A Comparative Study of the Effects of Low-Dose Topiramate Versus Sodium Valproate in Migraine Prophylaxis

The effect of lacosamide on calcitonin gene-related peptide serum level in episodic migraine patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 11-15% of people worldwide, and the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is released during the migraine attack, producing pulsating pain of migraine. Also, lacosamide reacts with collapsin-response mediator protein 2, preventing its phosphorylation and leading to the inhibition of CGRP release in the trigeminal system.

OBJECTIVE

The primary outcome was the difference in the serum level of CGRP-LI after three months of treatment with either lacosamide and ibuprofen or ibuprofen alone in episodic migraine patients. The secondary outcomes were assessing safety and efficacy of lacosamide in episodic migraine patients.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial on episodic migraine patients aged 10-55 years diagnosed according to (ICHD-3) in Kafr El-Sheikh University Hospital, Egypt. We assessed serum levels of CGRP-LI before and three months after treatment in our two groups, the lacosamide, and the control groups. We also assessed the side effects of treatment in each group, the percentage of patients who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the migraine monthly days (MMD) frequency and the percentage of patients who achieved pain freedom within 2 h in ≥ 4 of 5 attacks in each group.

RESULTS

200 episodic migraine patients completed the study. There was a statistically significantly higher reduction in the serum CGRP-LI level in the lacosamide group compared with the control group. In addition, lacosamide was well tolerated by patients. Also, the lacosamide group had statistically significant higher percentage of patients who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in the migraine monthly days (MMD) frequency and pain freedom within two hours in ≥ 4 of 5 attacks with P-values 0.002, 0.02 respectively.

CONCLUSION

The daily use of lacosamide 50 mg Bid for three months in episodic migraine patients was associated with a significant reduction in serum CGRP-LI, better clinical outcomes regarding frequency and duration of migraine attacks, and was well tolerated by patients. These results were derived from an open-label pilot study that needed to be thoroughly investigated by a large-scale, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

 We registered our trial on ClinicalTrials.gov, named after "The Lacosamide's Effect on Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide in Migraine Patients," and with a clinical trial number (NCT05632133)-August 8, 2023.

Nonspecific oral medications versus anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs).

BACKGROUND

Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs.

METHODS

Databases were searched for class I or II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGRP mAbs or NOEPs versus placebo for migraine prevention in adults. The primary outcome measure was monthly migraine days (MMD) or moderate to severe headache days.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs for CGRP mAbs, 5 RCTs for topiramate, and 3 RCTs for divalproex were included in the meta-analysis. There was high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, with weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% confidence interval) of -1.64 (-1.99 to -1.28) MMD, which is compatible with small effect size (Cohen's d -0.25 [-0.34 to -0.16]). Certainty of evidence that topiramate or divalproex is more effective than placebo was very low and low, respectively (WMD -1.45 [-1.52 to -1.38] and -1.65 [-2.30 to -1.00], respectively; Cohen's d -1.25 [-2.47 to -0.03] and -0.48 [-0.67 to -0.29], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that information size was adequate and that CGRP mAbs had clear benefit versus placebo. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CGRP mAbs and topiramate (WMD -0.19 [-0.56 to 0.17]) or divalproex (0.01 [-0.73 to 0.75]). No significant difference was seen between topiramate or divalproex (0.21 [-0.45 to 0.86]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, but the effect size is small. When feasible, CGRP mAbs may be prescribed as first-line preventives; topiramate or divalproex could be as effective but are less well tolerated. The findings of this study support the recently published 2024 position of the American Headache Society on the use of CGRP mAbs as the first-line treatment.

The Assessment of Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Burden of Illness in Patients With Episodic and Chronic Migraine: A Cross-Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a prevalent and disabling primary headache disorder worldwide, causing significant years lost due to disability (YLD) and impacting various aspects of everyday life. Despite its high prevalence and substantial burden, there is a lack of comprehensive data on clinical patterns and management trends, in places like Tamil Nadu, India. This study aims and also fill gaps by investigating and analyzing the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and illness burden among patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) in the state of Tamil Nadu.

STUDY

This cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Neurology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, over a three-month period starting from January 2024 to March 2024. The study included migraine patients aged 18 years and above who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-3 criteria and took treatment at the department. Data were collected using patient interviews, medical records, and counseling sessions and using a pre-designed questionnaire. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, symptom prevalence, prescription patterns, and illness burden were analyzed accordingly. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire was used to measure the burden of illness.

RESULTS

The analysis involved 400 migraine patients, 92.5% of them having EM and 7.5% of them having CM. The mean age of patients was 37.5 years, with a predominance of females (73.5%). Patients with CM had having significantly higher average number of headache days per month when compared to those with EM. Tension-type headache (TTH) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) were more prevalent in those CM patients. Trigger factors include lack of sleep, bright light exposure, and stress. Comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, and depression were significantly higher in CM patients. Acute treatment included NSAIDs and Triptans, while preventive therapy was more commonly used in CM patients. The mean MIDAS score was significantly higher in CM patients, which indicates greater disability.

CONCLUSION

The study provides valuable insights into the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and burden of illness among migraine patients in Tamil Nadu, India. Significant differences were observed between EM and CM patients, which highlights the need for comprehensive management strategies. Preventive therapy, lifestyle modifications, and comprehensive assessment of disability are all important in addressing the variable needs of migraine patients and also reducing the burden of illness. Further research is necessary to explore additional factors influencing migraine outcomes in this population.

Antiseizure Medications for the Prophylaxis of Migraine during the Anti- CGRP Drugs Era

Migraine and epilepsy are fundamentally distinct disorders that can frequently coexist in the same patient. These two conditions significantly differ in diagnosis and therapy but share some widely- used preventive treatments. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of therapy for epilepsy, and about thirty different ASMs are available to date. ASMs are widely prescribed for other neurological and non-neurological conditions, including migraine. However, only topiramate and valproic acid/valproate currently have an indication for migraine prophylaxis supported by high-quality evidence. Although without specifically approved indications and with a low level of evidence or recommendation, several other ASMs are used for migraine prophylaxis. Understanding ASM antimigraine mechanisms, including their ability to affect the pro-migraine calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway and other pathways, may be instrumental in identifying the specific targets of their antimigraine efficacy and may increase awareness of the neurobiological differences between epilepsy and migraine. Several new ASMs are under clinical testing or have been approved for epilepsy in recent years, providing novel potential drugs for migraine prevention to enrich the treatment armamentarium and drugs that inhibit the CGRP pathway.

Risk of Valproic Acid-Related Tremor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and risk of tremor in patients treated with valproic aid (VPA) monotherapy.

Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to gather relevant data on tremor in patients taking VPA and other drugs and performed a meta-analysis using Stata15.1 software.

Results: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of tremor in patients receiving VPA therapy was 14% [OR = 0.14, 95% CI (0.10–0.17)]. The pooled estimate risk of tremor showed a significant difference between patients treated with VPA and all other drugs [OR = 5.40, 95% CI (3.22–9.08)], other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [OR = 5.78, 95% CI (3.18–10.50)], and other non-AEDs [OR = 4.77, 95% CI (1.55–14.72)]. Both a dose of <1,500 mg/d of VPA [included 500 mg/d: OR = 3.57, 95% CI (1.24–10.26), 500–999 mg/d: OR = 3.99, 95% CI (1.95–8.20), 1,000–1,499 mg/d: OR = 8.82, 95% CI (3.25–23.94)] and a VPA treatment duration of <12 m [included ≤ 3 months: OR = 3.06, 95% CI (1.16–8.09), 3–6 months: OR = 16.98, 95% CI (9.14–31.57), and 6–12 months: OR = 4.15, 95% CI (2.74–6.29)] led to a higher risk of tremor than did other drugs, as did higher doses and longer treatment times.

Conclusion: Compared with other drugs, VPA led to a higher risk of tremor, and the level of risk was associated with the dose and duration of treatment.

Enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction in episodic migraine: a randomized clinical trial with magnetic resonance imaging outcomes

