Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant for the acute treatment of migraine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Connor KM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2754336 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant for the acute treatment of migraine.
Connor K M KM Shapiro R E RE Diener H-C HC Lucas S S Kost J J Fan X X Fei K K Assaid C C Lines C C Ho Tony W TW
Neurology 20090901 12
<h4>Background</h4>The neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in migraine pathophysiology. In this large phase 3 clinical trial, we sought to confirm the efficacy of telcagepant, the first orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonist.<h4>Methods</h4>Adults with migraine with or without aura (International Headache Society criteria) treated a moderate or severe attack with oral telcagepant 50 mg (n = 177), 150 mg (n = 381), 300 mg (n = 371), or placebo (n = 365) in a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used for migraine, but gastrointestinal tolerability limits use. We previously reported results from the first treatment period of this 2-period, randomized, controlled study comparing DFN-15-an oral, ready-made liquid solution of a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib-with placebo for the acute treatment of a moderate-severe migraine attack. Herein, we report the effects of treatment for the second treatment period.MethodsIn the first treatment period of this trial, adults with migraine were randomized to double-blind trial treatment of attacks of moderate or severe pain with DFN-15,120 mg or placebo. For the second treatment period, reported herein, participants were re-randomized to treat an attack of any baseline pain intensity (mild, moderate, or severe). Co-primary efficacy endpoints specified for the first attack were not specified for the second attack.ResultsOf the 531 patients who completed the first treatment period, 491 (n = 243 DFN-15; n = 248 placebo; 87% female, mean age 41 years) were re-randomized into the second double-blind treatment period. Baseline pain intensity was mild in 17.2% (85/493) of patients, moderate in 58.4% (288/493) of patients, and severe in 22.9% (113/493) of patients. At 2 hours post-dose, DFN-15 was superior to placebo for freedom from pain (46.2% [110/238] vs 31.1% [76/244], p ≤ 0.001) and the most bothersome symptom (63.4% [121/191] vs 50.0% [98/196], p = 0.010). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 7.1% (35/493) of patients (DFN-15: 6.1% [15/244]; placebo 8.0% [20/249]). Study drug-related TEAEs occurred in 5.1% (25/493) of patients (DFN-15: 4.5% [11/244]; placebo 5.6% [14/249]); nausea (1% [5/493]) and dysgeusia (0.8% [4/493]) were most common. No serious TEAEs, severe TEAEs, or TEAEs leading to study drug termination were reported.ConclusionsDFN-15 was superior to placebo for pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom when patients treat a migraine attack of any baseline pain intensity. Rates of TEAEs did not differ between treatment groups.
| S-EPMC7920610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreclinical and retrospective studies suggest cannabinoids may be effective in migraine treatment. However, there have been no randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute migraine.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, adults with migraine treated up to 4 separate migraine attacks, 1 each with vaporized 1) 6% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-dominant); 2) 11% cannabidiol (CBD-dominant); 3) 6% THC+11% CBD; and 4) placebo cannabis flower in a randomized order. Washout period between treated attack was ≥1 week. The primary endpoint was pain relief and secondary endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, all assessed at 2 hours post-vaporization.ResultsNinety-two participants were enrolled and randomized, and 247 migraine attacks were treated. THC+CBD was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 2.85 [1.22, 6.65], p=0.016), pain freedom (34.5% vs. 15.5%, 3.30 [1.24, 8.80], p=0.017) and MBS freedom (60.3% vs. 34.5%, 3.32 [1.45, 7.64], p=0.005) at 2 hours, as well as sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. THC-dominant was superior to placebo for pain relief (68.9% vs. 46.6%, 3.14 [1.35, 7.30], p=0.008) but not pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. CBD-dominant was not superior to placebo for pain relief, pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. There were no serious adverse events.ConclusionsAcute migraine treatment with 6% THC+11% CBD was superior to placebo at 2 hours post-treatment with sustained benefits at 24 and 48 hours.
