Gabapentin in drugged driving investigations

The increasing use and misuse of gabapentin pose a major risk to public health and traffic safety. Gabapentin has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1993 for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of epilepsy and neuralgia but is increasingly being prescribed for numerous off-label uses including insomnia, anxiety, depression, and migraine. Reported side effects include blurred vision, drowsiness, and loss of coordination. Driving behaviors such as exiting the lane of travel and crashes have been reported in connection to drugged driving investigations concerning gabapentin. To further assist with the toxicological interpretation of gabapentin in driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) scenarios, a review of approximately 108,000 gabapentin-positive DUID cases was conducted. Of those, 858 cases met inclusion criteria and underwent additional evaluation. Blood specimens were screened via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and confirmed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for quantitation of gabapentin. This review found an overall DUID gabapentin positivity of 7.9% between January 2020 and December 2022; 17 states from various geographical regions had at least one positive gabapentin DUID case. Observations in six driving and human performance cases where gabapentin was the only drug reported were consistent with the known adverse effects of the medication. Half of the case histories reviewed involved crashes where the driver was determined to be at fault. Additionally, 94% of the cases in this review involved gabapentin in combination with other drugs. The most prevalent drug combinations were opioids and gabapentin present in 64% of cases.

Migraine - a borderland disease to epilepsy: near it but not of it

BACKGROUND

Migraine and epilepsy are two paroxysmal chronic neurological disorders affecting a high number of individuals and being responsible for a high individual and socioeconomic burden. The link between these disorders has been of interest for decades and innovations concerning diagnosing and treatment enable new insights into their relationship.

FINDINGS

Although appearing to be distinct at first glance, both diseases exhibit a noteworthy comorbidity, shared pathophysiological pathways, and significant overlaps in characteristics like clinical manifestation or prophylactic treatment. This review aims to explore the intricate relationship between these two conditions, shedding light on shared pathophysiological foundations, genetic interdependencies, common and distinct clinical features, clinically overlapping syndromes, and therapeutic similarities. There are several shared pathophysiological mechanisms, like CSD, the likely underlying cause of migraine aura, or neurotransmitters, mainly Glutamate and GABA, which represent important roles in triggering migraine attacks and seizures. The genetic interrelations between the two disorders can be observed by taking a closer look at the group of familial hemiplegic migraines, which are caused by mutations in genes like CACNA1A, ATP1A2, or SCN1A. The intricate relationship is further underlined by the high number of shared clinical features, which can be observed over the entire course of migraine attacks and epileptic seizures. While the variety of the clinical manifestation of an epileptic seizure is naturally higher than that of a migraine attack, a distinction can indeed be difficult in some cases, e.g. in occipital lobe epilepsy. Moreover, triggering factors like sleep deprivation or alcohol consumption play an important role in both diseases. In the period after the seizure or migraine attack, symptoms like speech difficulties, tiredness, and yawning occur. While the actual attack of the disease usually lasts for a limited time, research indicates that individuals suffering from migraine and/or epilepsy are highly affected in their daily life, especially regarding cognitive and social aspects, a burden that is even worsened using antiseizure medication. This medication allows us to reveal further connections, as certain antiepileptics are proven to have beneficial effects on the frequency and severity of migraine and have been used as a preventive drug for both diseases over many years.

CONCLUSION

Migraine and epilepsy show a high number of similarities in their mechanisms and clinical presentation. A deeper understanding of the intricate relationship will positively advance patient-oriented research and clinical work.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

Gabapentinoid Prescribing Practices at a Large Academic Medical Center

Objective

To evaluate indications for gabapentinoid prescription at an academic medical center.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients aged 18 years or older who were prescribed gabapentinoids (gabapentin or pregabalin) during the 2019 calendar year at an academic medical center in the US Midwest. Patient demographic characteristics, indications for gabapentinoid prescription, and prescribing clinician specialities were abstracted from a random sample, and the findings were extrapolated to the overall cohort.

