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 and objectives: About a quarter of migraine cases among women have menstrual migraine (MM), which is usually more severe, longer lasting, and less responsive to treatment than typical migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of several medication in the acute and preventive treatment of MM; this meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of these treatments. Methods: We conducted systematic searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. The primary outcomes of acute treatment trials were pain relief at 2 and 24 h after treatment compared with placebo or another treatment. The three endpoints we checked for studying MM prevention were: no recurrence of headaches each month, a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline, and a decrease in the mean number of headache days per month. Results: Out of 342 studies, 26 RCTs met the criteria. Triptans, combined with or without other analgesics, were superior to placebo in providing pain relief in the acute treatment and prevention of MM. Among the treatments, sumatriptan and lasmiditan demonstrated superior pain relief at 2 h (OR: 4.62) and 24 h (OR: 4.81). Frovatriptan exhibited effectiveness in preventing headache recurrence, whereas galcanezumab and erenumab displayed significant preventive benefits in reducing headache days per month. Conclusion: Sumatriptan and lasmiditan are effective first-line treatments for acute MM. For prevention, frovatriptan may be the more effective of triptans. Compared with triptans, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, here including erenumab and galcanezumab, are more effective in reducing headache days, and therefore, in preventing MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches. Methods: We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1. Results: A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue. Conclusions: In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication is the most effective. We present a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and rank of preventive drugs for chronic migraine in adults. Methods: We identified, reviewed, and extracted data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs for chronic migraine with at least 200 participants. Data were analysed using network meta-analysis. Findings: We included 12 RCTs of six medications (Eptinezumab, Erenumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab, Onabotulinumtoxin A, and Topiramate) compared to placebo or each other. All drugs effectively reduced monthly headache and migraine days compared with placebo. The most effective drug for monthly headache days was Eptinezumab 300mg, with a mean difference of -2.46 days, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): -3.23 to -1.69. On the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Area (SUCRA) analysis, the probability that Eptinezumab 300mg was ranked highest was 0.82. For monthly migraine days, the most effective medication was Fremanezumab-monthly, with a mean difference: -2.77 days, 95% CrI: -3.36 to -2.17, and 0.98 probability of being ranked the highest. All included drugs, except Topiramate, improved headache-related quality of life. No eligible studies were identified for the other common preventive oral medications such as Amitriptyline, Candesartan, and Propranolol. The main reasons were that the studies did not define chronic migraine, were undertaken before the definition of chronic migraine, or were too small. Interpretation: All six medications were more effective than the placebo on monthly headache and migraine days. The absolute differences in the number of headache/migraine days are, at best, modest. No evidence was found to determine the relative effectiveness of the six included drugs with other oral preventive medications. Registration: PROSPERO (number CRD42021265990). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients. Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Nineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model. Conclusions: Compared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several different interventions have been examined to alleviate pain and reduce frequency of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) paroxysms. However, some patients continue to have persistent or recurrent painful attacks. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach, we aimed to synthesize evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) as a possible emerging choice of treatment for TN. Methods: We conducted an electronic search in 10 databases/electronic search engines to access relevant publications. All articles in all languages reporting RCTs on the efficacy and safety of BTX-A in the treatment of TN were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: A total of four RCTs (n = 178) were identified for final meta-analysis. The overall effect favored BTX-A versus placebo in terms of proportion of responders (risk ratio RR = 2.87, 95 % confidence interval CI [1.76, 4.69], p <0.0001) with no significant detected heterogeneity (p = 0.31; I = 4 %). Paroxysms frequency per day was significantly lower for BTX-A group (mean difference MD = -29.79, 95 % CI [-38.50,-21.08], p <0.00001) with no significant heterogeneity (p = 0.21; I = 36 %). Conclusion: Despite limited data, our results suggest that BTX-A may be an effective and safe treatment option for patients with TN. Further larger and well-designed RCTs are encouraged to translate these findings into better clinical outcome and better quality of life for TN patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]