Migraine prophylaxis. A comparison of propranolol and amitriptyline

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.

High Dosage Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Existing Pharmacological Options for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurologic disorder with prevalence rates ranging from 9% to 18% worldwide. Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have limited efficacy and acceptability, with relatively low response rates of 40% to 50% and limited safety profiles. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are considered promising therapeutic agents for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various dosages of EPA/DHA and other current Food and Drug Administration-approved or guideline-recommended prophylactic pharmacologic interventions for migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled participants with a diagnosis of either episodic or chronic migraine. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcomes assessed were 1) changes in migraine frequency and 2) acceptability (i.e., dropout for any reason). Secondary outcomes included response rates, changes in migraine severity, changes in the frequency of using rescue medications, and frequency of any adverse events. Forty RCTs were included (N = 6616; mean age = 35.0 y; 78.9% women). Our analysis showed that supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA yields the highest decrease in migraine frequency [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.32, -0.39 compared with placebo] and the largest decrease in migraine severity (SMD: -2.23; 95% CI: -3.17, -1.30 compared with placebo) in all studied interventions. Furthermore, supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA showed the most favorable acceptability rates (odds ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06, 17.41 compared with placebo) of all examined prophylactic treatments. This study provides compelling evidence that high dosage EPA/DHA supplementation can be considered a first-choice treatment of migraine prophylaxis because this treatment displayed the highest efficacy and highest acceptability of all studied treatments. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42022319577.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 2: Pharmacological treatment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the second part of the guidelines, which is focused on the pharmacological treatment of migraine, including both the acute treatment of attacks and the prophylaxis of episodic migraine as well as chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. The specific situations that can be encountered in women with migraine are also discussed, including pregnancy, menstrual migraine, contraception and hormonal replacement therapy.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Memantine Ameliorates Migraine Headache

Background and Objective:

A significant number of migraine patients do not find effective and safe treatment to reduce the frequency and severity of their migraine attacks. Hence, a need for newer therapeutic agent exists. In this study, we examined the efficacy and safety of memantine for the treatment of migraine.

Materials and Methods:

It was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study including adult patients with 3–12 migraine headache for the last 6 months conducted in India. Patients received memantine (10 mg/day, once a day) or placebo for the period of 24 weeks after a washout period. Migraine frequency per month, the 50% responder rate, rescue medication use, and adverse events were recorded every 4 weeks.

Results:

Among 81 patients screened, 60 were enrolled for the study. Thirty patients received memantine and other 30 received placebo. Data were analyzed for 28 patients in memantine group and 29 patients in placebo group. At the baseline, all the parameters were similar in both groups. By 24 weeks, migraine frequency/4 weeks was memantine group versus placebo; 2.57 (±0.38) versus 5.07 (±0.69), P = 0.003 and rescue medication use was 0.75 (±0.23) versus 3.72 (±0.63) P = 0.0001. The 50% responder rate was 85.7% versus 51.7% (P = 0.005). Only a few mild adverse events were recorded in both the groups. No severe adverse events and death were recorded during the study.

Conclusion:

Memantine (10 mg oral, once daily) is effective, well tolerated, and safe for patients with migraine.

Tricyclic antidepressants for preventing migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine, ranked as the 7th-highest specific cause of disability worldwide, has caused an enormous burden on the economy and society. Tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) is one of the most commonly drugs for migraine prevention. However, evidence about the efficacy and tolerability of TCAs in the prophylaxis of migraine in adults is somewhat confusing.

METHODS

A computerized literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 2016 was conducted. We reviewed all randomized controlled trials that assigned adults with a clinical diagnosis of migraine to TCAs or other treatments (placebo or other antidepressants). Reduction in migraine frequency or index and response rates to treatment were defined as the efficacy outcomes. Rates of dropout due to adverse effects were defined as the tolerability outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 12 trials consisting of 1006 participants were identified: 9 trials compared TCAs with placebo, and the other 3 compared amitriptyline with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). A significant advantage of TCAs compared with placebo in the prevention of migraine in adults was observed (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.05 to -.46; P < .00001). Participants receiving TCAs were more likely to experience an ≥50% reduction in their headache burden than those receiving placebo (risk ratio [RR] =1.40; 95% CI = 0.89-2.20; P = .14). In addition, the efficacy between amitriptyline and SSRIs or SNRIs did not differ for migraine prevention in adults (SMD = -.01; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.28; P = .94) based on the available limited trials. However, TCAs were less well tolerated than placebo (RR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.00-2.99; P = .05) and SSRI or SNRI (RR = 2.85; 95% CI = 0.97-8.41; P = .06) on account of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This research reveals that TCAs were more effective than placebo, but no more than SSRI or SNRI in ameliorating the headache burden in adults with migraine. However, TCAs appeared to be less tolerated than placebo and SSRIs or SNRIs for some side effects.

WITHDRAWN: Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.

Amitriptyline Dose and Treatment Outcomes in Specialty Headache Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize treatment patterns and real world outcomes in headache patients treated with amitriptyline in an academic headache center.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified 178 patients in our center who were given a new prescription for amitriptyline in treatment of headache, and who were seen in follow-up within one year. Charts were reviewed to identify dosing patterns (initial and maximum dose) and persistence, patient-reported headache benefit, and reported side effects. Variables assessed in relation to medication use were comorbid psychiatric disease, headache characteristics, and prior use of a preventive medication.

RESULTS

We followed patients for an average of 6.5 months. Initial and maximum prescribed amitriptyline doses were characterized as: "very low" (≤10 mg daily), "low" (11-25 mg daily), and "traditional" (≥25 mg daily). The initial dose of amitriptyline ranged from 2.5 to 50 mg daily, though most patients were started on a dose of 10 mg daily (112/178, 63%). Approximately 3/4 of the patients were found to have improvement (134/178) and 85% (129/151) were still taking amitriptyline at the last follow-up appointment. Maximum dosing ranged from 2.5 to 100 mg daily with most patients taking 10-25 mg (86/146, 58%). The most commonly reported adverse effect was daytime fatigue (17/151, 11%). There did not appear to be any effect from gender, ethnicity, race, diagnosis of sleep apnea, chronicity of migraine, presence of aura on our outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Our study supports the common clinical practice of using low doses of amitriptyline to treat chronic headache disorders and suggests that it was effective and well tolerated at doses lower than those used in many clinical trials. Use of low dosage amitriptyline may also improve medication persistence, an important clinical consideration in the management of this common and chronic condition. A subgroup of patients may experience a dramatic benefit from amitriptyline and this could warrant further investigation.

Evidence-Based Treatments for Adults with Migraine

Migraine, a significantly disabling condition, is treated with acute and preventive medications. However, some individuals are refractory to standard treatments. Although there is a host of alternative management options available, these are not always backed by strong evidence. In fact, most of the drugs used in migraine were initially designed for other purposes. Whilst effective, the benefits from these medications are modest, reflecting the need for newer and migraine-specific therapeutic agents. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of novel treatments, of which noninvasive neuromodulation appears to be the most attractive given its ease of use and excellent tolerability profile. This paper reviews the evidence behind the available treatments for migraine.

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.

Drug therapy in headache

All physicians will encounter patients with headaches. Primary headache disorders are common, and often disabling. This paper reviews the principles of drug therapy in headache in adults, focusing on the three commonest disorders presenting in both primary and secondary care: tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache. The clinical evidence on the basis of which choices can be made between the currently available drug therapies for acute and preventive treatment of these disorders is presented, and information given on the options available for the emergency parenteral treatment of refractory migraine attacks and cluster headache.

Pilot study of amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of medication-overuse headache: a 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the long-term efficacy of low-dose amitriptyline combined with abrupt withdrawal in outpatients of medication-overuse headache (MOH) in an open-label design.

METHODS

We evaluated the effectiveness of early introduction of low-dose amitriptyline combined with abrupt withdrawal in outpatients with MOH over a 1-year observational period. The primary outcome measures were the reduction in number of headache days and days with use of acute headache medication after 3 months and after 12 months. A number of secondary outcome measures, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed. The responders were defined as patients with ≥50% reduction in headache frequency from baseline and being without medication overuse.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients completed the study. Significant reductions in headache frequency and medication consumption were observed at both months 3 and 12, compared to baseline (P < 0.05 for all). Neither the primary nor the secondary endpoints differed significantly between months 3 and 12. At the 12-month follow-up, 58% of the patients were considered as responders (N = 19); 73% remained cured of MOH (N = 24); 64% had reverted to episodic headaches (N = 21); 27% had relapsed into MOH (N = 9).

CONCLUSION

Given these results, early introduction of low-dose amitriptyline combined with abrupt withdrawal could be considered as a choice for patients with MOH.

