Efficacy and tolerability of a new powdered formulation of diclofenac potassium for oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine: results from the International Migraine Pain Assessment Clinical Trial (IMPACT)

The Safety of Celecoxib as an Acute Treatment for Migraine: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been the first-line choice for the acute treatment of migraine attacks for decades; however, the safety of a particular NSAID is related to its treatment dose, duration, and mechanism of action. Although adverse event (AE) risks differ substantially among individual migraine treatments, increased or prolonged exposure to any NSAID elevates risks and severity of AEs.

METHODS

For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of PubMed until July 2022, focusing on the history, mechanism of action, and treatment guidelines informing the safety and efficacy of celecoxib oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

RESULTS

Here we discuss the mechanisms of action of nonselective NSAIDs vs. cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, and how these mechanisms underlie the AEs associated with these treatments. We review the clinical trials that influenced the regulatory history of NSAIDs, specifically COX-2 inhibitors, the role of traditional and new formulations of NSAIDs including celecoxib oral solution, and special considerations in the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose formulations of NSAIDs, such as celecoxib oral solution, provide acute migraine analgesia with similar or fewer associated cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events than previous formulations.

Efficacy of ketorolac in the treatment of acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.

METHODS

We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.

Self-administered subcutaneous diclofenac sodium in acute migraine attack: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding pilot study

BACKGROUND

A novel formulation of diclofenac, complexed with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) as a solubility enhancer, in a prefilled syringe for self-administered subcutaneous injection may overcome the limitations of acute migraine treatments administered by oral, rectal, intramuscular, or intravenous routes.

METHODS

This multicentre, phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of three different doses (25/50/75 mg/1 mL) of subcutaneous diclofenac sodium in the treatment of an acute migraine attack in 122 subjects. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours after the study drug injection.

RESULTS

A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 50 mg diclofenac group 14 (46.7%) were pain-free at 2 hours when compared with placebo: 9 (29.0%) (p = 0.01). The 50 mg dose proved superior to placebo also in the majority of the secondary endpoints. The overall global impression favoured diclofenac vs placebo. There were no adverse events leading to study withdrawal. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

The 50 mg dose of this novel formulation of diclofenac represents a valuable self-administered option for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.Trial registration: EudraCT Registration No. 2017-004828-29.

An Open-Label Study Evaluating the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Diclofenac Potassium for Oral Solution for the Acute Treatment of MWA or MWoA in Pediatric Participants

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a single 50-mg oral dose of diclofenac potassium for oral solution (OS) in a pediatric cohort with a diagnosis of episodic migraine; the 3-month safety trial following an outpatient dosing period was also evaluated.

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents often experience migraine pain that is poorly controlled, which may affect their emotional and psychological well-being. Diclofenac potassium for OS is approved for the treatment of migraine with aura (MWA) or migraine without aura (MWoA) in adults 18 years of age or older. It is formulated in a soluble buffered powder that provides more rapid absorption than the tablet formulations of diclofenac potassium. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, more adult patients were pain-free at 2 hours post-dose following treatment with diclofenac potassium for OS than those who received the diclofenac tablet formulation or placebo.

