-
Headache Feb 2021To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.
METHOD
A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices.
RESULTS
Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed substantially across publications.
CONCLUSION
Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.
Topics: Acute Disease; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 33611818
DOI: 10.1111/head.14067 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Sep 2021Effectiveness of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT) varies depending on the presence of common ocular conditions and patient selection criteria. We carried out... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Effectiveness of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT) varies depending on the presence of common ocular conditions and patient selection criteria. We carried out a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of ocriplasmin studies conducted in real-world settings (RWS) and compared outcomes with those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
We included prospective and retrospective studies from RWS documenting effectiveness of ocriplasmin in patients with VMT with or without MH, and RCTs of ocriplasmin versus control. Key end-points were vitreomacular adhesion resolution (VMAR), nonsurgical MH closure, need for vitrectomy and safety. We conducted meta-regression on pooled results to evaluate effects of baseline covariates and study design on outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty RWS (2402 patients) and 5 RCTs (737 patients) were included epiretinal membrane (ERM) and broad VMA were more prevalent in RCTs. Primary VMAR, vitrectomy and MH closure rates were comparable between RWS and RCTs. Rates of nsVMAR were significantly higher in RWS than RCTs (odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-2.34). nsVMAR rates were inversely associated with ERM prevalence (odds ratio 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.51). Compared with the recent OASIS trial, RWS reported a higher incidence of new/worsening subretinal fluid cases and less photophobia, photopsia, vitreous floaters, electroretinogram abnormalities and MH progression.
CONCLUSIONS
Ocriplasmin was significantly more effective in achieving nsVMAR in RWS than in RCTs. Lower ERM prevalence in RWS was the single significant explanatory variable for this difference. Conclusions on ocriplasmin safety in RWS are limited due to inconsistent reporting.
Topics: Fibrinolysin; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Peptide Fragments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinal Diseases; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33369248
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14686 -
Progress in Brain Research 2020Visual snow syndrome is a debilitating disorder characterized by tiny flickering dots (like TV static) in the entire visual field and a set of accompanying visual...
BACKGROUND
Visual snow syndrome is a debilitating disorder characterized by tiny flickering dots (like TV static) in the entire visual field and a set of accompanying visual (palinopsia, enhanced entoptic phenomena, photophobia, nyctalopia), nonvisual (e.g. tinnitus) and nonperceptional (e.g. concentration problems, irritability) symptoms. Its pathophysiology is enigmatic and therapy is often frustrating.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize our current understanding of pathophysiology and treatment of visual snow syndrome.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed database was performed using the key word "visual snow" and predefined in- and exclusion criteria. The results were stratified into "treatment" and "pathophysiology." Additionally, we conducted a search with the key words "persistent migraine aura" and "persistent visual aura" and screened for mis-diagnosed patients actually fulfilling the criteria for visual snow syndrome. The reference lists of most publications and any other relevant articles known to the authors were also reviewed and added if applicable.
RESULTS
From the 50 original papers found by searching for "visual snow," 21 were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additional four publications came searching for "persistent migraine aura" or "persistent visual aura." Further publications derived from literature references resulting in a total of 20 articles for pathophysiology and 15 for treatment with some overlaps. Regarding pathophysiology, hyperexcitability of the visual cortex and a processing problem of higher order visual function are assumed, but the location is still in discussion. In particular, it is unclear if the primary visual cortex, the visual association cortex or the thalamocortical pathway is involved. Regarding treatment, data is available on a total of 153 VSS patients with medication mentioned for 54 resulting in a total of 136 trials. From the 44 different medications tried, only eight were effective at least once. The best data is available for lamotrigine being effective in 8/36 (22.2%, including one total response and no worsening), followed by topiramate being effective in 2/13 (15.4%, no total response and one worsening). The only other medication resulting in worsening of VSS was amitriptyline according to our literature review. The others reported to be effective at least once were valproate, propranolol, verapamil, baclofen, naproxen and sertraline. The nonpharmacological approach using color filters of the yellow-blue color spectrum might also be helpful in some patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Visual snow syndrome is still far from being fully understood. In respect of pathophysiology, a disorder of visual processing is likely. The best pharmacological evidence exists for lamotrigine, which can be discussed off-label. As nonpharmacological option, patients might benefit from tinted glasses for everyday use.
Topics: Humans; Migraine with Aura; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 33008511
DOI: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.05.020 -
Advances in Therapy Dec 2020Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation.
