Placebo effect and clinical trials in migraine therapy

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study

Background

Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2.

Methods

PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1–24).

Results

A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1–24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1–24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153.

Graphical abstract

Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine: PROMISE-2

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab, a humanized anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM).

Methods

The Prevention of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy–2 (PROMISE-2) study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults with CM were randomly assigned to receive IV eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo administered on day 0 and week 12. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) over weeks 1 to 12.

Results

Among treated participants (n = 1,072), baseline mean number of MMDs was ≈16.1 across groups. Treatment with eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg was associated with significant reductions in MMDs across weeks 1 to 12 compared with placebo (placebo −5.6, 100 mg −7.7, p < 0.0001 vs placebo; 300 mg −8.2, p < 0.0001 vs placebo). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 43.5% (100 mg), 52.0% (300 mg), and 46.7% (placebo) of patients. Nasopharyngitis was the only TEAE reported for >2% of eptinezumab-treated patients at an incidence of >2% over placebo; it occurred in the 300 mg eptinezumab arm (eptinezumab 9.4%, placebo 6.0%).

Conclusion

In patients with CM, eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg was associated with a significant reduction in MMDs from the day after IV administration through week 12, was well tolerated, and demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with CM, a single dose of eptinezumab reduces MMDs over 12 weeks of treatment.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02974153.

Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab, a humanized anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.

METHODS

The PRevention Of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy-1 (PROMISE-1) study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults with episodic migraine were randomized to eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo for up to four intravenous (IV) doses administered every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) over weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

A total of 888 patients received treatment across 84 study sites. Mean MMDs at baseline was ∼8.6 across treatment groups. Eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg met the primary endpoint, significantly reducing MMDs across weeks 1-12 compared with placebo (30 mg, -4.0; 100 mg, -3.9, p = 0.0182; 300 mg, -4.3; placebo, -3.2, p = 0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 58.4% (30 mg), 63.2% (100 mg), 57.6% (300 mg), and 59.5% (placebo) of patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥2% of eptinezumab-treated patients at an incidence greater than placebo included: upper respiratory tract infection (30 mg, 11.4%; 100 mg, 9.9%; 300 mg, 10.3%; placebo, 7.2%), and fatigue (30 mg, 2.3%; 100 mg, 3.6%; 300 mg, 3.6%; placebo, <1%).

CONCLUSION

Eptinezumab (100 mg or 300 mg) significantly reduced migraine frequency, was well tolerated, and had an acceptable safety profile when used for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults with episodic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02559895.

Botulinum Toxin versus Placebo: A Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Treatment for Migraine

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of botulinum toxin in reducing the frequency of migraine headaches.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that compared patients receiving botulinum toxin versus placebo injections in the head and neck muscles, for the preventive treatment of migraine. The primary outcome was change in the number of headache episodes per month from baseline to 3 months.

RESULTS

There were 17 studies including a total of 3646 patients. Overall analysis reported a tendency in favor of botulinum toxin over placebo at 3 months, with a mean difference in the change of migraine frequency of -0.23 (95 percent CI, -0.47 to 0.02; p = 0.08). The reduction in frequency of chronic migraines was significant, with a mean differential change of -1.56 (95 percent CI, -3.05 to -0.07; p = 0.04). Analysis of chronic migraine frequency was also significant after 2 months. The findings also highlighted an improvement of the patient's quality of life at 3 months in the botulinum toxin group (p < 0.00001). Further adverse events were traced in the botulinum toxin type A group with a statistically significant risk ratio of 1.32 (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis reveals that botulinum toxin type A injections are superior to placebo for chronic migraines after 3 months of therapy. For the first time, a real benefit in patient quality of life is demonstrated with only few and mild adverse events.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Estimating the clinical effectiveness and value-based price range of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with prior treatment failures: a US societal perspective

BACKGROUND

Frequent migraine with four or more headache days per month is a common, disabling neurovascular disease. From a US societal perspective, this analysis models the clinical efficacy and estimates the value-based price (VBP) for erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor.

METHODS

A Markov health state transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and value-based price range for erenumab in migraine prevention. The model comprises "on preventive treatment", "off preventive treatment", and "death" health states across a 10-year time horizon. The evaluation compared erenumab to no preventive treatment in episodic and chronic migraine patients that have failed at least one preventive therapy. Therapeutic benefits are based on estimated changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) from erenumab pivotal clinical trials and a network meta-analysis of migraine studies. Utilities were estimated using previously published mapping algorithms. A VBP analysis was performed to identify maximum erenumab annual prices at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000-$200,000 per QALY. Estimates of VBP under different scenarios such as choice of different comparators, assumptions around inclusion of placebo effect, and exclusion of work productivity losses were also generated.

RESULTS

Erenumab resulted in incremental QALYs of 0.185 vs supportive care (SC) and estimated cost offsets due to reduced MMD of $8,482 over 10 years, with an average duration of treatment of 2.01 years. The estimated VBP at WTP thresholds of $100,000-$200,000 for erenumab compared to SC ranged from $14,238-$23,998. VBP estimates including the placebo effect and excluding work productivity ranged from $7,445-$13,809; increasing to $12,151-$18,589 with onabotulinumtoxinA as a comparator in chronic migraine.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab is predicted to reduce migraine-related direct and indirect costs, and increase QALYs compared to SC.

Use of auricular acupressure to improve the quality of life in diabetic patients with chronic kidney diseases: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background. Diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) suffer from low quality of life (QOL). We aim to assess the effectiveness of auricular acupressure for QOL improvement in these patients. Materials and Methods. Sixty-two participants were randomly assigned to an auricular or a control arm in a randomized controlled trial. Participants in the auricular arm were instructed to perform auricular acupressure 3–5 times per day for 3 months, when they were receiving conventional treatments. Participants in the control arm received conventional treatments only. The primary outcome was the summarized score of Kidney Disease and Quality of Life Short-Form (KDQOL-SF) at 3 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes included the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results. The summarized KDQOL differed significantly between the acupressure (76.6, 95% CI, 72.2 to 81.0) and the control group (61.8, 95% CI, 57.7 to 65.9). Similar results were found in the SF-36 scores. HbA1c and eGFR were not found to be significantly different between the arms and neither were the adverse events. Conclusion. Auricular acupressure was well tolerated in diabetic patients with chronic kidney diseases receiving hemodialysis. Future research is needed to confirm these results.

Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to evaluate whether topiramate prevents development of chronic daily headache (CDH, ≥15 headache days per month) in adult subjects with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM, 9-14 migraine headache days/month). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of topiramate as preventive migraine treatment in this population.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing topiramate 100 mg/day and placebo for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was new-onset CDH at month 6. Secondary efficacy measures included migraine and headache days. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 159 topiramate subjects and 171 placebo subjects were efficacy-evaluable. At month 6, 1.4% of topiramate subjects versus 2.3% of placebo subjects had CDH (p = .589). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean number of migraine days (6.6 vs. 5.3/28 days; p = .001) and headache days (6.6 vs 5.3/28 days; p = .001). Most commonly reported AEs in the topiramate versus placebo group included paresthesia (32.4% vs. 7.0%), fatigue (14.8% vs. 8.6%), dizziness (11.4% vs. 7.6%) and nausea (10.8% vs. 9.2%).

CONCLUSION

Topiramate 100 mg/day did not prevent the development of CDH at six months in subjects with HFEM. Topiramate was effective in reducing headache days and migraine headache days and generally well tolerated.

Utility of Topiramate for the Treatment of Patients with Chronic Migraine in the Presence or Absence of Acute Medication Overuse

Chronic migraine has been linked to the excessive use of acute headache medications. Medication overuse (MO) is commonly considered the most significant risk factor for the progression of migraine from an episodic to a chronic condition. Managing MO is a challenge. Discontinuation of the acute medication can result in withdrawal headache, nausea, vomiting and sleep disturbances. This review summarizes the results from two similarly designed, randomized, placebo- controlled, multicentre studies of chronic migraine conducted in the USA and European Union. Both studies demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the migraine preventive medication, topiramate, for the treatment of chronic migraine in patient populations both with and without MO. These studies may have important implications for the future of chronic migraine management, suggesting that detoxification prior to initiating prophylactic therapy may not be required in all patients if MO is present.