METHODS

This was a Phase 4 open-label study that took place at 2 US sites. Participants 12-17 years of age with a diagnosis of episodic MWA or MWoA for ≥3 months and ≤14 headaches per month were enrolled in the study. Participants received one 50-mg dose of diclofenac potassium for OS under fasted conditions on day 1. Blood samples were collected for PK analysis within 15 minutes pre-dose and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes post-dose, and at 2, 4, and 6 hours post-dose. Safety evaluations were performed after the initial dose and at the end of study on day 90; adverse events were monitored throughout the study. After completing the PK assessments, participants were given a 3-month supply (27 packets) of diclofenac potassium for OS (50-mg doses) for their migraine attacks. Participants were advised to take diclofenac potassium for OS at the onset of a migraine. They were told to take no more than 2 doses daily and not to use it more than 3 days/week.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants completed the study; 84% were females and 96% were white or Caucasian, with a mean age of 15.5 years and a mean weight of 63.1 kg. Diclofenac was rapidly absorbed with a median time to maximum concentration of 15 minutes and a mean peak plasma concentration of 1412 (±846.2) ng/mL. Diclofenac had a half-life of 66.8 (±9.2) minutes. The mean area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last measurable time point was 82,920.0 (±25,327.6) minutes × ng/mL, and the mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity was 84,388.8 (±25,993.6) minutes × ng/mL. Participants took the study drug an average of 10 times over 79 days, with an overall total drug exposure of 506 mg. No deaths or discontinuations due to an AE were reported during the study. The most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events were arthralgia and motion sickness, each of which occurred in 2 (8%) of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac potassium for OS exhibited a favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profile in 12- to 17-year-old patients with a diagnosis of episodic MWA or MWoA.

IM ketorolac vs diclofenac potassium powder for oral solution for the acute treatment of severe migraine: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diclofenac potassium for oral solution (CAMBIA®) may be an alternative for patients who would otherwise need to be seen in a healthcare setting for parenteral ketorolac. CAMBIA® is FDA-approved for the abortive treatment of migraine and has demonstrated superiority over generic diclofenac tablets with rapid migraine reduction. This study assessed for efficacy of CAMBIA® as an alternative outpatient treatment for refractory migraine to parenteral ketorolac.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory, single-center, double-blind, double-dummy randomized controlled trial comparing CAMBIA® with IM ketorolac. Participants were randomized to receive either ketorolac 60 mg IM with dummy oral solution or CAMBIA® 50 mg, together with IM injection of normal saline. The primary endpoint was headache severity, self-rated on a scale 0-3. Secondary endpoints included self-rated nausea, disability, and photo- or phonophobia, as well as presence of side effects and need for additional rescue therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were enrolled. Ten patients received the study drug and 13 patients received IM ketorolac as the control. There were no major differences observed with respect to the primary outcome of mean headache severity at successive time points over a 24-h follow-up period. No major differences were found with respect to average disability, nausea, and photo- or phonophobia ratings. No major adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

In treatment of refractory migraine headache, CAMBIA® may provide similar benefits as IM ketorolac without increasing the risk of treatment failure, major bleeding, or cardiovascular events. However, larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT # 02664116, Titled "IM Ketorolac vs Diclofenac Potassium Powder for Oral Solution (CAMBIA®) for the Acute Treatment of Severe Migraine". Registered 26 January 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02664116?term=02664116&rank=1.

Why is the therapeutic effect of acute antimigraine drugs delayed? A review of controlled trials and hypotheses about the delay of effect

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral drug treatment of migraine attacks, efficacy is evaluated after 2 hours. The effect of oral naratriptan 2.5 mg with a maximum blood concentration (Tmax ) at 2 hours increases from 2 to 4 hours in RCTs. To check whether such a delayed effect is also present for other oral antimigraine drugs, we hand-searched the literature for publications on RCTs reporting efficacy. Two triptans, 3 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), a triptan combined with an NSAID and a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist were evaluated for their therapeutic gain with determination of time to maximum effect (Emax ). Emax was compared with known Tmax from pharmacokinetic studies to estimate the delay to pain-free. The delay in therapeutic gain varied from 1-2 hours for zolmitriptan 5 mg to 7 hours for naproxen 500 mg. An increase in effect from 2 to 4 hours was observed after eletriptan 40 mg, frovatriptan 2.5 mg and lasmiditan 200 mg, and after rizatriptan 10 mg (Tmax  = 1 h) from 1 to 2 hours. This strongly indicates a general delay of effect in oral antimigraine drugs. A review of 5 possible effects of triptans on the trigemino-vascular system did not yield a simple explanation for the delay. In addition, Emax for triptans probably depends partly on the rise in plasma levels and not only on its maximum. The most likely explanation for the delay in effect is that a complex antimigraine system with more than 1 site of action is involved.

