-
JAMA Network Open Oct 2021New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34633423
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28544 -
Headache Apr 2019Several small studies have suggested that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment for reducing migraine pain and disability. We performed a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several small studies have suggested that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment for reducing migraine pain and disability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the evidence regarding spinal manipulation as an alternative or integrative therapy in reducing migraine pain and disability.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical trials that evaluated spinal manipulation and migraine-related outcomes through April 2017. Search terms included: migraine, spinal manipulation, manual therapy, chiropractic, and osteopathic. Meta-analytic methods were employed to estimate the effect sizes (Hedges' g) and heterogeneity (I ) for migraine days, pain, and disability. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was examined following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
Our search identified 6 RCTs (pooled n = 677; range of n = 42-218) eligible for meta-analysis. Intervention duration ranged from 2 to 6 months; outcomes included measures of migraine days (primary outcome), migraine pain/intensity, and migraine disability. Methodological quality varied across the studies. For example, some studies received high or unclear bias scores for methodological features such as compliance, blinding, and completeness of outcome data. Due to high levels of heterogeneity when all 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis, the 1 RCT performed only among chronic migraineurs was excluded. Heterogeneity across the remaining studies was low. We observed that spinal manipulation reduced migraine days with an overall small effect size (Hedges' g = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.53, -0.16, P < .001) as well as migraine pain/intensity.
CONCLUSIONS
Spinal manipulation may be an effective therapeutic technique to reduce migraine days and pain/intensity. However, given the limitations to studies included in this meta-analysis, we consider these results to be preliminary. Methodologically rigorous, large-scale RCTs are warranted to better inform the evidence base for spinal manipulation as a treatment for migraine.
Topics: Humans; Manipulation, Spinal; Migraine Disorders; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 30973196
DOI: 10.1111/head.13501 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2023Direct comparisons of the tolerability and safety of migraine preventive treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway are lacking. This study aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Direct comparisons of the tolerability and safety of migraine preventive treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway are lacking. This study aimed to compare the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and gepants in migraine prevention.
METHODS
A network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) and gepants (atogepant, rimegepant) in migraine prevention was performed. Primary outcomes were treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and individual adverse events.
RESULTS
We included 19 randomized controlled trials, comprising 14,584 patients. Atogepant 120 mg (OR 2.22, 95% CI [1.26, 3.91]) and galcanezumab 240 mg (OR 1.63, 95% CI [1.33, 2.00]) showed the largest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events compared to placebo. While eptinezumab 30 mg had greater odds of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR 2.62, 95% CI [1.03,6.66]). No significant differences in serious adverse events were found between active treatments and placebo. Eptinezumab was associated with the lowest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events compared to placebo, whereas erenumab was associated with the lowest odds of any adverse events and quarterly fremanezumab with the lowest odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway and gepants are a safe and well tolerated option for migraine prevention.
Topics: Humans; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Migraine Disorders; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 36786548
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231152169 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2023(1) Objective: The aim of this study is to synthesize the effects of physical therapy on pain, frequency, or duration management in the short, medium, and long term in... (Review)
Review
(1) Objective: The aim of this study is to synthesize the effects of physical therapy on pain, frequency, or duration management in the short, medium, and long term in adult patients diagnosed with Tension-type headache (TTH). (2) Background: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common headache with migraine and its pathophysiology and treatment has been discussed for years without reaching a consensus. (3) Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020175020). The systematic search for clinical trials was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, SciELO and Dialnet. Articles were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, regarding the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions on adult patients with TTH published in the last 11 years with a score ≥ 6 in the PEDro Scale (Physiotherapy Evidence Database). (4) Results: In total, 120 articles were identified, of which 15 randomized controlled trials were finally included in order to determine the inclusion criteria. Changes in pain intensity, headache frequency or headache duration of individual studies were described (5) Conclusions: This systematic review shows that there is no standardized physical therapy protocol for the approach to tension headache, although all the techniques studied to date address in one way or another the cranio-cervical-mandibular region. The approach to the cranio-cervical-mandibular region reports significant effects in terms of decreasing the intensity of pain and frequency of headache episodes in the short and medium term. More long-term longitudinal studies are needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Tension-Type Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Headache; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pain