Botulinum toxin type a prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

This exploratory trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of multiple treatments of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA; BOTOX, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) as prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine headaches.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an 11-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory study. Patients were screened during a 30-day baseline period, and eligible patients with 4 or more migraine episodes and < or =15 headache days entered a single-blind 30-day placebo run-in period. Patients were classified as placebo nonresponders (PNR) if they had at least 4 moderate-to-severe migraine episodes and did not experience at least a 50% decrease from baseline in the frequency of migraine episodes following their placebo treatment. All other subjects were classified as placebo responders (PR). Patients were randomized within each stratum (PNR, PR) to 3 treatments with BoNTA (110 to 260 U of BoNTA per treatment cycle) or placebo at 90-day intervals using a modified follow-the-pain treatment paradigm. The primary efficacy outcome measure was the mean change from baseline in the frequency of migraine episodes for the 30 days prior to day 180 in the PNR group. Secondary efficacy measures included the proportion of patients with a decrease from baseline of 50% or more migraine episodes per 30-day period. Patients were allowed to take concomitant acute and prophylactic headache medications. Adverse events were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 809 patients were screened and 369 patients (89.2% female; mean age, 45 years; range, 20 to 65 years) entered the placebo run-in period and were subsequently randomized to BoNTA or placebo. The mean total dose of BoNTA was 190.5 units (U) (range, 110 U to 260 U). The predetermined primary efficacy endpoint was not met. Substantial mean improvements of 2.4 and 2.2 fewer migraine episodes per month at day 180 in the PNR stratum treated with BoNTA and placebo, respectively, were observed (P > .999). From day 180 through the end of the study (day 270) at least 50% of all patients in each treatment group had a decrease from baseline of 50% or more migraine episodes per 30-day period. However, in the group of patients with > or =12 headache days at baseline (and < or =15 headache days), BoNTA patients experienced a mean change from baseline of -4.0 headache episodes at day 180 compared with -1.9 headache episodes in the placebo group (P= .048). The majority of treatment-related adverse events were transient and mild to moderate in severity. Only 7 patients (1.9%) discontinued the study due to adverse events (6 BoNTA, 1 placebo).

CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the mean change from baseline in the frequency of migraine episodes per 30-day period. There were substantial, sustained improvements during the course of the study in all groups. Multiple treatments with BoNTA were shown to be safe and well tolerated over an active treatment period lasting 9 months.

A multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of multiple treatments of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine headaches

Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA; BOTOX) for prophylaxis of episodic migraine. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized to 225, 150 or 75 U of BoNTA or placebo after a 30-day placebo run-in for three 90-day treatment cycles. The primary efficacy end-point was the mean reduction from baseline in the frequency of migraine episodes at day 180 in the placebo non-responder stratum. All groups (N = 495) improved, with no significant differences. At day 180, the frequency of migraine episodes was reduced from baseline means of 4.3, 4.7, 4.7 and 4.4 by 1.6, 1.7, 1.5 and 1.4 for BoNTA 225 U, 150 U and 75 U and placebo, respectively. The primary end-point was not met. Treatment-related adverse events were transient and mild to moderate. BoNTA treatment was safe and well tolerated but did not result in significantly greater improvement than placebo in this study. Several factors may have confounded the results.

Botulinum toxin type A for the prophylactic treatment of chronic daily headache: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To identify a treatment-responsive population for botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 3 different doses of BoNTA as prophylactic treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of BoNTA in patients with CDH was conducted from July 6, 2001, through November 7, 2003, at 28 North American study centers. Eligible patients were injected with BoNTA at 225 U, 150 U, 75 U, or placebo and returned for additional masked treatments at day 90 and day 180. Patients were assessed every 30 days for 9 months. The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline in the frequency of headache-free days at day 180 for the placebo nonresponder group.

RESULTS

For this study, 702 patients were enrolled and randomized. The primary efficacy end point was not met. Mean improvements from baseline at day 180 of 6.0, 7.9, 7.9, and 8.0 headache-free days per month were observed in the placebo nonresponder group treated with BoNTA at 225 U, 150 U, 75 U, or placebo, respectively (P=.44). An a priori-defined analysis of headache frequency revealed that BoNTA at 225 U or 150 U had significantly greater least squares mean changes from baseline than placebo at day 240 (-8.4, -8.6, and -6.4, respectively; P=.03 analysis of covariance). Only 27 of 702 patients (3.8%) withdrew from the study because of adverse events, which generally were transient and mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the primary efficacy end point was not met, all groups responded to treatment. The 225 U and 150 U groups experienced a greater decrease in headache frequency than the placebo group at day 240. The placebo response was higher than expected. BoNTA was safe and well tolerated. Further study of BoNTA prophylactic treatment of CDH appears warranted.

Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Prophylaxis of Chronic Daily Headache: Subgroup Analysis of Patients Not Receiving Other Prophylactic Medications: A Randomized Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A; BOTOX, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) for the prophylaxis of headaches in patients with chronic daily headache (CDH) without the confounding factor of concurrent prophylactic medications.

BACKGROUND

Several open-label studies and an 11-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study suggest that BoNT-A may be an effective therapy for the prophylaxis of headaches in patients with CDH.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a subgroup analysis of an 11-month, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of BoNT-A for the treatment of adult patients with 16 or more headache days per 30-day periods conducted at 13 North American study centers. All patients had a history of migraine or probable migraine. This analysis involved data for patients who were not receiving concomitant prophylactic headache medication and who constituted 64% of the full study population. Following a 30-day screening period and a 30-day single-blind, placebo injection, eligible patients were injected with BoNT-A or placebo and assessed every 30 days for 9 months The following efficacy measures were analyzed per 30-day periods: change from baseline in number of headache-free days; change from baseline in headache frequency; proportion of patients with at least 30% or at least 50% decrease from baseline in headache frequency; and change from baseline in mean headache severity. Acute medication use was assessed, and adverse events were recorded at each study visit.

RESULTS

Of the 355 patients randomized in the study, 228 (64%) were not taking prophylactic medication and were included in this analysis (117 received BoNT-A, 111 received placebo injections). Mean age was 42.4+/-10.90 years; the mean frequency of headaches per 30 days at baseline was 14.1 for the BoNT-A group and 12.9 for the placebo group (P=.205). After two injection sessions, the maximum change in the mean frequency of headaches per 30 days was -7.8 in the BoNT-A group compared with only -4.5 in the placebo group (P=.032), a statistically significant between-group difference of 3.3 headaches. The between-group difference favoring BoNT-A treatment continued to improve to 4.2 headaches after a third injection session (P=.023). In addition, BoNT-A treatment at least halved the frequency of baseline headaches in over 50% of patients after three injection sessions compared to baseline. Statistically significant differences between BoNT-A and placebo were evident for the change from baseline in headache frequency and headache severity for most time points from day 180 through day 270. Only 5 patients (4 patients receiving BoNT-A treatment; 1 patient receiving placebo) discontinued the study due to adverse events and most treatment-related events were transient and mild to moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

BoNT-A is an effective and well-tolerated prophylactic treatment in migraine patients with CDH who are not using other prophylactic medications.

Botulinum Toxin Type A (BOTOX ® ) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Chronic Daily Headache: A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A; BOTOX, Allergan, Inc.) for the prophylactic treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH).

BACKGROUND

Several open-label and small controlled trials suggest that BoNT-A may be effective in the prophylactic treatment of headache.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an 11-month, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of BoNT-A for the treatment of patients aged 18 to 65 years old with 16 or more headache days per 30 days conducted at 13 North American study centers. Following a 30-day screening period and a 30-day, single-blind, placebo-response period to identify placebo responders, eligible patients from both the placebo responder and placebo nonresponder groups were injected with BoNT-A or placebo every 90 days and assessed every 30 days for 9 months, a period encompassing three treatment cycles. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline in the frequency of headache-free days in a 30-day period for the placebo nonresponder group at day 180, the chosen efficacy time point. The secondary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with a decrease from baseline of 50% or more in the frequency of headache days per 30-day period for the placebo nonresponder group at day 180. The change from baseline in the frequency of headaches (per 30-day period), the proportion of patients with a decrease from baseline of 50% or greater in the frequency of headaches per 30-day period, acute medication use, and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 571 patients assessed over the baseline period, 355 (mean age, 43.5 years; 300/355 [84.5%] female) were enrolled and randomized. At the end of the placebo run-in period, 279 patients (79%) were classified as placebo nonresponders and 76 patients (21%) as placebo responders. Subsequently, patients were randomized within each group to receive either BoNT-A or placebo. In the placebo nonresponder stratum, the mean number of headache-free days at baseline was 5.8 (+/-4.7) for BoNT-A- versus 5.5 (+/-4.7) for placebo-treated patients. At day 180, placebo nonresponders treated with BoNT-A had an improved mean change from baseline of 6.7 headache-free days per 30-day period compared to a mean change from baseline of 5.2 headache-free days for placebo-treated patients. The between-group difference of 1.5 headache-free days favored BoNT-A treatment, although the difference between the groups was not statistically significant. However, a statistically significant difference was observed at day 180 endpoint for the secondary efficacy measure. A significantly higher percentage of BoNT-A patients had a decrease from baseline of 50% or greater in the frequency of headache days per 30-day period at day 180 (32.7% vs. 15.0%, P=.027). Also, the mean change from baseline in the frequency of headaches per 30-day period at day 180 was -6.1 for BoNT-A patients vs. -3.1 for the placebo patients (P=.013). Only 4 of 173 BoNT-A patients (2.3%) discontinued the study due to adverse events. The majority of treatment-related adverse events were transient and mild to moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

