Off-Label Prescribing for Children with Migraines in U.S. Ambulatory Care Settings

Triptans in the Acute Migraine Management of Children and Adolescents: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent findings regarding triptan use in the acute treatment of pediatric migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prevalence of pediatric migraine is rising. The American Headache Society and American Academy of Neurology updated guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in youth. In the setting of a dearth of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we review current guidelines, triptan use in the emergency department, and an era of secondary analyses. Measuring the efficacy of triptans in pediatric migraine has been challenged by high placebo response rates. Secondary analyses, combining data from multiple RCTs, support that triptans are safe and effective in the treatment of migraine. Triptans are a vital tool and the only FDA-approved migraine-specific treatment available in pediatrics. There is a need for further studies and funding support in pediatric headache medicine.

Early clinical experience with a monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor in adolescents with migraine: A case series

Management of migraine in adolescents poses a great challenge, as many of the approved pharmacological migraine preventive agents have age restrictions. Following favorable safety and efficacy reports of the new class agent calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody for use in migraine prevention, there is growing interest in its application in pediatric migraine. We present here a case series detailing our experience of using erenumab, a CGRP monoclonal antibody, in six adolescent patients. Two patients had a reduction of at least 50% in the mean number of monthly migraine days, one patient reported subjective improvement, while three patients did not respond to the first dose of erenumab and discontinued treatment. One patient reported constipation associated with erenumab use. We speculate that CGRP monoclonal antibody could potentially be a viable option in adolescent patients with migraine. Further evidences that support efficacy and safety of erenumab in this group is needed.

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with major headache disorders: A retrospective claims analysis

Objective:

To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and health care costs among patients diagnosed with major headache disorders overall and by type (tension-type headache [TTH], migraine, cluster headache [CH], or >1 primary headache type), and secondarily to evaluate drug treatment patterns among triptan initiators with a major headache diagnosis.

Methods:

Using US claims data from January 2012 through December 2017, we identified adults with evidence of a major headache disorder: TTH, migraine, or CH; the first diagnosis date was deemed the index date. To evaluate triptan use specifically, patients who initiated triptans were identified; the first triptan claim date was deemed the index date. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns (concomitant treatments, adherence, number of fills), and annual health care costs data were obtained.

Results:

Of the 418,779 patients diagnosed with major headache disorders, the following 4 cohorts were created: TTH (8%), migraine (87%), CH (1%), and >1 primary headache type (4%). The majority used analgesic (54–73%) and psychotropic (57–81%) drugs, primarily opioids (36–53%). Headache-related costs accounted for one-fifth of all-cause costs. Of the 229,946 patients who initiated triptans, the following 7 study cohorts were analyzed: sumatriptan (68%), rizatriptan (21%), eletriptan (5%), zolmitriptan (3%), naratriptan (2%), frovatriptan (1%), and almotriptan (<1%). The major concomitant analgesic medication classes were opioids (41%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (34%).

Conclusion:

The primary headache disorder treatment paradigm is complex, with significant variability. Predominant concomitant use of opioids and switching to opioids is of concern, necessitating solutions to minimize opioid use. Switching to non-oral/fast-acting or targeted preventive therapies should be considered.

Off-label use of prescription analgesics among hospitalized children in the United States

PURPOSE

Analgesics are the most frequently administered medications among hospitalized children. However, current analgesic prescribing patterns have not been well defined among hospitalized children. In addition, it is unknown what proportion of prescription analgesics is approved for use in children and what proportion is used "off-label."

METHODS

Nationally representative data from 52 tertiary care children's hospitals in the Pediatric Health Information System were queried to determine prescribing rates of analgesic medications. We analyzed hospitalizations for children <18 years occurring between 1 April 2010 and 30 June 2018. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug labels were reviewed for pediatric information, and prescriptions were classified as on- or off-label based on age, route, and formulation.

RESULTS

Among 4.9 million hospitalizations, 1.8 million (37.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.6-37.7) were associated with use of a prescription analgesic. Overall, 36.7% (95% CI = 36.7-36.7) of hospitalizations included off-label analgesic therapy, with 26.4% (95% CI = 26.4-26.5) associated with two or more off-label analgesics. Off-label analgesic use was higher among hospitalizations in the intensive care unit (61.5%) or with an operating room procedure (92.8%). Rates of off-label prescribing increased with age, peaking at 50.5% for adolescents. Prescription analgesics administered most frequently were morphine, fentanyl, and ketorolac, with off-label use occurring in 24.5%, 23.1%, and 11.3% of hospitalizations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a third of pediatric hospitalizations were associated with the administration of prescription analgesics that have not been labeled for use in children. Our findings highlight the critical need to ensure that safe and effective analgesics are developed for children and that pediatric labeling is expanded for existing analgesics to inform treatment decisions.

Trends in Off-Label Drug Use in Ambulatory Settings: 2006-2015

BACKGROUND

Off-label drug use in children is common and potentially harmful. In most previous off-label use research, authors studied hospitalized children, specific drug classes, or non-US settings. We characterized frequencies, trends, and reasons for off-label systemic drug orders for children in ambulatory US settings.