Prophylactic activity of increasing doses of intravenous histamine in refractory migraine: Retrospective observations of a series of patients with migraine without aura

BACKGROUND

Histamine is thought to play a pivotal role in the modulation of peripheral and central pain. The administration of increasing doses of histamine may lead to desensitization of receptors of histamine types 1 and 2, causing meningeal vasodilation, and to depletion of neuropeptides in the trigeminal ganglion, thus inhibiting the initiation of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the efficacy and tolerability of increasing doses of IV histamine in migraine prophylaxis were investigated.

METHODS

This single-center, open-label, retrospective, controlled study was conducted at the Headache Center (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florence, Villa Monna Tessa, Italy). Patients included in the study had 3 to 6 migraines without aura per month that were refractory to common symptomatic and prophylactic agents in the 6 months preceding the study. Patients were treated with IV histamine hydrochloride for 21 days starting with a dosage of 0.5 mg/d and increasing to 4.0 mg/d. To assess the efficacy of the treatment, these patients were matched for age; sex; and frequency, duration, and severity of attacks with untreated migraineurs. Clinical benefit was defined as ⩽ 1 migraine of mild intensity per month. Tolerability was assessed during the hospitalization period, and patients were instructed to contact the Headache Center to report any adverse effects after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

The histamine group comprised 47 patients (40 women, 7 men; mean [SD] age, 42.0 [8.6] years) and the control group comprised 23 patients (20 women, 3 men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [8.4] years). The histamine-treated patients showed a clinical benefit lasting for a mean of 10.4 (4.2) months, while the patients in the control group showed a clinical benefit of 3.8 (1.9) months. The difference in the duration of the clinical benefit between the 2 groups was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.15-7.99). Adverse effects consisted of flushing, heat sensation during infusion, headache, and palpitations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, histamine showed lasting prophylactic efficacy in migraineurs. If further research confirms this preliminary finding, histamine could be considered when established prophylactic drugs, such as betablockers, calcium antagonists, antidepressants, and antiepileptics, have not been effective.

High prevalence of comorbidity of migraine in outpatients with panic disorder and effectiveness of psychopharmacotherapy for both disorders: a retrospective open label study

We investigated the comorbidity rate of migraine in outpatients with panic disorder, and the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for both disorders. Fifty-four patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for panic disorder were recruited in the study. Forty-three patients were female, and their age ranged from 20 to 71 (38.8±11.2; mean±S.D.) years. Forty-one patients had agoraphobia. In these patients, we diagnosed migraine and other types of headache, using the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Second Edition (ICHD-II). Forty-three (79.6%) patients were diagnosed as having some type of headache; 33 (61.1%) migraine, 32 tension-type headache, and one cluster headache. In patients with migraine, treatment for panic disorder also improved their migraine in 19 (57.6%) patients. The mean onset age of panic disorder in patients with migraine was statistically significantly younger than that in non-migraine patients. The Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI-I) score of panic disorder was statistically significantly correlated with the CGI-I score of migraine. A high comorbidity rate (61.1%) of migraine was observed in outpatients with panic disorder, and our result suggests that treatment with antidepressants for panic disorder may also be effective for prophylaxis of migraine.

Amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of migraine and chronic daily headache

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used medications in migraine prophylaxis. There have been relatively few placebo-controlled studies of amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis or in treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). This report deals with a large placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline vs placebo of 20 weeks duration that included subjects with intermittent migraine (IM) as well as CDH. The study was carried out between 1976 and 1979; however, results have never been fully reported.

METHODS

Patients with a history of migraine as defined by the 1962 Ad Hoc Committee report were recruited for this study. Subjects had at least 2 headaches per month, and no limit was placed on the number of headaches per month that could be experienced. The study format included a 4-week baseline period (Period A) in which all subjects received placebo in a dose of 2 pills per day for one week, 3 pills per day for one week and then 4 pills per day for 2 weeks. Subjects with at least 2 migraine headaches in this period were then entered into Period B and randomized into either amitriptyline or placebo tracks. Medication consisted of identical tablets containing either 25 mg amitriptyline or placebo. Period B was 4 weeks in duration with dose titration identical to Period A. The dose could be reduced if necessary to reduce side effects. The minimum dose was one pill per day. Period C was a 12-week maintenance or stabilization period in which the patient continued the dose established by week 8 with visits at weeks 12, 16, and 20. Patients kept a headache calendar that was used for data collection. Headache frequency (per month), severity, and duration (hours) were the primary measurement parameters employed for data analysis.

