Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine attacks in episodic migraine in adults

Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently the Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine (2018), the Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults (2019), and Guidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents (2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately.

The crossover design for migraine preventives: an analyses of four randomized placebo-controlled trials

Aims

To evaluate the crossover design in migraine preventive treatment trials by assessing dropout rate, and potential period and carryover effect in four placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

In order to increase statistical power, the study combined data from four different RCTs performed from 1998 to 2015 at St. Olavs Hospital, Norway. Among 264 randomized patients, 120 received placebo treatment before and 144 after active treatment.

Results

Only 26 (10%) dropped out during the follow-up period of 30–48 weeks, the majority (n = 19) in the first 12 weeks. No period effect was found, since the treatment sequence did not influence the responder rate after placebo treatment, being respectively for migraine 30.5% vs. 27.4% (p = 0.59) and for headache 25.0% vs. 24.8% (p = 0.97, Chi-square test) when placebo occurred early or late. Furthermore, no carryover effect was identified, since the treatment sequence did not influence the treatment effect (difference between placebo and active treatment). There was no significant difference between those who received active treatment first and those who received placebo first with respect to change in number of days per 4 week of headache (− 0.9 vs. -1.3, p = 0.46) and migraine (− 1.2 vs. -0.9, p = 0.35, Student’s t-test).

Conclusions

Summary data from four crossover trials evaluating preventive treatment in adult migraine showed that few dropped out after the first period. No period or carryover effect was found. RCT studies with crossover design can be recommended as an efficient and cost-saving way to evaluate potential new preventive medicines for migraine in adults.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents, 1st edition

Background

Because the results of clinical trials of investigational treatments influence regulatory policy, prescribing patterns, and use in clinical practice, high quality trials are an essential component of the evidence base for migraine. The International Headache Society has published guidelines for clinical trials in adults with migraine since 1991. With multiple issues specific to children and adolescents with migraine, as well as the emergence of novel trial designs and advances in pharmaceuticals, biologics, devices, and behavioural interventions, there is a need for guidance focusing on issues specific to the conduct of clinical trials in children and adolescents with migraine.

Objectives

The objective of these guidelines is to provide a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the design, conduct, and reporting of well-controlled clinical trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents.

Methods

The development of these guidelines was based on guidelines previously published by the International Headache Society and regulatory bodies. The recommendations are evidence-based, where available. The process included consultations among various committees, roundtable discussions among stakeholders (lay people and the pharmaceutical industry), and open consultation with the IHS membership on the final draft.

Results

A series of recommendations addressing the major issues in clinical trials in children and adolescents with migraine is provided. Recommendations are supported by evidence-based practice and validated methodologies, where available. Supporting comments are provided to clarify ambiguities.

Conclusions

These guidelines should be consulted and used in designing and conducting clinical trials of preventive treatments in children and adolescents with migraine.

Manual therapy for chronic migraine: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial study protocol

Introduction

Chronic migraine is a largely refractory condition affecting between 1 and 2.2% of the overall population worldwide, with females more affected than males. There are also high health and socioeconomic costs associated both for the individual and society. The mainstay of chronic migraine management is pharmacological, but the options available have limited efficacy and there are often unwanted side effects. There is some evidence for manual therapy as a treatment option for migraine, but its effectiveness for chronic migraine is unknown. Therefore, we have designed a pragmatic randomised control trial to investigate whether adding manual therapy to the tertiary specialist treatment of chronic migraine improves patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a hospital tertiary headache clinic. Participants will be randomised into one of two groups: treatment as usual or treatment as usual plus manual therapy. The primary outcome measure will be a change in the Headache Impact Test score. Secondary outcomes will also be measured over the 12-week study period including changes in headache frequency, migraine specific quality of life and reductions in relevant medicine consumption. The manual therapy group will have five treatment sessions each lasting 30 min. The recruitment target of 64 participants will allow power at 80% with p = 0.05 using minimal clinical difference for Headache Impact Test of 3.7 and includes provision for a 10% dropout rate. Recruitment will take place between August 2018 and February 2019. The results will form part of a doctoral study and be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national/international conferences.