METHODS

Using nationally representative surveys of office-based physicians (National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, 2006-2015), we studied off-label orders of systemic drugs for children age <18 based on US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling for age, weight, and indication. We characterized the top classes and diagnoses with off-label orders and analyzed factors and trends of off-label orders using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Physicians ordered ≥1 off-label systemic drug at 18.5% (95% confidence interval: 17.7%-19.3%) of visits, usually (74.6%) because of unapproved conditions. Off-label ordering was most common proportionally in neonates (83%) and in absolute terms among adolescents (322 orders out of 1000 visits). Off-label ordering was associated with female sex, subspecialists, polypharmacy, and chronic conditions. Rates and reasons for off-label orders varied considerably by age. Relative and absolute rates of off-label orders rose over time. Among common classes, off-label orders for antihistamines and several psychotropics increased over time, whereas off-label orders for several classes of antibiotics were stable or declined.

CONCLUSIONS

US office-based physicians have ordered systemic drugs off label for children at increasing rates, most often for unapproved conditions, despite recent efforts to increase evidence and drug approvals for children. These findings can help inform education, research, and policies around effective, safe use of medications in children.

Postoperative epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesia for thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children

BACKGROUND

Spine surgery may be associated with severe acute postoperative pain. Compared with systemic analgesia alone, epidural analgesia may offer better pain control. However, epidural analgesia has sometimes been associated with rare but serious complications. Therefore, it is critical to quantify the real benefits of epidural analgesia over other modes of pain treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia for acute postoperative pain control after thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on 14 November 2018, together with the references lists of related reviews and retained trials, and two trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials performed in children undergoing any type of thoraco-lumbar spine surgery comparing epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. We applied no language or publication status restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane tool. We analysed data using random-effects models. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (559 participants) in the review, and seven trials (249 participants) in the analysis: 140 participants received epidural analgesia and 109 received systemic analgesia.Most studies included adolescents. Three trials included in the analysis contained some participants older than 18 years. The types of surgery were posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis (nine trials), anterior correction for idiopathic scoliosis (one trial), or selective dorsal rhizotomy in children with cerebral palsy (one trial). The mean numbers of vertebrae operated on were between nine and 14.5 and the mean numbers of spinal levels were between three and four and a half. The length of surgery varied between three and six and a half hours.Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia reduced pain at rest at all time points. At six to eight hours, the mean pain score on a 0 to 10 scale with systemic analgesia was 3.1 (standard deviation 0.7) and with epidural analgesia was -1.32 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.82; 4 studies, 116 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 72 hours, the mean pain score with epidural analgesia was equivalent to a -0.8 point reduction on a 0 to 10 scale (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.10; 5 studies, 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Return of gastrointestinal functionThere was no difference for nausea and vomiting between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; 6 studies, 215 participants; low-quality evidence). One study found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants who had their first flatus within 48 hours (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.47; 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants in whom first bowel movement occurred within 48 hours (RR 11.52, 95% CI 2.36 to 56.26; 60 participants; low-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether epidural analgesia reduced the time to first bowel movement (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.50; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and time to first liquid ingestion following epidural infusion of an opioid alone or a local anaesthetic plus an opioid (mean difference (MD) -5.02 hours, 95% CI -13.15 to 3.10; 2 studies, 56 participants; very low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the risk of having first solid food ingestion within 48 hours (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.91 to 25.62; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in time to ambulate (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (MD -0.29 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.10; 2 studies, 89 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found participants were more satisfied when treated with epidural analgesia (MD 1.62 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.97; 60 participants; very low-quality evidence). It was unclear whether there was a difference in parent satisfaction for epidural analgesia with an opioid alone (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.81 to 2.01; 1 trial, 27 participants; very low-quality evidence).ComplicationsIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in the risk of complications such as: respiratory depression (risk difference (RD) -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 4 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence); wound infection (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 trials, 93 participants; very low-quality evidence); epidural abscess (RD 0, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 3 trials, 120 participants; very low-quality evidence); and neurological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 4 studies, 151 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate- and low-quality evidence that there may be a small additional reduction in pain up to 72 hours after surgery with epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia. Two very small studies showed epidural analgesia with local anaesthetic alone may accelerate the return of gastrointestinal function. The safety of this technique in children undergoing thoraco-lumbar surgery is uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. The study in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

The Evidence for the Role of Nutraceuticals in the Management of Pediatric Migraine: a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nutraceuticals are a form of complementary and alternative medicine that is commonly used by children and adolescents with migraine. In this review, observational studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of single compound nutraceuticals for the management of migraine in children and adolescents were identified through a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-one studies were reviewed, of which 11 were observational studies, 7 were randomized controlled trials, and 3 were systematic reviews. Six different nutraceuticals were included in the review: vitamin D, riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, magnesium, butterbur, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. All but three of the studies assessed the role of nutraceuticals in migraine prevention, while three studies evaluated the role of intravenous magnesium for acute migraine management. Overall, the quality and size of the studies were limited. Due to low quality evidence and limited studies, no definite conclusions can be drawn on the efficacy of nutraceuticals for the treatment of pediatric migraine. Future studies are warranted in order to establish evidence upon which to define the role of nutraceuticals in this patient population.