Dataset Information

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

Objective

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

Data sources

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

Data extraction and synthesis

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

Findings

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

Conclusions and relevance

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

SUBMITTER: VanderPluym JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8207243 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:IntroductionThe inhibition of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway has attracted interest in pharmacological research on migraine. Atogepant is a potent, selective, orally available antagonist of the CGRP receptor approved as a preventive treatment of episodic migraine. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adult patients.MethodsRandomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blinded trials were identified through a systematic literature search (December week 4, 2021). Main outcomes included the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and treatment withdrawal due to AEs. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated.ResultsTwo trials were included, overall enrolling 1550 patients. A total of 408 participants were randomized to placebo, 314 to atogepant 10 mg, 411 to atogepant 30 mg, and 417 to atogepant 60 mg once daily. The mean age of the patients was 41.0 years and 87.7% were women. The reduction in the mean number of migraine days from baseline across the 12-week treatment period was significantly greater among patients treated with atogepant at either the daily dose of 10 mg (MD - 1.16, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.73, p < 0.001), 30 mg (MD - 1.15, 95% CI - 1.54 to - 0.76, p < 0.001), or 60 mg (MD - 1.20, 95% CI - 2.18 to - 0.22, p = 0.016) than with placebo. There were no differences in the occurrence of AEs and drug withdrawal due to AEs between atogepant and placebo groups. Constipation was more commonly observed in patients treated with atogepant at 30 mg/day than placebo (RR 5.19, 95% CI 2.00-13.46; p = 0.001). Treatment with atogepant at the daily dose of 60 mg was associated with a higher risk of constipation (RR 4.92, 95% CI 1.89-12.79; p = 0.001) and nausea (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.47-5.06; p = 0.001) than placebo.ConclusionAtogepant is an efficacious and overall well-tolerated treatment for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.

Project description:Evidence has suggested that physical and sexual activity might be triggers of acute cardiac events.To assess the effect of episodic physical and sexual activity on acute cardiac events using data from case-crossover studies.MEDLINE and EMBASE (through February 2, 2011) and Web of Science (through October 6, 2010).Case-crossover studies investigating the association between episodic physical or sexual activity and myocardial infarction (MI) or sudden cardiac death (SCD).Two reviewers extracted descriptive and quantitative information from each study. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) using random-effects meta-analysis and absolute event rates based on US data for the incidence of MI and SCD. We used the Fisher P value synthesis method to test whether habitual physical activity levels modify the triggering effect and meta-regression to quantify the interaction between habitual levels of physical activity and the triggering effect.We identified 10 studies investigating episodic physical activity, 3 studies investigating sexual activity, and 1 study investigating both exposures. The outcomes of interest were MI (10 studies), acute coronary syndrome (1 study), and SCD (3 studies). Episodic physical and sexual activity were associated with an increase in the risk of MI (RR = 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33-5.13, and RR = 2.70; 95% CI, 1.48-4.91, respectively). Episodic physical activity was associated with SCD (RR = 4.98; 95% CI, 1.47-16.91). The effect of triggers on the absolute rate of events was limited because exposure to physical and sexual activity is infrequent and their effect is transient; the absolute risk increase associated with 1 hour of additional physical or sexual activity per week was estimated as 2 to 3 per 10,000 person-years for MI and 1 per 10,000 person-years for SCD. Habitual activity levels significantly affected the association of episodic physical activity and MI (P < .001), episodic physical activity and SCD (P < .001), and sexual activity and MI (P = .04); in all cases, individuals with lower habitual activity levels had an increased RR for the triggering effect. For every additional time per week an individual was habitually exposed to physical activity, the RR for MI decreased by approximately 45%, and the RR for SCD decreased by 30%.Acute cardiac events were significantly associated with episodic physical and sexual activity; this association was attenuated among persons with high levels of habitual physical activity.

Project description:ImportanceMigraine 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.ObjectiveTo examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.Study selectionRandomized 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 synthesisData 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 measuresPrimary 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).ResultsTwenty-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 relevanceProphylactic 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.

Project description:ImportanceIn the US and the United Kingdom, cocaine use is the second leading cause of illicit drug overdose death. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine use disorder are limited, and no pharmacotherapy is approved for use in the US or Europe.ObjectiveTo compare treatments for active cocaine use among adults.Data sourcesPubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for clinical trials published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017.Study selectionThis meta-analysis was registered on Covidence.org (study 8731) on December 31, 2015. Clinical trials were included if they (1) had the term cocaine in the article title; (2) were published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017; (3) were written in English; (4) enrolled outpatients 18 years or older with active cocaine use at baseline; and (5) reported treatment group size, treatment duration, retention rates, and urinalysis results for the presence of cocaine metabolites. A study was excluded if (1) more than 25% of participants were not active cocaine users or more than 80% of participants had negative test results for the presence of cocaine metabolites at baseline and (2) it reported only pooled urinalysis results indicating the presence of multiple substances and did not report the specific proportion of positive test results for cocaine metabolites. Multiple reviewers reached criteria consensus. Of 831 records screened, 157 studies (18.9%) met selection criteria and were included in the analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThis study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were imported from PubMed XML into Covidence.org then Microsoft Excel. Data extraction was completed in 2 iterations to ensure fidelity. Analyses included a multilevel random-effects model, a multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression model, and sensitivity analyses. Treatments were clustered into 11 categories (psychotherapy, contingency management programs, placebo, opioids, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, dopamine agonists, antidepressants, antipsychotics, miscellaneous medications, and other therapies). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. The significance threshold for all analyses was P = .05. Data were analyzed using the metafor and mice packages in R software, version 3.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the intention-to-treat logarithm of the odds ratio (OR) of having a negative urinalysis result for the presence of cocaine metabolites at the end of each treatment period compared with baseline. The hypothesis, which was formulated after data collection, was that no treatment category would have a significant association with objective reductions in cocaine use.ResultsA total of 157 studies comprising 402 treatment groups and 15 842 participants were included. Excluding other therapies, the largest treatment groups across all studies were psychotherapy (mean [SD] number of participants, 40.04 [36.88]) and contingency management programs (mean [SD] number of participants, 37.51 [25.51]). Only contingency management programs were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having a negative test result for the presence of cocaine (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.62-2.80), and this association remained significant in all sensitivity analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, contingency management programs were associated with reductions in cocaine use among adults. Research efforts and policies that align with this treatment modality may benefit those who actively use cocaine and attenuate societal burdens.

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:BackgroundMigraine is a chronic paroxysmal incapacitating neurological disorder, which endangers the health of human worldwide ranking as the third most prevalent medical condition. There are no comprehensive estimates of treatments for migraine. We will conduct this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesis quantitative and comparative evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for migraine.MethodWe will perform the systematic electronic search of the literature utilizing MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL), and PsycINFO. We will only include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of high quality which appraise the efficacy or safety of any potential pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in the treatment of patients with migraine. The traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed to anticipate the heterogeneities and publication bias and the NMA will be conducted within a Bayesian hierarchical model framework to obtain estimates for all valuable treatments for migraine. The entire heterogeneity will be quantified by Q statistic and I2 index. Other analyses included sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses will also be conducted. The whole process will be conducted using in R-3.6.0 software.ResultsThis study will obtain the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine, aiming at providing consolidated evidence to help make the best choice of interventions. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.DiscussionThis Bayesian network meta-analysis may be the first attempt to quantitatively synthesize the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine. And this method can ensure us to fully utilize both the direct and indirect evidence as well as gain the comparative estimates displayed in the derived hierarchies. Besides, we have registered this protocol on the international prospective register of systematic review (PROSPERO) (CRD42020157278).