RESULTS

For the entire group, 391 subjects were entered into Period A, 338 were randomized into Period B, 317 (81%) subjects completed the first post-randomization visit (8 weeks), 255 (65%) completed week 12, 210 (54%) completed week 16, and 186 (48%) completed week 20. Using headache frequency and evaluating parameters of (a) improvement, (b) no change, or (c) worsening relative to baseline, there was a significant improvement in headache frequency for amitriptyline over placebo at 8 weeks (P = .018) but not at 12, 16, or 20 weeks. When amitriptyline and placebo patients were compared for headache frequency at 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks to their own placebo stabilization period at 4 weeks, statistically significant improvement vs worsening was seen in headache frequency at each evaluation point for both amitriptyline and placebo groups (P ≤ .01) reaching 50% reporting a decrease in frequency in each group and approximately 10% reporting worsening by week 20. There were no significant differences in headache severity or duration between amitriptyline and placebo groups at anytime during the study. Within the study sample, there were 36 amitriptyline and 22 placebo subjects who had headaches ≥ 17 days/month that fit the current definition of CDH by the Silberstein-Lipton criteria. These were analyzed separately as a subgroup for comparison of amitriptyline vs placebo using a metric of (1) no change or worsening; (2) up to a 50% improvement; and (3) ≥ 50% improvement in headache frequency. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in number with improvement in frequency of ≥ 50% at 8 weeks (25% vs 5% [P = .031]) and at 16 weeks (46% vs 9% [P = .043]). There was a trend for amitriptyline to be superior to placebo at 12 and 20 weeks but this did not reach significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, using headache frequency as the primary metric, for the entire group, amitriptyline was superior to placebo in migraine prophylaxis at 8 weeks but, because of a robust placebo response, not at subsequent time points. For the subgroup with CDH, amitriptyline was statistically significantly superior to placebo at 8 weeks and 16 weeks with a similar but nonsignificant trend at 12 and 20 weeks. Compared with placebo amitriptyline is effective in CDH. Amitriptyline was also significantly effective in IM compared intragroup to its own baseline; however, placebo was equally effective in the same analysis. The reason for the robust placebo response in the IM group is not clear, but has been occasionally reported.

Tricyclic antidepressants and headaches: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and relative adverse effects of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of migraine, tension-type, and mixed headaches.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Trials Registry, and PsycLIT. Studies reviewed Randomised trials of adults receiving tricyclics as only treatment for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA EXTRACTION

Frequency of headaches (number of headache attacks for migraine and number of days with headache for tension-type headaches), intensity of headache, and headache index.

RESULTS

37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Tricyclics significantly reduced the number of days with tension-type headache and number of headache attacks from migraine than placebo (average standardised mean difference -1.29, 95% confidence interval -2.18 to -0.39 and -0.70, -0.93 to -0.48) but not compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (-0.80, -2.63 to 0.02 and -0.20, -0.60 to 0.19). The effect of tricyclics increased with longer duration of treatment (β=-0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.15; P<0.0005). Tricyclics were also more likely to reduce the intensity of headaches by at least 50% than either placebo (tension-type: relative risk 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.89; migraine: 1.80, 1.24 to 2.62) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (1.73, 1.34 to 2.22 and 1.72, 1.15 to 2.55). Tricyclics were more likely to cause adverse effects than placebo (1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 2.12) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (2.22, 1.52 to 3.32), including dry mouth (P<0.0005 for both), drowsiness (P<0.0005 for both), and weight gain (P<0.001 for both), but did not increase dropout rates (placebo: 1.22, 0.83 to 1.80, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: 1.16, 0.81 to 2.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Tricyclic antidepressants are effective in preventing migraine and tension-type headaches and are more effective than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, although with greater adverse effects. The effectiveness of tricyclics seems to increase over time.

A diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging study of corpus callosum from adult patients with migraine complicated with depressive/anxious disorder

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible microstructural abnormalities of the corpus callosum (CC) in adult patients with migraine without aura complicated with depressive/anxious disorder.

BACKGROUND

Emotional disorders, especially depression and anxiety, are with relatively higher incidence in migraine population. However, the mechanism of migraine complicated with depressive/anxious disorder remains unclear.

METHODS

Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging was carried out in 12 adult patients with simple migraine (without aura and without depressive/anxious disorder) (S-M group), 12 adult patients with complicated migraine (without aura but complicated with depressive/anxious disorder) (Co-M group), and 12 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects (Control group). Fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient were measured at genu, body, and splenium of the CC, respectively.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in FA values at all locations of the CC among the 3 groups. The FA values from both the SM and Co-M groups were significantly lower than the control (P < .05 and P < .01, respectively). The FA values from Co-M group were significantly lower than the SM group (P < .01). The apparent diffusion coefficient values of the above regions had no significant differences among these groups (P > .05). There were negative correlations between FA value of genu of the CC and disease course as well as FA value of genu and body of the CC and headache frequency (P < .05). Negative correlations were also found between FA values at all locations of the CC and Hamilton anxiety and Hamilton depression scores (both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

There might be an integrity change of neurofibrotic microstructures existing as a possible neuroanatomical basis in the CC of migraine patients complicated with depressive/anxious disorder.

Effect of preventive (beta blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the addition of preventive drug treatment (β blocker), brief behavioural migraine management, or their combination improves the outcome of optimised acute treatment in the management of frequent migraine.

DESIGN

Randomised placebo controlled trial over 16 months from July 2001 to November 2005.

SETTING

Two outpatient sites in Ohio, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

232 adults (mean age 38 years; 79% female) with diagnosis of migraine with or without aura according to International Headache Society classification of headache disorders criteria, who recorded at least three migraines with disability per 30 days (mean 5.5 migraines/30 days), during an optimised run-in of acute treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Addition of one of four preventive treatments to optimised acute treatment: β blocker (n=53), matched placebo (n=55), behavioural migraine management plus placebo (n=55), or behavioural migraine management plus β blocker (n=69).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was change in migraines/30 days; secondary outcomes included change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores.

RESULTS

Mixed model analysis showed statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences in outcomes among the four added treatments for both the primary outcome (migraines/30 days) and the two secondary outcomes (change in migraine days/30 days and change in migraine specific quality of life scores). The addition of combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management (-3.3 migraines/30 days, 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -3.5), but not the addition of β blocker alone (-2.1 migraines/30 days, -1.9 to -2.2) or behavioural migraine management alone (-2.2 migraines migraines/30 days, -2.0 to -2.4), improved outcomes compared with optimised acute treatment alone (-2.1 migraines/30 days, -1.9 to -2.2). For a clinically significant (≥50% reduction) in migraines/30 days, the number needed to treat for optimised acute treatment plus combined β blocker and behavioural migraine management was 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment alone, 2.6 compared with optimised acute treatment plus β blocker, and 3.1 compared with optimised acute treatment plus behavioural migraine management. Results were consistent for the two secondary outcomes, and at both month 10 (the primary endpoint) and month 16.

CONCLUSION

The addition of combined β blocker plus behavioural migraine management, but not the addition of β blocker alone or behavioural migraine management alone, improved outcomes of optimised acute treatment. Combined β blocker treatment and behavioural migraine management may improve outcomes in the treatment of frequent migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials NCT00910689.

The efficacy of withdrawal therapy in subjects with chronic daily headache and medication overuse following prophylaxis with topiramate and amitriptyline

Management of patients affected by chronic daily headache (CDH) with medication overuse constitutes one of the most important unresolved problems. The uncertainty regarding the classification and the prophylaxis are a remarkable part of this problem. Objectives are to: (1) to evaluate the efficacy of withdrawal therapy following prophylaxis with topiramate and amitriptyline in a population affected by CDH and medication overuse with follow-up at 1 (T1), 3 (T2) and 6 (T3) months; (2) to identify which group of the Silberstein's CDH classification (1994) may benefit from this protocol. Inclusion criteria are patients with CDH (headache for more >15 days/month for at least 3 consecutive months) and medication overuse according with IHS second edition (8.2 group); exclusion criteria are patients with secondary headache. All patients included in the study were hospitalized for 1 week. Type of overuse: combination of medications, 38%; analgesics, 29%; triptans, 29%; opioids, 2%; ergotamines, 2%. During hospitalization the following protocol was applied: desametasone 4 mg i.v./day for 1 week, diazepam 6 mg/day for 10 days and prophylaxis with amitriptylin plus topiramate. This prophylaxis was protracted for at least 6 months. The dosages assumed ranged for amitriptylin from 10 to 20 mg/day and for topiramate from 50 to 100 mg/day. In the last 4 years 105 patients with CDH (age 24-89 years; f 96; m 9) were admitted to the hospital. The protocol was applied in 52 patients (age, 29-65 years; f 49; m 3). At T1, 89% of the patients did not fall again into medication overuse; at T2, 64%; and at T3,45% of the patients remained free from overuse. According to the Silberstein' proposal at T1, 93% of the subjects was affected by transformed migraine; and 7% by tension-type headache. At T3, all the patients free from overuse were affected by transformed migraine. Our data suggest that the patients affected by CDH and medication overuse benefit from withdrawal therapy performed during hospitalization plus prophylaxis with amitriptyline plus topiramate. This combination seems a good pharmacological solution to reduce the risk of relapse.

The use of antidepressants for headache prophylaxis

The focus of this review is on the efficacy of antidepressants as preventive treatments for migraine and chronic tension-type headache (TTH). Pharmacologic prophylaxis may be indicated for patients with frequent headaches, who respond insufficiently to acute therapies, or for whom medication overuse is a concern. The well-documented efficacy of the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, both for migraine and chronic TTH, has been followed by widespread use of other antidepressants for headache prophylaxis. Although antidepressants in general share comparable efficacy for the treatment of depressive disorders, their efficacy as headache preventives varies widely. Evidence supporting use of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as headache preventives is poor; their use should be reserved for treating comorbid depression in a patient who also has a headache disorder. Small randomized trials of venlafaxine indicate preliminary efficacy both for migraine and tension-type headache. Evidence for other antidepressants is lacking. Although antidepressants are often prescribed to headache patients under the assumption that the prescribed agent also will be effective in reducing symptoms of comorbid depression, the majority of studies have failed to find a strong relationship between depression symptoms and headache improvement. Suggestions for future research are discussed.

Modern Management of the Migraine Headache

Migraine headache is a debilitating disorder that affects millions of people in the United States and worldwide. The diagnosis of migraine can significantly affect quality of life, health care costs, and daily productivity. Hundreds of trials and many guidelines have documented various approaches to migraine management, whether via acute treatment or chronic migraine prophylaxis. Acute or abortive migraine management encompasses specific and nonspecific migraine therapeutics, including nonopioid and opioid analgesics, triptans, and ergotamines. Prophylactic migraine management data span the pharmacological spectrum from antiepileptic and antihypertensive agents to botulinum toxin type A. Special considerations for migraine management also must be applied in various populations, including children, pregnant women, and the elderly. The following review serves as an introduction to current therapeutic approaches for acute migraine treatment and provides an overview of available literature for pharmacological prophylaxis.

Antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain

Chronic pain represents one of the most important public health problems and, in addition to classical analgesics, antidepressants are an essential part of the therapeutic strategy. This article reviews available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in major chronic pain conditions; namely, neuropathic pain, headaches, low back pain, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and cancer pain. Studies, reviews and meta-analyses published from 1991 to March 2008 were retrieved through MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane database using numerous key words for pain and antidepressants. In summary, evidence supports the use of tricyclic antidepressants in neuropathic pain, headaches, low back pain, fibromyalgia and IBS. The efficacy of the newer serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors is less supported by evidence, but can be recommended in neuropathic pain, migraines and fibromyalgia. To date, evidence does not support an analgesic effect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but beneficial effects on well-being were reported in several chronic pain conditions. These results are discussed in the light of current insights in the neurobiology of pain, the reciprocal relationship between pain and depression, and future developments in this field of research.

EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine - report of an EFNS task force

Migraine is one of the most frequent disabling neurological conditions with a major impact on the patients' quality of life. To give evidence-based or expert recommendations for the different drug treatment procedures of the different migraine syndromes based on a literature search and an consensus in an expert panel. All available medical reference systems were screened for all kinds of clinical studies on migraine with and without aura and on migraine-like syndromes. The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the EFNS resulting in level A,B, or C recommendations and good practice points. For the acute treatment of migraine attacks, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and triptans are recommended. The administration should follow the concept of stratified treatment. Before intake of NSAIDs and triptans, oral metoclopramide or domperidon is recommended. In very severe attacks, intravenous acetylsalicylic acid or subcutaneous sumatriptan are drugs of first choice. A status migrainosus can probably be treated by steroids. For the prophylaxis of migraine, betablockers (propranolol and metoprolol), flunarizine, valproic acid, and topiramate are drugs of first choice. Drugs of second choice for migraine prophylaxis are amitriptyline, naproxen, petasites, and bisoprolol.

