[Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium fix-dose combination for acute migraine treatment, a review]

Migraine as a common primary headache disorder has a significant negative effect on quality of life of the patients. Its pharmacotreatment includes acute and preventative therapies. Based on the shared therapeutic guideline of the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology for acute migraine treatment a combination of triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended for acute migraine treatment in triptan-nonresponders. In this short review we summarized the results of the randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of sumatriptan (85 mg)/naproxen sodium (500 mg) fix-dose combination. It was revealed that the fix-dose combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of exemption of pain and headache relief at 2 hours. Furthermore the combination showed beneficial effect on accompanying symptoms of migraine attack (i.e. nausea, photo- and phonophobia). Adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal of the drug.
It can be concluded that sumatriptan (85 mg)/naproxen sodium (500 mg) fix-dose combination is effective, safe and well-tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine. 

.

Managing migraine on the frontline: Identifying disease, understanding burden, and incorporating CGRP pathway-targeting therapies in primary care

Migraine is a common neurologic disorder with clinical phenotypes encompassing a variety of symptoms which all contribute to the burden felt by patients. In addition to negative impacts on a patient's quality of life, migraine has both direct medical costs and indirect costs related to missed work and decreased productivity that affect individuals as well as society at large. Unfortunately, migraine diagnoses are often missed, and many patients do not receive appropriate treatment. Primary care providers are in a key position to provide timely diagnosis and effectively manage migraine for many patients. This review aims to be a guide for improving migraine management in the primary care setting by providing strategies to overcome common challenges in migraine diagnosis; summarizing current knowledge on the mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway-targeting therapies; and reviewing approaches to incorporate traditional and emerging treatment options into a patient-centric migraine management strategy.

A rational approach to migraine diagnosis and management in primary care

Migraine is a chronic neurologic disease estimated to affect approximately 50 million Americans. It is associated with a range of symptoms, which contribute to disability and substantial negative impacts on quality of life for many patients. Still, migraine continues to be underdiagnosed, undertreated, and optimising treatment for individual patients has proven difficult. As many migraine patients will be seen first in primary care settings, internists and other primary care providers are ideally positioned to improve diagnosis and migraine management for many patients. In this review, we discuss some of the challenges in diagnosing migraine and suggest strategies to overcome them, summarise the current understanding of migraine pathophysiology and clinical evidence on acute and preventive treatment options, and offer practical approaches to diagnosis and contemporary management of migraine in the primary care setting.Key messagesMigraine is a prevalent disease with substantial impact. Primary care providers are ideally positioned to improve care for migraine patients with streamlined approaches to diagnosis and management.A stepwise diagnostic approach to migraine involves taking a thorough headache history, excluding secondary headache, and identifying primary headache disorder using screening tools or ICHD-3 criteria.The FDA approved seven new migraine therapies from 2018 to 2020 (four monoclonal antibodies, two gepants, one ditan), expanding acute and preventive therapeutic options.

Autotitrating Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure in Large Vessel Steno-Occlusive Stroke Patients With Suspected Sleep Apnea: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study

Background: We hypothesized that autotitrating bilevel positive airway pressure (auto-BPAP) favorably affects short-term clinical outcomes in hyperacute ischemic stroke.

Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial patients with large vessel steno-occlusive stroke and clinically suspected sleep apnea were allocated to auto-BPAP or standard stroke care alone. Auto-BPAP was initiated within 24 h from stroke onset and performed over 48 h during diurnal and nocturnal sleep. Sleep apnea was assessed using cardiorespiratory polygraphy. Primary endpoint was early neurological improvement on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 72 h. Safety and tolerability of BPAP, functional independence [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2], stroke recurrence, and mortality at 90 days were assessed.

Results: Due to low recruitment, the trial was prematurely stopped after 24 patients had been randomized (auto-BPAP, n = 14; control, n = 10): median baseline NIHSS 13 (5.5–18), 88% large vessel occlusion, and 12% large vessel stenosis. Polygraphy confirmed sleep apnea in 64% of auto-BPAP and 88% of control patients (p = 0.34). Adherence to auto-BPAP was achieved by 9 of the 14 (64%) patients. Between auto-BPAP and control patients, no differences were observed in early neurological improvement (median NIHSS change: −2.0, IQR = 7 points vs. −0.5, IQR = 3 points), 90 days functional independence (21 vs. 30%, p = 0.67), stroke recurrence (0 vs. 20%, p = 0.16), and death (14 vs. 20%, p = 1.0). No safety concerns were identified.

Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated trial, auto-BPAP was safe but did not show an effect on short-term clinical outcomes in selected ischemic stroke patients. Its tolerability, however, may be limited in hyperacute stroke care and needs to be improved before larger trials are conducted.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT01812993.

Health technology assessment for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: A position statement of the International Headache Society

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society presents the first Health Technology Assessment for the Acute Treatment of Migraine Attacks and Prevention of Migraine. Health technology assessments are systematic evaluations of the properties, effects, and consequences of healthcare technologies; this position statement is designed to inform decision makers about access to and reimbursement for medications and devices for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This position statement extends beyond the already available guidelines on randomized controlled trials for migraine to incorporate real-world evidence and a synthetic approach for considering multiple data sources and modelling methods when assessing the value of migraine treatments.

Comprehensive Migraine Initiative in the Pediatric Emergency Department Improves Treatment Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare pediatric migraine treatment efficacy in the emergency department before and after the implementation of a comprehensive migraine initiative, consisting of a standardized treatment protocol, provider educational series and standardized physician documentation template.

BACKGROUND

Pediatric migraine is common, accounting for 1% of pediatric emergency department visits. Yet there is large variability in treatment practices, with few studies looking into measures of both clinical effectiveness and timeliness of treatment following implementation of standardized protocols.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review of pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department with migraine before and after implementation of an institutional headache initiative designed to more effectively and efficiently deliver care to pediatric migraine patients.

RESULTS

The study yielded 110 patients each in the intervention and preintervention groups. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics with respect to age, gender, or initial pain score. Compared with the preintervention group, the intervention group demonstrated a significant reduction in headache pain score prior to discharge (decrease of 5.9 vs 4.8 in preintervention group, P value .006) with a greater percentage of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in pain (82% vs 67% in preintervention group, P value .039). Additionally, we found a significantly decreased time to treatment in the intervention group compared with the preintervention group (1.8 vs 2.1 hours, P value .046).

CONCLUSION

Through the use of a standardized treatment protocol, improved provider education, and ease of documentation, this comprehensive migraine initiative improved efficacy and efficiency of migraine treatment in the pediatric emergency department.

Current Smoking Does Not Modify the Treatment Effect of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients-A Post-hoc Analysis of the WAKE-UP Trial

Background: The “smoking paradox” indicates that patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who smoke at the time of their stroke may have a better prognosis after intravenous thrombolysis than non-smokers. However, findings are inconsistent and data analyzing the effect of smoking on treatment efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis are scarce.

Methods: We performed a pre-specified post-hoc subgroup analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of MRI-Based Thrombolysis in Wake-Up Stroke (WAKE-UP) trial that randomized AIS patients with unknown time of symptom onset who had diffusion-weighted imaging-fluid attenuation inversion recovery (DWI-FLAIR) mismatch to either alteplase or placebo. Patients were categorized as current smokers or non-smokers (including former smokers and never-smokers). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as clinical and imaging follow-up data were analyzed according to smoking status.

Results: Four hundred and eighty six patients were included in the analysis. Current smokers (133, 27.4%) were younger (60.1 ± 13.0 vs. 67.2 ± 10.3 years; p < 0.001) and less often had arterial hypertension (45.0% vs. 56.8%; p = 0.02) or atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.001). The acute stroke presentation was more often due to large vessel occlusion among current smokers (27.1 vs. 16.2%; p = 0.01), and smokers had a trend towards more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score>10 in 27.1% vs. 19.5%; p = 0.08). The treatment effect of alteplase, quantified as odds ratio for a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score at 90 days of 0 or 1), did not differ between current smokers and non-smokers (p-value for interaction: 0.59). After adjustment for age and stroke severity, neither the proportion of patients with favorable outcome, nor the median mRS score at 90 days differed between current smokers and non-smokers. When additional potential confounders were included in the model, the median mRS score was higher in current smokers than in non-smokers (cOR of better outcome for current smokers vs. non-smokers: 0.664 [0.451–0.978], p = 0.04).

Conclusions: In patients with mild to moderate MRI-proven AIS and unknown time of symptom onset with DWI-FLAIR mismatch, current smokers had worse functional outcome as compared to non-smokers. Current smoking did not modify the treatment effect of alteplase.

Clinical Trial registration: Main trial (WAKE-UP): ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01525290; and EudraCT, 2011-005906-32. Registered 02 February 2012.

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine: Subgroup analyses by prior response to triptans

Background

Lasmiditan demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed Phase 3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Post-hoc integrated analyses evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to triptans and in those who were triptan naïve.

Methods

Subgroups of patients reporting an overall response of “good” or “poor/none” to the most recent use of a triptan at baseline (defined as good or insufficient responders, respectively) and a triptan-naïve subpopulation were derived from combined study participants randomized to receive lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg or 200 mg, or placebo, as the first dose. Outcomes including headache pain-freedom, most bothersome symptom-freedom, and headache pain relief 2 hours post-first dose of lasmiditan were compared with placebo. Treatment-by-subgroup analyses additionally investigated whether therapeutic benefit varied according to prior triptan response (good or insufficient).

Results

Regardless of triptan response, lasmiditan showed higher efficacy than placebo (most comparisons were statistically significant). Treatment-by-subgroup analyses found that the benefit over placebo of lasmiditan did not vary significantly between patients with a good response and those with an insufficient response to triptans. Lasmiditan also showed higher efficacy than placebo in triptan-naïve patients.

Conclusions

Lasmiditan demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to prior triptan use. Lasmiditan also showed efficacy in those who were triptan naïve. Lasmiditan may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with migraine.

Trial Registration

SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

[Therapeutic Effects of Intranasal Sumatriptan for Cluster Headache]

To clarify the associated factors for negative response to sumatriptan nasal spray in patients with cluster headache, we investigated the involvement of clinical information, such as the characteristics of headaches, before commencing sumatriptan nasal spray treatment. There were 18 male patients and 4 female patients. A total of 17 responders and 5 non-responders to sumatriptan nasal spray participated in the present study. Three factors for negative response to sumatriptan nasal spray, "young age of onset", "psychiatric disorder", and "the headache is not in the orbit," were found. Oxygen inhalation and/or subcutaneous injection were effective for nonresponsive cases. Therefore, these factors are considered to be useful for predicting therapy before applying sumatriptan nasal spray.

Optimum Use of Acute Treatments for Hereditary Angioedema: Evidence-Based Expert Consensus

Acute treatment of hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency has become available in the last 10 years and has greatly improved patients’ quality of life. Two plasma-derived C1 inhibitors (Berinert and Cinryze), a recombinant C1 inhibitor (Ruconest/Conestat alpha), a kallikrein inhibitor (Ecallantide), and a bradykinin B2 receptor inhibitor (Icatibant) are all effective. Durably good response is maintained over repeated treatments and several years. All currently available prophylactic agents are associated with breakthrough attacks, therefore an acute treatment plan is essential for every patient. Experience has shown that higher doses of C1 inhibitor than previously recommended may be desirable, although only recombinant C1 inhibitor has been subject to full dose–response evaluation. Treatment of early symptoms of an attack, with any licensed therapy, results in milder symptoms, more rapid resolution and shorter duration of attack, compared with later treatment. All therapies have been shown to be well-tolerated, with low risk of serious adverse events. Plasma-derived C1 inhibitors have a reassuring safety record regarding lack of transmission of virus or other infection. Thrombosis has been reported in association with plasma-derived C1 inhibitor in some case series. Ruconest was associated with anaphylaxis in a single rabbit-allergic volunteer, but no further anaphylaxis has been reported in those not allergic to rabbits despite, in a few cases, prior IgE sensitization to rabbit or milk protein. Icatibant is associated with high incidence of local reactions but not with systemic effects. Ecallantide may cause anaphylactoid reactions and is given under supervision. For children and pregnant women, plasma-derived C1 inhibitor has the best evidence of safety and currently remains first-line treatment.

Outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage related to non-vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The characteristics and natural history of acute non-vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants (NOAC)-associated intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are largely unknown. We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare baseline ICH volume, haematoma expansion and clinical outcomes between NOAC-ICH versus vitamin K antagonists-ICH (VKA-ICH).