BoNT-A treatment resulted in patients having, on average, approximately seven more (1 week) headache-free days compared to baseline. Although at the primary time point (day 180) the BoNT-A treatment resulted in a 1.5 between-group difference compared to placebo, this difference was not statistically significant. The treatment met secondary efficacy outcome measures, including the percentage of patients experiencing a 50% or more decrease in the frequency of headache days, in addition to statistically significant reductions in headache frequency. BoNT-A was also well tolerated in patients with CDH.

Chronic Daily Headache

The therapy of chronic daily headache (CDH) is complex and involves a combination of drugs, supportive psychotherapy, nondrug therapy, "tender-loving care," and "tough love." CDH is a chronic problem with exacerbations and remissions. Patients with CDH often manifest mood disorders, and recognition and treatment of these problems is a key component of success. The use of preventative antimigraine therapy is a major component of treatment of this condition. Patients with exacerbations may need judicious short courses of medications that can produce medication-overuse headache. Patients may switch to another physician to get opiates or other pain relief medications. The patient may later realize this mistake and return to the physician. Use of patient "contracts," in which the patient agrees not to take more than a prescribed amount of restricted medication or seek it elsewhere, may be helpful. In this area, there is no standard patient or standard therapeutic regimen. The treatment plan must be individualized for each patient. Taking a little extra time to talk with patients and discuss medications, procedures, and goals and objectives may pay bigger dividends in the therapeutic relationship later in the course of treatment.

Association between migraine and Celiac disease: results from a preliminary case-control and therapeutic study

OBJECTIVES

Subclinical celiac disease (CD) has been associated with various neurological disorders, the most common being neuropathy and cerebellar ataxia. The aims of the present study were to assess the following: 1) the prevalence of CD in patients affected by migraine; 2) whether there are regional cerebral blood flow abnormalities in migraine patients with CD compared to migraine patients without CD; and 3) the effects of a gluten free diet in migraine patients with CD.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients affected by idiopathic migraine were enrolled, and 236 blood donors were used as controls. Serum IgG antitransglutaminase (TgA) and IgA antiendomysial (EmA) were measured. In positive cases, diagnosis was confirmed endoscopically. A gluten free diet was started in the patients diagnosed with CD, who were followed for 6 months. A single photon emission CT brain study was performed before and after a gluten free diet.

RESULTS

Four of 90 (4.4%; 95% CI = 1.2-11.0) migraine patients were found to have CD compared with 0.4% (95% CI = 0.01-2.3) blood donor controls (p < 0.05). During the 6 months of gluten free diet, one of the four patients had no migraine attacks, and the remaining three patients experienced an improvement in frequency, duration, and intensity of migraine. Single photon emission CT studies showed a regional baseline reduction in brain tracer uptake in all four patients. Such reduction in uptake completely resolved at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a significant proportion of patients with migraine may have CD, and that a gluten free diet may lead to a improvement in the migraine in these patients.

Prospective study designs in outcomes research: the case of migraine

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including resource utilisation, productivity and quality of life, are important outcomes in the field of migraine. Clinical trials have begun to incorporate PROs; however, not all research questions can be answered fully within the framework of a clinical trial design. Other prospective designs, including effectiveness trials, observational studies, and study hybrids may be used to answer many of the different research questions related to PROs. This paper reviews prospective study designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and examples of their application in migraine health-outcomes research. Guidance is provided for researchers in the selection of prospective research designs and the incorporation of PROs-research objectives.

