Dataset Information

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.

Objective

To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.

Data sources

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).

Results

Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.

Conclusions and relevance

Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

SUBMITTER: Locher C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042942 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Locher Cosima C Kossowsky Joe J Koechlin Helen H Lam Thanh Lan TL Barthel Johannes J Berde Charles B CB Gaab Jens J Schwarzer Guido G Linde Klaus K Meissner Karin K

JAMA pediatrics 20200401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studi ...[more]

PMID: 32040139

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSystematic review of preventive pharmacologic treatments for community-dwelling adults with episodic migraine.Data sourcesElectronic databases through May 20, 2012.Eligibility criteriaEnglish-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs compared to placebo or active treatments examining rates of ?50 % reduction in monthly migraine frequency or improvement in quality of life.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence and conducted random effects meta-analyses of absolute risk differences and Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsOf 5,244 retrieved references, 215 publications of RCTs provided mostly low-strength evidence because of the risk of bias and imprecision. RCTs examined 59 drugs from 14 drug classes. All approved drugs, including topiramate (9 RCTs), divalproex (3 RCTs), timolol (3 RCTs), and propranolol (4 RCTs); off-label beta blockers metoprolol (4 RCTs), atenolol (1 RCT), nadolol (1 RCT), and acebutolol (1 RCT); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril (1 RCT) and lisinopril (1 RCT); and angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan (1 RCT), outperformed placebo in reducing monthly migraine frequency by ?50 % in 200-400 patients per 1,000 treated. Adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation (68 RCTs) were greater with topiramate, off-label antiepileptics, and antidepressants than with placebo. Limited direct evidence as well as frequentist and exploratory network Bayesian meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in benefits between approved drugs. Off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers were most effective and tolerable for episodic migraine prevention.LimitationsWe did not quantify reporting bias or contact principal investigators regarding unpublished trials.ConclusionsApproved drugs prevented episodic migraine frequency by ?50 % with no statistically significant difference between them. Exploratory network meta-analysis suggested that off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers had favorable benefit-to-harm ratios. Evidence is lacking for long-term effects of drug treatments (i.e., trials of more than 3 months duration), especially for quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories. However, in contrast to ordinary migraine, vestibular migraine patients have distinct characteristics, and the detailed treatment strategy for vestibular migraine is different and more challenging than ordinary migraine treatment. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence regarding its management, including vestibular migraine prophylaxis.AimThe objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a final literature search date of 30 December 2022. Patients diagnosed with vestibular migraine were included. The PICO of the current study included (1) patients with vestibular migraine; (2) intervention: any active pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic intervention; (3) comparator: placebo-control, active control, or waiting list; and (4) outcome: changes in migraine frequency or severity. This NMA of RCTs of vestibular migraine treatment was conducted using a frequentist model. We arranged inconsistency and similarity tests to re-examine the assumption of NMA, and also conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on RCTs of pharmacological treatment for vestibular migraine management. The primary outcome was changes in the frequency of vestibular migraines, while the secondary outcomes were changes in vestibular migraine severity and acceptability. Acceptability was set as the dropout rate, which was defined as the participant leaving the study before the end of the trial for any reason. Two authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for each domain using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials (N = 828, mean age 37.6 years, 78.4% female) and seven active regimens were included. We determined that only valproic acid (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.69, -0.54), propranolol (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -2.55, -0.17), and venlafaxine (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.32, -0.18) were significantly associated with better improvement in vestibular migraine frequency than the placebo/control groups. Furthermore, among all the investigated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments, valproic acid yielded the greatest decrease in vestibular migraine frequency among all the interventions. In addition, most pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments were associated with similar acceptability (i.e. dropout rate) as those of the placebo/control groups.ConclusionsThe current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.Trial registrationCRD42023388343.

Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsData included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings.ResultsAcross 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant.ConclusionsThe efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words.

Project description:BackgroundCumulative exposure to one or more anticholinergic medications ("anticholinergic burden") is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, particularly among older individuals. Mirabegron, an oral selective β3-adrenergic receptor agonist, has demonstrated efficacy in managing the symptoms of overactive bladder without contributing to anticholinergic burden. However, it is not known whether the favorable safety profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics varies with increasing age among a patient population who may have a high anticholinergic burden.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to indirectly compare the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics in older adults with overactive bladder.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that reported safety and efficacy endpoints among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Identified randomized controlled trials were subsequently synthesized via a network meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines in designing, performing, and reporting the literature review were followed. In line with current best practices, the network meta-analysis was conducted using a Bayesian approach and according to the overall general guidance for evidence synthesis developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision support unit. Estimates of relative safety were assessed via the odds ratio and estimates of relative efficacy were assessed via means and credible intervals.ResultsA total of 3078 abstracts, 300 of which underwent full-text screening, were identified using the search criteria. Twenty articles reporting on 21 randomized controlled trials were eligible for data extraction and synthesis. Following review, five safety and five efficacy endpoints were considered for inclusion in the network meta-analysis. Regarding findings typical of anticholinergic exposure in older adults, mirabegron was not associated with an increased odds of dry mouth (odds ratio 95% credible interval 0.76 [0.26-2.37]) or constipation (1.08 [0.39-3.02]) relative to placebo, whereas antimuscarinics were strongly associated with these events (odds ratio range 3.78-7.85 and 2.12-4.66, respectively). In this older population, mirabegron was associated with a similar odds of experiencing adverse event-related treatment discontinuations relative to placebo (0.99 [0.57-1.70]), while the odds of experiencing an adverse event-related treatment discontinuation for antimuscarinics had a range of 1.14-3.03 (in most cases, the association was mild). No increased odds of experiencing overall treatment-emergent adverse events was observed for mirabegron or antimuscarinics (odds ratio range 1.25-1.55), apart from fesoterodine (2.23 [1.37-3.37]). Finally, a similar treatment effect was observed across all efficacy endpoints between mirabegron and antimuscarinics in this older population.ConclusionsThis study indicates that the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron remains favorable compared with antimuscarinics among older adults. This includes safety outcomes typically associated with anticholinergic burden, which were less frequently observed in patients treated with mirabegron.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.ResultsSeventy two trials including 12?660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).ConclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Dataset Information

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets