Zonisamide versus topiramate in migraine prophylaxis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Migraine - a borderland disease to epilepsy: near it but not of it

BACKGROUND

Migraine and epilepsy are two paroxysmal chronic neurological disorders affecting a high number of individuals and being responsible for a high individual and socioeconomic burden. The link between these disorders has been of interest for decades and innovations concerning diagnosing and treatment enable new insights into their relationship.

FINDINGS

Although appearing to be distinct at first glance, both diseases exhibit a noteworthy comorbidity, shared pathophysiological pathways, and significant overlaps in characteristics like clinical manifestation or prophylactic treatment. This review aims to explore the intricate relationship between these two conditions, shedding light on shared pathophysiological foundations, genetic interdependencies, common and distinct clinical features, clinically overlapping syndromes, and therapeutic similarities. There are several shared pathophysiological mechanisms, like CSD, the likely underlying cause of migraine aura, or neurotransmitters, mainly Glutamate and GABA, which represent important roles in triggering migraine attacks and seizures. The genetic interrelations between the two disorders can be observed by taking a closer look at the group of familial hemiplegic migraines, which are caused by mutations in genes like CACNA1A, ATP1A2, or SCN1A. The intricate relationship is further underlined by the high number of shared clinical features, which can be observed over the entire course of migraine attacks and epileptic seizures. While the variety of the clinical manifestation of an epileptic seizure is naturally higher than that of a migraine attack, a distinction can indeed be difficult in some cases, e.g. in occipital lobe epilepsy. Moreover, triggering factors like sleep deprivation or alcohol consumption play an important role in both diseases. In the period after the seizure or migraine attack, symptoms like speech difficulties, tiredness, and yawning occur. While the actual attack of the disease usually lasts for a limited time, research indicates that individuals suffering from migraine and/or epilepsy are highly affected in their daily life, especially regarding cognitive and social aspects, a burden that is even worsened using antiseizure medication. This medication allows us to reveal further connections, as certain antiepileptics are proven to have beneficial effects on the frequency and severity of migraine and have been used as a preventive drug for both diseases over many years.

CONCLUSION

Migraine and epilepsy show a high number of similarities in their mechanisms and clinical presentation. A deeper understanding of the intricate relationship will positively advance patient-oriented research and clinical work.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate

OBJECTIVE

Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)].

CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Antiseizure Medications for the Prophylaxis of Migraine during the Anti- CGRP Drugs Era

Migraine and epilepsy are fundamentally distinct disorders that can frequently coexist in the same patient. These two conditions significantly differ in diagnosis and therapy but share some widely- used preventive treatments. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of therapy for epilepsy, and about thirty different ASMs are available to date. ASMs are widely prescribed for other neurological and non-neurological conditions, including migraine. However, only topiramate and valproic acid/valproate currently have an indication for migraine prophylaxis supported by high-quality evidence. Although without specifically approved indications and with a low level of evidence or recommendation, several other ASMs are used for migraine prophylaxis. Understanding ASM antimigraine mechanisms, including their ability to affect the pro-migraine calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway and other pathways, may be instrumental in identifying the specific targets of their antimigraine efficacy and may increase awareness of the neurobiological differences between epilepsy and migraine. Several new ASMs are under clinical testing or have been approved for epilepsy in recent years, providing novel potential drugs for migraine prevention to enrich the treatment armamentarium and drugs that inhibit the CGRP pathway.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Episodic Migraine: part I

The Brazilian Headache Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia, SBCe, in Portuguese) nominated a Committee of Authors with the aim of establishing a consensus with recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine based on articles published in the worldwide literature, as well as personal experience. Migraine affects 1 billion people around the world and more than 30 million Brazilians. In addition, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder. It is well known within the medical community of neurologists, and especially among headache specialists, that there is a need to disseminate knowledge about prophylactic treatment for migraine. For this purpose, together with the need for drug updates and to expand knowledge of the disease itself (frequency, intensity, duration, impact and perhaps the progression of migraine), this Consensus was developed, following a full online methodology, by 12 groups who reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of the drugs used and, at the end of the process, met to read and establish conclusions for this document. The drug classes studied were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) antibodies, beta-blockers, antihypertensives, calcium channel inhibitors, other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, and dual-action antidepressants), other drugs, and polytherapy. Hormonal treatment and anti-inflammatories and triptans in minimum prophylaxis schemes (miniprophylaxis) will be covered in a specific chapter. The drug classes studied for part I of the Consensus were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies, and beta-blockers.

