk of bias. Unfortunately, reporting of AEs was inconsistent and limited. In conclusion, pooled analysis of data from partially outdated trials shows that 10-mg flunarizine per day is effective and well tolerated in treating episodic migraine-supporting current guideline recommendations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).

Combination of flunarizine and transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation improves migraine prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

This study is aimed to access the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of flunarizine plus transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation (tSNS) compared with either flunarizine or tSNS alone for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with episodic migraine were enrolled and randomized into 3 groups. Flunarizine 5 mg per day, or tSNS for 20 minutes daily or combination of both were prescribed consecutively for 3 months. The primary outcome measures were changes in migraine days and 50% responder rate of monthly migraine days. Secondary outcome measures were the changes in migraine intensity and intake of rescue medication. Finally, satisfaction to treatment and adverse effect were evaluated as well.

RESULTS

A total of 154 were randomized and included in the analysis. After 3 months, the monthly migraine days were decreased in 3 groups and more significant in the combination group. The 50% responder rate was significantly higher (78.43%) in the combination therapy than monotherapy of flunarizine (46.15%) or tSNS (39.22%) alone. Greater reduction of migraine intensity and intake of rescue medication was observed in combination group. There was no difference of adverse events between flunarizine group and combination group (P = .89).

CONCLUSION

Adding tSNS to flunarizine can improve the therapeutic efficacy of migraine prophylaxis without increasing the adverse effects. In addition, tSNS is effective and safe for migraine treatment and can be a valid option for migraineurs who are reluctant to take oral medications or for patients who experience a low-migraine frequency and/or intensity that prophylactic therapy is not indicated but desire to acquire medical intervention.

Flunarizine in migraine-related headache prevention: results from 200 patients treated in the UK

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

For over 20 years, as a group we have been using flunarizine in primary headache disorders. Flunarizine is widely used in Europe, but not licensed in the UK. In September 2014, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published supportive guidelines for flunarizine use in migraine, based on randomized controlled evidence that it is as effective as propranolol and topiramate in adults.

METHODS

We reviewed a cohort of adult patients (n = 200) treated with flunarizine from our practice. The clinical information of these patients, i.e. diagnosis, dose, efficacy, side effects and duration of treatment, was collected.

RESULTS

The most common indication for flunarizine use was chronic migraine, followed by migraine with aura, sporadic hemiplegic migraine, familial hemiplegic migraine and new daily persistent headache with migrainous features. Flunarizine was generally effective, with only 24% (n = 47) of patients reporting no clinical effect. The most common dose used was 10 mg per day. Duration of treatment information was available for 39% (n = 78) of patients. Of these patients, 64% (n = 50) continued treatment for more than 1 year. Doses up to 15 mg were generally well tolerated, with only 10.5% (n = 21) of patients stopping treatment due to adverse effects. The most common adverse events were tiredness, mood change and weight gain.

CONCLUSION

The data provide supportive evidence from tertiary headache practice in the UK for the use of flunarizine in migraine. The data encourages development of future guidance regarding flunarizine use in headache centres in countries where its use is not routine.

Acupuncture in migraine prophylaxis in Czech patients: an open-label randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant acupuncture for the symptomatic treatment of migraine reduces the frequency of headaches and may be at least similarly effective to treatment with prophylactic drugs.

METHODS

This article describes an open-label randomized controlled clinical trial with two groups: the intervention group (n=42) and the waiting-list control group (n=44). This study occurred at the Czech-Chinese Center for Traditional Chinese Medicine at the University Hospital Hradec Kralove between October 2015 and April 2017.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of acupuncture, the number of migraine days was reduced by 5.5 and 2.0 days in the acupuncture and the waiting-list control groups, respectively, with a statistically significant inter-group difference of 2.0 migraine days (95% CI: -4 to -1). A significantly greater reduction in the number of migraine days per 4 weeks was reached at the end of the 6-month follow-up period in the acupuncture vs. control groups (Δ -4.0; 95% CI: -6 to -2). A statistically significant difference was observed in the number of responders to treatment (response defined as at least a 50% reduction in average monthly migraine day frequency) in the acupuncture vs waiting-list control groups (50% vs 27%; p<0.05) at the end of the intervention. A significantly greater percentage of responders to treatment was noted in the intervention vs control groups at the 6-month follow-up (81% vs 36%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture can reduce symptoms and medication use, both short term and long term, as an adjuvant treatment in migraine prophylaxis in Czech patients.

WITHDRAWN: Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.

Zhengtian Capsule versus flunarizine in patients with migraine: a multi-center, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial

Background

The primary objective of this study was to assess whether Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine in efficacy and safety profile for prevention of migraine in adults.

Methods

This was a double-dummy, double-blind, multicenter, positive drug (flunarizine), parallel randomized controlled, non-inferior clinical trial. Patients (n = 360) were randomized in a 1:1 to receive either Zhengtian Capsule or flunarizine, including 12 weeks’ intervention and 4 weeks’ follow-up. The primary outcome measure was responder rate (defined as the percentage of subjects in a treatment group with 50 % or greater reduction in attack frequency during treatment compared with the baseline period). The secondary outcome measures included migraine attack frequency, the number of migraine days, pain evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) score, duration of migraine attacks, the times of using analgesics, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of migraine and the scores of short-form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36). Weight variation in both groups was also evaluated. Adverse events were monitored throughout the trial.

Results

Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine in responder rate at week 12 and follow-up period (P = 0.002, P < 0.001). There was fewer migraine days in Zhengtian Capsule group at follow-up period compared with flunarizine (P = 0.001). For the total duration of migraine attacks, there was significant group difference at week 4 which favored the control group (P = 0.009). For the total score of PRO scale, there was statistical difference between the two groups at follow-up period (P = 0.021). There were also group differences between the two groups in the dimensions of somatization symptoms at week 4 (P = 0.022) and functional status at week 12 and follow-up period (P < 0.001, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in migraine attack frequency, VAS scores reduction, consumption of acute pain drugs and the dimension scores of SF-36 at any time interval of the treatment period (P > 0.05). No severe adverse events occurred in the trial. Flunarizine was found associated with a weight gain.

Conclusion

Zhengtian Capsule was non-inferior to flunarizine with regard to the primary endpoint. In addition, it could reduce migraine days and improve the functional status and somatization symptoms of migraine patients with good safety profile.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR), ChiCTR-TRC-13004412.

General lack of use of placebo in prophylactic, randomised, controlled trials in adult migraine. A systematic review

Background

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) recommends that a placebo arm is included in comparative randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of multiple prophylactic drugs due to the highly variable placebo response in migraine prophylaxis studies. The use of placebo control in such trials has not been systematically assessed.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of all comparative RCTs of prophylactic drug treatment of migraine published in English from 2002 to 2014. PubMed was searched using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying reports of RCTs.

Results

A placebo arm was used in <10% (three of 31) of prophylactic RCTs in migraine. In only 7.1% (two of 28) of the comparative RCTs without placebo was one drug superior to another drug. Thus in 26 RCTs, including one study requiring more than 75,000 patient days, no difference was identified across treatment arms and conclusions regarding drug superiority could not be drawn.

Conclusions

The majority of comparative, prophylactic migraine RCTs do not include a placebo arm. Failure to include a placebo arm may result in failure to demonstrate efficacy of potentially effective migraine-prophylactic agents. In order to benefit current and future patients, the current strong tendency to omit placebo-controls in these RCTs should be replaced by adherence to the guidelines of the IHS.

Comparison of the Effects of Amitriptyline and Flunarizine on Weight Gain and Serum Leptin, C Peptide and Insulin Levels when used as Migraine Preventive Treatment

The tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline (AMT) and the calcium channel blocker flunarizine are frequently used in the preventive treatment of migraine, but the side-effect of prominent weight gain that frequently emerges during preventive treatment of migraine with these agents often leads to the discontinuation of therapy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the possible relationship between the weight gain associated with the use of these agents and serum levels of leptin, C-peptide and insulin in patient with migraine. Forty-nine migraine patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 25 and without any endocrinological, immunological or chronic diseases were randomly divided into two groups, receiving AMT or flunarizine. There was a statistically significant increase in serum levels of leptin, C-peptide, insulin and measures of BMI in both groups when measured at the 12th week of therapy compared to their respective basal levels. To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effects of AMT and flunarizine on serum leptin levels in preventive use of migraine treatment. A result from this study indicates that AMT and flunarizine may cause leptin resistance possibly by different mechanisms and thereby result in increase in serum leptin levels and BMI.