METHODS
A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans.
RESULTS
Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tryptamines
PubMed: 32990921
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01494-9 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Mar 2021To evaluate safety and efficacy of topical cysteamine ophthalmic solution for corneal cystinosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate safety and efficacy of topical cysteamine ophthalmic solution for corneal cystinosis.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched (PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov) for relevant studies, using appropriate keywords. Comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing cysteamine with control or other formulations for treatment of corneal or ophthalmic cystinosis were included. Outcome measurements were improvement or response to therapy, change in corneal cystine crystal score (CCCS), in vivo confocal microscopy score (IVCM), cystine crystal depth, contrast sensitivity (CS), photophobia score, and safety.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included. Compared to placebo and control, the cysteamine arm was better in terms of improvements and responses to therapy (2 studies showed a risk ratio [RR] of 16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.30-111.37) and crystal density score (1 study showed a mean difference [MD] of -0.80; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.04). No significant differences were observed in terms of improvement in CS (1 study showed an RR of 7.00; 95% CI: 0.47-103.27). Compared to cystamine, cysteamine showed benefits in terms of crystal density score (MD -0.94; 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.24). Compared to a newer formulation, the standard formulation (cysteamine [Cystaran]; 0.55% cysteamine hydrochloride + benzalkonium chloride 0.01%) performed better in terms of decreasing CCCS. Another newer, viscous formulation, Cystadrops, performed better than the standard formulation in terms of change in CCCS, IVCM score, corneal crystal depth, and photophobia score; however, local adverse effects and blurring were higher in the group receiving Cystadrops.
CONCLUSIONS
Conventional cysteamine (0.1% to 0.3%) performed better than placebo (control) in terms of response to therapy. In terms of decreasing corneal cystine density, cysteamine (0.55%) was better than cystamine (0.55%), and the viscous Cystadrops (0.55%) was better than the standard formulation (0.1%).
Topics: Corneal Diseases; Cysteamine; Cystine Depleting Agents; Cystinosis; Humans; Ophthalmic Solutions; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32888903
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.07.052 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Traumatic eye complaints account for 3% of all hospital emergency department visits. The most common traumatic injury to the eye is blunt trauma, which accounts for 30%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic eye complaints account for 3% of all hospital emergency department visits. The most common traumatic injury to the eye is blunt trauma, which accounts for 30% of these visits. Blunt trauma frequently leads to traumatic iridocyclitis, thus causing anterior uveitis. Iridocyclitis frequently causes tearing, photophobia, eye pain, and vision loss. These symptoms are a result of the inflammatory processes and ciliary spasms to iris muscles and sphincter. The inflammatory process is usually managed with topical corticosteroids, while the ciliary spasm is blunted by dilating the pupils with topical mydriatic agents, an adjuvant therapy. However, the effectiveness of mydriatic agents has not been quantified in terms of reduction of ocular pain and visual acuity loss.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical mydriatics as adjunctive therapy to topical corticosteroids for traumatic iridocyclitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2019, issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 12 June 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared topical mydriatic agents in conjunction with topical corticosteroid therapy versus topical corticosteroids alone, in participants with traumatic iridocyclitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JH, MK) independently screened titles and abstracts, then full-text reports, against eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently extract data from included studies. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no eligible RCTs that compared the interventions of interest in people with traumatic iridocyclitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any evidence from RCTs about the efficacy of topical mydriatic agents as an adjunctive therapy with topical corticosteroids for treating traumatic iridocyclitis. In the absence of these types of studies, we cannot draw any firm conclusions. Controlled trials that compare the combined use of topical mydriatic agents and corticosteroid drops against standard corticosteroid drops alone, in people with traumatic iridocyclitis are required. These may provide evidence about the efficacy and risk of topical mydriatic drops as adjuvant therapy for traumatic iridocyclitis.
PubMed: 35659470
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013260.pub2 -
CNS Drugs May 2020Ubrogepant is a small molecular calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is used for the acute treatment of migraine. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ubrogepant is a small molecular calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is used for the acute treatment of migraine.
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the treatment of episodic migraine compared with placebo in the adult population.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized clinical trials, from the earliest available date to November 10, 2019, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-term ubrogepant use. Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized clinical trial; (2) enrolled adult participants diagnosed with episodic migraine; (3) compared ubrogepant with placebo at doses that were evaluated in phase III clinical trials; (4) enrolled more than 100 patients in each group; and (5) provided any information on primary or secondary outcomes. Trials were excluded if their participants were diagnosed with chronic migraine.