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR+) vs stress management for headache (SMH). We performed a randomized, assessor-blind, clinical trial of 98 adults with episodic migraine recruited at a single academic center comparing MBSR+ (n = 50) with SMH (n = 48). MBSR+ and SMH were delivered weekly by group for 8 weeks, then biweekly for another 8 weeks. The primary clinical outcome was reduction in headache days from baseline to 20 weeks. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes included activity of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and cognitive task network during cognitive challenge, resting state connectivity of right dorsal anterior insula to DLPFC and cognitive task network, and gray matter volume of DLPFC, dorsal anterior insula, and anterior midcingulate. Secondary outcomes were headache-related disability, pain severity, response to treatment, migraine days, and MRI whole-brain analyses. Reduction in headache days from baseline to 20 weeks was greater for MBSR+ (7.8 [95% CI, 6.9-8.8] to 4.6 [95% CI, 3.7-5.6]) than for SMH (7.7 [95% CI 6.7-8.7] to 6.0 [95% CI, 4.9-7.0]) (P = 0.04). Fifty-two percent of the MBSR+ group showed a response to treatment (50% reduction in headache days) compared with 23% in the SMH group (P = 0.004). Reduction in headache-related disability was greater for MBSR+ (59.6 [95% CI, 57.9-61.3] to 54.6 [95% CI, 52.9-56.4]) than SMH (59.6 [95% CI, 57.7-61.5] to 57.5 [95% CI, 55.5-59.4]) (P = 0.02). There were no differences in clinical outcomes at 52 weeks or MRI outcomes at 20 weeks, although changes related to cognitive networks with MBSR+ were observed. Enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction is an effective treatment option for episodic migraine.

Low-dose sodium valproate versus low-dose propranolol in prophylaxis of common migraine headache: A randomized, prospective, parallel, open-label study

CONTEXT:

Migraine is the second most common headache disorder. However, prophylactic therapy remains underutilized.

AIMS:

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose sodium valproate and low-dose propranolol sustained release (SR) in the prophylaxis of common migraine headache.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

The study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching institute. It was a randomized, prospective, parallel, open-label, clinical study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

The study included 60 patients with common migraine headaches (≥2 attacks/month) treated for 12 weeks. The patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups treated by sodium valproate 500 mg/day and propranolol SR 40 mg/day, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of responders (i.e., >50% decrease in mean headache frequency) at the end of 12 weeks and decrease in mean headache frequency (per 4 weeks) at the end of 12 weeks. The patients were assessed at 0, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of the study.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

Intention-to-treat analysis was used for all the statistical analysis.

RESULTS:

Fifty-five patients completed the study. At the end of the treatment, both sodium valproate and propranolol caused a significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headache. Propranolol caused significantly greater reduction in the severity of headache (P = 0.0410) than sodium valproate. The percentage of responders was 60% in sodium valproate group and 70% in propranolol group. Drowsiness was the most common adverse effect noted in both the groups.

CONCLUSION:

Both sodium valproate and propranolol significantly reduced frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headache, but propranolol caused significantly greater reduction in the severity of headache compared to sodium valproate. Both the medications were well tolerated and did not result in discontinuation.

Preventive Treatment for Episodic Migraine

Episodic migraine is a debilitating condition. Preventive therapy is used to reduce frequency, duration, or severity of attacks. This review discusses principles of preventive treatment with a focus on preventive treatment options for people with episodic migraine. Specifically discussed is evidence and use of new migraine-specific treatment options for episodic migraine, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, a noninvasive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device, and a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulator device. Also discussed are evidence-based updates from the 2012 American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society guidelines regarding major medication classes recommended for preventive episodic migraine treatment.

Risk of valproic acid-related alopecia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed studies to provide current evidence about the incidence and risk of alopecia in patients undergoing valproic acid (VPA) therapy.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant publications and gathered data on alopecia in patients taking VPA and other drugs from prospective studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria, and the overall incidence of alopecia in patients receiving VPA therapy was 11% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.13). The pooled risk of alopecia showed a significant difference between patients treated with VPA and all other drugs (odds ratio (OR) 5.02, 95% CI: 3.58-7.03), other epileptic drugs (AEDs) (OR 4.82, 95% CI: 3.32-7.00) and other non-AEDs (OR 5.84, 95% CI: 2.67-12.81). Compared to other drugs, VPA increased the risk of alopecia both in patients with migraine headaches (OR 6.05, 95% CI: 2.89-12.63) and patients with epilepsy (OR 5.29, 95% CI: 3.53-7.92), and the increase risk was reported more frequently in patients with migraine. Both lower doses (OR 4.38, 95% CI: 2.32-8.25) and shorter treatments (OR 4.98, 95% CI: 2.41-10.25) with VPA posed a high risk of alopecia compared to other drugs, as did higher doses and longer treatment times.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, VPA was significantly associated with a risk of alopecia compared to other drugs, and the risk did not depend on the dose and treatment time.

Current Status of Antiepileptic Drugs as Preventive Migraine Therapy

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are an important class of agents used in the treatment of migraine, a neurological disorder that imparts significant socioeconomic burden. It is important for neurologists to understand the rationale for AEDs in migraine-preventive treatment, as well as each agent's efficacy and tolerability profile, in order to best determine clinical care.