Movement disorders associated with antiseizure medications: A systematic review

New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations and the spectrum of their semiology for various ASMs have not been well characterized. We carried out a systematic review of literature and conducted a search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to April 2021. We compiled the data for all currently available ASMs using the conventional terminology of movement disorders. Among 5123 manuscripts identified by the search, 437 met the inclusion criteria. The largest number of reports of abnormal movements were in association with phenobarbital, valproic acid, lacosamide, and perampanel, and predominantly included tremor and ataxia. The majority of attempted interventions for all agents were discontinuation of the offending drug or dose reduction which led to the resolution of symptoms in most patients. Familiarity with the movement disorder phenomenology previously encountered in relation with specific ASMs facilitates early recognition of adverse effects and timely institution of targeted interventions.

The Application of Zonisamide to Patients Suffering from Dementia with Lewy Bodies: Emerging Clinical Data

Zonisamide is an anti-epileptic medication with multiple mechanisms of action and a favorable safety profile. Zonisamide may interact with Lewy body dementia pathophysiology through a mechanism unrelated to its original indication. Zonisamide has shown efficacy as adjunct therapy for the management of motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Given that dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and PD are considered subtypes of a Lewy body disease spectrum, zonisamide was investigated for the treatment of parkinsonism in DLB. Phase II and phase III clinical trials were conducted in patients with DLB in Japan. In both studies, participants were randomized to receive 12 weeks of zonisamide 25 or 50 mg/day or placebo. Zonisamide significantly improved the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) without affecting the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Neuropsychiatry Inventory-10 (NPI-10) scores at week 12. In 2018, zonisamide received Japanese regulatory approval for the additional indication of parkinsonism in DLB. This review discusses the emerging clinical data on zonisamide in the field of DLB.

Zonisamide as treatment option in persistent migraine aura

Persistent migraine aura without infarction is a rare but debilitating condition. Treatment options are mostly anecdotal and limited due to inefficacy and side effects. We present a 16-year-old female patient with triple X syndrome, having persistent aura symptoms for over 2 years, consisting of continuous visual and sensory sensations. Previous treatments with seven different migraine preventatives were not successful. The patient successfully responded to zonisamide against refractory prolonged aura and remained symptom-free under the ongoing treatment without any relevant side effects. Zonisamide may be considered a new and safe treatment option for patients with persistent migraine aura.

Initiating antiepilepsy treatment: An update of expert consensus in Spain

Following publication in 2014 of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) official report changing the definition of epilepsy, a number of questions remain unresolved in regard to deciding when to start treatment and to the choice of a particular antiseizure medication (ASM). This study uses a Delphi method to update consensus among a panel of experts on the initiation of epilepsy treatment in order to provide insight regarding those questions. The study was undertaken in four phases. Firstly, a multi-center steering committee met to review relevant bibliography and to draft a questionnaire. Secondly, a panel of neurologists specialized in epilepsy was selected and convened. Thirdly, an online survey was carried out in two rounds. Fourthly, the final results were discussed at a face-to-face meeting of the steering committee to draw conclusions. The final questionnaire focused on three independent sections: the decision to commence ASM in different clinical situations, the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex (including childbearing potential), and the choice of initial monotherapy depending on comorbidity. In these two latter sections, fourteen ASMs approved for monotherapy use by the EMA and available in Spain were considered. Regarding the decision as to when to commence treatment, the results show agreement exists to initiate treatment following a first generalized tonic-clonic seizure or a focal seizure if the electroencephalography (EEG) reveals epileptiform activity, if the MRI reveals a lesion, or when it occurs in elderly patients. With respect to the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex profile, it is agreed to avoid valproic acid (VPA) in women with childbearing potential, with levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) being the preferable options in generalized epilepsy. In focal epilepsy, the options are broader, particularly in men, and include the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy. In the elderly, LEV, lacosamide (LCM), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) and LTG are considered the most suitable drugs for initiating treatment. With regard to comorbidities, the recommendation is to avoid enzyme inducing ASMs, with LEV, the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy and LTG being the preferred options. In conclusion, as the ILAE definition states, there are different situations that lead to treatment initiation after a first seizure. When choosing the first ASM, the type of epilepsy, childbearing potential and drug-drug interaction are key factors.

