Dataset Information

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Jackson JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4501738 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache.

Jackson Jeffrey L JL Cogbill Elizabeth E Santana-Davila Rafael R Eldredge Christina C Collier William W Gradall Andrew A Sehgal Neha N Kuester Jessica J

PloS one 20150714 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications.<h4>Design</h4>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.<h4>Data sources</h4>PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014.<h4>Eligibility ...[more]

PMID: 26172390

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for chronic migraine (CM) prevention. BACKGROUND:The efficacy* of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate has been established in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (*defined as the benefit of treatment under ideal conditions). The effectiveness* of the 2 preventive treatments, however, has not been established (*the benefit of treatment under real-world conditions, representing a blend of efficacy and tolerability). METHODS:In this multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, post-authorization, open-label prospective study (FORWARD; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02191579), we randomized adults with CM (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 3 cycles or topiramate "immediate release" 50-100 mg/day to week 36. Primary outcome measure was proportion of patients achieving ?50% reduction in headache days (weeks 29-32). Missing values were imputed using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) methodology. After 12 weeks, patients initially randomized to topiramate could cross over to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. We monitored and recorded all adverse events (AEs). RESULTS:We enrolled 282 patients (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 140; topiramate, n = 142) and 148 patients completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 120 [86%]; topiramate, n = 28 [20%]). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 7 [5%]; topiramate, n = 27 [19%]) and AEs (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 5 [4%]; topiramate, n = 72 [51%]). Eighty topiramate patients crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA. In the BOCF analysis, a significantly higher proportion of patients randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA experienced ?50% reduction in headache frequency compared with those randomized to topiramate (40% [56/140] vs 12% [17/142], respectively; adjusted OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.7-9.1]; P < .001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was superior to topiramate in meeting secondary endpoints. In a post hoc analysis using observed data, the 50% responder rates at week 12 were 45.6% for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 125) and 29.4% for topiramate (n = 109) (P = .015). AEs were reported by 48% (105/220) of onabotulinumtoxinA and 79% (112/142) of topiramate patients. Results were similar in those who crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS:While using imputation methods of accounting for differences in discontinuation rates, we found onabotulinumtoxinA to have greater clinical utility than topiramate, largely because of tolerability issues associated with the latter and a relatively higher number of onabotulinumtoxinA patients remaining on treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effects of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) for reduction in the severity, frequency of migraine attacks and duration of headache in adult patients with migraine.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO) from inception till December 2019.Study selectionAll randomised control trials comparing CoQ10 with placebo or used as an adjunct treatment included in this meta-analysis. Cross-over designs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.Data synthesisHeterogeneity at face value by comparing populations, settings, interventions and outcomes were measured and statistical heterogeneity was assessed by means of the I2 statistic. The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes were using risk ratios and risk difference, and for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean difference; both with 95% CIs were used. Subgroup analyses were carried out for dosage of CoQ10 and if CoQ10 combined with another supplementation. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the impact risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment of included studies.ResultsSix studies with a total of 371 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There is no statistically significant reduction in severity of migraine headache with CoQ10 supplementation. CoQ10 supplementation reduced the duration of headache attacks compared with the control group (MD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.11; random effects; I2 statistic=0%; p<0.00001). CoQ10 usage reduced the frequency of migraine headache compared with the control group (MD: -1.52; 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.65; random effects; I2 statistic=0%; p<0.001).ConclusionCoQ10 appears to have beneficial effects in reducing duration and frequency of migraine attack.Prospero registration numberCRD42019126127.

Project description:In the Guidance for Industry from the Food and Drug Administration in 2008, excess cardiovascular risk should be ruled out in trials of all new antidiabetic drugs; however, relatively few studies have focused on cardiovascular safety with antidiabetic drug use. We aimed to examine mortality and cardiovascular risk using a network meta-analysis. We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry databases in March 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular risk with the following oral antidiabetic drugs: metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinedione (TZD), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. We assessed the differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and myocardial infarction (MI) among antidiabetic drugs with fixed effect models for direct pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses to integrate direct and indirect comparisons. Of the 101,183 patients in 73 randomized controlled trials, 3,434 (3.4%) died. The relative risks of all-cause mortality with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.68 (95% credible interval: 0.57-0.80), 0.74 (0.49-1.10), 0.63 (0.46-0.87), 0.71 (0.55-0.90), and 0.65 (0.54-0.78), compared with placebo, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The relative risks of cardiovascular-related mortality with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.61 (0.50-0.76), 0.81(0.36-1.90), 0.52(0.31-0.88), 0.66(0.49-0.91), and 0.61(0.48-0.77), compared with placebo, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The relative risks of ACS with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent with that of all-cause mortality. SGLT2 inhibitor use was associated with a lower risk of ACS than the other OADs and placebo. The relative risks of MI with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.77 (0.63-0.93) and 0.75 (0.60-0.94), compared with placebo and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The currently available data provide the evidence of cardiovascular benefit from use of SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with type 2 diabetes, although additional results from ongoing studies will be pivotal.

