Flunarizine as prophylaxis for episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Based on few clinical trials, flunarizine is considered a first-line prophylactic treatment for migraine in several guidelines. In this meta-analysis, we examined the pooled evidence for its effectiveness, tolerability, and safety. Prospective randomized controlled trials of flunarizine as a prophylaxis against migraine were identified from a systematic literature search, and risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Reduction in mean attack frequency was estimated by calculating the mean difference (MD), and a series of secondary outcomes-including adverse events (AEs)-were also analyzed. The database search yielded 879 unique records. Twenty-five studies were included in data synthesis. We scored 31/175 risk of bias items as "high," with attrition as the most frequent bias. A pooled analysis estimated that flunarizine reduces the headache frequency by 0.4 attacks per 4 weeks compared with placebo (5 trials, 249 participants: MD -0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.26). Analysis also revealed that the effectiveness of flunarizine prophylaxis is comparable with that of propranolol (7 trials, 1151 participants, MD -0.08; 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.18). Flunarizine also seems to be effective in children. The most frequent AEs were sedation and weight increase. Meta-analyses were robust and homogenous, although several of the included trials potentially suffered from high risk of bias. Unfortunately, reporting of AEs was inconsistent and limited. In conclusion, pooled analysis of data from partially outdated trials shows that 10-mg flunarizine per day is effective and well tolerated in treating episodic migraine-supporting current guideline recommendations.

Biofeedback as Prophylaxis for Pediatric Migraine: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Migraine is a common problem in children and adolescents, but few satisfactory prophylactic treatments exist. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to investigate the pooled evidence for the effectiveness of using biofeedback to reduce childhood migraine. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across the databases Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsychINFO. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized controlled trials of biofeedback for migraine among children and adolescents were located in the search. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on reduction of mean attack frequency and a series of secondary outcomes, including adverse events, were extracted. Risk of bias was also assessed. RESULTS: Forest plots were created by using a fixed effects model, and mean differences were reported. Five studies with a total of 137 participants met the inclusion criteria. Biofeedback reduced migraine frequency (mean difference, -1.97 [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.72 to -1.21]; P < .00001), attack duration (mean difference, -3.94 [95% CI, -5.57 to -2.31]; P < .00001), and headache intensity (mean difference, -1.77 [95% CI, -2.42 to -1.11]; P < .00001) compared with a waiting-list control. Biofeedback demonstrated no adjuvant effect when combined with other behavioral treatment; neither did it have significant advantages over active treatment. Only 40% of bias judgments were deemed as "low" risk. LIMITATIONS: Methodologic issues hampered the meta-analyses. Only a few studies were possible to include, and they suffered from incomplete reporting of data and risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback seems to be an effective intervention for pediatric migraine, but in light of the limitations, further investigation is needed to increase our confidence in the estimate.

Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.

CONTEXT: Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies. OBJECTIVE: To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology. RESULTS: The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews. FINDINGS: Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

Assessment of Intervention Fidelity and Recommendations for Researchers Conducting Studies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Cough in the Adult: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting intervention fidelity as an important methodologic consideration in assessing the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines used for the diagnosis and management of chronic cough. We developed and used a tool to assess for five areas of intervention fidelity. Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1998 to May 2014. Guideline recommendations and suggestions for those conducting research using guidelines or protocols to diagnose and manage chronic cough in the adult were developed and voted upon using CHEST Organization methodology. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies (17 uncontrolled prospective observational, two randomized controlled, and four retrospective observational) met our inclusion criteria. These articles included 3,636 patients. Data could not be pooled for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. Findings related to the five areas of intervention fidelity included three areas primarily related to the provider and two primarily related to the patients. In the area of study design, 11 of 23 studies appeared to be underpinned by a single guideline/protocol; for training of providers, two of 23 studies reported training, and zero of 23 reported the use of an intervention manual; and for the area of delivery of treatment, when assessing the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, three of 23 studies appeared consistent with the most recent guideline/protocol referenced by the authors. For receipt of treatment, zero of 23 studies mentioned measuring concordance of patient-interventionist understanding of the treatment recommended, and zero of 23 mentioned measuring enactment of treatment, with three of 23 measuring side effects and two of 23 measuring adherence. The overall average intervention fidelity score for all 23 studies was poor (20.74 out of 48). CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence supports that intervention fidelity strategies were used when conducting primary research in diagnosing and managing chronic cough in adults. This supports the contention that some of the variability in the reporting of patients with unexplained or unresolved chronic cough may be due to lack of intervention fidelity. By following the recommendations and suggestions in this article, researchers will likely be better able to incorporate strategies to address intervention fidelity, thereby strengthening the validity and generalizability of their results that provide the basis for the development of trustworthy guidelines.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected. RESULTS: Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics. CONCLUSION: Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings. METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel. RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who would not qualify for home oxygen: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to determine whether oxygen relieves dyspnoea in mildly or non-hypoxemic COPD and included 18 randomised controlled trials (431 participants) in the meta-analysis using Cochrane methodology. Oxygen therapy reduced dyspnoea when compared with medical air; standardised mean difference -0.37 (95% CI -0.50 to -0.24; I(2)=14%). In a priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses, dyspnoea was reduced by continuous oxygen during exertion but not short-burst oxygen therapy. Continuous exertional oxygen can relieve dyspnoea in mildly or non-hypoxemic COPD, but evidence from larger clinical trials is needed.