Acute Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides a framework to help providers formulate a plan for the acute treatment of migraine. Topics covered include the cost-effective patient-centered approach known as stratified care and a summary of evidence-based treatment options that are currently available. Strategies for improving treatment response, troubleshooting suboptimal results, and addressing the needs of special populations are also reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both the American Headache Society and the Canadian Headache Society have released evidence-based assessments and reviews of acute treatments for migraine that can be used to help guide treatment decisions. Although several older medications have been re-released with new formulations or new delivery systems, several new medications have also become available or are in the final phases of study, further increasing the number of options available for patients.

SUMMARY

The acute management of migraine should incorporate a stratified care model in concert with evidence-based treatment options. The response to treatment should be monitored regularly, and measures should be taken to identify suboptimal tolerability or efficacy.

Review of Acute Treatment of Migraine Trial Results With the New FDA Endpoints: Design Implications for Future Trials

Background

In October 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance for the development of drugs for the acute treatment of migraine. This guidance offered the option of replacing the previously required 4 co‐primary endpoints: pain freedom, freedom from nausea, freedom from photophobia, and freedom from phonophobia, all at 2 hours posttreatment, with 2 co‐primary endpoints: pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome symptom (MBS) other than pain, both at 2 hours posttreatment. At the time the new draft guidance was released, no large clinical trials had been undertaken with these 2 co‐primary endpoints, posing a challenge in determining the sample size that might be required to achieve statistical significance. As a number of trials have now been completed, we conducted a review of the observed placebo responses, drug effect sizes, and sample sizes to better inform the design of future trials.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for primary publications of phase 3 randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind acute migraine treatment trials that used pain freedom and MBS freedom as primary or planned secondary endpoints. For each endpoint, placebo response rates were determined and used to generate estimates of sample size, assuming differences between placebo and active treatment groups of 10%, 15%, and 20%. Sample size calculations were based on 80% power using a 2‐group continuity corrected chi‐square test with a 5% 2‐sided significance level.

Results

We identified abstracts or full‐length papers describing results of 8 clinical trials employing the new co‐primary endpoints. The mean placebo response rate for 2‐hour pain freedom was 16.75% (range 11.8‐21.3%) and treatment effect (difference in response rates between active and placebo groups) ranged from 5.0% to 27.2%. For 2‐hour MBS freedom, the mean placebo response rate was 32.8% (range 25.2‐48.1%), and the range of treatment effect was 8.9% to 25.4%. Based on a placebo response rate of 17% for pain freedom, the sample sizes that would have been required to achieve statistical significance were n = 269, n = 128, and n = 77, for treatment effect sizes of 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively. For MBS, assuming a placebo response rate of 33%, the corresponding required sample sizes would have been n = 389, n = 181, and n = 105.

Conclusions

The observed range of placebo response and treatment effect sizes suggests that use of the newly recommended 2 co‐primary endpoints could reduce the sample sizes required to achieve significance compared with past trials using 4 primary endpoints (in which mean and median group sizes for recent trials were 375 and 362, respectively). However, the initial trials using the newly recommended co‐primary endpoints tended to treat more participants than would have been minimally required. We anticipate that with the growing body of information regarding the use of these new endpoints, samples sizes may be more aligned with treatment efficacy, enabling faster and more cost‐effective trials for acute migraine treatment.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine: The randomized PRESTO study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Methods

A total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes.

Results

nVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeated-measures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120 minutes and was safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusion

This randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02686034.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 hours poststimulation (absolute difference 13.2%).

