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

Sleep Symptoms and Disorders in Episodic Migraine: Assessment and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review research on sleep symptoms and disorders in patients with episodic migraine and propose a framework for evaluating sleep symptoms in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with episodic migraine consistently report poorer sleep on validated self-reports compared to those without migraine. In polysomnographic studies, children with migraine have objectively shorter sleep duration and lower percentage of REM sleep interictally. Prospective actigraphy studies in adults and children suggest that there are no significant changes in sleep duration, efficiency, or quality in the night before or after a migraine attack. The relationship between sleep and migraine is multifaceted. Patients with episodic migraine report poorer sleep and have higher risk of some sleep disorders, including insomnia, sleep-related bruxism, and restless legs syndrome. Sleep screening questions may be incorporated into headache evaluations. Care should be taken to avoid headache medications that may exacerbate sleep symptoms. Evidence-based treatments for insomnia may be initiated while patients await CBT-I. Further studies are needed to assess whether treatment of comorbid sleep disorders results in improvement in migraine-related burden in those with episodic migraine.

Revisiting Migraine: The Evolving Pathophysiology and the Expanding Management Armamentarium

Migraine affects about one billion people worldwide yearly and is one of the most common neurologic illnesses, with a high prevalence and morbidity, particularly among young adults and females. Migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including stress, sleep difficulties, and suicidal ideation. Migraine, despite its widespread occurrence, is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Because of the complicated and primarily unknown mechanisms of migraine formation, several social and biological risk factors, such as hormone imbalances, genetic and epigenetic impacts, and cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune illnesses, have been proposed. Through the mid-20th century diversion of the now-defunct vascular theory, the pathophysiology of migraine has developed from a historical study of the "humours" to a distinct entity as a neurological disorder. The range of therapeutic targets has broadened significantly, increasing the number of specialized clinical trials. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful research has resulted in the identification of major therapeutic classes: (i) triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, (ii) gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, (iii) ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, (iv) CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and (v) glurants, mGlu5 modulators, with further targets being explored. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent literature on epidemiology and risk factors and exposes knowledge gaps.

Risk of cardiovascular events according to the tricyclic antidepressant dosage in patients with chronic pain: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We aimed to examine the risk of cardiovascular adverse events by tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) dosage among patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a nationwide sample cohort. Among patients aged ≥ 18 years with a chronic pain diagnosis and no history of cardiovascular events, we extracted users and non-users of TCAs through 1:1 propensity score matching. TCA users were categorized into three groups according to the mean defined daily dose (DDD): very low doses (< 0.15 DDD), low doses (0.15-0.34 DDD), and traditional doses (≥ 0.34 DDD). A 6-month follow-up was conducted with an intention-to-treat approach. We examined the hazard ratio of cardiovascular adverse events using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 16,660 matched patients were followed up (8330 TCA users and 8330 non-users). TCA use did not significantly increase cardiovascular adverse events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.33). Low-dose (0.15-0.34 DDD) TCAs (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.74), particularly low-dose (0.15-0.34 DDD) nortriptyline (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.44-3.08), was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. Administration of TCAs at the traditional dose (≥ 0.34 DDD) increased the risk of ischemic stroke (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.11-3.88).

CONCLUSION

Close monitoring of patients on long-term, low-dose use of TCAs should be conducted to avoid an increase in the cumulative dose, which increases the risk of cardiovascular adverse events.

Mechanism-Based Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Non-cancer Pain in Adolescents: Current Approaches and Future Directions

Chronic non-cancer pain in pediatrics is a widespread phenomenon that affects about 20% of adolescents (10-19 years old). Although interdisciplinary pain treatment programs, which often include pharmacological treatment, have emerged as the standard of care in management of this patient population, evidence regarding an optimal treatment is lacking. The efficacy and safety profiles of pharmacological treatments used to help adolescents suffering from chronic non-cancer pain remain understudied. This lack of evidence may increase polypharmacy and the risk of drug interactions and adverse events. This review examines evidence for the use of pharmacological treatments prescribed to treat chronic pain in adolescents (10-19 years old), with a focus on mechanism-based pharmacology. The objectives of this review are to: (a) review the evidence for mechanism-based pharmacological treatments for chronic non-cancer pain in adolescents and (b) describe the pharmacological agents that are commonly prescribed to manage chronic pain in adolescents, including dosage information, mechanism, and potential adverse effects. Pharmacological treatments should be used carefully with adolescents, ideally within an interdisciplinary treatment program that will incorporate physical rehabilitation, integrative medicine/active mind-body techniques, psychology, and global efforts to normalize daily activities.