Management of Chronic Migraine in Children and Adolescents: A Brief Discussion on Preventive Therapies

Pediatric migraine is a debilitating disease that affects about 10% of school-aged children. Like other pain disorders, migraines can be accompanied with sleep, mood, and cognitive difficulties, leading to interruptions in daily tasks required at both school and home. This paper serves as a review of the most current pharmacological treatments available for managing migraine in the pediatric population. Because the management of migraine is complex, we discuss the importance of multidisciplinary care involving pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures, behavioral modifications, and a shared treatment plan between the clinician, patient, and parent/care giver. A diverse group of medications are used to prevent migraine attacks including antiepileptics, antidepressants, antihistamines, and antihypertensive agents, in addition to newer classes of medications; yet there remains a serious lack of controlled studies in the pediatric population. Further clinical research is necessary to have Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications readily available for migraine sufferers.

Pharmacological options for the treatment of chronic migraine pain

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

Migraine Care in the Era of COVID-19: Clinical Pearls and Plea to Insurers

Objective

To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in‐person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine.

Background

COVID‐19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe “social distancing” and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra‐indicated in the setting of COVID‐19 infection.

Design/Results

The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence‐based treatment where possible, but also describe “real world” strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care.

Conclusions

Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in‐person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Preventive Treatment for Episodic Migraine

Episodic migraine is a debilitating condition. Preventive therapy is used to reduce frequency, duration, or severity of attacks. This review discusses principles of preventive treatment with a focus on preventive treatment options for people with episodic migraine. Specifically discussed is evidence and use of new migraine-specific treatment options for episodic migraine, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, a noninvasive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device, and a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulator device. Also discussed are evidence-based updates from the 2012 American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society guidelines regarding major medication classes recommended for preventive episodic migraine treatment.

Current Status of Antiepileptic Drugs as Preventive Migraine Therapy

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are an important class of agents used in the treatment of migraine, a neurological disorder that imparts significant socioeconomic burden. It is important for neurologists to understand the rationale for AEDs in migraine-preventive treatment, as well as each agent's efficacy and tolerability profile, in order to best determine clinical care.

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This article specifically provides the following: (1) a review of the mechanism of action, efficacy, and tolerability of topiramate and divalproex sodium/sodium valproate, the most widely used AEDs for migraine prevention, (2) a discussion on emerging evidence regarding the efficacy of zonisamide and levetiracetam, and (3) comments on gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and lamotrigine, AEDs which have insufficient evidence for use in migraine prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

The potential role for new extended-release formulations of topiramate in migraine prevention is discussed. There is substantial evidence supporting the use of AEDs in migraine prevention. Specific agents should be chosen based on their efficacy and tolerability profiles. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of the newer AEDs, zonisamide and levetiracetam, in migraine prevention and to clarify the role of gabapentinoids in headache management.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Effect of carbamazepine on tetrodotoxin-resistant Na+ channels in trigeminal ganglion neurons innervating to the dura

Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by recurrent and disabling severe headaches. Although several anticonvulsant drugs that block voltage-dependent Na⁺ channels are widely used for migraine, far less is known about the therapeutic actions of carbamazepine on migraine. In the present study, therefore, we characterized the effects of carbamazepine on tetrodotoxin-resistant (TTX-R) Na⁺ channels in acutely isolated rat dural afferent neurons, which were identified by the fluorescent dye DiI. The TTX-R Na⁺ currents were measured in medium-sized DiIpositive neurons using the whole-cell patch clamp technique in the voltage-clamp mode. While carbamazepine had little effect on the peak amplitude of transient Na⁺ currents, it strongly inhibited steady-state currents of transient as well as persistent Na⁺ currents in a concentration-dependent manner. Carbamazepine had only minor effects on the voltage-activation relationship, the voltage-inactivation relationship, and the use-dependent inhibition of TTX-R Na⁺ channels. However, carbamazepine changed the inactivation kinetics of TTX-R Na⁺ channels, significantly accelerating the development of inactivation and delaying the recovery from inactivation. In the current-clamp mode, carbamazepine decreased the number of action potentials without changing the action potential threshold. Given that the sensitization of dural afferent neurons by inflammatory mediators triggers acute migraine headaches and that inflammatory mediators potentiate TTX-R Na⁺ currents, the present results suggest that carbamazepine may be useful for the treatment of migraine headaches.