PubMed: 36901475
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054466 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2021: Migraine headaches are chronic neurological diseases that reduce the quality of life by causing severe headaches and autonomic nervous system dysfunction, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Migraine headaches are chronic neurological diseases that reduce the quality of life by causing severe headaches and autonomic nervous system dysfunction, such as facial flushing, nasal stuffiness, and sweating. Their major treatment methods include medication and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT has been used for pain treatment and various psychogenic neurological diseases by reducing pain, disability, and emotional disorders caused by symptoms of mental illness and improving the understanding of mental health. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CBT in treating migraines. : Seven electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to December 2020. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) using CBT as an intervention for migraine were included. The primary outcome of this study was to determine the frequency of migraines and the intensity of migraines on Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the frequency of drug use, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) index. The two authors independently conducted the data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, and conducted meta-analysis with RevMan V.5.4. : Among the 373 studies, 11 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Seven out of the 11 RCTs were conducted in the USA, and four were conducted in the UK, Germany, Iran, and Italy, respectively. Headache frequency and MIDAS scores were statistically significant reduced. In the subgroup analysis, headache strength was significantly reduced. Two of the included studies reported adverse effects, including worsening of migraine intensity and frequency, respiratory symptoms, and vivid memory of a traumatic event. : CBT for migraine effectively reduced headache frequency and MIDAS score in meta-analysis and headache intensity subgroup analysis, with few adverse events. Additional RCTs with CBT for migraine headaches are needed for a more accurate analysis.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Disability Evaluation; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 35056352
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58010044 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Mar 2020Headache disorders are currently the sixth leading cause of disability across the globe and therefore carry a significant disease burden. This systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Headache disorders are currently the sixth leading cause of disability across the globe and therefore carry a significant disease burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of yoga on headache disorders.
METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were screened through May 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included when they assessed the effects of yoga in patients with a diagnosis of chronic or episodic headache (tension-type headache and/or migraine). Usual care (no specific treatment) or any active treatments were acceptable as control interventions. Primary outcome measures were headache frequency, headache duration, and pain intensity. For each outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect in favor of yoga for headache frequency (5 RCTs; standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.75 to - 1.20; I = 63.0%, τ = 0.25, P = 0.03), headache duration (4 RCTs; SMD = - 1.45; 95% CI - 2.54 to - 0.37; I = 69.0%, τ = 0.33, P = 0.02), and pain intensity (5 RCTs; SMD = - 3.43; 95% CI - 6.08 to - 0.70, I = 95.0%, τ = 4.25, P < 0.01). The significant overall effect was mainly due to patients with tension-type headaches. For patients with migraine, no statistically significant effect was observed.
DISCUSSION
Despite discussed limitations, this review found preliminary evidence of short-term efficacy of yoga in improving headache frequency, headache duration, and pain intensity in patients suffering from tension-type headaches. Further studies are urgently needed to draw deeper conclusions from the available results.
Topics: Disabled Persons; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Tension-Type Headache; Yoga
PubMed: 31667736
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05413-9 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2019To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain.
METHODS
PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [- 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [- 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [- 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [- 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.
DISCUSSION
In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION AT PROSPERO
CRD42018111975.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31892357
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-3017-y -
JAMA Neurology Feb 2021Accurate and up-to-date estimates on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (burden) of neurological disorders are the backbone of...
IMPORTANCE
Accurate and up-to-date estimates on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (burden) of neurological disorders are the backbone of evidence-based health care planning and resource allocation for these disorders. It appears that no such estimates have been reported at the state level for the US.
OBJECTIVE
To present burden estimates of major neurological disorders in the US states by age and sex from 1990 to 2017.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This is a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Data on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of major neurological disorders were derived from the GBD 2017 study of the 48 contiguous US states, Alaska, and Hawaii. Fourteen major neurological disorders were analyzed: stroke, Alzheimer disease and other dementias, Parkinson disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, migraine, tension-type headache, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
EXPOSURES
Any of the 14 listed neurological diseases.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE
Absolute numbers in detail by age and sex and age-standardized rates (with 95% uncertainty intervals) were calculated.
RESULTS
The 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US in terms of absolute number of DALYs were stroke (3.58 [95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.25-3.92] million DALYs), Alzheimer disease and other dementias (2.55 [95% UI, 2.43-2.68] million DALYs), and migraine (2.40 [95% UI, 1.53-3.44] million DALYs). The burden of almost all neurological disorders (in terms of absolute number of incident, prevalent, and fatal cases, as well as DALYs) increased from 1990 to 2017, largely because of the aging of the population. Exceptions for this trend included traumatic brain injury incidence (-29.1% [95% UI, -32.4% to -25.8%]); spinal cord injury prevalence (-38.5% [95% UI, -43.1% to -34.0%]); meningitis prevalence (-44.8% [95% UI, -47.3% to -42.3%]), deaths (-64.4% [95% UI, -67.7% to -50.3%]), and DALYs (-66.9% [95% UI, -70.1% to -55.9%]); and encephalitis DALYs (-25.8% [95% UI, -30.7% to -5.8%]). The different metrics of age-standardized rates varied between the US states from a 1.2-fold difference for tension-type headache to 7.5-fold for tetanus; southeastern states and Arkansas had a relatively higher burden for stroke, while northern states had a relatively higher burden of multiple sclerosis and eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson disease, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine and tension-type headache, and meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There is a large and increasing burden of noncommunicable neurological disorders in the US, with up to a 5-fold variation in the burden of and trends in particular neurological disorders across the US states. The information reported in this article can be used by health care professionals and policy makers at the national and state levels to advance their health care planning and resource allocation to prevent and reduce the burden of neurological disorders.
Topics: Cost of Illness; Disability-Adjusted Life Years; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; United States
PubMed: 33136137
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4152 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Feb 2023Headache is the most prevalent neurological manifestation in adults and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. In children and adolescents, headaches are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Headache is the most prevalent neurological manifestation in adults and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. In children and adolescents, headaches are arguably responsible for a remarkable impact on physical and psychological issues, yet high-quality evidence is scarce.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched cross-sectional and cohort studies in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 1988 to June 2022 to identify the prevalence of headaches in 8-18 years old individuals. The risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of pediatric headache. Subgroup analyses based on headache subtypes were also conducted.
RESULTS
Out of 5,486 papers retrieved electronically, we identified 48 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of primary headaches was 11% for migraine overall [95%CI: 9-14%], 8% for migraine without aura (MwoA) [95%CI: 5-12%], 3% for migraine with aura (MwA) [95%CI:2-4%] and 17% for tension-type headache (TTH) [95% CI: 12-23%]. The pooled prevalence of overall primary headache in children and adolescents was 62% [95% CI: 53-70%], with prevalence in females and males of 38% [95% CI: 16-66%] and 27% [95% CI: 11-53%] respectively. After the removal of studies ranked as low-quality according to the JBI scale, prevalence rates were not substantially different. Epidemiological data on less common primary headaches, such as trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, were lacking.
CONCLUSION
We found an overall remarkably high prevalence of primary headaches in children and adolescents, even if flawed by a high degree of heterogeneity. Further up-to-date studies are warranted to complete the picture of pediatric headache-related burden to enhance specific public interventions.
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Child; Adolescent; Cross-Sectional Studies; Headache; Tension-Type Headache; Migraine with Aura; Migraine without Aura; Prevalence
PubMed: 36782182
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01541-0 -
European Journal of Medical Research Jun 2022Resistant chronic migraine is a highly disabling condition which is very difficult to treat. The majority of the treatments for migraine prophylaxis are nonspecific and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Resistant chronic migraine is a highly disabling condition which is very difficult to treat. The majority of the treatments for migraine prophylaxis are nonspecific and present weak safety profiles, leading to low adherence and discontinuation. Currently, monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the trigeminal sensory neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), are available for migraine prophylaxis being the first drugs developed specifically to target migraine pathogenesis. The main objective of the current work is to carry out a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that specifically analyse the effectivity and safety of anti-CGRP mAb, comparatively to placebo, in patients with resistant chronic migraine and possibly fill the literature gap or be a source of information to health professionals. Additionally the current knowledge on migraine, particularly resistant chronic migraine, was revisited and summarised.
METHODS
Literature search was carried out on MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct and ClinicalTrials.gov database, from inception to December 2021. Articles were selected according to prespecified criteria of inclusion and exclusion. Efficacy and safety outcomes included were: change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD); ≥50% reduction of MMD values from baseline; change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MAMD); Migraine-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ); and registered adverse events. Additionally, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.
RESULTS
Four studies were included in this systematic review, involving 2811 resistant chronic migraine patients, 667 in a study using erenumab, 838 in a study using fremanezumab and 1306 in two studies using galcanezumab. When compared to placebo, all investigated anti-CGRP mAb and respective doses demonstrate effectiveness in decreasing MMD, reducing acute medication use and improving the MSQ scores, including, sometimes, reversion of chronic to episodic migraine (efficacy outcomes). Regarding the safety outcomes, the number and type of adverse events did not differ between anti-CGRP mAb-treated and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-CGRP or anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies are a promising preventive migraine therapy which can be particularly useful for resistant chronic migraine patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35659086
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00716-w