METHODS

We searched PubMed and conference abstracts for observational studies comparing baseline characteristics and outcomes in patients with NOAC-ICH versus VKA-ICH using an appropriate keyword/MeSH term search strategy. Data were extracted following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The main outcome measures were mortality and unfavourable functional outcome (modified Rankin Score: 4-6) at discharge and at 3 months, as well as ICH volumes and haematoma expansion rates in the two groups. Random-effects models with DerSimonian-Laird weights were used for pooled estimates calculation.

RESULTS

Twelve studies including 393 NOAC-ICH and 3482 VKA-ICH were pooled in meta-analysis. There was no difference in mean ICH-volume between the two groups (standard mean difference: -0.24; 95% CI -0.52 to 0.04, p=0.093). The rates of haematoma expansion were comparable in NOAC-ICH versus VKA-ICH (OR: 0.76; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.19, p=0.236). We did not find any difference between patients with NOAC-ICH versus VKA-ICH in all-cause mortality at discharge (OR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, p=0.077) and unfavourable functional outcome at discharge (OR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.44, p=0.413). The 3-month outcome was also comparable between the two ICH groups. Moderate-to-substantial statistical heterogeneity was noted.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that ICH volume, haematoma expansion, mortality and functional outcome appear to be similar for NOAC-ICH versus VKA-ICH. Large prospective cohorts and updated meta-analyses are needed to provide more precise estimates.

The second paradigm shift occurred on acute stroke therapy

Outcome of acute stroke patients with embolic large vessel occlusion can be improved dramatically, if the effective and rapid reperfusion of the occluded vessel achieved. Since 2015, when the evidence of acute endovascular therapy established its efficacy, such scenario became no longer uncommon. Along with introduction of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), many options of antithrombotic therapy for acute ischemic stroke also became available. This review summarize the recent advances on acute ischemic stroke therapy.

Facing Time in Ischemic Stroke: An Alternative Hypothesis for Collateral Failure

Several randomized-controlled trials could recently demonstrate that ischemic stroke which is caused by large-cerebral-artery-occlusion can be treated effectively by endovascular recanalization. Among these studies, particularly the data from the ESCAPE study further corroborated the strong association between macrovascular pial collateral flow (before recanalization) and clinical outcome after recanalization. This review briefly gives an overview on these data and on the clinical key observations demonstrating this association in practice. Since the ischemic penumbra can only be sustained by collateral flow, the collapse of collateral blood flow or poor collateral filling, observed for example by DSA or CTA before recanalization, seems to be a primary cause of rapidly progressive infarction and futile therapeutic recanalization. However, it needs to be emphasized that the true cause-effect relationship between collateral failure and rapidly progressive infarction of the penumbra, i.e. the high probability of unfavorable clinical outcome despite recanalization, remains unclear. Along this line, an alternative hypothesis is offered viewing the collapse of collateral flow not as a cause but possibly as an inevitable secondary consequence of increasing peripheral/microvascular resistance during progressive infarction.

Knowledge of Thrombolytic Therapy Amongst Hospital Staff: Preliminary Results and Treatment Implications

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In-hospital stroke is associated with slower access to thrombolysis than community-occurring stroke. It has been suggested that lack of knowledge regarding appropriate stroke response among hospital staff may contribute to delays in referral, assessment, and treatment of in-hospital stroke.

METHOD

A survey was conducted among hospital ward staff members using the Stroke Awareness Questionnaire, which was adapted for use among hospital staff to assess their knowledge of stroke symptoms, acute treatments, and hospital protocols for treatment of stroke.

RESULTS

Ninety-six staff members were interviewed, 81% of whom were clinical staff (medical, nursing, allied health professionals). Ninety-two percent of staff could name ≥3 stroke symptoms. Only 49% of staff were aware of thrombolysis treatment, and only 48% could identify the time window for thrombolysis administration, with staff from stroke-related specialties likely to name thrombolysis as an acute treatment for stroke (71%; odds ratio =3.36, 95% confidence interval 1.17-9.61) and identify the correct treatment window (71%; odds ratio =3.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24-10.16). Only 52% of staff on general wards were aware of an in-hospital stroke protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital staff had adequate knowledge of stroke signs and symptoms; however, there was low awareness of thrombolysis therapy and its correct treatment time window among hospital staff. Targeted educational programmes among hospital staff regarding stroke are required to optimize acute stroke care.