Results

A total of 6205 prescriptions for gabapentinoids were initially identified. In the random sample of prescriptions (n=721), 89.5% were for gabapentin and 10.5% were for pregabalin. More women than men were prescribed gabapentinoids, and the mean ± SD patient age was 58.6±16.9 years. The top 5 indications for gabapentinoid prescriptions were neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, restless legs syndrome, anxiety, and headache. A majority (66.7%) of prescriptions had substantial-to-modest evidence, but 29.0% of prescriptions had conflicting or insufficient evidence.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to manually review clinical notes from multiple clinical specialities to ascertain indications for gabapentinoid prescriptions. Although most prescriptions had modest evidence to support their use, a high percentage of gabapentinoid prescriptions were issued for indications not supported by robust evidence. This suggests that prescribers are gravitating toward gabapentinoid use for reasons that are currently not fully understood. Clinician intent for off-label gabapentinoid prescriptions at the point of care should be further studied to understand the factors that lead to these clinical decisions.

Antiseizure Medications for the Prophylaxis of Migraine during the Anti- CGRP Drugs Era

Migraine and epilepsy are fundamentally distinct disorders that can frequently coexist in the same patient. These two conditions significantly differ in diagnosis and therapy but share some widely- used preventive treatments. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of therapy for epilepsy, and about thirty different ASMs are available to date. ASMs are widely prescribed for other neurological and non-neurological conditions, including migraine. However, only topiramate and valproic acid/valproate currently have an indication for migraine prophylaxis supported by high-quality evidence. Although without specifically approved indications and with a low level of evidence or recommendation, several other ASMs are used for migraine prophylaxis. Understanding ASM antimigraine mechanisms, including their ability to affect the pro-migraine calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway and other pathways, may be instrumental in identifying the specific targets of their antimigraine efficacy and may increase awareness of the neurobiological differences between epilepsy and migraine. Several new ASMs are under clinical testing or have been approved for epilepsy in recent years, providing novel potential drugs for migraine prevention to enrich the treatment armamentarium and drugs that inhibit the CGRP pathway.

Treatment of Primary Nummular Headache: A Series of 183 Patients from the NUMITOR Study

Nummular headache (NH) is a primary headache characterized by superficial coin-shaped pain. NUMITOR (NCT05475769) is an observational study evaluating the responder rate of preventive drugs in NH patients. The treatment response was assessed between weeks 8 and 12 compared with the baseline. Patients were included between February 2002 and October 2022. Demographic and clinical variables were assessed; treatment response was estimated by 50%, 30%, and 75% responder rates and treatment discontinuation due to inadequate tolerability. A total of 183 out of 282 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria and completed the study. Patients were aged 49.5 (standard deviation (SD): 16.8) years, and 60.7% were female. NH phenotype was a parietal circular pain of four centimeters' diameter, moderate intensity, and oppressive quality. At baseline, patients had 25 (interquartile range) pain days per month. Preventive treatment was used by 114 (62.3%) patients. The highest 50% and 75% responder rates corresponded to onabotulinumtoxinA (62.5%, 47.5%), followed by gabapentin (43.7%, 35.2%). Oral preventive drugs were not tolerated by 12.9-25%. The present study provides class IV evidence of the effectiveness of oral preventive drugs and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of primary NH. OnabotulinumtoxinA was the most effective and best-tolerated drug, positioning it as first-line treatment of NH.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Episodic Migraine: part I

The Brazilian Headache Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia, SBCe, in Portuguese) nominated a Committee of Authors with the aim of establishing a consensus with recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine based on articles published in the worldwide literature, as well as personal experience. Migraine affects 1 billion people around the world and more than 30 million Brazilians. In addition, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder. It is well known within the medical community of neurologists, and especially among headache specialists, that there is a need to disseminate knowledge about prophylactic treatment for migraine. For this purpose, together with the need for drug updates and to expand knowledge of the disease itself (frequency, intensity, duration, impact and perhaps the progression of migraine), this Consensus was developed, following a full online methodology, by 12 groups who reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of the drugs used and, at the end of the process, met to read and establish conclusions for this document. The drug classes studied were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) antibodies, beta-blockers, antihypertensives, calcium channel inhibitors, other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, and dual-action antidepressants), other drugs, and polytherapy. Hormonal treatment and anti-inflammatories and triptans in minimum prophylaxis schemes (miniprophylaxis) will be covered in a specific chapter. The drug classes studied for part I of the Consensus were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies, and beta-blockers.