Evidence-Based Treatments for Adults with Migraine

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Drug therapy in headache

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

The diagnosis and treatment of chronic migraine

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Prophylactic activity of increasing doses of intravenous histamine in refractory migraine: Retrospective observations of a series of patients with migraine without aura

BACKGROUND

Histamine is thought to play a pivotal role in the modulation of peripheral and central pain. The administration of increasing doses of histamine may lead to desensitization of receptors of histamine types 1 and 2, causing meningeal vasodilation, and to depletion of neuropeptides in the trigeminal ganglion, thus inhibiting the initiation of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the efficacy and tolerability of increasing doses of IV histamine in migraine prophylaxis were investigated.

METHODS

This single-center, open-label, retrospective, controlled study was conducted at the Headache Center (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florence, Villa Monna Tessa, Italy). Patients included in the study had 3 to 6 migraines without aura per month that were refractory to common symptomatic and prophylactic agents in the 6 months preceding the study. Patients were treated with IV histamine hydrochloride for 21 days starting with a dosage of 0.5 mg/d and increasing to 4.0 mg/d. To assess the efficacy of the treatment, these patients were matched for age; sex; and frequency, duration, and severity of attacks with untreated migraineurs. Clinical benefit was defined as ⩽ 1 migraine of mild intensity per month. Tolerability was assessed during the hospitalization period, and patients were instructed to contact the Headache Center to report any adverse effects after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

The histamine group comprised 47 patients (40 women, 7 men; mean [SD] age, 42.0 [8.6] years) and the control group comprised 23 patients (20 women, 3 men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [8.4] years). The histamine-treated patients showed a clinical benefit lasting for a mean of 10.4 (4.2) months, while the patients in the control group showed a clinical benefit of 3.8 (1.9) months. The difference in the duration of the clinical benefit between the 2 groups was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.15-7.99). Adverse effects consisted of flushing, heat sensation during infusion, headache, and palpitations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, histamine showed lasting prophylactic efficacy in migraineurs. If further research confirms this preliminary finding, histamine could be considered when established prophylactic drugs, such as betablockers, calcium antagonists, antidepressants, and antiepileptics, have not been effective.

Evidence-based medicine in migraine prevention

Migraine headache is a chronic, painful, disabling and potentially progressive, condition primarily occurring in early and middle adulthood. For many patients, daily activities are impaired by the sudden and unpredictable occurrence of migraine attacks. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of migraine treatment. For the acute treatment of migraine attacks, 5-hydroxytryptophan(1B/D) agonists (so called triptans), were the most innovative development, successfully aborting attacks in less than 1 h. The search for innovative drugs usable for migraine prevention, however, was less successful, mainly due to the lack of reliable and predictive animal models. Recently, neuromodulators such as valproic acid and topiramate, initially developed as anticonvulsants, have been shown in large clinical trials to be effective in the prevention of migraine. As for the acute treatment of migraine attacks more than 10 years ago, large clinical trial programs are now setting new standards for evidence-based medicine in migraine prevention. This review summarizes the current options in migraine prevention with special emphasis on clinical trial design and new developments such as topiramate.

Duloxetine prophylaxis for episodic migraine in persons without depression: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the effects of daily duloxetine, 60-120 mg, on the frequency, duration, and severity of migraine attacks and the level of disability in episodic migraineurs.

BACKGROUND

There is a need for more proven effective migraine preventive medications. Two antidepressants, both of which block serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake, have been shown to be effective in the preventive treatment of migraine. Neither has earned a level A recommendation in the 2012 guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology. Duloxetine also blocks serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake.

METHODS

This was a prospective, 5-visit study on duloxetine treatment of episodic migraine headache with 4-10 migraine days, and less than 15 headache days per month. Patients were titrated to a goal dose of 120 mg. They were excluded if they had depression.

RESULTS

There were 22 completers plus 5 subjects who took at least 1 dose of drug. The mean duloxetine dose was 110 mg. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, subjects went from 9.2 ± 2.7 headache days per month at baseline to 4.5 ± 3.4 headache days per month (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the average headache duration, average headache severity, maximum headache attack severity, and level of functioning. Fifty-two percent of subjects had a 50% or greater improvement in headache days.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine prophylactic treatment with high-dose duloxetine may be effective in a nondepressed individual. The reported treatment response is in line with other commonly used migraine preventives.

The acute and preventative treatment of episodic migraine

Episodic migraine is a common debilitating condition with significant worldwide impact. An effective management plan must include acute treatment to relieve the pain and potential disability associated with the attacks and may also include preventative treatments with an aim of decreasing attack frequency and severity in the longer term. Acute treatments must be limited to a maximum of 2-3 days a week to prevent medication overuse headache and focus on simple analgesia, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans. Preventative treatments are numerous and should be considered when migraine attacks are frequent and or disabling, acute medication is failing, in special circumstances such as hemiplegic migraines or if the patient requests them. All preventative medications must be given at therapeutic doses for at least 6-8 weeks before an adequate trial can be judged ineffective. The most important factor in choosing drugs is the patient and the clinical features of their attack and treatment should be tailored to these. Relative co-morbidities will influence drug choice, as will the side effect profile and the efficacy of the drug. First line preventative drugs include ß-blockers, amitriptyline and anti-epileptic drugs such as topiramate and valproate. Drugs with lower efficacy or poorer side effect profiles include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), calcium channel antagonists, gabapentin and herbal medicines.

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

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

Safety and efficacy of flunarizine in childhood migraine: 11 years' experience, with emphasis on its effect in hemiplegic migraine

AIM

The aim of this study was to report a single-centre experience of flunarizine in childhood migraine with focus on safety and efficacy.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective observational audit of 72 individuals (40 male, 32 female; mean age 13y; age range 1y 6mo-17y) at a tertiary paediatric neurology unit between 1998 and 2009. Children were included if they had a diagnosis of migraine and at least one follow-up assessment and a minimum of 3 months' treatment with flunarizine.

RESULTS

Of 102 individuals identified, 30 were excluded for the following reasons: no outcome data (n=13), non-migraineurs (n=9), missing records (n=4), or inadequate treatment duration (n=4). Of the final cohort (72 individuals), 44 had migraine without aura, 15 had migraine with aura or childhood migraine equivalents, eight had sporadic hemiplegic migraine, and five had familial hemiplegic migraine. The median age was 13 years (1y 6mo-17y) and median duration of migraine was 48 months. Starting dose was 5mg. Other doses used were 2.5mg (three individuals), 7.5mg (one individual), and 10mg (six individuals). Treatment duration was 12 months. Successful prophylaxis, defined as at least a 50% reduction in attack frequency, was observed in 57% (41/72). Response rate was higher among those with hemiplegic migraines (85%) than in those who did not have hemiplegic migraines (51%). Side effects were noted in 15 (21%) individuals (depression, n=6; weight gain/increased appetite, n=5; tiredness/sedation, n=2; and worsening headache, n=2), and led to discontinuation of treatment in 13.

INTERPRETATION

In our cohort of children with migraine, flunarizine appears to be more effective in the hemiplegic migraine group. Adverse effects were seen in one-fifth of the individuals, leading to discontinuation in 18%.

Is placebo acupuncture what it is intended to be?

Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are recommended for evaluation of a treatment's efficacy with the goal of separating the specific effects (verum) from the non-specific ones (placebo). In order to be able to carry out placebo-controlled acupuncture trials, minimal/sham acupuncture procedures and a sham acupuncture needle has been used with the intention of being inert. However, clinical and experimental results suggest that sham/minimal acupuncture is not inert since it is reported that both verum acupuncture and sham/minimal acupuncture induce a significant alleviation of pain. This alleviation is as pronounced as the alleviation obtained with standard treatment and more obvious than the one obtained with placebo medication or by the use of waiting list controls. These results also suggest that sham acupuncture needles evoke a physiological response. In healthy individuals sham acupuncture results in activation of limbic structures, whereas a deactivation is seen in patients with pain, i.e. results from healthy individuals do not reflect what is seen in clinical conditions. Also, depending on the etiology of pain (or any under clinical condition under investigation), the response to sham acupuncture is varying. The acupuncture ritual may also be seen as an emotional focused therapy allowing for psychological re-orientation. Sham needling in such context may be as powerful as verum acupuncture. We recommend that the evaluated effects of acupuncture could be compared with those of standard treatment, also taking the individual response into consideration, before its use or non-use is established.

Are the current IHS guidelines for migraine drug trials being followed?

