-
CNS Drugs Sep 2023Although one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Although 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.
AIM
The objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.
METHODS
The 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.
RESULTS
Seven 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023388343.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Valproic Acid; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 37676473
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01037-0 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2013About 10% of seizures in children with epilepsy are typical absence seizures. Absence seizures have a significant impact on quality of life. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of seizures in children with epilepsy are typical absence seizures. Absence seizures have a significant impact on quality of life.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for typical absence seizures in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up to date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 18 RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: clonazepam, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lamotrigine, and valproate.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsy, Absence; Ethosuximide; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Quality of Life; Seizures; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 24351614
DOI: No ID Found -
Seizure Nov 2014Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most lethal type of primary brain tumor, and patients that undergo the maximum tumor resection that is safely possible and standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most lethal type of primary brain tumor, and patients that undergo the maximum tumor resection that is safely possible and standard radiochemotherapy only achieve a median survival time of 14.6 months. Several clinical studies have reported that valproic acid could prolong survival of GBM patients. However, the results of these studies are inconsistent. We examined relevant studies and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of VPA on survival times and recurrence.
METHODS
A bibliographic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of the Controlled Trials databases to identify potentially relevant articles or conference abstracts that investigated the effects of VPA on the outcome of glioma patients. Five observational studies were included.
RESULTS
Pooled estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Our meta-analysis confirmed the benefit of using VPA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.71). Sub-group analysis shows that patients treated with VPA had a hazard ratio of 0.74 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.59-0.94 vs. patients treated by other-AEDs and a hazard ratio of 0.66 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.52-0.84 vs. patients treated by administration of non-AEDs. No heterogeneity was observed in the subset analysis.
CONCLUSION
The results of our study suggest that glioblastoma patients may experience prolonged survival due to VPA administration. Sub-analysis confirmed the benefit of VPA use compared to a non-AEDs group and an other-AEDs group. Further RCTs of this subject should be performed.
Topics: Adult; Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 25066904
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2014.06.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). However, there are no current systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015, and last updated in 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in the treatment of JME.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) on 26 August 2021, and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 26 August 2021). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topiramate versus placebo or other AED treatment for people with JME, with the outcomes of proportion of responders and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events (AEs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality of the studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies with a total of 83 participants. For efficacy, a greater proportion of participants in the topiramate group had a 50% or greater reduction in primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS), compared with participants in the placebo group (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 14.75; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no significant differences between topiramate and valproate for participants responding with a 50% or greater reduction in myoclonic seizures (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.15; one study, 23 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or in PGTCS (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.21; one study, 16 participants, very-low certainty evidence), or participants becoming seizure-free (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.11; one study, 27 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Concerning tolerability, we ranked AEs associated with topiramate as moderate to severe, while we ranked 59% of AEs linked to valproate as severe complaints (2 studies, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Moreover, systemic toxicity scores were higher in the valproate group than the topiramate group. Overall we judged all three studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and at unclear risk of reporting bias. We judged the studies to be at low to unclear risk of bias for the remaining domains (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and other bias). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as very low using the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published in 2019. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support topiramate for the treatment of people with JME. Based on the current limited available data, topiramate seems to be better tolerated than valproate, but has no clear benefits over valproate in terms of efficacy. Well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to test the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Myoclonic Epilepsy, Juvenile; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 34817852
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010008.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2013Bipolar disorder is a recurrent illness that is amongst the top 30 causes of disability worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs. In the past,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a recurrent illness that is amongst the top 30 causes of disability worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs. In the past, emphasis was placed solely on the treatment of acute episodes of bipolar disorder; recently, the importance of episode prevention and of minimisation of iatrogenicity has been recognised. For many years, lithium was the only mood stabiliser in common use, and it remains an agent of first choice in the preventative treatment of bipolar disorder. However, an estimated 20% to 40% of patients may not respond adequately to lithium. Valproate is an anticonvulsant drug that has been shown to be effective in acute mania and is frequently used in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. When the acceptability of long-term treatment is considered, together with efficacy, the adverse event profile of a medication is also important. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the efficacy of valproate continuation and maintenance treatment:a) in preventing or attenuating manic, depressive and mixed episodes of bipolar disorder;b) in preventing or attenuating episodes of bipolar disorder in patients with rapid cycling disorder; and; c) in improving patients' general health and social functioning, as measured by global clinical impression, employment and marital stability.2. To review the acceptability to patients of long-term valproate treatment, as measured by numbers of dropouts and reasons for dropping out, by compliance and by reference to patients' expressed views regarding treatment.3. To investigate the adverse effects of valproate treatment (including general prevalence of side effects) and overall mortality rates.