| S-EPMC10889030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of external trigeminal nerve stimulation for acute pain relief during migraine attacks with or without aura via a sham-controlled trial.MethodsThis was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study conducted across three headache centers in the United States. Adult patients who were experiencing an acute migraine attack with or without aura were recruited on site and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either verum or sham external trigeminal nerve stimulation treatment (CEFALY Technology) for 1 hour. Pain intensity was scored using a visual analogue scale (0 = no pain to 10 = maximum pain). The primary outcome measure was the mean change in pain intensity at 1 hour compared to baseline.ResultsA total of 109 participants were screened between February 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Of these, 106 patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (verum: n = 52; sham: n = 54). The primary outcome measure was significantly more reduced in the verum group than in the sham group: -3.46 ± 2.32 versus -1.78 ± 1.89 ( p < 0.0001), or -59% versus -30% ( p < 0.0001). With regards to migraine subgroups, there was a significant difference in pain reduction between verum and sham for 'migraine without aura' attacks: mean visual analogue scale reduction at 1 hour was -3.3 ± 2.4 for the verum group versus -1.7 ± 1.9 for the sham group ( p = 0.0006). For 'migraine with aura' attacks, pain reduction was numerically greater for verum versus sham, but did not reach significance: mean visual analogue scale reduction at 1 hour was -4.3 ± 1.8 for the verum group versus -2.6 ± 1.9 for the sham group ( p = 0.060). No serious adverse events were reported and five minor adverse events occurred in the verum group.ConclusionOne-hour treatment with external trigeminal nerve stimulation resulted in significant headache pain relief compared to sham stimulation and was well tolerated, suggesting it may be a safe and effective acute treatment for migraine attacks.Study protocolClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02590939.
| S-EPMC6348457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Migraine is one of the most common and debilitating neurological disorders worldwide. External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-pharmacological, non-invasive therapeutic alternative for patients with migraine. The TEAM study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, Phase 3 trial for 2-h, continuous, e-TNS treatment of a single moderate or severe migraine attack at home. A total of 538 adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria for 2-8 migraine headache days per month were recruited and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2-h active or sham stimulation. Migraine pain levels and most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBS) were recorded at baseline, 2 h, and 24 h using a paper diary. The primary endpoints for the study were pain freedom at 2 h and freedom from the MBS at 2 h. The secondary endpoints were pain relief at 2 h, absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBSs) at 2 h, acute medication use within 24 h after treatment, sustained pain freedom at 24 h, and sustained pain relief at 24 h. Adverse event data was also collected and compared between groups. Five hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to either the verum (n = 259) or sham (n = 279) group and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The percentage of patients with pain freedom at 2 h was 7.2% higher in verum (25.5%) compared to sham (18.3%; p = 0.043). Resolution of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom was 14.1% higher in verum (56.4%) compared to sham (42.3%; p = 0.001). With regards to secondary outcomes, pain relief at 2 h was 14.3% higher in verum (69.5%) than sham (55.2%; p = 0.001), absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h was 8.4% higher in verum (42.5%) than sham (34.1%; p = 0.044), sustained pain freedom and pain relief at 24 h was 7.0% and 11.5% higher in verum (22.8 and 45.9%) than sham (15.8 and 34.4%; p = 0.039 and .006, respectively). No serious adverse events were reported. Treatment with 2-h e-TNS is a safe and effective, non-invasive, and non-pharmacological alternative for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in an at-home setting.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03465904. Registered 14/03/2018. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03465904 .
| S-EPMC8948251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the relief of migraine pain, especially in the acute phase, by comparing active treatment, ie, kinetic oscillation stimulation (KOS) in the nasal cavity, with placebo.BackgroundExploratory trials testing the efficacy of KOS on migraine patients indicated that this treatment could be a fast-acting remedy for acute migraine pain.MethodThirty-six patients were randomized 1:1 using a placebo module to active or placebo treatment in this double-blinded parallel design study. Treatment was administered with a minimally invasive inflatable tip oscillating catheter. Symptom scores (0-10 visual analog scale) were obtained before treatment, every 5 minutes during treatment, at 15 minutes, 2, and 24 hours post-treatment, as well as daily (0-3 migraine pain scale) from 30 days pretreatment until Day 60 post. Thirty-five patients were evaluated (active n=18, placebo n=17). The primary end-point was the change in average pain score from before treatment to 15 minutes after treatment.ResultsPatients who received active treatment reported reduced pain, eg, average visual analog scale pain scores fell from 5.5 before treatment to 1.2 15 minutes after, while the corresponding scores for recipients of placebo fell from 4.9 to 3.9. The changes in pain scores differed between the 2 treatments by 3.3 points (95% confidence interval: 2.3, 4.4), P<.001. Already 5 minutes into the treatment, the difference (1.9 points) was significant (P=.007). The difference was likewise significant at 2 hours post-treatment (3.7 points, P<.001). One patient experienced an adverse event (a vasovagal reaction with full spontaneous recovery) during placebo treatment.ConclusionKOS is an effective and safe treatment for acute migraine pain.
