Migraines with and without aura and their response to preventive therapy with topiramate

Preventive treatment response associated with migraine aura subtypes in a Thai population

Introduction

Some studies indicate a different response to treatment between migraine patients with and without aura.

Objectives

To determine whether aura, or simple or complex aura subtypes, are clinical markers predicting response to preventive treatment.

Methods

Conducted a retrospective cohort study at a headache clinic in a tertiary referral hospital. We included data from patients registered from 1 November 2014, to 30 June 2022, having migraine with or without aura, or with simple or complex aura, and who had received migraine preventive treatments with at least 3 months follow-up. The primary outcome was a response to preventive treatment defined as at least a 50% reduction from a baseline of monthly migraine or headache days (MMDs/MHDs). Secondary outcomes were improvement in quality of life and disability scores.

Results

For migraine patients with (45) and without (123) aura who took a migraine preventive with at least 3 months follow-up; except for median age, which was older for patients without aura, baseline sex, comorbidity, and migraine data were without significant difference including median history of migraine, chronic migraine subtype, chronic migraine with medication-overuse headache, median or mean MMDs/MHDs, number of preventive medications used, or migraine preventive medication inhibiting spreading depolarizations. Treatment outcomes at 3 and 6 months follow-up were not significantly different between migraine patients with and without aura, or with simple and complex aura, but tended to be greater in those with aura and those with complex aura. After adjustment for baseline comorbidity, migraine subtypes, aura subtypes, the number of preventives used, history of migraine, and MMDs/MHDs, we found no significant differences in 30% and 50% reduction from baseline of MMDs/MHDs in 3 or 6 months or most recent follow-up.

Conclusions

Preventive treatment response tended to be associated with migraine aura subtypes. We found preventive treatment response tended to have more favorable outcomes in those with aura, especially those with complex aura.

Efficacy and quality-of-life improvements with fremanezumab treatment in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine with associated neurological dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Fremanezumab, a fully humanised monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy as a preventive treatment for adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) and inadequate response to 2-4 prior preventive treatment classes in the phase 3b FOCUS study. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated efficacy and effects on quality-of-life outcomes for fremanezumab in subgroups of patients with and without aura or similar neurological symptoms, here referred to as migraine with or without associated neurological dysfunction.

METHODS

In the FOCUS study, 838 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched placebo for 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. For this post-hoc analysis, subgroups of patients with migraine with and without associated neurological dysfunction at baseline were identified based on patient response to questions about symptoms.

RESULTS

In patients with migraine with associated neurological dysfunction at baseline, fremanezumab significantly reduced monthly average days with neurological symptoms (quarterly, -1.7 days; monthly, -1.8 days) compared to placebo (-0.5 days; both P ≤0.01). In comparison with placebo, both dosing regimens of fremanezumab yielded greater reductions in monthly migraine days over 12 weeks (P <0.0001) and improvements in Headache Impact Test-6 and Migraine-specific Quality of Life scores over the last 4 weeks (P <0.05), regardless of neurological dysfunction at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Fremanezumab reduced days with neurological symptoms, effectively prevented migraine, and improved quality of life in patients with migraine with associated neurological dysfunction, including those with previous inadequate response to 2-4 migraine preventive medication classes.

Pediatric Episodic Migraine with Aura: A Unique Entity?

Migraine headache is a common cause of pain and disability in children and adolescents and is a major contributor to frequently missed school days and limitations in activities. Of children and adolescents with migraine headache, approximately one-third have migraine with aura (MA). MA is often considered to be similar to migraine without aura (MO), and thus, many studies do not stratify patients based on the presence of aura. Because of this, treatment recommendations are often analogous between MA and MO, with a few notable exceptions. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current evidence demonstrating the unique pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, co-morbidities, and treatment recommendations and responses for pediatric MA.

May lamotrigine be an alternative to topiramate in the prevention of migraine with aura? Results of a retrospective study

Background

Evidence suggests that lamotrigine could be effective in reducing aura frequency and duration. However, studies comparing lamotrigine to other, first-line prophylactic agents solely involving patients suffering from migraine with aura are still lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of lamotrigine and topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine with aura.

Methods

Fifty-three patients suffering from migraine with aura treated with lamotrigine or topiramate for at least 6 months were included. Pre- and post-treatment clinical data regarding monthly aura frequency and duration, monthly migraine frequency, days of headache and rescue medication used per month were collected.

Results

Responder rates were similar between the two treatment groups at 6-month follow-up. Interestingly, responder rates for aura frequency and duration were higher in the lamotrigine group compared with the topiramate group (88% vs 79% and 73% vs 54%). Moreover, 50% of the lamotrigine-treated patients reported a complete disappearance of migraine aura compared with 37% of topiramate-treated patients. Side effects were more frequent in topiramate group compared with lamotrigine group (p=0.004).

Conclusions

Lamotrigine should be considered in clinical practice for the preventive treatment of migraine with aura especially for patients reporting prolonged aura and who do not respond, have contraindications or discontinue topiramate treatment due to side effects.

Differences in treatment response between migraine with aura and migraine without aura: lessons from clinical practice and RCTs

Migraine is a major public health problem afflicting approximately 10% of the general population and is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet our understanding of the basis mechanisms of migraine remains incomplete. About a third of migraine patients have attacks with aura, consisting of transient neurological symptoms that precede or accompany headache, or occur without headache. For patients, aura symptoms are alarming and may be transiently disabling. For clinicians and scientists, aura represents an intriguing neurophysiological event that may provide important insight into basic mechanisms of migraine. Several observations point toward important differences between migraine with and without aura. Compared with migraine without aura, migraine with aura has different heritability, greater association with different conditions including stroke, different alterations of brain structure and function as revealed by imaging studies. A number of studies also indicate that migraine with aura may respond differently to acute and preventive therapies as compared to migraine without aura. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of these differences in treatment responses, and to discuss the possibility of different therapeutic strategies for migraine with vs. without aura.

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.

Episodic Migraine With and Without Aura: Key Differences and Implications for Pathophysiology, Management, and Assessing Risks

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pathophysiologic, epidemiologic, and clinical evidence for similarities and differences between migraine with and without aura.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ICHD-3 has recently refined the diagnostic criteria for aura to include positive symptomatology, which better differentiates aura from TIA. Although substantial evidence supports cortical spreading depression as the cause of visual aura, the role (if any) of CSD in headache pain is not well understood. Recent imaging evidence suggests a possible hypothalamic origin for a headache attack, but further research is needed. Migraine with aura is associated with a modest increase in the risk of ischemic stroke. The etiology for this association remains unclear. There is a paucity of evidence regarding treatments specifically aimed at the migraine with aura subtype, or whether migraine with vs without aura responds to treatment differently. Migraine with typical aura is therefore often treated similarly to migraine without aura. Lamotrigine, daily aspirin, and flunarizine have evidence for efficacy in prevention of migraine with aura, and magnesium, ketamine, furosemide, and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation have evidence for use as acute treatments. Although triptans have traditionally been contraindicated in hemiplegic migraine and migraine with brainstem aura, this prohibition is being reconsidered in the face of evidence suggesting that use may be safe. The debate as to whether migraine with and without aura are different entities is ongoing. In an era of sophisticated imaging, genetic advancement, and ongoing clinical trials, efforts to answer this question are likely to yield important and clinically meaningful results.

The visual system in migraine: from the bench side to the office

BACKGROUND

Throughout history, migraine-associated visual symptoms have puzzled patients, doctors, and neuroscientists. The visual aspects of migraine extend far beyond the aura phenomena, and have several clinical implications.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted, beginning with migraine mechanisms, then followed by pertinent aspects of the anatomy of visual pathways, clinical features, implications of the visual system on therapy, migraine on visually impaired populations, treatment of visual auras and ocular (retinal) migraine, effect of prophylactic migraine treatments on visual aura, visual symptoms induced by anti-migraine or anti-headache drugs, and differential diagnosis.

RESULTS

A comprehensive narrative review from both basic and clinical standpoints on the visual aspects of migraine was attained; however, the results were biased to provide any useful information for the clinician.

