Dataset Information

Randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine vs IV hydromorphone for migraine.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine outcomes among patients with migraine in the emergency department (ED) who receive IV hydromorphone vs IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine.

Methods

This study was conducted in 2 EDs in New York City. Patients who met international criteria for migraine were eligible for participation if they had not used an opioid within the previous month. Clinicians, participants, investigators, and research personnel were blinded to treatment. Patients were randomized in blocks of 4. Participants received hydromorphone 1 mg or prochlorperazine 10 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg. Diphenhydramine was administered to prevent akathisia, a common side effect of IV prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining that level for 48 hours without the requirement of rescue medication. A planned interim analysis was conducted once 48-hour data were available for 120 patients.

Results

The trial was halted by the data monitoring committee after 127 patients had been enrolled. The primary outcome was achieved in the prochlorperazine arm by 37 of 62 (60%) participants and in the hydromorphone arm by 20 of 64 (31%) participants (difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 12-45, number needed to treat 4, 95% confidence interval 2-9).

Conclusions

IV hydromorphone is substantially less effective than IV prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED and should not be used as first-line therapy.

Clinicaltrialsgov identifier

NCT02389829.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients in the ED with migraine, IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine is superior to IV hydromorphone.

SUBMITTER: Friedman BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5711508 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveMore than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief than placebo+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 active treatments for acute migraine in an ED. Eligible patients were adults younger than 65 years presenting with an acute moderate or severe headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of allergic symptoms. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining this level of relief without use of any additional headache medication for 48 hours. Secondary efficacy outcomes included mean improvement on a 0 to 10 verbal scale between baseline and 1 hour, the frequency with which subjects indicated they would want the same medication the next time they present to the ED with migraine, and the ED throughput time. Sample size calculation using a 2-sided α of .05, a β of .20, and a 15% difference between study arms determined the need for 374 patients. An interim analysis was conducted when data were available for 200 subjects.ResultsFour hundred twenty patients were approached for participation. Two hundred eight eligible patients consented to participate and were randomized. At the planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study be halted for futility. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fourteen percent (29/208) of the sample reported allergic symptoms. Of patients randomized to diphenhydramine, 40% (40/100) reported sustained relief at 48 hours, as did 37% (38/103) of patients randomized to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3%: -10% to 16%). One hour after medication administration, patients randomized to diphenhydramine improved by a mean of 5.1 on the 0 to 10 scale versus 4.8 for those randomized to placebo (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.6 to 1.1). Eighty-five percent (84/99) of the patients in the diphenhydramine arm reported they would want the same medication combination during a subsequent ED visit, as did 76% (77/102) of those who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 9%: -2% to 20%). Median ED length of stay was 122 minutes (interquartile range 84 to 180 minutes) in the diphenhydramine group and 139 minutes (interquartile range 90 to 235 minutes) in the placebo arm. Rates of adverse effects, including akathisia, were comparable between the groups.ConclusionIntravenous diphenhydramine, when administered as adjuvant therapy with metoclopramide, does not improve migraine outcomes.

Project description:To compare the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray (NS) vs. placebo and sumatriptan NS for the acute treatment of migraine.This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator, crossover study. Adult migraineurs were randomized to ketorolac NS 31.5 mg, sumatriptan NS 20 mg, or placebo to treat three moderate to severe migraine attacks and switched treatments with each attack. Patients seeking headache care at a headache center or in response to community advertisement were recruited. Adult participants with episodic migraine who experienced ?2 migraine attacks per month were eligible for the Ketorolac vs. Sumatriptan vs. Placebo Nasal Spray migraine study. Participants were randomized to treatment arms by a research pharmacist, in a 1:1:1 ratio using computer-generated lists. The primary outcome was 2-hour pain relief. Secondary outcomes included 2-hour pain freedom and absence of migraine associated symptoms, and 24-hour sustained pain relief and pain freedom.Of the 72 randomized participants, 54 (75%) treated at least one attack and 49 (68%) completed all three treatments, for a total of 152 treated migraine attacks. Both ketorolac NS (72.5%, P?<?.001) and sumatriptan NS (69.4%, P?=?.001) were more effective than placebo (38.3%) for 2-hour pain relief and 2-hour pain freedom (ketorolac: 43.1%, P?=?.004; sumatriptan: 36.7%, P?=?.046; placebo: 18.4%). Ketorolac NS, but not sumatriptan NS, was more effective than placebo in 2-hour absence of nausea. Both ketorolac NS and sumatriptan NS were more effective than placebo for 24-hour sustained pain relief (ketorolac: 49%, P?<?.001; sumatriptan: 31%, P?=?.01, placebo: 20%). Only ketorolac NS was superior to placebo for 24-hour (ketorolac: 35.3%, P?=?.003; sumatriptan: 22.4%, P?=?.18, placebo: 12.2%) sustained pain freedom. Nasal burning and dysgeusia were the most common adverse effects for active treatments.This study supports that ketorolac NS is superior to placebo and that it is non-inferior to sumatriptan NS for the acute abortive treatment of migraine.

Project description:ImportanceNivolumab plus ipilimumab is superior to platinum-based chemotherapy in treatment-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nivolumab is superior to docetaxel in advanced pretreated NSCLC.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab improves survival in patients with advanced, pretreated, immunotherapy-naive squamous (Sq) NSCLC.Design, setting, and participantsThe Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP) S1400I phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 18, 2015, to April 23, 2018, randomizing patients in a 1:1 ratio to nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab. The median follow-up in surviving patients was 29.5 months. The trial was conducted through the National Clinical Trials Network and included patients with advanced immunotherapy-naive SqNSCLC and a Zubrod score of 0 (asymptomatic) to 1 (symptomatic but completely ambulatory) with disease progression after standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified by sex and number of prior therapies (1 vs 2 or more). Data were analyzed from May 3, 2018, to February 1, 2021.InterventionsNivolumab, 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks, with or without ipilimumab, 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks, until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (IA-PFS) and response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines, version 1.1.ResultsOf 275 enrolled patients, 252 (mean age, 67.5 years [range 41.8-90.3 years]; 169 men [67%]; 206 White patients [82%]) were deemed eligible (125 randomized to nivolumab/ipilimumab and 127 to nivolumab). The study was closed for futility at a planned interim analysis. Overall survival was not significantly different between the groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.16; P = .34). Median survival was 10 months (95% CI, 8.0-14.4 months) in the nivolumab/ipilimumab group and 11 months (95% CI, 8.6-13.7 months) in the nivolumab group. The IA-PFS HR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.03; P = .09); median IA-PFS was 3.8 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.4 months) in the nivolumab/ipilimumab group and 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.8-4.0 months) in the nivolumab alone group. Response rates were 18% (95% CI, 12%-25%) with nivolumab/ipilimumab and 17% (95% CI, 10%-23%) with nivolumab. Median response duration was 28.4 months (95% CI, 4.9 months to not reached) with nivolumab/ipilimumab and 9.7 months with nivolumab (95% CI, 4.2-23.1 months). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 49 of 124 patients (39.5%) who received nivolumab/ipilimumab and in 41 of 123 (33.3%) who received nivolumab alone. Toxic effects led to discontinuation in 31 of 124 patients (25%) on nivolumab/ipilimumab and in 19 of 123 (15%) on nivolumab.Conclusions and relevanceIn this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ipilimumab added to nivolumab did not improve outcomes in patients with advanced, pretreated, immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive SqNSCLC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02785952.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of a combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) plus chlorthalidone (diuretic) versus a CCB plus an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients not responding to CCB monotherapy has not been evaluated previously. We plan to compare the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine (CCB) plus chlorthalidone versus S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (ARB) combinations among hypertension patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy.Methods/designThis study is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority phase 4 study. Hypertension patients who have been treated with amlodipine (5 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) monotherapy for ≥2 weeks and whose mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is greater than 90 mmHg will be randomized to either S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus chlorthalidone (25 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus telmisartan (40 mg) therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is mean sitting DBP change after 12 weeks of treatment. The study objective is to prove the non-inferiority of the former combination (test drug) as compared to the latter one (control) with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mmHg in mean DBP change. The secondary endpoints are 6-week DBP change, 6- and 12-week sitting systolic BP (SBP) change, and the attainment of the target BP (SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg). Urine albumin, albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), pulse wave velocity, central BP, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and body fluid composition analysis will be performed at each hospital's discretion. The sample size was estimated as 170 in total with 1:1 randomization.DiscussionThis is the first study comparing the efficacy of a CCB plus chlorthalidone versus a CCB plus an ARB in patients who are not responding to CCB single therapy. The study result will help clinicians to choose between chlorthalidone and telmisartan in CCB-unresponsive patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03226340. Registered on 2 December 2015.

Project description:ImportancePatients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.Design, setting, and participantsThe 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.InterventionsPatients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.ResultsA total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.