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010–2015 on migraine drug treatments

Background

In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the “evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine”. They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements.

Methods

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts.

Results

We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events.

Conclusion

Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

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.

Topiramate for Treatment in Patients With Migraine and Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AED) are often considered first line for monotherapy in treatment of patients with migraines, and also those with comorbid migraine and epilepsy. Topiramate, a newer generation AED, has broad mechanism of action and evidence of benefit in patients with either episodic or chronic migraine along with epilepsy, both generalized and focal.

METHODS

Our goal is to review the relevant mechanisms of action along with any supportive evidence published to date on the use of topiramate (TPM) in patients with both migraine headache and epilepsy.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been very little published to date on the use of TPM in patients diagnosed with both disorders. Despite this, TPM has been adopted as first line therapy in this patient population. Future studies investigating the effectiveness of this treatment strategy are warranted in order to determine the most effective use of this medication in patients diagnosed with migraine headaches and epilepsy.

The Use of Antiepileptics in Migraine Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic debilitating disorder. Selected antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are proposed as preventives for migraine. Clinical efficacy and side effects of these AEDs are discussed.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

The American Academy of Neurology and the American Society of Headache classify topiramate (TPM) and divalproex sodium (DVPX) as Level-A medications and recommend offering them to patients for migraine prophylaxis. Their mechanism(s) of actions remains not entirely known. Their recognized action as sodium channel blockers may affect the neural component of migraine pain. TPM or DVPX can be considered an obvious choice for those patients with a concomitant seizure disorder. Care must be taken to plan their treatment with their psychiatrist if a mood disorder is present. DVPX tends not to be prescribed as first/second choice due to its potential for weight gain and hepatotoxicity. TPM is generally first choice, but bears severe contraindications. Both medications require education on teratogenesis in childbearing women. Consideration of gabapentin, acetazolamide, leviteracetam, zonisamide, and carbamazipine may be given later as empiric options and in selected patients. Patients must be made aware that there is insufficient scientific support for their use in migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Available AEDs to prophylactically treat migraine are few but of robust clinical efficacy. Special care needs to be exerted with respect to their side effects. Future research is needed for a better understanding of their mechanisms of action in migraine. Such research has the potential of providing some insight into the pathophysiology of 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.

Zonisamide in the management of epilepsy in the elderly

Zonisamide (ZNS), a second-generation antiepileptic drug, indicated as add-on treatment of focal epilepsy, has been recently approved as monotherapy for the treatment of partial seizures in adults affected by newly diagnosed epilepsy in Europe. Evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs in the elderly is still lacking as these patients are frequently excluded from clinical trials. Here, a comprehensive overview of available data regarding the use of ZNS in the treatment of epilepsy in elderly people is provided. In a pooled analysis conducted in patients aged ≥65 years, no new/unexpected safety findings have emerged. Few data from uncontrolled investigations suggest that ZNS may be effective and well tolerated when administered as monotherapy or adjunctive antiepileptic treatment in the elderly. However, evidence from these observational studies is less than satisfactory, and randomized controlled trials focused on these patients are still needed.

Zonisamide for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected.

