Subcutaneous histamine versus botulinum toxin type A in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, double-blind study

Migraine, Allergy, and Histamine: Is There a Link?

The relationship between migraines and allergies is controversial. Though they are epidemiologically linked, the underlying pathophysiological connection between them remains unclear. Migraines and allergic disorders have various underlying genetic and biological causes. As per the literature, these conditions are epidemiologically linked, and some common pathophysiological pathways have been hypothesized. The histaminergic system may be the clue to understanding the correlation among these diseases. As a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system with a vasodilatory effect, histamine has a well-documented influence on the allergic response and could be involved in the pathophysiology of migraines. Histamine may influence hypothalamic activity, which may play a major role in migraines or may simply influence their severity. In both cases, antihistamine drugs could prove useful. This review examines whether the histaminergic system, particularly H3 and H4 receptors, may provide a mechanistic link between the pathophysiology of migraines and allergic disorders, two common and debilitating conditions. Identifying their connection could help identify novel therapeutic strategies.

Safety of Onabotulinumtoxin A in Chronic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Some 14% of global prevalence, based on high-income country populations, suffers from migraine. Chronic migraine is very disabling, being characterized by at least 15 headache days per month of which at least 8 days present the features of migraine. Onabotulinumtoxin A, targeting the machinery for exocytosis of neurotransmitters and neuropeptides, has been approved for use in chronic migraine since 2010. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the safety of onabotulinumtoxin A treatment for chronic migraine and the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in randomized, clinical studies in comparison with placebo or other comparators and preventative treatments according to the most updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations. The search retrieved 888 total records. Nine studies are included and seven were eligible for meta-analysis. The present study demonstrates that toxin produces more TRAEs than placebo, but less than oral topiramate, supporting the safety of onabotulinumtoxin A, and highlights the heterogeneity of the studies present in the literature (I2 = 96%; p < 0.00001). This points to the need for further, adequately powered, randomized clinical trials assessing the safety of onabotulinumtoxin A in combination with the newest treatment options.

Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of botulinum toxin for the prevention of migraine

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of botulinum toxin for prevention of migraine in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of botulinum toxin compared with placebo, active treatment or clinically relevant different dose for adults with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without the additional diagnosis of medication overuse headache.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Cochrane methods were used to review double-blind RCTs. Twelve week post-treatment time-point data was analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials (n=4190) were included. Trial quality was mixed. Botulinum toxin treatment resulted in reduced frequency of -2.0 migraine days/month (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, n=1384) in chronic migraineurs compared with placebo. An improvement was seen in migraine severity, measured on a numerical rating scale 0 to 10 with 10 being maximal pain, of -2.70 cm (95% CI -3.31 to -2.09, n=75) and -4.9 cm (95% CI -6.56 to -3.24, n=32) for chronic and episodic migraine respectively. Botulinum toxin had a relative risk of treatment related adverse events twice that of placebo, but a reduced risk compared with active comparators (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) and a low withdrawal rate (3%). Although individual trials reported non-inferiority to oral treatments, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin reduces migraine frequency by 2 days/month and has a favourable safety profile. Inclusion of medication overuse headache does not preclude its effectiveness. Evidence to support or refute efficacy in episodic migraine was not identified.

Migraine-provoking substances evoke periorbital allodynia in mice

Background

Administration of endogenous mediators or exogenous chemicals in migraine patients provoke early headaches and delayed migraine-like attacks. Although migraine provoking substances are normally vasodilators, dilation of arterial vessels does not seem to be the sole contributing factor, and the underlying mechanisms of the delayed migraine pain are mostly unknown. Sustained mechanical allodynia is a common response associated with the local administration of various proalgesic substances in experimental animals and humans. Here, we investigated the ability of a series of endogenous mediators which provoke or do not provoke migraine in patients, to cause or not cause mechanical allodynia upon their injection in the mouse periorbital area.

Methods

Mechanical allodynia was assessed with the von Frey filament assay. Stimuli were given by subcutaneous injection in the periorbital area of C57BL/6J mice; antagonists were administered by local and systemic injections.

Results

Calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP), but not adrenomedullin and amylin, pituitary adenylyl cyclase activating peptide (PACAP), but not vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), histamine, prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) and prostacyclin (PGI₂), but not PGF_2α, evoked a dose-dependent periorbital mechanical allodynia. The painful responses were attenuated by systemic or local (periorbital) administration of antagonists for CGRP (CLR/RAMP1), PACAP (PAC-1), histamine H₁, PGE₂ (EP₄), and PGI₂ (IP) receptors, respectively.