Migraine Treatment: Current Acute Medications and Their Potential Mechanisms of Action

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder with a significant socioeconomic burden. The management of migraine is multifaceted and is generally dichotomized into acute and preventive strategies, with several treatment modalities. The aims of acute pharmacological treatment are to rapidly restore function with minimal recurrence, with the avoidance of side effects. The choice of pharmacological treatment is individualized, and is based on the consideration of the characteristics of the migraine attack, the patient's concomitant medical problems, and treatment preferences. Notwithstanding, a good understanding of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the various drug options is essential to guide therapy. The current approach and concepts relevant to the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine will be explored in this review.

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.

Post Hoc Subanalysis of Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Trials Evaluating Diclofenac Potassium for Oral Solution: Impact of Migraine-Associated Nausea and Prior Triptan Use on Efficacy

Objective

To determine whether baseline nausea or prior triptan treatment for migraine impact the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution in treating acute migraine.

Background

A great deal of variability exists in patients' response to migraine medications. Migraine‐associated nausea is common and debilitating and can reduce the effectiveness of oral medications. It may cause patients to delay taking oral medications, which is known to diminish therapeutic outcomes, or to avoid taking them altogether. Gastroparesis, which may be associated with nausea, also inhibits drug absorption, resulting in lower bioavailability. Studies have shown that having nausea at the time of drug administration predicts a poorer response to triptan treatment. It is of interest to understand how effective other migraine medications are in patients with a poor response to triptans.

Methods

Data from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled trials were pooled and post hoc subgroup analyses were performed in patients with and without nausea at baseline, and in patients with and without prior triptan treatment. Efficacy assessments included the percentage of patients who, at 2 hours postdosing, were headache pain‐free (2hPF, primary endpoint), without photophobia, without phonophobia, without nausea, or without a severe degree of disability. A Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test, stratified by analysis center was used to evaluate treatment effect. Effects of nausea or prior triptan use were determined using logistic regression with factors of treatment group, analysis center, nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing, and interaction of treatment group by nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing.

Results

The modified intent to treat population consisted of 1272 patients, 644 on active drug and 628 on placebo. The majority of patients (85%) were female. At the time of dosing, 783 (62%) patients reported nausea with the treated attack. Prior triptan use was recorded in 570 (45%). For headache pain, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, patients in the active treatment group had a statistically significantly better response than those receiving placebo, regardless of whether they had nausea at baseline. In logistic regression analysis only treatment group predicted a response for these parameters with no detectable group interaction. Baseline nausea, as well as treatment group, predicted whether patients recorded severe disability at 2 hours. While patients in the active treatment group were significantly more likely to be headache pain‐free at 2 hours after dosing, whether or not they had previously been treated with triptan, more triptan‐naïve patients (30%) than triptan‐experienced patients (20%) were headache pain‐free. Interestingly, in the placebo groups, triptan‐naïve patients were also more likely to be PF (14% vs 7%). In the logistic regression analysis, treatment group predicted a headache pain response, triptan use predicted a lack of response, and there was no interaction between the two. Prior triptan use did not predict any of the other outcome measures.

Conclusions

Nausea at the time of dosing does not diminish the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution. The rapid absorption profile may enhance the effectiveness in patients with nausea. Prior triptan use predicted poorer headache response at 2 hours postdose, suggesting the possibility of a subset of patients who are more likely to be refractory to both triptans and diclofenac. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is effective in triptan‐naïve patients but no reliable inference can be made from this study as to about how to order treatment.

Diclofenac potassium for oral solution (CAMBIA®) in the acute management of a migraine attack: clinical evidence and practical experience

Migraine headache affects about 12% of Western populations and is the third most common disease worldwide (sixth in terms of disability). In 1993, triptans were introduced in the United States as a new treatment for managing migraine attacks, but their use is limited by lack of response and safety concerns in some patients. Treatment options for patients with migraine who fail or cannot tolerate triptans include switching to another medication or adding an adjunctive medication. Desirable characteristics reported by patients for acute treatment of migraine attacks include complete pain relief, fast onset of action, and no pain recurrence. Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication that has been established as effective for acute treatment of migraine by the American Headache Society based on available evidence. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is rapidly absorbed, achieving maximal plasma concentrations in 15 min, which coincides with a rapid onset of effect. In a comparison of diclofenac potassium for oral solution with diclofenac potassium tablets, the solution achieved a significant reduction in headache intensity beginning at 15 min compared with 60 min for the tablet. Across randomized clinical trials, approximately 25% of patients were pain free 2 h after administration of diclofenac oral solution and the effects were maintained over a 24-h period. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is well tolerated; the most common adverse events are dizziness and gastrointestinal complaints, with incidences similar to placebo. No serious adverse events have been reported in clinical trials of diclofenac potassium for oral solution in the acute treatment of migraine. Diclofenac oral solution may offer rapid and sustained pain relief for patients who do not achieve pain resolution with other medications. In addition, patients who experience central sensitization with allodynia may benefit from the cyclooxygenase-blocking activity of diclofenac, which is needed in this advanced phase of migraine.

Network meta-analysis of migraine disorder treatment by NSAIDs and triptans

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder resulting in large socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) is designed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) and triptans.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches in database PubMed and Embase. Treatment effectiveness was compared by synthesizing direct and indirect evidences using NMA. The surface under curve ranking area (SUCRA) was created to rank those interventions.

Results

Eletriptan and rizatriptan are superior to sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, almotriptan, ibuprofen and aspirin with respect to pain-relief. When analyzing 2 h-nausea-absence, rizatriptan has a better efficacy than sumatriptan, while other treatments indicate no distinctive difference compared with placebo. Furthermore, sumatriptan demonstrates a higher incidence of all-adverse-event compared with diclofenac-potassium, ibuprofen and almotriptan.

Conclusion

This study suggests that eletriptan may be the most suitable therapy for migraine from a comprehensive point of view. In the meantime ibuprofen may also be a good choice for its excellent tolerability. Multi-component medication also attracts attention and may be a promising avenue for the next generation of migraine treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0703-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evolving therapeutic strategies to improve nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug safety

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) possess potent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties through inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes (COX-1 and COX-2), which are responsible for synthesis of proinflammatory mediators. NSAIDs are frequently used for treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions. However, their use is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic adverse effects, which pose a serious clinical concern for both patients and physicians. During the past 2 decades, approaches to improving the tolerability of NSAIDs were mainly directed toward discovery of COX-2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs), which were expected to minimize the risk of GI injury. Unfortunately, the results from multiple clinical studies have shown that treatment with coxibs may increase the risk for cardiovascular complications. This review summarizes current strategies used to reduce the toxicity of NSAIDs and outlines novel therapeutic approaches still in preclinical development. To minimize the risk of GI ulcerations and bleeding, combination therapies with gastroprotective agents are currently recommended. The new therapeutic agents anticipated to have similar effects include nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-releasing NSAIDs. Novel manufacturing technologies enhance dissolution and absorption of NSAID products, allowing for their administration at low doses, which could lead to improved drug tolerability without diminishing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of NSAIDs. This principle is in line with the current recommendation by the US Food and Drug Administration that NSAIDs should be used at the lowest effective dosage. Finally, NSAID formulations targeted directly to the site of inflammation are expected to reduce systemic drug exposure and thus decrease the risk of systemic adverse effects.