CONCLUSION

This paper achieved its goals of addressing and condensing information on the pathophysiology of the visual aspects of migraine and its clinical aspects, especially with regards to therapy, making it useful not only for those unfamiliar to the theme but to experienced physicians as well.

Late-life migraine accompaniments: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. In 1980, C. Miller Fisher described late-life migraine accompaniments as transient neurological episodes in older individuals that mimic transient ischemic attacks. There has not been an update on the underlying nature and etiology of late-life migraine accompanimentsd since the original description.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive and extensive review of the late-life migraine accompaniments including the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, and treatment.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE®, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for publications from 1941 to July 2014. The search terms "Migraine accompaniments," "Late life migraine," "Migraine with aura," "Typical aura without headache," "Migraine equivalents," "Acephalic migraine," "Elderly migraine," and "Transient neurological episodes" were used.

CONCLUSION

Late-life onset of migraine with aura is not rare in clinical practice and can occur without headache, especially in elderly individuals. Visual symptoms are the most common presentation, followed respectively by sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Gradual evolution, the march of transient neurological deficits over several minutes and serial progression from one symptom to another in succession are typical clinical features for late-life migraine accompaniments. Transient neurological disturbances in migraine aura can mimic other serious conditions and can be easily misdiagnosed. Careful clinical correlation and appropriate investigations are essential to exclude secondary causes. Treatments are limited and still inconsistent.

An unusual case of episodic SUNCT responding to high doses of topiramate

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TAC) are rare. Cluster headaches comprise the majority, with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) being the rarest and shortest in duration. The majority of SUNCT are primary with a few cases occurring secondary to posterior fossa or pituitary lesions. Although activities like exercise or blowing of the nose can trigger SUNCT, onset during orgasm has not been described. Short-lasting aura has been described in TACs including SUNCT, but persistence of focal symptoms and signs without an underlying structural lesion have not been described. Lastly, treatment of SUNCT is difficult, with lamotrigine being the most common effective reported. We report a case of episodic SUNCT with symptoms suggestive of brainstem stroke that completely resolved spontaneously for which no underlying structural cause was found. The onset of first attack occurred during orgasm, and the patient responded to a high dose of topiramate.

Preventive pharmacologic treatments for episodic migraine in adults

OBJECTIVES

Systematic review of preventive pharmacologic treatments for community-dwelling adults with episodic migraine.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases through May 20, 2012.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs compared to placebo or active treatments examining rates of ≥50 % reduction in monthly migraine frequency or improvement in quality of life.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence and conducted random effects meta-analyses of absolute risk differences and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 5,244 retrieved references, 215 publications of RCTs provided mostly low-strength evidence because of the risk of bias and imprecision. RCTs examined 59 drugs from 14 drug classes. All approved drugs, including topiramate (9 RCTs), divalproex (3 RCTs), timolol (3 RCTs), and propranolol (4 RCTs); off-label beta blockers metoprolol (4 RCTs), atenolol (1 RCT), nadolol (1 RCT), and acebutolol (1 RCT); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril (1 RCT) and lisinopril (1 RCT); and angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan (1 RCT), outperformed placebo in reducing monthly migraine frequency by ≥50 % in 200-400 patients per 1,000 treated. Adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation (68 RCTs) were greater with topiramate, off-label antiepileptics, and antidepressants than with placebo. Limited direct evidence as well as frequentist and exploratory network Bayesian meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in benefits between approved drugs. Off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers were most effective and tolerable for episodic migraine prevention.

LIMITATIONS

We did not quantify reporting bias or contact principal investigators regarding unpublished trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Approved drugs prevented episodic migraine frequency by ≥50 % with no statistically significant difference between them. Exploratory network meta-analysis suggested that off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers had favorable benefit-to-harm ratios. Evidence is lacking for long-term effects of drug treatments (i.e., trials of more than 3 months duration), especially for quality of life.

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.

Suppressive effect of chronic peroral topiramate on potassium-induced cortical spreading depression in rats

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the chronic effect of topiramate (TPM) on cortical spreading depression (CSD), which is thought to be related to migraine aura.