Discussion

Current pharmacological approaches have limited effects in the management of chronic migraine and there is a requirement to improve treatment options and reduce the health and economic burden of the condition. Manual therapy has been shown to be effective in other chronic pain conditions as well as other primary headaches. This study will explore the effectiveness of manual therapy as an adjunctive approach to the management of chronic migraine.

Trial registration

The trial has received a favourable opinion from the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 228901) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.number NCT03395457. Registered 1st March 2018.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults

Background

Quality clinical trials form an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. In 2008, the Committee published the first specific guidelines on chronic migraine. Subsequent advances in drug, device, and biologicals development, as well as novel trial designs, have created a need for a revision of the chronic migraine guidelines.

Objective

The present update is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and its recommendations do not apply to trials in children or adolescents.

Prophylaxis of migraine headaches with riboflavin: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Migraine headache is a relatively common, debilitating condition that costs our healthcare system over 78 billion dollars per year. Riboflavin has been advocated as a safe, effective prophylactic therapy for the prevention of migraines. The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review of the current role of riboflavin in the prophylaxis of migraine headache.

METHODS

A MEDLINE literature search inclusive of the dates 1966-2016 was performed using the search terms: riboflavin and migraine disorders. Excerpta Medica was searched from 1980 to 2016 using the search terms: riboflavin and migraine. Additionally, Web of Science was searched using the terms riboflavin and migraine inclusive of 1945-2016. Bibliographies of all relevant papers were reviewed for additional citations. We utilized the PRISMA guidelines to select English language, human, clinical trials of riboflavin as a single entity or in combination, review articles, and supporting pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenomic data assessing the efficacy and mechanism of riboflavin therapy in the prophylactic treatment of migraine headache.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 11 clinical trials reveal a mixed effect of riboflavin in the prophylaxis of migraine headache. Five clinical trials show a consistent positive therapeutic effect in adults; four clinical trials show a mixed effect in paediatric and adolescent patients, and two clinical trials of combination therapy have not shown benefit. Adverse reactions with riboflavin have generally been mild.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Riboflavin is well tolerated, inexpensive and has demonstrated efficacy in the reduction of adult patient's migraine headache frequency. Additional data are needed, however, to resolve questions involving pharmacokinetic issues and pharmacogenomic implications of therapy.

Efficacy of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Pain Control in Migraine Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on pain control in migraine patients.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have used NIBS as an abortive and prophylactic treatment for migraine; however, its efficacy regarding meaningful clinical effects remains to be critically analyzed.

DESIGN

Systematic review of controlled clinical trials.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in six databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), LILACS (via BIREME), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Scopus (via EBSCO), Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Two independent authors searched for randomized controlled clinical trials published through until January 2016 that involved the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in migraineurs. Studies which met the eligibility criteria were assessed and methodological quality was examined using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. Information about pain intensity (primary outcome), migraine attacks, painkiller intake, and adverse effects were extracted.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the quantitative analysis with 153 migraine patients that received NIBS and 143 sham NIBS. In overall meta-analysis, we did not find significant results for pain intensity (SMD: -0.61; CI: -1.35 to 0.13; P = .11), for migraine attacks (SMD: -0.44; 95%; CI: -1.15 to 0.26; P = .22), and for painkiller intake (SMD: -0.57; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.07; P = .08). However, subgroup analysis considering only tDCS effects have demonstrated a decrease for pain intensity (SMD: -0.91; 95% CI: -1.79 to -0.03; P = .04), migraine attacks (SMD: -0.75; 95% CI: -1.25 to -0.24; P = .004), and painkiller intake (SMD: -0.64; 95% CI: -1.21 to -0.07; P = .03). Subgroup analysis for TMS did not reveal significant effects for any outcome.

CONCLUSION

Low or very low quality of evidence suggests that our primary outcome evaluation failed to find support for the superiority of NIBS over sham treatment. Although, subgroup analysis reveals that tDCS have moderate to high effects and could be a promising nonpharmacological alternative to pain control, mainly for painkiller intake reduction. However, there is a need for larger controlled trials with methodological rigor, which could increase the power of result inference.