| S-EPMC4312979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Impaired brain oxygen delivery can trigger and exacerbate migraine attacks. Normoxic hypercapnia increases brain oxygen delivery markedly by vasodilation of the cerebral vasculature, and hypercapnia has been shown to abort migraine attacks. Stable normoxic hypercapnia can be induced by a compact partial rebreathing device. This pilot study aimed to provide initial data on the device's efficacy and safety. Methods Using a double-blinded, randomized, cross-over study design, adult migraine-with-aura patients self-administered the partial rebreathing device or a sham device for 20 minutes at the onset of aura symptoms. Results Eleven participants (mean age 35.5, three men) self-treated 41 migraine attacks (20 with the partial rebreathing device, 21 with sham). The partial rebreathing device increased mean End Tidal CO2 by 24%, while retaining mean oxygen saturation above 97%. The primary end point (headache intensity difference between first aura symptoms and two hours after treatment (0-3 scale) - active/sham difference) did not reach statistical significance (-0.55 (95% CI: -1.13-0.04), p?=?0.096), whereas the difference in percentage of attacks with pain relief at two hours was significant ( p?=?0.043), as was user satisfaction ( p?=?0.022). A marked efficacy increase was seen from first to second time use of the partial rebreathing device. No adverse events occurred, and side effects were absent or mild. Conclusion Normoxic hypercapnia shows promise as an adjunctive/alternative migraine treatment, meriting further investigation in a larger population. Clinical study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03472417.
| S-EPMC6158684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture is commonly used to treat migraine. We assessed the efficacy of acupuncture at migraine-specific acupuncture points compared with other acupuncture points and sham acupuncture.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, single-blind randomized controlled trial. In total, 480 patients with migraine were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture, Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture, Yangming-specific acupuncture or sham acupuncture [control]). All groups received 20 treatments, which included electrical stimulation, over a period of four weeks. The primary outcome was the number of days with a migraine experienced during weeks 5-8 after randomization. Our secondary outcomes included the frequency of migraine attack, migraine intensity and migraine-specific quality of life.ResultsCompared with patients in the control group, patients in the acupuncture groups reported fewer days with a migraine during weeks 5-8, however the differences between treatments were not significant (p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the number of days with a migraine during weeks 13-16 in all acupuncture groups compared with control (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture v. control: difference -1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.77 to -0.5], p = 0.003; Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture v. control: difference -1.22 [95% CI -1.92 to -0.52], p < 0.001; Yangming-specific acupuncture v. control: difference -0.91 [95% CI -1.61 to -0.21], p = 0.011). We found that there was a significant, but not clinically relevant, benefit for almost all secondary outcomes in the three acupuncture groups compared with the control group. We found no relevant differences between the three acupuncture groups.InterpretationAcupuncture tested appeared to have a clinically minor effect on migraine prophylaxis compared with sham acupuncture.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00599586.
| S-EPMC3291669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:People with migraine often experience disability with serious consequences for their social life and work productivity. The pharmacological prophylactic management of migraine is effective in reducing migraine attacks. However, many people are reluctant to use daily prophylactic medication, leading to a demand for non-pharmacological treatment options. We present the design for and discuss the feasibility of a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a multimodal manual therapy (MT) treatment compared to usual care by the general practitioner (GP) for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. METHODS:Eligible participants will be recruited in primary care using the International Classification of Headache Disorders III criteria for migraine of the International Headache Society. Participants will be randomized to either multimodal MT treatment or usual care provided by the GP. GPs will be asked to treat the usual care group according to the Dutch GP guideline for headache. The multimodal MT intervention will include manual pressure techniques, neck muscle-strength exercises and mobilization of the cervical and thoracic spine. The trial will consist of a 12-week treatment period and follow-up measurements at 12, 26 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the number of migraine days per 4 weeks, assessed with a headache diary. Secondary outcome measures are the number of migraine attacks, medication use, disability due to headache, headache intensity, number of participants reporting a 50% migraine reduction, measurement of cervical pressure pain thresholds, presence of allodynia, endurance of cervical flexor muscles, days of absence of work and global perceived effect. DISCUSSION:The results of the trial will show whether a multimodal MT intervention is an effective non-pharmacological treatment option for people with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Dutch Trial Register, NL7504. Registered on 7 February 2019.