SEARCH METHODS
Search of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) (to January 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE, (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restrictions were applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing valproate and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials allocating participants with bipolar disorder to long-term treatment with valproate or any other mood stabiliser, or antipsychotic drugs, or placebo. Maintenance treatment was defined as treatment instituted specifically or mainly to prevent further episodes of illness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data. A double-entry procedure was employed by two review authors. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. For dichotomous data, risk ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH). For continuous data, mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated along with 95% CIs. MDs were used when the same scale was used to measure an outcome; SMDs were employed when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. The primary analysis used a fixed-effect model. Binary outcomes were calculated on a strict intention-to-treat (ITT) basis; dropouts were included in this analysis. When data were missing and the method of "last observation carried forward" (LOCF) had been used to do an ITT analysis, then the LOCF data were used.
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomised controlled trials (overall 876 participants) lasting 6 to 24 months were included. Two studies (overall 312 participants) compared valproate with placebo, four studies (overall 618 participants) valproate with lithium, one study (overall 23 participants) valproate with olanzapine and one study (overall 220 participants) valproate with the combination of valproate plus lithium. In terms of study quality, most studies reported the methods used to generate random sequence; however, only one study reported enough details on allocation concealment. Four of six included studies described their design as "double blind", but only two trials reported full details about blinding. Valproate was more effective than placebo in preventing study withdrawal due to any mood episode (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; NNTB 8), but no difference in efficacy was found between valproate and lithium (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20). Valproate was associated with fewer participants dropping out of treatment for any cause when compared with placebo or lithium (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98, respectively). However, combination therapy with lithium plus valproate was more likely to prevent relapse than was monotherapy with valproate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96). Significant differences in adverse event frequencies were found, and lithium was associated with more frequent diarrhoea, polyuria, increased thirst and enuresis, whereas valproate was associated with increased sedation and infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence supports the efficacy of valproate in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder. Clinicians and patients should consider acceptability and tolerability profile when choosing between lithium and valproate-their combination or other agents-as long-term treatment for bipolar disorder.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Olanzapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 24132760
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003196.pub2 -
Brain and Behavior Jun 2023Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sydenham's chorea (SC), prevalent in developing countries and occasionally affecting developed ones, poses a clinical challenge due to the lack of systematic guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Resulting from Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus infection, SC presents various symptoms. This review aims to collect and evaluate available data on SC management to propose a cohesive treatment plan.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for literature on SC management from inception until 24th July 2022. Studies were screened by titles and abstracts. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB-1) assessed Randomized Controlled Trials, while the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool evaluated nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
The review includes 11 articles assessing 579 patients. Excluding one study with 229 patients, of the remaining 550 patients, 338 (61.5%) were females. Treatments used were dopamine antagonists in 118 patients, antiepileptics in 198, corticosteroids in 134, IVIG in 7, and PE in 8 patients. Dopamine antagonists, particularly haloperidol, were the primary treatment choice, while valproic acid (VPA) was favored among antiepileptics. Prednisolone, a corticosteroid, showed promising results with weight gain as the only side-effect. Our review emphasizes the importance of immunomodulators in SC, contrasting previous literature.
CONCLUSION
Despite limitations, dopamine antagonists can serve as first-line agents in SC management, followed by antiepileptics. The role of immunomodulators warrants further investigation for conclusive recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Chorea; Anticonvulsants; Valproic Acid; Haloperidol; Dopamine Antagonists
PubMed: 37150977
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3035 -
Developmental Neuroscience 2020Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective...
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective impairment. Unfortunately, few pharmacological treatments exist to alleviate these socio-behavioural impairments. Prenatal administration of valproic acid (VPA) has become an accepted animal model of ASD and has been extensively used to explore new pharmacotherapies in rodents. We conducted a systematic review of the behavioural impairments induced by the VPA model in rodents, with specific reference to 3 core socio-behavioural alterations associated with ASD: repetitive behaviours, cognitive rigidity/inflexibility, and social-affective impairment. We systematically reviewed studies attempting to alleviate these core behavioural alterations using pharmacological means. We include 132 studies exploring the prenatal effects of VPA in rodents. Gestational exposure to VPA in rodents has significant effects on rodent-equivalent measures of the 3 core behavioural traits characteristic of ASD in humans, inducing social impairments, repetitive behaviour, and cognitive rigidity/inflexibility after birth. This model's validity has seen it used to test potential drug treatments for ASD and is likely to continue doing so. We conclude the rodent VPA model may be suitable to examine future therapeutic interventions for ASD, providing an overview of the progress made so far.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Autistic Disorder; Behavior, Animal; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Rodentia; Social Behavior; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 32810856
DOI: 10.1159/000509109 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2008About 10% of seizures in children with epilepsy are typical absence seizures. Absence seizures have a significant impact on quality of life. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of seizures in children with epilepsy are typical absence seizures. Absence seizures have a significant impact on quality of life.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for typical absence seizures in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2007 (BMJ Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: clonazepam, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lamotrigine, and valproate.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsy, Absence; Ethosuximide; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Incidence; Quality of Life; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 19450342
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, and valproate is one of these.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether:1. valproate alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. valproate augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (July 2002; February 2007; July 2012; March 04, 2016). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies in order to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials comparing valproate to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as the sole agent or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality-assessed these. At least two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2012 update search identified 19 further relevant studies, most of which were from China. Thus the review currently includes 26 studies with a total of 2184 participants. All trials examined the effectiveness of valproate as an adjunct to antipsychotics. With the exception of two studies, the studies were small, the participants and personnel were not blinded (neither was outcome assessment), and most were short-term and incompletely reported.For this update we prespecified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response (clinically significant response, aggression/agitation), leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment, overall tolerability), adverse events (sedation, weight gain) and quality of life.Adding valproate to antipsychotic treatment resulted in more clinically significant response than adding placebo to antipsychotic drugs (14 RCTs, n = 1049, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, I = 12%, low-quality evidence). However, this effect was removed after excluding open RCTs in a sensitivity analysis. In terms of acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason) valproate was just as acceptable as placebo (11 RCTs, n = 951, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.24, I = 55%). Also overall tolerability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early for adverse events) between valproate and placebo was similar (6 RCTs, n = 974, RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.97, I = 0).Participants in the valproate group were found to be less aggressive than the control group based on the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (3 RCTs, n = 186, MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.19, I = 82%, very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving valproate more frequently experienced sedation (8 RCTs, n = 770, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.79, I = 0, low-quality evidence) but were no more likely to gain weight than those receiving placebo (4 RCTs, n = 427, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.82, I = 0, low-quality evidence). No study reported on the important outcome of quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence, based on a number of trials, that the augmentation of antipsychotics with valproate may be effective for overall clinical response, and also for specific symptoms, especially in terms of excitement and aggression. However, this evidence was entirely based on open RCTs. Moreover, valproate was associated with a number of adverse events among which sedation and dizziness appeared significantly more frequently than in the control groups. Further randomised studies which are blinded are necessary before any clear recommendation can be made. Ideally these would focus on people with schizophrenia and aggression, on those with treatment-resistant forms of the illness and on those with schizoaffective disorders.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 27884042
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004028.pub4 -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7