Conclusions

The correspondence between substances that provoke (CGRP; PACAP, histamine, PGE₂, PGI₂), or do not provoke (VIP and PGF_2α), migraine-like attacks in patients and periorbital allodynia in mice suggests that the study of allodynia in mice may provide information on the proalgesic mechanisms of migraine-provoking agents in humans. Results underline the ability of migraine-provoking substances to initiate mechanical allodynia by acting on peripheral terminals of trigeminal afferents.

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.

Histamine and Migraine

BACKGROUND

Histamine is an ancient "tissue amine" preceding multicellular organisms. In the central nervous system (CNS), its fibers originate solely from the tuberomammillary nucleus and travel throughout the brain. It is mainly responsible for wakefulness, energy homeostasis, and memory consolidation. Recently, several studies suggest a potential role of histamine in migraine pathogenesis and management.

METHODS

Narrative review of current literature regarding histamine and migraine.

RESULTS

Histamine plays a crucial role in migraine pathogenesis: sustaining the neurogenic inflammation pathway. Interaction between mast cells (MC) and calcitonin-gene related protein (CGRP) results in sensitization of trigeminal afferents and trigeminal ganglia (TG). Histamine binds with differing affinities to four different histaminergic G-protein coupled receptors, activating protein kinases, or triggering calcium release with subsequent mode of actions. Histamine 1 receptor (H₁ R) and histamine 2 receptor (H₂ R) antagonists are frequently used for the treatment of allergy and gastric acid secretion, respectively, but their antagonism is probably ineffective for migraine. Histamine 3 receptor (H₃ R) and histamine 4 receptor (H₄ R) have a threefold higher affinity than H₁ R/H₂ R for histamine and are found almost exclusively on neurons and immune tissues, respectively. H₃ R acts as an autoreceptor or as a heteroreceptor, lowering the release of histamine and other neurotransmitters. This is a potential target for anti-nociception and anti-neurogenic inflammation. To date, several small clinical trials using low dose histamine or N^α -methylhistamine have demonstrated migraine prophylactic efficacy, probably via H₃ R or other undetermined pathways.

CONCLUSION

The histamine system interacts with multiple regions in the CNS and may hypothetically modulate the migraine response. Low dose histamine may be a promising option for migraine prevention.

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.

A single-point mutation (Ala280Val) in the third intracellular loop alters the signalling properties of the human histamine H₃ receptor stably expressed in CHO-K1 cells

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

An alanine to valine exchange at amino acid position 280 (A280V) in the third intracellular loop of the human histamine H₃ receptor was first identified in a patient suffering from Shy-Drager syndrome and later reported as a risk factor for migraine. Here, we have compared the pharmacological and signalling properties of wild-type (hH₃ R(WT)) and A280V mutant (hH₃ R(A280V)) receptors stably expressed in CHO-K1 cells.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The hH₃ R(A280V) cDNA was created by overlapping extension PCR amplification. Receptor expression and affinity were assessed by radioligand (N-α-[methyl-³H]-histamine) binding to cell membranes, and receptor function by the inhibition of forskolin-induced cAMP accumulation and stimulation of ERK1/2 phosphorylation in intact cells, as well as stimulation of [³⁵S]-GTPγS binding to cell membranes.

KEY RESULTS

Both receptors were expressed at similar levels with no significant differences in their affinities for H₃ receptor ligands. Upon activation the hH₃ RWT was significantly more efficacious to inhibit forskolin-induced cAMP accumulation and to stimulate [³⁵S]-GTPγS binding, with no difference in pEC50 estimates. The hH₃ RWT was also more efficacious to stimulate ERK1/2 phosphorylation, but this difference was not significant. The inverse agonist ciproxifan was more efficacious at hH3 RWT to reduce [³⁵S]-GTPγS binding but, for both receptors, failed to enhance forskolin-induced cAMP accumulation.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The A280V mutation reduces the signalling efficacy of the human H₃ receptor. This effect may be relevant to the pathophysiology of disorders associated with the mutation.

Histamine in migraine and brain

BACKGROUND

Histamine has been studied in both health and disease since the initial description a century ago. With its vasodilative effect, it was suggested early on to be involved in the pathophysiology of migraine. Over the past 25 years, much has been learned about histamine as a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. The role of this neurotransmitter system in migraine has not been previously reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

Discuss a potential role of the brain histaminergic system in migraine.

METHODS

Unstructured literature search with a no specific hypothesis-driven approach.