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This article specifically provides the following: (1) a review of the mechanism of action, efficacy, and tolerability of topiramate and divalproex sodium/sodium valproate, the most widely used AEDs for migraine prevention, (2) a discussion on emerging evidence regarding the efficacy of zonisamide and levetiracetam, and (3) comments on gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and lamotrigine, AEDs which have insufficient evidence for use in migraine prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

The potential role for new extended-release formulations of topiramate in migraine prevention is discussed. There is substantial evidence supporting the use of AEDs in migraine prevention. Specific agents should be chosen based on their efficacy and tolerability profiles. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of the newer AEDs, zonisamide and levetiracetam, in migraine prevention and to clarify the role of gabapentinoids in headache management.

Migraine and cluster headache - the common link

Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.

Use of melatonin versus valproic acid in prophylaxis of migraine patients: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Melatonin is known to be effective in curing migraine.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of melatonin versus sodium valproate in the prophylaxis of chronic migraine.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial included patients with chronic migraine who were divided into three equal sized groups, and baseline therapy with nortriptyline (10-25 mg) and propranolol (20-40 mg) was used. Patients in groups A, B, and C were adjunctively treated daily with 3 mg melatonin, 200 mg sodium valproate, and a placebo, respectively. The patients underwent treatment for 2 months and follow-up was done at baseline (baseline), first (I) and second month (II). Attack frequency (AF), attack duration, attack severity, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score (within 3 months in two steps), analgesic intake, and drug side effects between the groups and during follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

The mean of monthly AF (melatonin: baseline: 4.2, I: 3.1, II: 2.5, p = 0.018; valproate: baseline: 4.3, I: 3.1, II: 2.3, p = 0.001; placebo: baseline: 4.1, I: 3.8, II: 3.8 p = 0.211), attack duration (hr) (melatonin: baseline: 19.8, I: 10.1, II: 8.7, p < 0.001; valproate: baseline: 19.5, I: 10.2, II: 8.8, p < 0.001; placebo: baseline: 19.6, I: 15.4, II: 14.1, p = 0.271), attack severity (melatonin: baseline: 7.3, I: 5.4, II: 3.5, p < 0.001; valproate: baseline: 7.4, I: 5.3, II: 3.4, p = 0.000; placebo: baseline: 7.3, I: 6.4, II: 6, p = 0.321), and MIDAS score (melatonin: baseline: 15.2, II: 8.9, p = 0.005; valproate: baseline: 16.1, II: 8.3, p = 0.001; placebo: baseline: 16, II: 12.1, p = 0.44), were significantly reduced in the melatonin and sodium valproate groups, but not in the placebo groups. Adverse events were reported in 11 patients (10.47%): 2 (5.71%) during melatonin treatment, 8 (22.85%) during valproate, and 1 (2.85%) during placebo.

CONCLUSION

The adjuvant treatment with melatonin was found to be superior to the placebo and had the same clinical efficacy as sodium valproate, but with higher tolerability. Melatonin may prove to be an efficient substitute for sodium valproate, as a chronic migraine prophylaxis.

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.

Unveiling the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications for migraine: pairwise and network-meta analysis

BACKGROUND

A large number patients struggle with migraine which is classified as a chronic disorder. The relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications for migraine play a key role in managing this disease.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature search for popular prophylactic medications that are used for migraine patients. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were carried out sequentially for determining the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications. Summary effect for migraine headache days, headache frequency, at least 50% reduction in headache attacks, all-adverse events, nausea, somnolence, dizziness, withdrawal and withdrawal due to adverse events were produced by synthesizing both direct and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Patients with three interventions exhibited significantly less average migraine headache days compared with those treated by placebo (topiramate, propranolol, divalproex). Moreover, topiramate and valproate exhibited a significantly increased likelihood of at least 50% reduction in migraine headache attacks compared to placebo. Patients with topiramate and propranolol also exhibited significantly reduced headache frequency compared to those with placebo. On the other hand, patients with divalproex exhibited significantly higher risk of nausea compared to those with placebo, topiramate, propranolol, gabapentin and amitriptyline. Finally, divalproex was associated with an increased risk of withdrawal compared to placebo and propranolol.

CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate, propranolol and divalproex may be more efficacious than other prophylactic medications. Besides, the safety and tolerability of divalproex should be further verified by future studies.

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications.

DESIGN

We performed a network meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and quality was assessed using both the JADAD and Cochrane Risk of Bias instruments. Data were pooled and network meta-analysis performed using random effects models.

DATA SOURCES

PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included randomized controlled trials of adults with migraine headaches of at least 4 weeks in duration.

RESULTS

Placebo controlled trials included alpha blockers (n = 9), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 3), angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 3), anticonvulsants (n = 32), beta-blockers (n = 39), calcium channel blockers (n = 12), flunarizine (n = 7), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 6), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 1) serotonin agonists (n = 9) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 11). In addition there were 53 trials comparing different drugs. Drugs with at least 3 trials that were more effective than placebo for episodic migraines included amitriptyline (SMD: -1.2, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.82), -flunarizine (-1.1 headaches/month (ha/month), 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.67), fluoxetine (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.17), metoprolol (-0.94 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.46), pizotifen (-0.43 ha/month, 95% CI: -0.6 to -0.21), propranolol (-1.3 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.62), topiramate (-1.1 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.9 to -0.73) and valproate (-1.5 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.1 to -0.8). Several effective drugs with less than 3 trials included: 3 ace inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril, captopril), two angiotensin receptor blockers (candesartan, telmisartan), two anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, levetiracetam), and several beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol). Network meta-analysis found amitriptyline to be better than several other medications including candesartan, fluoxetine, propranolol, topiramate and valproate and no different than atenolol, flunarizine, clomipramine or metoprolol.

CONCLUSION

Several drugs good evidence supporting efficacy. There is weak evidence supporting amitriptyline's superiority over some drugs. Selection of prophylactic medication should be tailored according to patient preferences, characteristics and side effect profiles.

Adding Additional Acute Medications to a Triptan Regimen for Migraine and Observed Changes in Headache-Related Disability: Results From the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

BACKGROUND

Though triptans are the most widely used acute treatments for migraine, response to treatment is sometimes suboptimal. Triptan therapy is often augmented by the addition of other acute treatments. The benefits of this practice have not been examined in large-scale, real-world observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in headache-related disability associated with adding additional acute treatments to a triptan regimen by category of added treatment including: a second triptan, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), opioids or barbiturates.

METHODS

Subjects were participants in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, a longitudinal, US population-based study of individuals with "severe" headache. Respondents who met International Classification of Headache Disorders 3 beta criteria for migraine were on triptan therapy per respondent self-report, used the same triptan, and provided headache-related disability data for at least 2 consecutive years. Subjects were divided based on headache days per month into 3 groups: low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM, 0-4), moderate-frequency episodic migraine (MFEM, 5-9), and high-frequency episodic migraine/chronic migraine (HFEM/CM, ≥ 10 headache days per month). HFEM and CM were combined into a single group for analyses because of sample size limitations. Patterns of acute treatment for migraine were monitored from one year to the next over the following couplets of years (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009). The first eligible couplet was analyzed for each respondent. Medication regimens studied included: (1) maintaining current triptan use (consistent group); (2) adding a different triptan; (3) adding an NSAID; or (4) adding a combination analgesic containing opioids or barbiturates. We assessed change in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score from the first to the second year of a couplet, contrasting scores of participants with consistent use with those who added an acute treatment to their triptan regimen.

RESULTS

The study sample (N = 2128) included 111 individuals who added another triptan, 118 who added an opioid or barbiturate, and 69 who added an NSAID, with referent groups of approximately 600 cases in each group who remained consistent. In general, MIDAS scores were higher among those who made changes from one year to the next compared with those who did not make changes in therapy. In fully adjusted models, adding triptans or NSAIDs was associated with increased disability for HFEM/CM cases at follow-up but decreased disability at follow-up for MFEM cases, resulting in significant interaction effects for both adding triptans and NSAIDs, respectively (15.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75, 31.01, 38.52, 95% CI 12.43, 64.61).

CONCLUSIONS

While the effects of adding vs staying consistent on the outcome of headache-related disability varied by medication type added and headache frequency strata, in general, these results suggest that for individuals with migraine, adding acute therapies to current triptan use is generally not associated with reductions in headache-related disability. The results were strongest among persons with HFEM and CM. These results identify important unmet medical needs in current migraine management, especially among patients with high-frequency migraine, and suggest that alternative treatment strategies are needed to improve patient outcomes.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected.