In 2000, the Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) published the second edition of its guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. The purpose of this publication was to improve the quality of such trials by increasing the awareness amongst investigators of the methodological issues specific to this particular illness. Until now the adherence to these guidelines has not been systematically assessed. We reviewed all published controlled trials of drugs in migraine from 2002 to 2008. Eligible trials were scored for compliance with the IHS guidelines by using grading scales based on the most essential recommendations of the guidelines. The primary efficacy measure of each trial was also recorded. A total of 145 trials of acute treatment and 52 trials of prophylactic treatment were eligible for review. Of the randomized, double-blind trials, acute trials scored an average of 4.7 out of 7 while prophylactic trials scored an average of 5.6 out of 9 for compliance. Thirty-one percent of acute trials and 72% of prophylactic trials used the recommended primary efficacy measure. Fourteen percent of the reviewed trials were either not randomized or not double-blinded. Adherence to international guidelines like these of IHS is important to ensure that only high-quality trials are performed, and to provide the consensus that is required for meta analyses. The primary efficacy measure for trials of acute treatment should be “pain free” and not “headache relief”. Open-label or non-randomized trials generally have no place in the study of migraine drugs.

Effect of preventive (beta blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the addition of preventive drug treatment (β blocker), brief behavioural migraine management, or their combination improves the outcome of optimised acute treatment in the management of frequent migraine.

DESIGN

Randomised placebo controlled trial over 16 months from July 2001 to November 2005.

SETTING

Two outpatient sites in Ohio, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

232 adults (mean age 38 years; 79% female) with diagnosis of migraine with or without aura according to International Headache Society classification of headache disorders criteria, who recorded at least three migraines with disability per 30 days (mean 5.5 migraines/30 days), during an optimised run-in of acute treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Addition of one of four preventive treatments to optimised acute treatment: β blocker (n=53), matched placebo (n=55), behavioural migraine management plus placebo (n=55), or behavioural migraine management plus β blocker (n=69).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was change in migraines/30 days; secondary outcomes included change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores.

RESULTS

Mixed model analysis showed statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences in outcomes among the four added treatments for both the primary outcome (migraines/30 days) and the two secondary outcomes (change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores). The addition of combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management (-3.3 migraines/30 days, 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -3.5), but not the addition of β blocker alone (-2.1 migraines/30 days, -1.9 to -2.2) or behavioural migraine management alone (-2.2 migraines migraines/30 days, -2.0 to -2.4), improved outcomes compared with optimised acute treatment alone (-2.1 migraines/30 days, -1.9 to -2.2). For a clinically significant (≥50% reduction) in migraines/30 days, the number needed to treat for optimised acute treatment plus combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management was 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment alone, 2.6 compared with optimised acute treatment plus β blocker, and 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment plus behavioural migraine management. Results were consistent for the two secondary outcomes, and at both month 10 (the primary endpoint) and month 16.

CONCLUSION

The addition of combined β blocker plus behavioural migraine management, but not the addition of β blocker alone or behavioural migraine management alone, improved outcomes of optimised acute treatment. Combined β blocker treatment and behavioural migraine management may improve outcomes in the treatment of frequent migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials NCT00910689.

Patient outcome in migraine prophylaxis: the role of psychopharmacological agents

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a serious illness that needs correct treatment for acute attacks and, in addition, a treatment prophylaxis, since patients with migraine suffer during acute attacks and also between attacks.

METHODS

A systematic review of the most relevant clinical trials of migraine headache and its epidemiology, pathophysiology, comorbidity, and prophylactic treatment (medical and nonmedical) was carried out using "Medline" and "PsychINFO" from 1973 to 2009. Approximately 110 trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the current review.

RESULTS

The most effective pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis is propranolol and anticonvulsants such as topiramate, valproic acid, and amitriptyline. Nonmedical treatments such as acupuncture, biofeedback, and melatonin have also been proposed. Peripheral neurostimulation has been suggested for the treatment of chronic daily headache that does not respond to prophylaxis and for the treatment of drug-resistant primary headache. The majority of the pharmacological agents available today have limited efficacy and may cause adverse effects incompatible with long-term use.

LIMITATIONS

The review was limited by the highly variable and often insufficient reporting of the complex outcome data and by the fact that migraine prophylaxis trials typically use headache diaries to monitor the course of the disease. The results of the different studies were also presented in different ways, making comparison of the results difficult.

DISCUSSION

An adequate prophylaxis is crucial in reducing disability and preventing the evolution of the problem into a chronic progressive illness. The implications of the present findings were discussed.

Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the prevention of migraine: a Markov model application

BACKGROUND

There are few data about the cost effectiveness of prophylactic medications for migraine. Clinical trials have shown several preventive agents to be useful in reducing the frequency of migraine attack while having tolerable side effects.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost effectiveness of adding preventive treatment to abortive therapy for acute migraine with abortive therapy for acute migraine alone in the primary care setting.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model with a cycle length of 1 day, a time horizon of 365 days and three health states was used to perform an analysis comparing the cost effectiveness and utility of five treatments for migraine prophylaxis (amitriptyline 75 mg/day, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, timolol 20 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day or propranolol 160 mg/day) with treatment of acute migraine alone for the management of migraine in the primary care setting. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The expected total annual cost for the use of preventive agents ranged from $US2932 to $US3887, compared with $US3960 for the use of abortive medications only. In the baseline analysis, use of each of the five preventive agents generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incurred lower costs compared with abortive medications only. Monte Carlo Simulation suggested that amitriptyline 75 mg/day was most likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus the other five therapies, followed by timolol 20 mg/day, topiramate 200 mg/day, topiramate 100 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day and propranolol 160 mg/day when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for society is <$US18 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive medications appear to be a cost-effective approach to the management of migraine in the primary care setting compared with the approach of abortive treatment only. Among those preventive agents, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that, when the societal WTP is <$US18 000 per QALY gained, amitriptyline 75 mg/day is most likely to be considered a cost-effective option.

Topiramate in the prevention and treatment of migraine: efficacy, safety and patient preference

Migraine is a very common disorder characterized by the combination of typical headache with associated autonomic symptoms and/or the presence of aura. Considerable advances have been made in recent years to understand the pathophysiology of migraine, which has led to improved treatment options for the acute migraine attack as well as migraine prophylaxis. Unfortunately, preventive treatment is often insufficient to decrease migraine frequency substantially or is not well tolerated. Topiramate is an antipileptic drug with a complex mode of action which has proven its efficacy and safety in the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine in a number of randomized controlled clinical trials. Topiramate is also effective in treating patients with chronic migraine. It has little pharmacological interaction with other drugs and is generally well tolerated by patients.

Prevention of episodic migraines with topiramate: results from a non-interventional study in a general practice setting

The majority of patients with migraine headaches are treated in non-specialized institutions though data on treatment outcomes are largely derived from tertiary care centers. The current non-interventional study explores efficacy and tolerability outcomes of patients with episodic migraines receiving topiramate as preventive agent in a general practice setting. A total of 366 patients (87% female, mean age 41.8 +/- 11.6 years) were eligible for migraine prevention and treated with flexible dose topiramate for 6 months (core phase), and optionally for a total of 12 months (follow-up phase). Overall, 261 patients (77.7% of safety analysis set, SAF) completed the core phase. Reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (2.1%), lost to follow-up (1.8%), other reasons (1.5%), and end of therapy (0.3%) though in the majority of patients who discontinued no reasons were listed. The median daily dose at endpoint was 50 mg/day (range, 25-187.5 mg/day). The median days with migraine headaches decreased from 6.0 to 1.2 days (p < 0.001), median pain intensity score decreased from 17.0 to 3.2 points (p < 0.001). In women with reported menstruation-associated migraine, the median number of migraine attacks decreased from 4.0 to 0.9 (p < 0.001). Absenteeism as well as triptan use decreased significantly, and significant improvements in activities of daily living and quality of life were reported. The most frequently reported AEs were paraesthesia (4.2%) and nausea (3%). Results suggest that migraine prevention with topiramate in a general practice is generally well tolerated and associated with a significant improvement in migraine headaches and related functional impairment.

Migraine preventive treatment

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease. Preventive therapy is given in an attempt to reduce the frequency, duration, or severity of attacks. Circumstances that might warrant preventive treatment include recurring migraine attacks that significantly interfere with the patient's daily routines, despite appropriate acute treatment; frequent headaches; contraindication to, failure of, overuse of, or intolerance to acute therapies; patient preference; frequent, very long, or uncomfortable auras; and presence of uncommon migraine conditions. The major medication groups for preventive migraine treatment include beta-adrenergic blockers, antidepressants, calcium channel antagonists, serotonin antagonists, and anticonvulsants. The choice of preventive treatment depends on the individual drug's efficacy and adverse events, the patient's clinical features, frequency, and response to prior treatment, and the presence of any comorbid or coexistent disease.