Project description:Essentials Despite trial data, guidelines have not endorsed direct oral Xa inhibitors above other options. We provide profiles of venous thromboembolism and hemorrhage risk for 12 options. Direct oral Xa inhibitors had a favorable profile compared with low-molecular-weight heparin. Other options did not have favorable profiles compared with low-molecular-weight heparin.Background There are numerous trials and several meta-analyses comparing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis options after total hip and knee replacement (THR and TKR). None have included simultaneous comparison of new with older options. Objective To measure simultaneously the relative risk of VTE and hemorrhage for 12 prophylaxis options. Methods We abstracted VTE and hemorrhage information from randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and June 2016 comparing 12 prophylaxis options. We then constructed networks to compute the relative risk for each option, relative to once-daily dosing with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) Low. Results Main: Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors had the lowest risk of total deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-asymptomatic and symptomatic- (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.57), translating to 53-139 fewer DVTs per 1000 patients. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) titrated to International Normalized Ratio [INR] 2-3 predicted 56% more DVT events (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14-2.14). Aspirin performed similarly (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.34-1.86), although small numbers prohibit firm conclusions. Direct oral Xa inhibitors did not lead to significantly more bleeding (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.79-1.90). Secondary: Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors prevented 4-fold more symptomatic DVTs (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47). Conclusions Relative to LMWH Low, direct oral Xa inhibitors had a more favorable profile of VTE and hemorrhage risk, whereas VKAs had a less favorable profile. The profile of other agents was not more or less favorable. Clinicians should consider these profiles when selecting prophylaxis options.

Project description:ImportanceMigraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Most patients with migraine discontinue medications due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) may provide benefit.ObjectiveTo determine if MBSR improves migraine outcomes and affective/cognitive processes compared with headache education.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial of MBSR vs headache education included 89 adults who experienced between 4 and 20 migraine days per month. There was blinding of participants (to active vs comparator group assignments) and principal investigators/data analysts (to group assignment).InterventionsParticipants underwent MBSR (standardized training in mindfulness/yoga) or headache education (migraine information) delivered in groups that met for 2 hours each week for 8 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in migraine day frequency (baseline to 12 weeks). Secondary outcomes were changes in disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, depression scores, and experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (baseline to 12, 24, and 36 weeks).ResultsMost participants were female (n = 82, 92%), with a mean (SD) age of 43.9 (13.0) years, and had a mean (SD) of 7.3 (2.7) migraine days per month and high disability (Headache Impact Test-6: 63.5 [5.7]), attended class (median attendance, 7 of 8 classes), and followed up through 36 weeks (33 of 45 [73%] of the MBSR group and 32 of 44 [73%] of the headache education group). Participants in both groups had fewer migraine days at 12 weeks (MBSR: -1.6 migraine days per month; 95% CI, -0.7 to -2.5; headache education: -2.0 migraine days per month; 95% CI, -1.1 to -2.9), without group differences (P = .50). Compared with those who participated in headache education, those who participated in MBSR had improvements from baseline at all follow-up time points (reported in terms of point estimates of effect differences between groups) on measures of disability (5.92; 95% CI, 2.8-9.0; P < .001), quality of life (5.1; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P = .01), self-efficacy (8.2; 95% CI, 0.3-16.1; P = .04), pain catastrophizing (5.8; 95% CI, 2.9-8.8; P < .001), depression scores (1.6; 95% CI, 0.4-2.7; P = .008), and decreased experimentally induced pain intensity and unpleasantness (MBSR group: 36.3% [95% CI, 12.3% to 60.3%] decrease in intensity and 30.4% [95% CI, 9.9% to 49.4%] decrease in unpleasantness; headache education group: 13.5% [95% CI, -9.9% to 36.8%] increase in intensity and an 11.2% [95% CI, -8.9% to 31.2%] increase in unpleasantness; P = .004 for intensity and .005 for unpleasantness, at 36 weeks). One reported adverse event was deemed unrelated to study protocol.Conclusions and relevanceMindfulness-based stress reduction did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education, as both groups had similar decreases; however, MBSR improved disability, quality of life, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, and depression out to 36 weeks, with decreased experimentally induced pain suggesting a potential shift in pain appraisal. In conclusion, MBSR may help treat total migraine burden, but a larger, more definitive study is needed to further investigate these results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02695498.

Project description:BackgroundMigraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) are common headache disorders, although the large overlap of symptoms between them makes differential diagnosis challenging. To strengthen differential diagnosis, physical testing has been used to examine for the presence of musculoskeletal impairments in both conditions. This review aimed to systematically evaluate differences in physical examination findings between people with migraine, CGH and asymptomatic individuals.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Downs and Black Scale for non-randomized controlled trials, and with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. When possible, meta-analyses with random effect models was performed.ResultsFrom 19,682 articles, 62 studies were included in this review and 41 were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed: a) decreased range of motion [°] (ROM) on the flexion-rotation test (FRT) (17.67, 95%CI:13.69,21.65) and reduced neck flexion strength [N] (23.81, 95%CI:8.78,38.85) in CGH compared to migraine; b) compared to controls, migraineurs exhibit reduced flexion ROM [°] (- 2.85, 95%CI:-5.12,-0.58), lateral flexion ROM [°] (- 2.17, 95% CI:-3.75,-0.59) and FRT [°] (- 8.96, 95%CI:-13.22,-4.69), reduced cervical lordosis angle [°] (- 0.89, 95%CI:-1.72,-0.07), reduced pressure pain thresholds over the cranio-cervical region [kg/cm2], reduced neck extension strength [N] (- 11.13, 95%CI:-16.66,-5.6) and increased activity [%] of the trapezius (6.18, 95%CI:2.65,9.71) and anterior scalene muscles (2.87, 95%CI:0.81,4.94) during performance of the cranio-cervical flexion test; c) compared to controls, CGH patients exhibit decreased neck flexion (- 33.70, 95%CI:-47.23,-20.16) and extension (- 55.78, 95%CI:-77.56,-34.00) strength [N].ConclusionThe FRT and neck flexion strength could support the differential diagnosis of CGH from migraine. Several physical tests were found to differentiate both headache types from asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, additional high-quality studies are required to corroborate these findings.Study registrationFollowing indications of Prisma-P guidelines, this protocol was registered in PROSPERO on 21/05/2019 with the number CRD42019135269 . All amendments performed during the review were registered in PROSPERO, indicating the date and what and why was changed.

Dataset Information

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure