Search

Objective: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. Methods: We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Results: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a very disabling and costly disorder due to indirect costs, medication and healthcare utilization. The aim of the study was to describe general demographic and clinical characteristics of MOH, along with the national referral pathways and national painkillers distribution in several European and Latin American (LA) Countries. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional observational study included 669 patients with MOH referred to headache-centers in Europe and LA as a part of the COMOESTAS project. Information about acute medication and healthcare utilization were collected by extensive questionnaires, supplemented with structured patient interviews. Results: Triptans were overused by 31 % European patients and by 6 % in LA ( p < 0.001), whereas ergotamines were overused by 4 % in Europe and 72 % in LA ( p < 0.001). Simple analgesics were overused by 54 % in Europe and by 33 % in LA ( p < 0.001), while combination-analgesics were more equally overused (24 % in Europe and 29 % in LA). More European patients (57 %) compared with LA patients (27 %) visited general practitioners ( p < 0.001), and 83 % of European patients compared to 38 % in LA consulted headache specialists ( p < 0.001). A total of 20 % in Europe and 30 % in LA visited emergency rooms ( p = 0.007). Conclusion: There are marked variations between LA and Europe in healthcare pathways and in acute medication overuse regarding patients with MOH. This should be considered when planning prevention campaigns against MOH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]