| S-EPMC6935086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine.BackgroundThere is a significant unmet need for novel effective well-tolerated acute migraine treatments. REN is a novel acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation - an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. A recent pilot study showed that REN can significantly reduce headache. We have conducted a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of REN for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study conducted at 7 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Israel. Two hundred and fifty-two adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with 2-8 migraine headaches per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham stimulation. A smartphone-controlled wireless device was applied for 30-45 minutes on the upper arm within 1 hour of attack onset; electrical stimulation was at a perceptible but non-painful intensity level. Migraine pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2, and 48 hours post-treatment. Most bothersome symptoms (MBS) were also recorded. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving pain relief at 2 hours post-treatment (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or none, or from mild pain to none). Relief of MBS and pain-free at 2 hours were key secondary endpoints.ResultsActive stimulation was more effective than sham stimulation in achieving pain relief (66.7% [66/99] vs 38.8% [40/103]; therapeutic gain of 27.9% [CI95% , 15.6-40.2]; P < .0001), pain-free (37.4% vs 18.4%, P = .003), and MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%, P = .0008) at 2 hours post-treatment. The pain relief and pain-free superiority of the active treatment was sustained 48 hours post-treatment. The incidence of device-related adverse events was low and similar between treatment groups (4.8% [6/126] vs 2.4% [3/126], P = .499).ConclusionsREN provides superior clinically meaningful relief of migraine pain and MBS compared to placebo, offering a safe and effective non-pharmacological alternative for acute migraine treatment.
| S-EPMC6767146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zavegepant nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine.BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting agents are a novel class of therapeutics for migraine, but none are currently available as a nonoral option for acute treatment. Zavegepant, a high-affinity, selective, and structurally unique calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonist in late-stage development, is formulated as a nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, Phase 2/3 trial in adults aged ≥18 years with migraine (NCT03872453) was conducted at US study sites. Participants were randomized by an interactive web response system and treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain intensity with zavegepant nasal spray 5, 10, 20 mg, or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose.ResultsOf the 1673 participants aged 18 to 79 years who were randomized, 1588 were treated with study medication, and 1581 (mean age 40.8 years, 85.5% female) were analyzed for efficacy: zavegepant 5 mg (n = 387), 10 mg (n = 391), 20 mg (n = 402), and placebo (n = 401). Zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on the coprimary endpoints of pain freedom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 15.5% [98.3% confidence interval (CI), 11.1, 19.8]; 10 mg: 22.5% [98.3% CI, 17.5, 27.6; p = 0.0113]; 20 mg: 23.1% [98.3% CI, 18.1, 28.2; p = 0.0055]) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 33.7% [98.3% CI, 28.0, 39.3]; 10 mg: 41.9% [98.3% CI, 36.0, 47.9; p = 0.0155]; 20 mg: 42.5% [98.3% CI, 36.6, 48.4; p = 0.0094]). Findings for the 5 mg dose were not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with zavegepant 10 and 20 mg and placebo were dysgeusia (13.5% to 16.1% vs. 3.5%), nausea (2.7% to 4.1% vs. 0.5%), and nasal discomfort (1.3% to 5.2% vs. 0.2%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. There was no signal of hepatotoxicity.ConclusionZavegepant nasal spray, in single doses of 10 or 20 mg, was effective for the acute treatment of migraine, with a favorable safety profile. Additional research is needed to confirm its potential as a nonoral medication for the acute treatment of migraine.
| S-EPMC9827820 | biostudies-literature