Recent advances in migraine therapy

Migraine is a common and highly disabling neurological disorder associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Effective migraine management depends on adequate patient education: to avoid unrealistic expectations, the condition must be carefully explained to the patient soon as it is diagnosed. The range of available acute treatments has increased over time. At present, abortive migraine therapy can be classed as specific (ergot derivatives and triptans) or non-specific (analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Even though acute symptomatic therapy can be optimised, migraine continues to be a chronic and potentially progressive condition. In addition to the drugs officially approved for migraine prevention by international governmental regulatory agencies, numerous different agents are commonly used for this indication, showing various levels of evidence of efficacy and tolerability. Guidelines published in recent years, based on evidence-based medicine data on migraine prophylaxis, are a useful source of guidance, especially for primary care physicians and neurologists without specific expertise in headache medicine. Although the field of pharmacological migraine prevention has seen few advances in recent years, potential novel approaches are now being developed. This review looks at emerging pharmacological strategies for acute and preventive migraine treatment that are nearing or have already entered the clinical trial phase. Specifically, it discusses preclinical and clinical data on compounds acting on calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor, the serotonin 5-HT1F receptor, nitric oxide synthase, and acid-sensing ion channel blockers.

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.

Targeted Review: Medications for Acute Migraine Treatment

Objective:

To assess the evidence base for drugs used for acute treatment of episodic migraine (headache on < 14 days a month) in Canada.

Methods:

A detailed search strategy was employed to find relevant published clinical trials of drugs used in Canada for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Primarily meta-analyses and systematic reviews were included. Where these were not available for a drug or were out of date, individual clinical trial reports were utilized. Only double-blind randomized clinical trials with placebo or active drug controls were included in the analysis. Recommendations and levels of evidence were graded according to the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group.

Results:

Eighteen acute migraine medications and two adjunctive medications were evaluated. Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation with supporting high quality evidence for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four acute medications received a weak recommendation for use with low or moderate quality evidence (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol-containing combination analgesics). Three of these medications were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine, and codeine- and tramadol-containing medications), and strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital-containing medications. Both metoclopramide and domperidone received a strong recommendation for use with acute migraine attack medications where necessary.

Conclusion:

Our targeted review formulated recommendations for the available acute medications for migraine treatment according to the GRADE method. This should be helpful for practitioners who prescribe medications for acute migraine treatment.

Pharmacological Acute Migraine Treatment Strategies: Choosing the Right Drug for a Specific Patient

Background:

In our targeted review (Section 2), 12 acute medications received a strong recommendation for use in acute migraine therapy while four received a weak recommendation for use. Strong recommendations were made to avoid use of two other medications, except for exceptional circumstances. Two anti-emetics received strong recommendations for use as needed.

Objective:

To organize the available acute migraine medications into acute migraine treatment strategies in order to assist the practitioner in choosing a specific medication(s) for an individual patient.

Methods:

Acute migraine treatment strategies were developed based on the targeted literature review used for the development of this guideline (Section 2), and a general literature review. Expert consensus groups were used to refine and validate these strategies.

Results:

Based on evidence for drug efficacy, drug side effects, migraine severity, and coexistent medical disorders, our analysis resulted in the formulation of eight general acute migraine treatment strategies. These could be grouped into four categories: 1) two mild-moderate attack strategies, 2) two moderate-severe attack or NSAID failure strategies, 3) three refractory migraine strategies, and 4) a vasoconstrictor unresponsive-contraindicated strategy. In addition, strategies were developed for menstrual migraine, migraine during pregnancy, and migraine during lactation. The eight general treatment strategies were coordinated with a “combined acute medication approach” to therapy which used features of both the “stratified” and the “step care across attacks” approaches to acute migraine management.

Conclusions:

The available medications for acute migraine treatment can be organized into a series of strategies based on patient clinical features. These strategies may help practitioners make appropriate acute medication choices for patients with migraine.

Treatment of headache following triptan failure after successful triptan therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

Triptans should remain the first choice in migraine abortive treatment. They are not always effective or adequate for specific patients. Before declaring a triptan in appropriate for a given patient, the provider ought to be analytical about the rationale and especially the use of objective efficacy outcome measures and ensure that treatment is prescribed and used appropriately. Other ergot derivatives, especially dihydroergotamine, may on one hand share common contraindications of triptans but on the other hand can be quite effective where triptans failed. Non-steroids are simple, readily available, and overall safe, and evidence for their efficacy in migraine is plentiful. Opioid analgesics are blatantly overprescribed especially in non-complicated migraine patients. These should be used with great care and restraint and closely monitored. Frequent opioid usage often leads to tolerance, dependence, and medication overuse headache. Neurostimulation is gaining momentum in the armamentarium of migraine management but at the present time remains primarily focused on prophylaxis, yet abortive use is expected to grow.