RESULTS

There is substantial evidence that systemically given histamine may elicit, maintain, and aggravate headache. The mechanisms for this are not known, and histamines do not penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB). However, circulating histamine may influence hypothalamic activity via the circumventricular organs that lack BBB. In the rat, prolonged activation of meningeal nociceptors induced by dural mast cell degranulation has been observed. Subcutaneous injections of N-alpha-methyl histamine, a catabolite of histamine with high affinity to the histamine H3 receptor, probably have some migraine preventive effect. A negative feedback on histamine release from mast cells in proximity to C-fiber endings has been a postulated mechanism. Most antihistamines have shown to be ineffective as acute medication for migraine. Two centrally acting potent H1 receptor antagonists (cinnarizine and cyproheptadine) have been reported to be efficacious in preventing migraine. However, the proof for this is limited, and their efficacy has been ascribed other actions than the antihistaminergic. In general, lack of specificity and side effects limit the potential use of centrally acting H1 and H2 antagonists. Brain histamine is synthesized by neurons that are restricted to the posterior basal hypothalamus, more specific to the tuberomamillary nucleus (TMN), and that project practically to the whole central nervous system. The posterior hypothalamus is a suspected locus in quo in several primary headaches. Recently, a positron emission tomography study performed in the prodromal phase of migraine attacks supported the idea of initial involvement of this area. In another recent study, the thalamic nuclei receiving trigeminal output was also shown to have direct connections with the ventral TMN. The central histaminergic system plays an important role in the complex sleep-wake cycle, promoting cortical excitability during wakening and attention, and it consolidates the wake state. The period of the day, in the evenings and during the night, when there is reduced susceptibility for migraine attacks corresponds with less central histaminergic firing. Activation of both the H3 and the H4 receptor promotes inhibitory actions on neurons. The H3 receptor causes autoinhibition of the histaminergic neurons themselves, and centrally acting H3 receptor agonist prodrugs have shown to both inhibit neurogenic inflammation in dura, to induce sleep, and to produce antinociception. There are no registered ongoing studies on H3 and H4 receptor ligands in migraine.

CONCLUSION

The role of the central histaminergic system in migraine is largely unexplored, but findings from preclinical research may be linked to several aspects of the disorder. The histaminergic system of the brain may play an important role, especially in the initial phase of an attack, and histamine H3 and H4 receptor ligands may potentially have migraine prophylactic properties. However, the basis for this is still circumstantial, and the evidence is lacking.

Chemical mediators of migraine: preclinical and clinical observations

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder, and although the pathophysiology of migraine has not been fully delineated, much has been learned in the past 50 years. This knowledge has been accompanied by significant advancements in the way migraine is viewed as a disease process and in the development therapeutic options. In this review, we will focus on 4 mediators (nitric oxide, histamine, serotonin, and calcitonin gene-related peptide) which have significantly advanced our understanding of migraine as a disease entity. For each mediator we begin by reviewing the preclinical data linking it to migraine pathophysiology, first focusing on the vascular mechanisms, then the neuronal mechanisms. The preclinical data are then followed by a review of the clinical data which support each mediator's role in migraine and highlights the pharmacological agents which target these mediators for migraine therapy.

CONSORT recommendations in abstracts of randomised, controlled trials on migraine and headache

A CONSORT statement on the content of abstracts of randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) was published in 2008. I therefore reviewed the abstracts from 2009 to 2010 published on RCTs in Cephalalgia, Headache and other (non-headache) journals. The following items were reviewed: number of patients, reporting of response either in percentages or absolute values, the use of p values, and effect size with its precision. The latter was recommended in the CONSORT statement. A total of 46 abstracts were reviewed and effect size with 95% confidence intervals was only reported in seven abstracts. The influence of the CONSORT statement on reporting in abstracts has so far only had a limited influence on the headache literature.

The role of botulinum toxin in management of pain: an evidence-based review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the present review we discuss the role of botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) in the management of different pain conditions, with evidence-based data on the toxins' efficacy on pain and its mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Experimental in-vitro studies have reported promising results of a novel recombinant chimera of BoNT A and E that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide exocytosis from brainstem sensory neurons. Animal studies in neuropathic pain rat models have reported an analgesic effect of BoNT A given after the neuropathic procedure and a bilateral antinociceptive effect to the unilateral noxious stimuli. There is a growing body of evidence that BoNTs are effective in myofascial pain syndrome, neuropathic pain, and joint pain. The pre-existing evidence that BoNTs are ineffective in migraine or other headache disorders has not yet been challenged. In other pain syndromes, studies published in the last review year have not contributed significantly in either demonstrating or invalidating the research that has so far proved inconclusive.

SUMMARY

The role of BoNTs in management of pain is not yet well established. Larger studies in neuropathic pain, joint pain, and myofascial pain syndrome are needed to fully ascertain the role for BoNT therapy in those areas.