Refractory Headaches

Medication overuse headache (MOH), new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and persistent refractory headache attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection represent a significant burden in terms of disability and quality of life, and a challenge in terms of definition, pathophysiology, and treatment. Regarding MOH, prevention without withdrawal is not inferior to prevention with withdrawal. Preventive medications like topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies improve chronic migraine with MOH regardless of withdrawal. The differential diagnosis of NDPH is broad and should be carefully examined. There are no guidelines for the treatment of NDPH, but options include a short course of steroids, nerve blocks, topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and onabotulinumtoxinA. The persistence of headache 3 months after SARS-CoV2 infection is a predictor of poor prognosis.

Preventive Migraine Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides an overview of preventive interventions for migraine, including when to start and how to choose a treatment, pharmacologic options (both older oral treatments and new monoclonal antibodies to calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] or its receptor), nonpharmacologic treatment such as neuromodulation, and preventive treatment of refractory migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

The migraine preventive treatment landscape has been transformed by the development of monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor. These treatments, which are given subcutaneously or intravenously monthly or quarterly, have high efficacy and were well tolerated in clinical trials. Emerging real-world studies have found higher rates of adverse events than were seen in clinical trials. They are currently recommended for use if two traditional preventive therapies have proven inadequate. Since the commonly cited 2012 American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology migraine prevention guidelines were released, clinical trials supporting the preventive use of lisinopril, candesartan, and memantine have been published. Neuromodulation devices, including external trigeminal nerve stimulation and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation devices, have modest evidence to support preventive use. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are currently being updated. A new class of oral CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) is being tested for migraine prevention.

SUMMARY

Successful preventive treatment of migraine reduces disease burden and improves quality of life. Many pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options are available for the prevention of migraine, including newer therapies aimed at the CGRP pathway as well as older treatments with good evidence for efficacy. Multiple treatment trials may be required to find the best preventive for an individual patient.

Pediatric and Adolescent Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides the practicing neurologist with a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of headache in children and adolescents, with a focus on migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four triptans are now labeled by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute migraine treatment in adolescents, and rizatriptan is labeled for use in children age 6 and older. For preventive migraine treatment, the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention trial demonstrated that approximately 60% of children and adolescents with migraine will improve with a three-pronged treatment approach that includes: (1) lifestyle management counseling (on sleep, exercise, hydration, caffeine, and avoidance of meal skipping); (2) optimally dosed acute therapy, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans; and (3) a preventive treatment that has some evidence for efficacy. For the remaining 40% of children and adolescents, and for those who would not have qualified for the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention trial because of having continuous headache or medication-overuse headache, the clinician's judgment remains the best guide to preventive therapy selection.

SUMMARY

Randomized placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to guide first-line acute and preventive migraine treatments in children and adolescents. Future research is needed to guide treatment for those with more refractory migraine, as well as for children and adolescents who have other primary headache disorders.

Antidepressants for Preventive Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes the pharmacology of each antidepressant class as it applies to migraine prevention, summarizes the evidence base for each medication, and describes relevant side effects and clinical considerations. Use of antidepressants for migraine prevention in clinical practice is also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antidepressants are commonly used as migraine preventives. Amitriptyline has the best evidence for use in migraine prevention. Nortriptyline is an alternative in patients who may not tolerate amitriptyline. The sedating effect of TCAs can be beneficial for patients with comorbid insomnia. SNRIs including venlafaxine and duloxetine also have evidence for efficacy and may be the most effective treatments in patients with comorbid depression and migraine. SSRIs including fluoxetine are not effective for most patients. The side effect burden of antidepressants can be substantial. Patients should be particularly counseled about the possibility of a withdrawal effect from SNRIs. Antidepressants are an important option for preventive treatment of migraine. Further research on the efficacy and tolerability of SNRIs as migraine preventives is needed.

Methods of sample size calculation in descriptive retrospective burden of illness studies

Background

Observational burden of illness studies are used in pharmacoepidemiology to address a variety of objectives, including contextualizing the current treatment setting, identifying important treatment gaps, and providing estimates to parameterize economic models. Methodologies such as retrospective chart review may be utilized in settings for which existing datasets are not available or do not include sufficient clinical detail. While specifying the number of charts to be extracted and/or determining whether the number that can feasibly extracted will be clinically meaningful is an important study design consideration, there is a lack of rigorous methods available for sample size calculation in this setting. The objective of this study was to develop recommended sample size calculations for use in such studies.