Advances in NSAID development: evolution of diclofenac products using pharmaceutical technology

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the phenylacetic acid class with anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic properties. Contrary to the action of many traditional NSAIDs, diclofenac inhibits cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme with greater potency than it does COX-1. Similar to other NSAIDs, diclofenac is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal adverse effects. Since its introduction in 1973, a number of different diclofenac-containing drug products have been developed with the goal of improving efficacy, tolerability, and patient convenience. Delayed- and extended-release forms of diclofenac sodium were initially developed with the goal of improving the safety profile of diclofenac and providing convenient, once-daily dosing for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. New drug products consisting of diclofenac potassium salt were associated with faster absorption and rapid onset of pain relief. These include diclofenac potassium immediate-release tablets, diclofenac potassium liquid-filled soft gel capsules, and diclofenac potassium powder for oral solution. The advent of topical formulations of diclofenac enabled local treatment of pain and inflammation while minimizing systemic absorption of diclofenac. SoluMatrix diclofenac, consisting of submicron particles of diclofenac free acid and a proprietary combination of excipients, was developed to provide analgesic efficacy at reduced doses associated with lower systemic absorption. This review illustrates how pharmaceutical technology has been used to modify the pharmacokinetic properties of diclofenac, leading to the creation of novel drug products with improved clinical utility.

New treatments for headache

Migraine and cluster headache are primary headache disorders commonly encountered in clinical practice. Despite the profound disability caused by these primary headache disorders, available acute and preventive treatment options are limited. Recent understanding of headache pathophysiology has led to the development of new drug formulations and novel drug targets that are extremely promising. This article will highlight several of the new treatments that are currently under investigation including novel delivery mechanisms of already existing medications, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, antibodies to CGRP and its receptor, serotonin receptor agonists, transient receptor potential vanilloid receptor modulators, orexin receptor antagonists, glial cell modulators, and neuromodulation. If data is supportive, these therapies will be welcome additions to the headache specialist's armamentarium.

Diclofenac potassium powder for oral solution: a review of its use in patients with acute migraine

Diclofenac potassium powder for oral solution (Voltfast(®), Catafast(®), Cambia(®); hereafter referred to as diclofenac potassium powder) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and is indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. This article reviews the pharmacological properties of diclofenac potassium powder and its efficacy and tolerability in patients with acute migraine. Diclofenac potassium powder was clinically efficacious and generally well tolerated in placebo-controlled trials in patients with this indication; it was more effective than diclofenac potassium tablets with regard to the primary endpoint of 2-h pain relief as well as in several important secondary endpoints, such as time to onset of analgesic action. The oral powder-for-solution formulation of diclofenac potassium is a useful option in the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura.

Effect of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation on acute migraine: An open-label pilot study

Background

We sought to assess a novel, noninvasive, portable vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) for acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

Participants with migraine with or without aura were eligible for an open-label, single-arm, multiple-attack study. Up to four migraine attacks were treated with two 90-second doses, at 15-minute intervals delivered to the right cervical branch of the vagus nerve within a six-week time period. Subjects were asked to self-treat at moderate or severe pain, or after 20 minutes of mild pain.

Results

Of 30 enrolled patients (25 females, five males, median age 39), two treated no attacks, and one treated aura only, leaving a Full Analysis Set of 27 treating 80 attacks with pain. An adverse event was reported in 13 patients, notably: neck twitching ( n = 1), raspy voice ( n = 1) and redness at the device site ( n = 1). No unanticipated, serious or severe adverse events were reported. The pain-free rate at two hours was four of 19 (21%) for the first treated attack with a moderate or severe headache at baseline. For all moderate or severe attacks at baseline, the pain-free rate was 12/54 (22%).

