Rizatriptan for Treatment of Acute Migraine in Patients Taking Topiramate for Migraine Prophylaxis

Comparison between metamizole and triptans for migraine treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of metamizole and triptans for the treatment of migraine. MethodsRandomized controlled trials including people who received metamizole or triptan by multiple routes of administration and at all doses as treatment compared to subjects who received another treatment or placebo were included in the systematic review. The primary outcomes were freedom from pain at 2 hours; pain relief at 2 hours; sustained headache response at 24 hours; sustained freedom from pain at 24 hours. The statistical analysis of all interventions of interest were based on random effect models compared through a network meta-analysis. Results 209 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. Of these, 130 had data that could be analyzed statistically. Only 3.0% provided enough information and were judged to have a low overall risk of bias for all categories evaluated; approximately 50% of the studies presented a low risk of selection bias. More than 75% of the studies presented a low risk of performance bias, and around 75% showed a low risk of detection and attrition bias. ConclusionThere is no evidence of a difference between dipyrone and any triptan for pain freedom after 2 hours of medication. Our study suggests that metamizole may be equally effective as triptans in acute migraine treatment.

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications.

BACKGROUND

While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives.

METHODS

SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2 h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

In these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2 h, compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2 h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ≥0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.

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.

Minority Representation in Migraine Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials METHODS: First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms "migraine randomized controlled trial." We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population.

RESULTS

We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented.

CONCLUSIONS

Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.

Comparative tolerability of treatments for acute migraine: A network meta-analysis

Introduction

Migraine headache is a neurological disorder whose attacks are associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. Treatments for migraine aim to either prevent attacks before they have started or relieve attacks (abort) after onset of symptoms and range from complementary therapies to pharmacological interventions. A number of treatment-related adverse events such as somnolence, fatigue, and chest discomfort have previously been reported in association with triptans. The comparative tolerability of available agents for the abortive treatment of migraine attacks has not yet been systematically reviewed and quantified.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative tolerability of treatments for migraine. The literature search targeted all randomized controlled trials evaluating oral abortive treatments for acute migraine over a range of available doses in adults. The primary outcomes of interest were any adverse event, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting.

Results

Our search yielded 141 trials covering 15 distinct treatments. Of the triptans, sumatriptan, eletriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and the combination treatment of sumatriptan and naproxen were associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring compared with placebo. Of the non-triptans, only acetaminophen was associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of an adverse event occurring when compared with placebo. Overall, triptans were not associated with increased odds of serious adverse events occurring and the same was the case for non-triptans. For the secondary outcomes, with the exception of vomiting, all triptans except for almotriptan and frovatriptan were significantly associated with increased risk for all outcomes. Almotriptan was significantly associated with an increased risk of vomiting, whereas all other triptans yielded non-significant lower odds compared with placebo. Generally, the non-triptans were not associated with decreased tolerability for the secondary outcomes.

Discussion

In summary, triptans were associated with higher odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring when compared to placebo and non-triptans. Non-significant results for non-triptans indicate that these treatments are comparable with one another and placebo regarding tolerability outcomes.

The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies

The study aims to provide an updated assessment of the evidence for individual pharmacological therapies for acute migraine treatment. Pharmacological therapy is frequently required for acutely treating migraine attacks. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines published in 2000 summarized the available evidence relating to the efficacy of acute migraine medications. This review, conducted by the members of the Guidelines Section of the American Headache Society, is an updated assessment of evidence for the migraine acute medications. A standardized literature search was performed to identify articles related to acute migraine treatment that were published between 1998 and 2013. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines Development procedures were followed. Two authors reviewed each abstract resulting from the search and determined whether the full manuscript qualified for review. Two reviewers studied each qualifying full manuscript for its level of evidence. Level A evidence requires at least 2 Class I studies, and Level B evidence requires 1 Class I or 2 Class II studies. The specific medications - triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan [oral, nasal spray, injectable, transcutaneous patch], zolmitriptan [oral and nasal spray]) and dihydroergotamine (nasal spray, inhaler) are effective (Level A). Ergotamine and other forms of dihydroergotamine are probably effective (Level B). Effective nonspecific medications include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen), opioids (butorphanol nasal spray), sumatriptan/naproxen, and the combination of acetaminophen/aspirin/caffeine (Level A). Ketoprofen, intravenous and intramuscular ketorolac, flurbiprofen, intravenous magnesium (in migraine with aura), and the combination of isometheptene compounds, codeine/acetaminophen and tramadol/acetaminophen are probably effective (Level B). The antiemetics prochlorperazine, droperidol, chlorpromazine, and metoclopramide are probably effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence for butalbital and butalbital combinations, phenazone, intravenous tramadol, methadone, butorphanol or meperidine injections, intranasal lidocaine, and corticosteroids, including dexamethasone (Level C). Octreotide is probably not effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence to refute the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray, intravenous acetaminophen, chlorpromazine injection, and intravenous granisetron (Level C). There are many acute migraine treatments for which evidence supports efficacy. Clinicians must consider medication efficacy, potential side effects, and potential medication-related adverse events when prescribing acute medications for migraine. Although opioids, such as butorphanol, codeine/acetaminophen, and tramadol/acetaminophen, are probably effective, they are not recommended for regular use.

Comparison between two generic questionnaires to assess satisfaction with medication in chronic diseases

Objective

The objective of this work was to compare two generic questionnaires assessing patients’ satisfaction with medication. In addition we tested whether satisfaction can predict adherence to medication regimens in patients with chronic diseases, and which dimensions of satisfaction are most involved.

Methods

This prospective, observational study was conducted over one year in a heterogeneous population of patients with various chronic diseases. Satisfaction with medication was assessed by using the TSQM® vII and the SatMed-Q® questionnaires, and adherence to treatment was assessed with the Morisky-Green questionnaire. Clinical pharmacists interviewed patients to collect clinical, demographic and therapeutic data.

Results

190 patients were enrolled. Both questionnaires showed excellent reliability and correlation was high (R = 0.70; p<0.001). Adherence was correlated with satisfaction with medication whether assessed with the SatMed-Q® (R = 0.23; p = 0.002) or the TSQM® (R = 0.17; p = 0.02). Among different dimensions of satisfaction, convenience of use and side effects are prominent predictors of adherence.

Conclusion

Adherence is related to the patient’s satisfaction with medication whether assessed with the TSQM® vII or the SatMed-Q®. Therefore, these simple questionnaires could be used as predictive tools to identify patients whos’ adherence needs to be improved.