METHODS

Male rats (n = 30) were randomized to once-daily peroral treatment with TPM (50, 100, 200 or 600 mg/kg) or vehicle for 6 weeks. We evaluated the characteristics of CSD induced by topical application of KCl under isoflurane anesthesia and the changes in plasma level of TPM in each group. The effect of single administration of TPM on CSD was also evaluated.

RESULTS

After the final administration of TPM, when the plasma level of TPM was high, KCl-induced CSD frequency and CSD propagation velocity were dose-dependently reduced and the interval between CSD episodes was elongated, compared with the vehicle control. However, before the final administration of TPM, when the plasma level was very low, the KCl-induced CSD profile was the same as that in the vehicle control. Single administration of TPM did not alter the CSD profile. Local cerebral blood flow was not significantly altered by chronic administration of TPM.

CONCLUSION

TPM suppressed the frequency and propagation of CSD along the cerebral cortex, and might be a candidate for relief of migraine.

Clinical pharmacology of topiramate in migraine prevention

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a widespread disorder. Migraine patients experience worse health-related quality of life than the general population. The availability of effective and tolerable treatments for this disorder is an important medical need. This narrative review focuses on the clinical pharmacology of topiramate, an antiepileptic drug that was approved for the prophylaxis of migraine where it should act as a neuromodulator.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed database search (from 2000 to 24 January 2011) and a review of the human studies published on topiramate and migraine was conducted.

EXPERT OPINION

Topiramate is an important option for the prophylaxis of migraine and is of proven efficacy and tolerability. It has also been studied in chronic migraine with encouraging results, even in patients with medication overuse. However, in migraine prevention its efficacy is comparable to the other first-line drugs and there are no published trials with a superiority design which can establish topiramate's role in the available therapeutic armamentarium.

New drugs in migraine treatment and prophylaxis: telcagepant and topiramate

Although the triptan drugs provide effective relief from migraine for many patients, a substantial number of affected individuals are unresponsive to these compounds, and such therapy can also lead to a range of adverse effects. Telcagepant represents a new class of antimigraine drug-the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor blockers. This compound exerts its effects by blocking receptors for the calcitonin-gene-related peptide at several sites in the trigeminal and central nervous systems, resulting in pain relief. Telcagepant does not cause vasoconstriction, a major limitation in the use of triptans. Comparisons with triptans in clinical trials for acute treatment of migraine attacks revealed clinical effects similar to those of triptans but better than those of placebo. Telcagepant might provide hope for those who have a poor response to, or are unable to use, older drugs. In patients who need prophylaxis because of frequent attacks of migraine, topiramate is a first-line drug for migraine prevention in many countries; it is generally safe and reasonably well tolerated. Data suggest that topiramate could aid reversion of chronic migraine to episodic migraine.

Perimenstrual migraines and their response to preventive therapy with topiramate

Introduction: Preventive treatment with topiramate is effective for overall reduction of migraine frequency, but there are few data regarding its efficacy on perimenstrual migraines. To determine whether topiramate can prevent perimenstrual migraines, we analyzed data from premenopausal women as a subgroup of the Prolonged Migraine Prevention with Topiramate (PROMPT) study.

Methods: In total, 198 women from the PROMPT study with menstrually related migraine (MRM) were evaluated. After a one-to-two–month prospective baseline period, patients received open-label topiramate (50–200 mg/day) for six months.

Results: During topiramate treatment, mean monthly migraine frequency was reduced from 7.03 at baseline to 4.36 (mean change: −2.66; p < .001, endpoint analysis). Mean percentage reductions were similar for migraines during and outside the perimenstrual period (−45.9% and −46.1%, respectively). In patients with aura, reductions in migraine days with (−48.3%) or without (−43.4%) aura were similar to those in patients without aura (−45.4%). Reductions were also similar whether women were taking combined oral contraceptives (−47.0%) or were not (−46.6%).

Conclusions: Topiramate reduces the frequency, but not severity or duration, of perimenstrual migraines in women with MRM, including migraines with and without aura, and regardless of combined oral contraceptive use.

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.