RESULTS

Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Ion channels as drug targets in central nervous system disorders

Ion channel targeted drugs have always been related with either the central nervous system (CNS), the peripheral nervous system, or the cardiovascular system. Within the CNS, basic indications of drugs are: sleep disorders, anxiety, epilepsy, pain, etc. However, traditional channel blockers have multiple adverse events, mainly due to low specificity of mechanism of action. Lately, novel ion channel subtypes have been discovered, which gives premises to drug discovery process led towards specific channel subtypes. An example is Na(+) channels, whose subtypes 1.3 and 1.7-1.9 are responsible for pain, and 1.1 and 1.2 - for epilepsy. Moreover, new drug candidates have been recognized. This review is focusing on ion channels subtypes, which play a significant role in current drug discovery and development process. The knowledge on channel subtypes has developed rapidly, giving new nomenclatures of ion channels. For example, Ca(2+)s channels are not any more divided to T, L, N, P/Q, and R, but they are described as Ca(v)1.1-Ca(v)3.3, with even newer nomenclature α1A-α1I and α1S. Moreover, new channels such as P2X1-P2X7, as well as TRPA1-TRPV1 have been discovered, giving premises for new types of analgesic drugs.

Topiramate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty papers describing 17 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from nine trials (1737 participants) showed that topiramate reduced headache frequency by about 1.2 attacks per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.59 to -0.80). Data from nine trials (1190 participants) show that topiramate approximately doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.60; NNT 4; 95% CI 3 to 6). Separate analysis of different topiramate doses produced similar MDs versus placebo at 50 mg (-0.95; 95% CI -1.95 to 0.04; three studies; 520 participants), 100 mg (-1.15; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.71; six studies; 1620 participants), and 200 mg (-0.94; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.36; five studies; 804 participants). All three doses significantly increased the proportion of responders relative to placebo; ORs were as follows: for 50 mg, 2.35 (95% CI 1.60 to 3.44; three studies; 519 participants); for 100 mg, 3.49 (95% CI 2.23 to 5.45; five studies; 852 participants); and for 200 mg, 2.49 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.87; six studies; 1025 participants). All three doses also significantly improved three or more domains of quality of life as compared to placebo. Meta-analysis of the three studies that included more than one dose of topiramate suggests that 200 mg is no more effective than 100 mg. With regard to mean headache frequency and/or responder rate, seven trials using active comparators found (a) no significant difference between topiramate and amitriptyline (one study, 330 participants); (b) no significant difference between topiramate and flunarizine (one study, 83 participants); (c) no significant difference between topiramate and propranolol (two studies, 342 participants); (d) no significant difference between topiramate and relaxation (one study, 61 participants); but (e) a slight significant advantage of topiramate over valproate (two studies, 120 participants). Relaxation improved migraine-specific quality of life significantly more than topiramate. In trials of topiramate against placebo, seven adverse events (AEs) were reported by at least three studies. These were usually mild and of a non-serious nature. Except for taste disturbance and weight loss, there were no significant differences in the frequency of AEs in general, or of the seven specific AEs, between placebo and topiramate 50 mg. AEs in general and all of the specific AEs except nausea were significantly more common on topiramate 100 mg than on placebo, with NNHs varying from 3 to 25, and the RDs versus placebo were even higher for topiramate 200 mg, with NNHs varying from 2 to 17.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis demonstrates that topiramate in a 100 mg/day dosage is effective in reducing headache frequency and reasonably well-tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine. This provides good evidence to support its use in routine clinical management. More studies designed specifically to compare the efficacy or safety of topiramate versus other interventions with proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of migraine are needed.

Antiepileptics other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate (which are the subjects of separate Cochrane reviews) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. The 10 trials reported results for nine antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate. Six of the eight drugs investigated in placebo-controlled trials were not better than placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin) and/or in the proportion of responders (acetazolamide, carisbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine). One prospective, randomised, double-blind, single cross-over trial of 48 patients demonstrated a significant superiority of carbamazepine over placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 11.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.92 to 35.32). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 2 to 3). In a small prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, levetiracetam 1000 mg was significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.52 to -0.28; 26 patients), as well as in the proportion of responders (OR 26.07; 95% CI 1.30 to 521.91; 26 patients). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 1 to 4). The same trial examined levetiracetam 1000 mg versus topiramate 100 mg and found a small but significant difference favouring topiramate in headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD 1.40; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.66; 28 patients). There was no significant difference between levetiracetam and topiramate in the proportion of responders (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.23; 28 patients). Finally, one trial with 75 participants examined zonisamide versus topiramate (200 and 100 mg, respectively) and found no significant difference between them in reduction of headache frequency from baseline during the third month of treatment. Adverse events for active treatment versus placebo were available for all investigated drugs except levetiracetam, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. A high prevalence of adverse events was noted for carbamazepine, with a NNH of only 2 (95% CI 2 to 4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence does not allow robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine among adults. Acetazolamide, carisbamate, clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin were not more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. In one trial each, carbamazepine and levetiracetam were significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency, and there was no significant difference in proportion of responders between zonisamide and active comparator. These three positive studies suffer from considerable methodological limitations.