Advances in pharmacological treatment of migraine

Migraine is a paroxysmal disorder with attacks of headache, nausea, vomiting, photo- and phonophobia and malaise. This review summarises new treatment options both for the therapy of the acute attack as well as for migraine prophylaxis. Analgesics like aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in treating migraine attacks. Few controlled trials were performed for the use of ergotamine or dihydroergotamine. These trials indicate inferior efficacy compared with serotonin (5-HT(1B/D)) agonists (triptans). The triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan and zolmitriptan), are highly effective. They improve headache as well as nausea, photo- and phonophobia. The different triptans show only minor differences in efficacy, headache recurrence and adverse effects. The knowledge of their different pharmacological profile allows a more specific treatment of the individual migraine characteristics. Migraine prophylaxis is recommended, when more than three attacks occur per month, if attacks do not respond to acute treatment or if side effects of acute treatment are severe. Substances with proven efficacy include the beta-blockers metoprolol and propranolol, the calcium channel blocker flunarizine, several 5-HT antagonists and amitriptyline. Recently anti-epileptic drugs (valproic acid, gabapentin, topiramate) were evaluated for the prophylaxis of migraine. The use of botulinum toxin is under investigation.

Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To compare gabapentin with placebo for use as a prophylactic agent in patients with migraine (with or without aura). STUDY DESIGN AND TREATMENT: After screening, a 4-week, single-blind, placebo baseline period was followed by a 12-week, double-blind, treatment period. The 12-week treatment period consisted of a 4-week titration phase and an 8-week stable-dosing phase. During the 4-week titration phase, patients were started on one 300-mg capsule of gabapentin or matching placebo. Patients were titrated weekly from 900 mg/day (end of week 1) to 2400 mg/day (end of week 4) and had to be receiving a stable dose of study medication by the end of the titration period. Study medication was to be given on a three-times-a-day dosing regimen.

METHODS

The study hypothesis was defined a priori as a lower 4-week migraine rate during the second stabilization period for the gabapentin-treated patients as compared with the placebo-treated patients. The analyses were performed with the 4-week migraine rate at baseline as a covariate and center as a blocking factor.

RESULTS

At seven participating centers, 143 patients with migraine were randomized in a 2:1 ratio and received either gabapentin (n = 98) or matching placebo (n = 45). Thirty-three patients (24.1%) discontinued prematurely from the study, including 24 (24.5%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 9 (20.0%) of 45 placebo-treated patients; the majority of patients discontinued due to adverse events (16 [16.3%] of 98 gabapentin-treated patients; 4 [8.9%] of 45 placebo-treated patients). Patients included in the analysis were evenly balanced for age, sex, race, weight, and height. The majority of these patients were white (80 [92.0%] of 87) and women (72 [82.8%] of 87), with a mean age of approximately 39.4 years and a history of migraine episodes for a mean of about 21 years. At the end of the 12-week treatment phase, the median 4-week migraine rate was 2.7 for the gabapentin-treated patients maintained on a stable dose of 2400 mg/day and 3.5 for the placebo-treated patients (P =.006), compared with 4.2 and 4.1, respectively, during the baseline period. Additionally, 26 (46.4%) of 56 patients receiving a stable dose of 2400 mg/day gabapentin and 5 (16.1%) of 31 patients receiving placebo showed at least a 50% reduction in the 4-week migraine rate (P =.008). The average number of days per 4 weeks with migraine was also statistically significant and favored gabapentin (P =.006) during stabilization period 2. The median change in 4-week headache rate was statistically significant as well (P =.013). The most frequently reported adverse events for both treatment groups were asthenia, dizziness, somnolence, and infection. Adverse events determined by the investigator to be associated with study drug resulted in patient withdrawal in 13 (13.3%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 3 (6.7%) of 45 placebo-treated patients. Somnolence and dizziness accounted for many of the premature withdrawals among those taking gabapentin.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin is an effective prophylactic agent for patients with migraine. In addition, gabapentin appears generally well tolerated with mild to moderate somnolence and dizziness.

A practical guide to the management and prevention of migraine

Migraine is a paroxysmal disorder with attacks of headache, nausea, vomiting, photo- and phonophobia and malaise. Mild migraine attacks are treated with antiemetics followed by analgesics such as aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), paracetamol (acetaminophen) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Moderate to severe attacks are treated by antiemetics combined with ergotamine or dihydroergotamine. Sumatriptan, a specific serotonin 5-HT1B/D receptor agonist, is used if attacks do not respond to ergotamine or if intolerable adverse effects occur. The new migraine drugs zolmitriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan and eletriptan differ in their pharmacological profile from sumatriptan, but this translates into only minor differences in efficacy, headache recurrence and adverse effects. Migraine prophylaxis should be implemented when more than 3 attacks occur per month, if attacks do not respond to acute treatment or if the adverse effects of acute treatment are severe. Substances with proven efficacy include the beta-blockers metoprolol and propranolol and the calcium antagonist flunarizine. Drugs less effective or those with unpleasant adverse effects are the serotonin receptor antagonists (pizotifen, methysergide and lisuride), dihydroergotamine, cyclandelate, NSAIDs, valproic acid (sodium valproate) and amitriptyline. The efficacy of aspirin or magnesium is still under evaluation.

Sluder's sphenopalatine ganglion neuralgia--treatment with 88% phenol

Patients who experience chronic recurring head and face pain present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Treatment options for Sluder's neuralgia, an uncommon cause for recurring head and face pain, are controversial. We reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent intranasal phenolization of the sphenopalatine ganglion for the treatment of Sluder's neuralgia. Eight patients were treated with intranasal cauterization of the sphenopalatine ganglion between 1990 and 1995. Patients were treated an average of 13 times. Overall, patients experienced a 90% decrease in head and face pain for an average of 9.5 months duration. Interestingly, the patients described recurrent pain as less severe, less frequent, and of shorter duration. Intranasal phenolization of the sphenopalatine ganglion appears to be a safe and effective, although temporary, treatment for patients with Sluder's neuralgia. This article will review the symptomatology, differential diagnosis, and phenolization technique for treatment of Sluder's neuralgia.

A double-blind controlled study of nifedipine as an abortive treatment in acute attacks of migraine with aura

Patients with migraine with aura treated each of six acute attacks with either nifedipine or vehicle administered in double-blind, randomized form. Two modes of administration were studied. Both increased the intensity of headaches compared to vehicle. We conclude that nifedipine is not useful as an abortive treatment of migraine with aura.

A double-blind comparison of granisetron and placebo for the treatment of acute migraine in the emergency department

Three hundred and ninety-seven patients who presented to the emergency department were screened for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of iv granisetron (40 micrograms/kg or 80 micrograms/kg) in acute migraine. Twenty-eight patients fulfilled the stringent eligibility criteria and completed the study. Rescue medication was required 2 h post-infusion in 8 of 10 patients receiving granisetron 40 micrograms/kg, 5 of 10 patients receiving granisetron 80 micrograms/kg, and 6 of 8 patients receiving placebo. Significant improvement (p less than 0.05) in headache pain (on a visual analogue scale and categorical scale) was observed in the 80-micrograms/kg group. Headache pain evaluated with the Hunter headache scale indicated improvement for the sensory and affective components of headache pain in both granisetron groups. Except for more nausea at 30 min in the placebo group, no significant differences were noted between treatments. All three treatments were well tolerated. Granisetron may be effective for acute migraine headache; however, further studies with increased patient numbers are required.

[Drug treatment as migraine prophylaxis.]

If migraine attacks occur more frequently than 2 times a month, treatment of the acute attack with analgesics and ergotamine becomes problematic. An acute relief of migraine symptoms will be achieved only at the risk of developing a drug-induced chronic headache. Therefore, if migraine attacks occur frequently prophylactic treatment should be considered. A bewildering variety of drugs have been discussed for migraine prophylaxis in the past few decades. Only a few of them can be accepted to be effective on the basis of reliable clinical studies. Others have failed to show any superiority to placebo treatment when tested in controlled drug trials for a period long enough to rule out the placebo response, which may simulate effectiveness at the beginning of the trial. The efficacy of metoprolol and propranolol has been demonstrated beyond any doubt. It seems, however, that other beta-blocking drugs are less effective or even ineffective. In more than 20% of patients even prolonged treatment with metoprolol or propranolol does not provide sufficient relief. Flunarizine may be tried in these patients, as long as side effects do not occur or can be tolerated by the patient. Whether non-steroidal antirheumatics and dihydroergotamine can be considered as an effective and safe alternative in migraine prophylaxis is still not well established. There is, however, convincing evidence that neither clonidine, nor anti-histamines, nor barbiturates, nor antiepileptic drugs, nor anxiolytics are effective in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Successful prophylactic treatment cannot be achieved by drug therapy alone. Any form of drug treatment should be complemented by providing the patient with detailed information about the nature of the disease and the properties of the prescribed drugs, as well as careful investigation of the patient's situation and habits and a careful search for precipitants, combined with an attempt to change the patient's habits and to avoid factors that trigger the attacks.