The relation between the placebo response, observed treatment effect, and failure to meet primary endpoint: A systematic review of clinical trials of preventative pharmacological migraine treatments

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the degree of response to placebo in migraine studies and the observed difference between drug and placebo across studies of preventative treatments for migraine.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from January 1988 to June 2019. Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials on oral or injection preventative treatments for migraine were included. Single- and multi-variable linear regression analyses were performed on the placebo-subtracted response rate (i.e. placebo responders subtracted from active responders), and the proportion of placebo responders. Fisher's exact tests were performed on the level of placebo response and the success in meeting the study's primary endpoint.

RESULTS

After adjusting for route of administration and number of randomized subjects, there was a statistically significant association between the proportion of patients who were placebo responders and the placebo-subtracted response rate (b = -0.27, p = 0.02). There was a statistically significant difference in trial success rate (60%) between studies with ≤20% placebo responders and studies with > 30% placebo responders (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Considering the detrimental impact that high placebo response can have on clinical trials, it is imperative to find effective solutions to decrease the placebo response and increase assay sensitivity.

Current Status of Antiepileptic Drugs as Preventive Migraine Therapy

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are an important class of agents used in the treatment of migraine, a neurological disorder that imparts significant socioeconomic burden. It is important for neurologists to understand the rationale for AEDs in migraine-preventive treatment, as well as each agent's efficacy and tolerability profile, in order to best determine clinical care.

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

This article specifically provides the following: (1) a review of the mechanism of action, efficacy, and tolerability of topiramate and divalproex sodium/sodium valproate, the most widely used AEDs for migraine prevention, (2) a discussion on emerging evidence regarding the efficacy of zonisamide and levetiracetam, and (3) comments on gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and lamotrigine, AEDs which have insufficient evidence for use in migraine prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

The potential role for new extended-release formulations of topiramate in migraine prevention is discussed. There is substantial evidence supporting the use of AEDs in migraine prevention. Specific agents should be chosen based on their efficacy and tolerability profiles. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of the newer AEDs, zonisamide and levetiracetam, in migraine prevention and to clarify the role of gabapentinoids in headache management.

The Development of Evidence-Based Guideline for Diagnosis and Management of Headache in Korea

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop the clinical guideline for headache by the systematic review and synthesis of existing evidence-based guidelines. The purpose of developing the guideline was to improve the appropriateness of diagnosis and treatment of headache disorder, and consequently, to improve patients' pain control and quality of life. The guideline broadly covers the differential diagnosis and treatment of tension-type headache, migraine, cluster headache, and medication-overuse headache.

METHODS

This is a methodological study based on the ADAPTE methodology, including a systematic review of the literature, quality assessment of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Clinical Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument, as well as an external review using a Delphi technique. The inclusion criteria for systematic search were as follows: topic-relevant, up-to-date guidelines including evidence from within 5 years, evidence-based guidelines, guidelines written in English or Korean, and guidelines issued by academic institutions or government agencies.

RESULTS

We selected five guidelines and conducted their quality assessment using the AGREE II Instrument. As a result, one guideline was found to be eligible for adaptation. For 13 key questions, a total of 39 recommendations were proposed with the grading system and revised using the nominal group technique.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations should be applied to actual clinical sites to achieve the ultimate goal of this guideline; therefore, follow-up activities, such as monitoring of guideline usage and assessment of applicability of the recommendations, should be performed in the future. Further assessment of the effectiveness of the guideline in Korea is needed.

Refining the Benefit/Risk Profile of Anti-Epileptic Drugs in Headache Disorders

Anti-epileptic drugs are among the most effective drugs for migraine prophylaxis, and will likely continue to have a role even as new therapies emerge. Topiramate and valproate are effective for the preventive treatment of migraine, and other medications such as gabapentin or lamotrigine may have a role in the treatment of those with allodynia or frequent aura, respectively. Oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine, phenytoin, gabapentin, and others may alleviate pain in trigeminal neuralgia. While many anti-epileptic drugs can be effective in those with migraine or other headaches, most of these agents can potentially cause serious side effects. In particular, valproate, topiramate, carbamazepine, and phenytoin may lead to adverse outcomes for infants of exposed mothers. Valproate should not be given to women of childbearing potential for migraine prevention.

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010–2015 on migraine drug treatments

Background

In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the “evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine”. They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements.

Methods

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts.

Results

We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events.

Conclusion

Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

Unveiling the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications for migraine: pairwise and network-meta analysis

BACKGROUND

A large number patients struggle with migraine which is classified as a chronic disorder. The relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications for migraine play a key role in managing this disease.

METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature search for popular prophylactic medications that are used for migraine patients. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were carried out sequentially for determining the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of prophylactic medications. Summary effect for migraine headache days, headache frequency, at least 50% reduction in headache attacks, all-adverse events, nausea, somnolence, dizziness, withdrawal and withdrawal due to adverse events were produced by synthesizing both direct and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Patients with three interventions exhibited significantly less average migraine headache days compared with those treated by placebo (topiramate, propranolol, divalproex). Moreover, topiramate and valproate exhibited a significantly increased likelihood of at least 50% reduction in migraine headache attacks compared to placebo. Patients with topiramate and propranolol also exhibited significantly reduced headache frequency compared to those with placebo. On the other hand, patients with divalproex exhibited significantly higher risk of nausea compared to those with placebo, topiramate, propranolol, gabapentin and amitriptyline. Finally, divalproex was associated with an increased risk of withdrawal compared to placebo and propranolol.

CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate, propranolol and divalproex may be more efficacious than other prophylactic medications. Besides, the safety and tolerability of divalproex should be further verified by future studies.

Minority Representation in Migraine Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials METHODS: First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms "migraine randomized controlled trial." We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population.

RESULTS

We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented.

CONCLUSIONS

Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.

The Use of Antiepileptics in Migraine Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic debilitating disorder. Selected antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are proposed as preventives for migraine. Clinical efficacy and side effects of these AEDs are discussed.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

The American Academy of Neurology and the American Society of Headache classify topiramate (TPM) and divalproex sodium (DVPX) as Level-A medications and recommend offering them to patients for migraine prophylaxis. Their mechanism(s) of actions remains not entirely known. Their recognized action as sodium channel blockers may affect the neural component of migraine pain. TPM or DVPX can be considered an obvious choice for those patients with a concomitant seizure disorder. Care must be taken to plan their treatment with their psychiatrist if a mood disorder is present. DVPX tends not to be prescribed as first/second choice due to its potential for weight gain and hepatotoxicity. TPM is generally first choice, but bears severe contraindications. Both medications require education on teratogenesis in childbearing women. Consideration of gabapentin, acetazolamide, leviteracetam, zonisamide, and carbamazipine may be given later as empiric options and in selected patients. Patients must be made aware that there is insufficient scientific support for their use in migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Available AEDs to prophylactically treat migraine are few but of robust clinical efficacy. Special care needs to be exerted with respect to their side effects. Future research is needed for a better understanding of their mechanisms of action in migraine. Such research has the potential of providing some insight into the pathophysiology of migraine.

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.

Gabapentin in Headache Disorders: What Is the Evidence?

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin (GBP), originally an antiepileptic drug, is more commonly used in the treatment of pain, including headache disorders. Off-label GBP is used in headache disorders with some success, some failure, and much debate. Due to this ambiguity, a clinical evidence literature review was performed investigating GBP's efficacy in headache disorders.

METHODS

Bibliographic reference searches for GBP use in headache disorders were performed in PUBMED and OVID Medline search engines from January 1, 1983 to August 31, 2014. Based on abstracts read by two reviewers, references were excluded if: GBP was not a study compound or headache symptoms were not studied. The resulting references were then read, reviewed, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six articles pertinent to GBP use in headache disorders were retained. Eight headache clinical trials were quality of evidence Class 2 or higher based on American Academy of Neurology criteria. Seven of the eight clinical trials showed statistically significant clinical benefit from GBP in various headache syndromes (though modest affects at times). One study, Mathew et al., had concerns about intention-treat analysis breaches and primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite the conflicting evidence surrounding select studies, a significant amount of evidence shows that GBP has benefit for a majority of primary headache syndromes, including chronic daily headaches. GBP has some efficacy in migraine headache, but not sufficient evidence to suggest primary therapy. When primary headache treatments fail, a GBP trial may be considered in the individual patient.

Preventive Migraine Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the evidence base for the preventive treatment of migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence-based guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine have recently been published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and the Canadian Headache Society (CHS), providing valuable guidance for clinicians. Strong evidence exists to support the use of metoprolol, timolol, propranolol, divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, and topiramate for migraine prevention, according to the AAN. Based on best available evidence, adverse event profile, and expert consensus, topiramate, propranolol, nadolol, metoprolol, amitriptyline, gabapentin, candesartan, Petasites (butterbur), riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, and magnesium citrate received a strong recommendation for use from the CHS.

SUMMARY

Migraine preventive drug treatments are underutilized in clinical practice. Principles of preventive treatment are important to improve compliance, minimize side effects, and improve patient outcomes. Choice of preventive treatment of migraine should be based on the presence of comorbid and coexistent illness, patient preference, reproductive potential and planning, and best available evidence.

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.

Headache management: pharmacological approaches

Headache is one of the most common conditions presenting to the neurology clinic, yet a significant proportion of these patients are unsatisfied by their clinic experience. Headache can be extremely disabling; effective treatment is not only essential for patients but is rewarding for the physician. In this first of two parts review of headache, we provide an overview of headache management, emerging therapeutic strategies and an accessible interpretation of clinical guidelines to assist the busy neurologist.

Prophylaxis of migraine in children and adolescents

While it has been established that headaches in the pediatric age group are relatively common, the characterization of headache disorders and their treatment in this group has historically been limited. Due to the paucity of controlled studies on prophylaxis of the primary headache disorders in children, the diagnosis of migraine often rests on criteria similar to those used in adults. Data from adult studies are often extrapolated and applied to the pediatric patient. Although it appears that many prophylactic agents are safe, well tolerated and efficacious in children, currently only topiramate is FDA-approved for use in patients 12 years and over. As a result, despite often experiencing significant disability, many children who present to their physician with migraines do not receive preventive therapy. One-third of adolescents meet the criteria for warranting prophylactic therapy, yet few are offered a preventative medication. Moreover, controlled clinical trials investigating the use of both abortive and prophylactic medications in children have suffered from high placebo response rates. A diverse group of medications are used to prevent migraine attacks, including antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihistamines and antihypertensive agents, yet there still remains a serious lack of controlled studies on the pharmacological treatment of pediatric migraine.

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: beyond the conventional treatments

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias include cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, and hemicrania continua. While the majority responds to conventional pharmacological treatments, a small but significant proportion of patients are intractable to these treatments. In these cases, alternative choices for these patients include oral and injectable drugs, lesional or resectional surgery, and neurostimulation. The evidence base for conventional treatments is limited, and the evidence for those used beyond convention is more so. At present, the most evidence exists for nerve blocks, deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation in chronic cluster headache, and microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve in short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected.

RESULTS

Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Efficacy and mechanism of anticonvulsant drugs in migraine

Anticonvulsants represent one of the main substance classes used for the preventive treatment of migraine. Efficacy has been demonstrated in randomized placebo-controlled trials for topiramate and valproic acid including divalproex sodium. In the case of topiramate, efficacy has recently been proven for chronic migraine and even medication overuse headache, questioning the established concept of medication withdrawal. However, preventive treatment with anticonvulsants is frequently hampered by side effects that occasionally require treatment discontinuation. In addition, these data indicate that some anticonvulsant drugs are effective in migraine, while a number are clearly not useful. Effective anticonvulsants, such as topiramate and valproate, target nociceptive trigeminovascular and trigeminothalamic dural pathways or mechanisms involved in cortical spreading depression. Dissecting out how the anticonvulsants that do not work differ mechanistically from those that do will almost certainly provide avenues through which one can develop new treatments to bring to patients with migraine.

Gabapentin or pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.