Rapid and sensitive high performance liquid chromatographic determination of zonisamide in human serum application to a pharmacokinetic study

An accurate and very rapid method for determination of zonisamide an antiepileptic drug, in human serum is described. The analytical procedure involves liquid-liquid extraction of the analyte and an internal standard (vanillin) from human serum by ethyl acetate as extracting solvent. Chromatographic separation was achieved using a monolithic C18 analytical column and a mixture of 0.05 M phosphate buffer containing triethylamine (1 ml/l; pH 2.7) and methanol (83:17 v/v) was used as the mobile phase. The detection wavelength was set at 240 nm. The calibration curve was linear over a concentration range of 0.015-6.4 μg/ml of zonisamide in human serum. The total run time of analysis was 3.5 min and the lower limits of detection and quantification were 0.005 and 0.015 μg/ml, respectively. The method validation was carried out in terms of specificity, sensitivity, linearity, precision, accuracy and stability. The validated method was applied in a randomised crossover bioequivalence study of two different zonisamide preparations in 24 healthy volunteers, and the assay was sensitive enough to measure drug levels up to 8 days following a single dose administration of zonisamide.

Zonisamide attenuates MPP+-induced oxidative toxicity through modulation of Ca2+ signaling and caspase-3 activity in neuronal PC12 cells

Parkinson's disease is an incurable progressive neurological condition caused by a degeneration of dopamine-producing cells characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms. The major mechanisms of the antiepileptic actions of ZNS are inhibition of voltage-gated Na(+) channel, T-type voltage-sensitive Ca(2+) channel, Ca(2+)-induced Ca(2+) releasing system, and neuronal depolarization-induced glutamate release; and enhancement of release of inhibitory neurotransmitters; however, the detailed mechanism of antiparkinsonian effects of ZNS remains to be clarified. We aimed to investigate to the effect of ZNS on the oxidative stress, cell viability, Ca(2+) signaling, and caspase activity that induced by the MPP(+) model of Parkinson's in neuronal PC12 cells. Neuronal PC12 cells were divided into four groups namely, control, ZNS, MPP(+), and ZNS+MPP(+) groups. The dose and duration of ZNS and MPP(+) were determined according to cell viability (MTT) analysis which used to assess the cell viability. The cells in ZNS, MPP(+), and ZNS+MPP(+) groups were incubated for 5 h with 100 μM ZNS, 10 h with 100 μM MPP(+), and 10 h with ZNS and MPP(+), respectively. Lipid peroxidation and cytosolic free Ca(2+) concentrations were higher in the MPP(+) group than in control although their levels were lower in ZNS and the ZNS+MPP(+) groups than in control. Reduced glutathione and glutathione peroxidase values were lower in the MPP(+) group although they were higher in the ZNS and the ZNS+MPP(+) groups than in control. Caspase-3 activity was lower in the ZNS group than in the MPP(+) group. In conclusion, ZNS induced modulator effects on the oxidative stress, intracellular Ca(2+), and the caspase-3 values in an experimental model of Parkinson disease.

Preventive agents for migraine: focus on the antiepileptic drugs

Migraine is among the 10 most disabling disorders worldwide. It is characterized by episodes of moderate or severe headaches with various degree of disability, resulting in a considerable health burden upon the sufferers and their family. The objective of this article is to review the use of prophylaxis with antiepileptic drugs. Particular focus is given to their mechanism of action, metabolism, pharmacokinetics, safety profile, efficacy and to provide a summary of the most relevant clinical studies and patient preference.