RESULTS
A total of three multicenter, randomized clinical trials with 3326 patients were included. Ubrogepant use was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with pain freedom (ubrogepant 20.8%; placebo 12.6%; relative risk [RR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-1.98) and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (ubrogepant 37.3%; placebo 27.6%; RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20-1.53) at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo. Ubrogepant increased the rate of absence of migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo (photophobia: RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.18-1.44], I = 49%; phonophobia: RR 1.20 [95% CI 1.11-1.29]; nausea: RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.02-1.13]), and patients were more likely to function normally at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo (RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.16-1.45]). No significant difference was found for treatment-related adverse events within 48 h or 30 days for ubrogepant compared with placebo (48 h: RR 1.07 [95% CI 0.85-1.35]; 30 days: RR 1.03 [95% CI 0.79-1.34]). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that compared to placebo, ubrogepant led to greater rates of freedom from pain at 2 h with 25-mg, 50-mg, and 100-mg doses and absence of the most bothersome symptoms with 50-mg and 100-mg doses.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of ubrogepant as an acute treatment of episodic migraine in adults led to a greater percentage of freedom from pain and absence of the most bothersome symptoms at 2 h post-dose. Short-term use of ubrogepant was not related to an increased risk for adverse events. Further studies are needed to evaluate efficacy and safety for long-term use and in specific subgroups of patients.
Topics: Adult; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32193827
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00715-7 -
Headache Sep 2019To provide evidence-based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine.
Practice guideline update summary: Acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature and rated risk of bias of included studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence criteria. A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from the systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence.
RESULTS
There is evidence to support the efficacy of the use of ibuprofen, acetaminophen (in children and adolescents), and triptans (mainly in adolescents) for the relief of migraine pain, although confidence in the evidence varies between agents. There is high confidence that adolescents receiving oral sumatriptan/naproxen and zolmitriptan nasal spray are more likely to be headache free at 2 hours than those receiving placebo. No acute treatments were effective for migraine-related nausea or vomiting; some triptans were effective for migraine-related phonophobia and photophobia.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in children and adolescents focus on the importance of early treatment, choosing the route of administration best suited to the characteristics of the individual migraine attack, and providing counselling on lifestyle factors that can exacerbate migraine, including trigger avoidance and medication overuse.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics; Child; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Pain Management
PubMed: 31529481
DOI: 10.1111/head.13628 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia Sep 2019This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in Universidade Federal de Alagoas (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018089933). Online databases were searched (LILACS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL) from inception to April 2018; references from included papers were also searched. The following keywords were used: lubricants OR artificial tears OR artificial tears, lubricants AND dry eye OR dry eye syndrome OR syndromes, dry eye OR dry eyes. Among the 2028 electronic search results, 29 full papers were retrieved and four were considered relevant. The number of participants from these studies ranged from 15 to 76. Meta-analysis was possible for the following outcomes: score of symptoms according to the Ocular Surface Disease Index - Allergan (OSDI), tear secretion rate using the Schirmer test, tear evaporation rate using the tear film breakup time test, burning, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, and no side effects were attributed to the interventions. Evidence proving that preservative-free artificial tears are more effective than preserved artificial tears is lacking.
Topics: Bias; Dry Eye Syndromes; Female; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Ophthalmic Solutions; Preservatives, Pharmaceutical; Tears
PubMed: 31508669
DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20190097 -
La Revue Du Praticien Feb 2019Child photophobia. Photophobia is abnormal intolerance of light. It is a commonest complaint and a reason for ophthalmological assessment in adults. Child photophobia is...
Child photophobia. Photophobia is abnormal intolerance of light. It is a commonest complaint and a reason for ophthalmological assessment in adults. Child photophobia is less frequent and must be explored. First of all, life-threatening pathology (meningitis) should be ruled off. Then, thorough ocular examination will establish a right diagnosis. Ocular surface alterations are prominent cause of photophobia. Retinal and optic pathway diseases could also lead to light aversion. This article is a systematic review of conditions linked with photophobia in children. It also offers a panorama of clinical imaging in typical cases.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Photophobia
PubMed: 30983223
DOI: No ID Found