RESULTS

Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Effects of switching acute treatment on disability in migraine patients using triptans

OBJECTIVE

To assess the influence of switching acute treatment on headache-related disability in a population sample of individuals with migraine using acute triptan therapy.

BACKGROUND

Acute treatments for migraine are often modified in clinical practice. The effect of changes in treatment from one triptan to another or from a triptan to another medication class has rarely been studied.

METHODS

Patterns of acute treatment for migraine were monitored from 1 year to the next in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study for the following couplets (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009). Changes in medication regimens were classified as follows: (1) switch within the triptan class; (2) switch to combination analgesics containing opioids or barbiturates; (3) switch to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) agents; (4) maintaining current therapy (consistent use, "control"). We assessed change in migraine disability assessment scale score from the first to the second year of a couplet contrasting those with consistent use with those who changed acute treatment. Each individual contributed only 1 couplet to the analysis. Persons who added an acute treatment are considered in a separate manuscript. We modeled change in migraine disability assessment scale score as a function of change in medication regimen with consistent users as the control group.

RESULTS

We identified 81 individuals who switched to another triptan, with a referent of 619 who remained consistent, 31 cases who switched to an opioid or barbiturate with a referent of 666 who remained consistent, and 20 cases who switched to an NSAID with a referent of 667 cases who remained consistent. In cell-mean coded analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), switching from one triptan to another or switching from a triptan to an opioid/barbiturate was never associated with significant improvements in headache-related disability compared with consistent treatment. Switching from a triptan to an NSAID was associated with significant increases in headache-related disability among those with high-frequency episodic/chronic migraine (HFEM/CM) compared with those with low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) (interaction = 34.81, 95% confidence interval 10.61 to 59.00). The same was true comparing high-frequency episodic/chronic migraine with those with moderate-frequency episodic migraine (interaction = 48.73, 95% confidence interval 2.63 to 94.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study, switching triptan regimens does not appear to be associated with improvements in headache-related disability and in some cases is associated with increased headache-related disability.

Topiramate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of topiramate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between topiramate and comparator (placebo, active control, or topiramate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for selected quality of life instruments. Finally, we summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty papers describing 17 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from nine trials (1737 participants) showed that topiramate reduced headache frequency by about 1.2 attacks per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.59 to -0.80). Data from nine trials (1190 participants) show that topiramate approximately doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.60; NNT 4; 95% CI 3 to 6). Separate analysis of different topiramate doses produced similar MDs versus placebo at 50 mg (-0.95; 95% CI -1.95 to 0.04; three studies; 520 participants), 100 mg (-1.15; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.71; six studies; 1620 participants), and 200 mg (-0.94; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.36; five studies; 804 participants). All three doses significantly increased the proportion of responders relative to placebo; ORs were as follows: for 50 mg, 2.35 (95% CI 1.60 to 3.44; three studies; 519 participants); for 100 mg, 3.49 (95% CI 2.23 to 5.45; five studies; 852 participants); and for 200 mg, 2.49 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.87; six studies; 1025 participants). All three doses also significantly improved three or more domains of quality of life as compared to placebo. Meta-analysis of the three studies that included more than one dose of topiramate suggests that 200 mg is no more effective than 100 mg. With regard to mean headache frequency and/or responder rate, seven trials using active comparators found (a) no significant difference between topiramate and amitriptyline (one study, 330 participants); (b) no significant difference between topiramate and flunarizine (one study, 83 participants); (c) no significant difference between topiramate and propranolol (two studies, 342 participants); (d) no significant difference between topiramate and relaxation (one study, 61 participants); but (e) a slight significant advantage of topiramate over valproate (two studies, 120 participants). Relaxation improved migraine-specific quality of life significantly more than topiramate. In trials of topiramate against placebo, seven adverse events (AEs) were reported by at least three studies. These were usually mild and of a non-serious nature. Except for taste disturbance and weight loss, there were no significant differences in the frequency of AEs in general, or of the seven specific AEs, between placebo and topiramate 50 mg. AEs in general and all of the specific AEs except nausea were significantly more common on topiramate 100 mg than on placebo, with NNHs varying from 3 to 25, and the RDs versus placebo were even higher for topiramate 200 mg, with NNHs varying from 2 to 17.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis demonstrates that topiramate in a 100 mg/day dosage is effective in reducing headache frequency and reasonably well-tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine. This provides good evidence to support its use in routine clinical management. More studies designed specifically to compare the efficacy or safety of topiramate versus other interventions with proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of migraine are needed.

Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.