Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults
- 2.1k Downloads
Systematic review of preventive pharmacologic treatments for community-dwelling adults with episodic migraine.
Electronic databases through May 20, 2012.
English-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 METHODS
We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence and conducted random effects meta-analyses of absolute risk differences and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Of 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.
We did not quantify reporting bias or contact principal investigators regarding unpublished trials.
Approved 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.
KEY WORDSmigraine evidence based medicine adverse drug effects
We would like to thank the librarians, Judy Stanke, MA, and Delbert Reed, PhD, for their contributions to the literature search; Jeannine Ouellette for her help in writing the report; Marilyn Eells for editing and formatting the report; and Christa Prodzinski, RN, and Kirsten Johnson, BS, for assistance with data entry, quality control, and formatting tables. We would like to thank Hwanhee Hong, PhD candidate, for her help in conducting Bayesian network meta-analyses.
Prepared by the University of Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10064 I with the AHRQ
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.Goadsby PJ, Raskin NH. Chapter 15. Headache. In: Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Kasper DL, et al., eds. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 17th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies; 2008.Google Scholar
- 8.Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia. 2004;24(Suppl 1):9–160.Google Scholar
- 19.Schroeder BM. AAFP/ACP-ASIM release guidelines on the management and prevention of migraines. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(1392):5–7.Google Scholar
- 30.Institute of Medicine (US). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Heidelberg: National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
- 31.Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs. Ethical and scientific issues in studying the safety of approved drugs. Washington: National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
- 32.Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Collins Sharp BA. Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews AHRQ Publication No 10(11)-EHC063-EF. 2011/03/25 ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008:1–4. Available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/118/324/MethodsGuide_Slutsky_Comparing%20Medical%20Interventions.pdf; accessed on February 19, 2013.
- 33.Helfand M, Balshem H. Principles in Developing and Applying Guidance. 2008.Google Scholar
- 37.Norris S, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al. Chapter 4. Selecting observational studies for comparing medical interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Reviews AHRQ Publication No 10(11)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2011:56–68. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/196/454/MethodsGuideNorris_06042010.pdf; accessed on February 19, 2013.
- 39.Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 47.Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Chapter 9. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews AHRQ Publication No 10(11)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2011:104–19. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/243/554/MethodsGuide--ConductingQuantitativeSynthesis.pdf; accessed on February 20, 2013.
- 52.White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta. The Stata Journal 2011;11.Google Scholar
- 61.Wells G, Sultan S, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect evidence: Indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.Google Scholar
- 65.Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayesian methods for data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2009.Google Scholar
- 67.Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of epidemiology in public health. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2003.Google Scholar
- 69.Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Morgan LC, et al. Reliability Testing of the AHRQ EPC Approach to Grading the Strength of Evidence in Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville (MD) 2012.Google Scholar
- 70.Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011.Google Scholar
- 72.Silberstein S. Efficacy and safety of topiramate in migraine prevention: a dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study. Advanced Studies in Medicine. 2003;3:S565–8.Google Scholar
- 88.Minervini MG, Pinto K. Captopril relieves pain and improves mood depression in depressed patients with classical migraine. Cephalalgia. 1987;7(Suppl 6):485–6.Google Scholar
- 96.Reuter U, Del Rio MS, Diener HC, et al. Migraines with and without aura and their response to preventive therapy with topiramate. Cephalalgia: an International Journal of Headache. 2010;30(5):543–51.Google Scholar
- 109.Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, Dodick DW, Argoff C, Ashman E. Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1337–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 112.Finding Evidence and Assessing for Reporting Biases when Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. In press 2012. The draft is available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/486/1305/Reporting-Bias_DraftReport_20121023.pdf; accessed on February 19, 2013
- 127.Wessely P, Baumgartner C, Klingler D, et al. Preliminary results of a double-blind study with the new migraine prophylactic drug Gabapentin. Cephalalgia. 1987;7:477–8.Google Scholar
- 129.NCT00742209. Prevention study in adult patients suffering from migraine headaches. 2010.Google Scholar
- 143.Orholm M, Le Fevre P. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with femoxetine—a randomized comparison with placebo. Cephalalgia 1985:516–7.Google Scholar
- 147.Welch KMA, Ellis DJ, Keenan PA. Successful migraine prohpylaxis with naproxen sodium. Neurology1985.Google Scholar