Methods

Calculations for identifying the optimal feasible sample size calculations were derived, for studies characterizing treatment patterns and medical costs, based on the ability to comprehensively observe treatments and maximize precision of resulting 95% confidence intervals. For cost outcomes, if the standard deviation is not known, the coefficient of variation cv can be used as an alternative. A case study of a chart review of advanced melanoma (MELODY) was used to characterize plausible values for cv in a real-world example.

Results

Across sample sizes, any treatment given with greater than 1% frequency has a high likelihood of being observed. For a sample of size 200, and a treatment given to 5% of the population, the precision of a 95% confidence interval (CI) is expected to be ±0.03. For cost outcomes, for the median cv value observed in the MELODY study (0.72), a sample size of approximately 200 would be required to generate a 95% CI precise to within ±10% of the mean.

Conclusion

This study presents a formal guidance on sample size calculations for retrospective burden of illness studies. The approach presented here is methodologically rigorous and designed for practical application in real-world retrospective chart review studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0657-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Therapeutic Dose of Amitriptyline for Older Patients with Burning Mouth Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To assess the therapeutic dose and safety of amitriptyline and the outcome following treatment with amitriptyline among older patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS).

METHODS

187 consecutive patients were prescribed amitriptyline as a first-line medication from April 2016 to September 2018 and followed-up for >1 month. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1, 113 patients aged <65 years; group 2, 52 patients aged between 65 and 74 years; and group 3, 22 patients aged 75 years or older. The visual analog scale (VAS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (17 in group 1, 10 in group 2, and 5 in group 3) stopped taking amitriptyline due to side effects. There were no differences among the groups with respect to sex; scores of VAS, PCS, and SSS-8; and drop-out ratio. There were no significant differences in the VAS, PCS, and PGIC scores among the groups after 1 month. The mean daily dose after 1 month was 20.4 ± 8.6 mg in group 1, 17.3 ± 8.7 mg in group 2, and 13.2 ± 5.8 mg in group 3; this difference was significant (p value = 0.003). About 76% of patients showed improvements in their symptoms (PGIC ≥ 3). About 90% of patients reported side effects. No serious side effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic dose of amitriptyline may be lower for older BMS patients than for younger patients.

Meta-analysis: Second generation antidepressants and headache

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of headache associated with commonly prescribed antidepressant medications and to examine the impact of medication class, pharmacodynamics and dosage on risk of headache.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of second generation antidepressant medications in the treatment of adults with depression, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis to examine the pooled risk ratio of headache reported as a side-effect in adults treated with second generation antidepressants compared to placebo. We used stratified subgroup analysis and meta-regression to examine the effects of medication type, class, dosage, indication, and receptor affinity profile on the measured risk of headache.

RESULTS

SSRIs were associated with a significantly increased risk of headache (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.00-1.13, z = 2.0, p = 0.045) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference (test for subgroup differences χ² = 2.2, df = 1, p = 0.14) in the risk of headache between SSRIs and SNRIs (RR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.88-1.06, p = 0.63). There was no significant difference in the relative risk of headache with second generation antidepressants based on diagnostic indication, pharmacological properties and dosage of medications. The only antidepressants that were found to be significantly associated with increased risk of headache compared to placebo were bupropion (RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.06-1.41, z = 2.73, p = 0.006) and escitalopram (RR = 1.18, 95%CI = 1.01-1.37, z = 2.11, p = 0.04).

LIMITATIONS

The small number of studies that examined side effects within fixed-dose trials may have limited the power to examine the association between medication dosing and risk of headache. Additionally, reporting bias could potentially occur non-randomly across agents and therefore effect meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Headaches reported after the initiation of second generation antidepressant medications are more likely to be coincidental than a treatment-emergent side effect of these medications.

What the pharmacological management of migraine can tell us about the future of migraine patient care

Some of the principles of the pharmacologic management of migraine are echoed in urgent discussions of the future of headache care in the USA and around the world. From adverse events to tolerance, addiction, medication overuse and medication persistence, solutions to the pathophysiologic puzzles, and management difficulties in migraine can be found by paying closer attention to patient reports and by facilitating greater patient involvement in the treatment process. Similarly, listening to the patient as customer in the process of value-based care, so adaptable for the problem of migraine, is the solution to the health care crisis we face in so many countries.