Migraine: a review and future directions for treatment

Migraine is a chronic, neurological disorder generally manifesting itself in attacks with severe headache, nausea and an increased reactivity to sensory stimuli. A low migraine threshold is set by genetic factors, although the phenotype also modulates the manifestations. The 1-year prevalence is approximately 13% and is higher among women. Patients usually experience neuropsychological dysfunction, and sometimes also reversible focal neurological symptoms. The trajectories of the characteristic symptoms of acute migraine usually follow a similar time course, indicating a reciprocal underlying mechanism. A central nervous system hyperexcitability has been demonstrated in neurophysiological studies. The dibilitating effects of migraine are not confined to the attacks per se. Many individuals do not recover completely between the attacks and most report a negative impact on the most important life domains, and an interest in testing other treatments. Young persons have a higher frequency of attacks. Acute treatment should routinely be initiated with an analgesic plus a prokinetic anti-emetic. Triptans must not be provided early during the attack to ensure their efficacy. The natural course of attacks is commonly only temporarily altered by acute treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment and drugs may be equally viable in prophylaxis for migraine. In more complicated cases, conjoint therapy should be considered. New strategies to improve adherence with existing therapeutic regimens might yield greater benefits than will new pharmacological agents.

The Efficacy and Safety of Venlafaxine in the Prophylaxis of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine in the prophylaxis of migraine.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of venlafaxine, which is selectively effective on the serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms, on various headaches and chronic pain syndromes has been demonstrated. To our knowledge, this is the first placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of two different doses of venlafaxine for migraine treatment.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 60 migraine patients without aura were randomly assigned to venlafaxine XR 75 mg, venlafaxine XR 150 mg, or placebo. The frequency of headache attacks, the severity and the duration of attacks, and analgesic use were monitored every 2 weeks for 2 months. Adverse events and patient satisfaction were also evaluated during these visits. At the end of the 2 months, global efficacy and tolerance were investigated.

RESULTS

A significant difference was observed between the venlafaxine 150 mg and placebo groups in the number of headache attacks (P= .006). According to patient satisfaction comparisons, the active drug groups were significantly different when compared with placebo (P= .001 at visit 2 and visit 6). When the global efficacy was considered, 80% of patients in the 75-mg group and 88.2% of the patients in the 150-mg group evaluated treatment benefits as either good or very good.

CONCLUSIONS

Venlafaxine was more effective than placebo and is safe and well tolerated as migraine prophylaxis.

A randomized, double blind study of the prophylactic effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on migraine

In a double blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the prophylactic effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on migraine, 40 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group receiving three sessions of hyperbaric oxygen, or a control group receiving three hyperbaric air treatments. The patients were instructed to keep a standardized migraine diary for eight weeks before and after the treatment. Thirty-four patients completed the study. Our primary measure of efficacy was the difference between pre- and post-treatment hours of headache per week. The results show a nonsignificant reduction in hours of headache for the hyperbaric oxygen group compared to the control group. Levels of endothelin-1 in venous blood before and after treatment did not reveal any difference between the hyperbaric oxygen and control groups. We conclude that the tested protocol does not show a significant prophylactic effect on migraine and does not influence the level of endothelin-1 in venous blood.

Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.

Prophylactic Therapy for Migraine

The term migraine is derived from the ancient Greek word hemicrania introduced by Galen in approximately 200 AD. However, descriptions of "sick headache" have been found dating back to as far as 3000 BC. Despite this, migraine is a condition that still remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. The development of effective abortive agents, such as the triptans, have had a significant impact on migraine management, but there still remains a substantial proportion of migraineurs in whom further medication is required in the form of preventatives. These have the potential to transform the lives of many migraine sufferers.

Burden of migraine in Brazil: estimate of cost of migraine to the public health system and an analytical study of the cost-effectiveness of a stratified model of care

BACKGROUND

The search for rationality in health expenses in developing countries collides with the lack of effectively conducted epidemiologic studies.

PURPOSE

To present an estimate of the impact and costs of migraine in the Brazilian public health system and to estimate the impact on these costs and the effectiveness of a model of stratified care in the management of migraine.

METHODS

An analytical model of utilization of the Brazilian public health system was constructed. Data refer to 1999 and were obtained in accordance with the following steps: (1) Brazilian demographic characteristics; (2) characteristics of the public health system related to its 3 hierarchical levels-primary, secondary, and tertiary care, the last being subdivided into emergency department and hospital care; and (3) estimation of the number of migraine consultations at each complexity level. In Brazil, migraineurs seen in the public health system are most often discharged with an acute treatment, usually a nonspecific medication. We compared this treatment with a proposed stratified care model that uses a triptan as an acute care medication. We have made the following assumptions: (1) 15% of the patients would fall into the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) grade I category, 25% would fall into the MIDAS grade II category, 30% into the grade III category, and 30% into the MIDAS grade IV category; (2) the mean number of migraine attacks per year are: MIDAS I, 7.49; MIDAS II, 8.02; MIDAS III, 12.22; and MIDAS IV, 27.01. The annual costs of the treatment were calculated according to the following equation: AC = P x N x C + P x Cp + P x Cat x AMA, where P is the number of patients; N, the number of consultations per patient; C, the cost of consultation per level; Cp, the cost of preventive drugs; Cat, the cost of acute therapy drugs; and AMA is the number of migraine attacks per year. Results.-The public health system resources included 55 735 ambulatory units (primary and secondary) and 6453 emergency department and public hospital units, with a corresponding budget of US $2 820 899 621.26. The estimated cost of a consultation on the primary care level was US $11.53; on the secondary care level, US $22.18; in the emergency department, $34.82; and for hospitalization, US $217.93. The total estimated public health system expenses for migraine were US $140 388 469.60. The proposed model would imply a cost reduction of 6.2% (US $7 514 604.40) with an improvement in the quality of the public health system from the actual 18.2% to an estimated 84.5%.

CONCLUSION

Migraine seems to pose a huge burden on the Brazilian public health system. The implementation of a stratified care model of treatment that would include specific acute migraine therapies could result in a dramatic increase in the quality of migraine care and a significant reduction in cost.

Antidepressants in the treatment of migraine headache

Antidepressants, particularly tricyclic antidepressants, have been a mainstay in the prophylactic therapy of migraine. The tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline, nortriptyline, and doxepin have been the major agents for prophylactic treatment of migraine. These cause significant side effects in some patients. The high-affinity selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other newer antidepressants have been disappointing and much less effective in the treatment of migraine. In patients who are depressed with severe migraine, a tricyclic antidepressant may treat both conditions; however, the addition of a newer atypical antidepressant may be needed.

Migraine: preventive treatment

Migraine is a common episodic headache disorder. A comprehensive headache treatment plan includes acute attack treatment to relieve pain and impairment and long-term preventive therapy to reduce attack frequency, severity, and duration. Circumstances that might warrant preventive treatment include: (i) migraine that significantly interferes with the patient's daily routine despite acute treatment; (ii) failure, contraindication to, or troublesome side-effects from acute medications; (iii) overuse of acute medications; (iv) special circumstances, such as hemiplegic migraine; (v) very frequent headaches (more than two a week); or (vi) patient preference. Start the drug at a low dose. Give each treatment an adequate trial. Avoid interfering, overused, and contraindicated drugs. Re-evaluate therapy. Be sure that a woman of childbearing potential is aware of any potential risks. Involve patients in their care to maximize compliance. Consider co-morbidity. Choose a drug based on its proven efficacy, the patient's preferences and headache profile, the drug's side-effects, and the presence or absence of coexisting or co-morbid disease. Drugs that have documented high efficacy and mild to moderate adverse events (AEs) include beta-blockers, amitriptyline, and divalproex. Drugs that have lower documented efficacy and mild to moderate AEs include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), calcium channel antagonists, gabapentin, topiramate, riboflavin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Practical approaches to migraine management

Migraine is a recurrent clinical syndrome characterised by combinations of neurological, gastrointestinal and autonomic manifestations. The exact pathophysiological disturbances that occur with migraine have yet to be elucidated; however, cervico-trigemino-vascular dysfunctions appear to be the primary cause. Despite advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and new effective treatment options, migraine remains an under-diagnosed, under-treated and poorly treated health condition. Most patients will unsuccessfully attempt to treat their headaches with over-the-counter medications. Few well designed, placebo-controlled studies are available to guide physicians in medication selection. Recently published evidence-based guidelines advocate migraine-specific drugs, such as serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists (the 'triptans') and dihydroergotamine mesylate, for patients experiencing moderate to severe migraine attacks. Additional headache attack therapy options include other ergotamine derivatives, phenothiazines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and opioids. Preventative medication therapy is indicated for patients experiencing frequent and/or refractory attacks.