Conclusions

nVNS may be an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine in certain patients.

The pipeline in headache therapy

Migraine is a common, disabling, neurovascular disorder characterized by episodic attacks of head pain and associated disability plus systemic autonomic and neurologic symptoms. The advent of the triptan class of medication in the 1990s revolutionized the acute treatment of migraine, but many migraineurs do not respond optimally or at all to triptans, have intolerable adverse effects, or have contraindications to their use. Preventive pharmacotherapy has advanced mostly through serendipity, with new drugs being found effective while being used for other indications. There remains a significant need for new medications and devices that can provide effective, rapid, and sustained pain relief without adverse effects or recurrence. Several new acute and preventive therapies for the treatment of migraine and cluster headaches have shown promise and are currently under investigation. This article covers innovative delivery mechanisms, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, antibodies to calcitonin gene-related peptide and its receptor, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, transient receptor potential vanilloid receptor modulators, orexin receptor antagonists, glial cell modulators, and neurostimulation.

Diclofenac with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in Issue 2, 2012 (Derry 2012a). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011 for the original review and 15 February 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1356 participants, 2711 attacks) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient, with diclofenac and placebo.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.

Acute treatment of migraines

Migraine is a prevalent and disabling brain disorder that costs billions of dollars annually in direct healthcare costs, and school and work absenteeism and presenteeism. The objective of acute treatment is a cost-effective, rapid restoration of functional ability, with minimal recurrence and adverse effects. The acute treatment of migraine includes specific drugs, which currently all have vasoconstrictive effects (dihydroergotamine and triptans), and nonspecific drugs that include paracetamol (acetaminophen), combination analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), dopamine antagonists, narcotics and corticosteroids. NSAIDs have both peripheral and central effects on reversing migraine, and so may represent the best alternative for patients who cannot use triptans and ergots due to vascular contraindications. Narcotics and habituating medications should be avoided in the acute treatment of migraine, as the risk for transformation to chronic daily headache is excessively high at a relatively infrequent rate of exposure.

Diclofenac with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1356 participants) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and functional disability were reduced within two hours, and similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.

Pediatric headache: a clinical review

In this review we describe the epidemiology, classification, and approach to the diagnosis and treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in children. We review both traditional and alternative medications, and offer a glimpse into the future of pediatric headache.

Treatment of migraine: update on new therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides a comprehensive selection of the latest clinical trial results in antimigraine treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The oral calcitonine gene-related peptide antagonist telcagepant is efficacious in acute treatment. Compared to triptans, its efficacy is almost comparable but its tolerance is superior. The same is true for the 5HT-1F agonist lasmiditan, another agent devoid of vascular effects. Triptans, as other drugs, are more efficient if taken early but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics remain useful for acute treatment, according to several meta-analyses. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation during the aura rendered more patients pain-free (39%) than sham stimulation (22%) in one study. Topiramate could be effective for migrainous vertigo, but it did not prevent transformation to chronic migraine in patients with high attack frequency. Onabotulinumtoxin A was effective for chronic migraine and well tolerated, but the therapeutic gain over placebo was modest; the clinical profile of responders remains to be determined before widespread use. Occipital nerve stimulation was effective in intractable chronic migraine with 39% of responders compared to 6% after sham stimulation. This and other neuromodulation techniques, such as sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, are promising treatments for medically refractory patients but large controlled trials are necessary. One study suggests that outcome of patent foramen ovale closure in migraine might depend on anatomic and functional characteristics.

SUMMARY

Drugs with a better efficacy or side-effect profile than triptans may soon become available for acute treatment. The future may also look brighter for some of the very disabled chronic migraineurs thanks to novel drug and neuromodulation therapies.

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.