A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES: Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict. RESULTS: We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely. CONCLUSION: The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability in the United States. This article describes a prioritized research agenda about osteoarthritis management developed for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to expand and refine gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives.Prioritized evidence gaps included the need to determine or evaluate key patient-centered outcomes; optimal duration, intensity, and frequency of nonsurgical interventions; whether the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions varies by socioeconomic factors; when and how to transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions; effective ways to engage patients in self-management and promote long-term behavior change; standardized screening tools that improve early diagnosis; biomechanical strategies that improve symptoms; mechanisms for promoting and delivering coordinated, longitudinal care; and comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical therapies. Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov showed many recent and ongoing studies addressing comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions; relatively few of these evaluated treatments across categories (for example, drug therapy vs. weight management) or combined categories of treatment. Few studies addressed other high-priority evidence gaps.

Prioritization of research addressing antipsychotics for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder.

Despite a paucity of high-quality evidence about benefits and harms, antipsychotic medication use among adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder is increasing. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute tasked the Duke Evidence Synthesis Group with creating a prioritized agenda for research in this area that would incorporate the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. We identified a list of potential evidence gaps by reviewing existing literature and engaged a diverse group of 9 stakeholders to expand and refine this list. Using a forced-ranking prioritization method, stakeholders prioritized 10 of 23 potential evidence gaps as the most pressing for future research. These evidence gaps relate to 3 areas: the comparative effectiveness of intervention strategies, the effect of antipsychotics on patient-centered outcomes, and the influence of various patient characteristics on antipsychotic effectiveness. In addition to presenting these findings, we suggest appropriate study designs for addressing the stakeholder-prioritized research questions.

Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is a common finding in women having mammography screening, and there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of harms and benefits of different management options. This article outlines the process for developing a prioritized research agenda for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute as informed by a diverse group of stakeholders on the management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to refine these gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives using a forced-ranking prioritization method. PubMed was searched for relevant recent studies, and ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for relevant ongoing trials for the 10 highest-ranked evidence gaps. Strengths and limitations of different study designs were assessed to address gaps. Stakeholders prioritized evidence gaps related to incorporation of patient-centered outcomes into future research, development of better methods to predict risk for invasive cancer, evaluation of a strategy of active surveillance, and testing of decision-making tools. The degree to which prioritized evidence gaps may have already been addressed is uncertain because a comprehensive systematic review has not been done.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have been shown to improve dyspnea, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and pulmonary hemodynamics, but few studies were designed to compare treatment regimens or assess the impact of treatment on mortality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of monotherapy or combination therapy for PAH using endothelin receptor antagonists, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, or prostanoids. We searched English-language publications of comparative studies that reported intermediate or long-term outcomes associated with drug therapy for PAH. Two investigators abstracted data and rated study quality and applicability. RESULTS: We identified 28 randomized controlled trials involving 3,613 patients. We found no studies that randomized treatment-naive patients to monotherapy vs combination therapy. There was insufficient statistical power to detect a mortality difference associated with treatment. All drug classes demonstrated increases in 6MWD when compared with placebo, and combination therapy showed improved 6MWD compared with monotherapy. For hospitalization, the OR was lower in patients taking endothelin receptor antagonists or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors compared with placebo (OR, 0.34 and 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although no studies were powered to detect a mortality reduction, monotherapy was associated with improved 6MWD and reduced hospitalization rates. Our findings also suggest an improvement in 6MWD when a second drug is added to monotherapy.

Evaluating cough assessment tools: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative validity, reliability, or responsiveness of instruments for assessing cough frequency or impact, where the term impact encompasses both cough severity and the impact of cough on health-related quality of life. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate instruments that assess cough frequency or impact in adults, adolescents, and children with acute or chronic cough. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies were included, of which eight were randomized controlled trials and 70 were observational studies. In all age groups, audio and video electronic recording devices had good reliability compared with other methods of assessing cough frequency but had variable correlation with other cough assessments, such as visual analog scale scores, quality-of-life questionnaires, cough diaries, and tussigenic challenges. Among adult and adolescent patients, the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) were valid and reliable, showing high intraclass and test-retest correlations. Among children, the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and Pediatric Cough Questionnaire were valid and reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic recording devices can be valid assessments of cough frequency. The LCQ and CQLQ for adults and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire for children are valid instruments for assessing cough impact. There is limited but insufficient evidence to determine the reliability or concurrent validity of the different types of cough diaries or visual analog scale scores. There are also limited data to support the responsiveness of recording devices. There is good responsiveness data for the LCQ and CQLQ, but more evidence is needed.

Efficacy and tolerability of treatments for chronic cough: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the comparative effectiveness of treatments for patients with unexplained or refractory cough is important to increase awareness of proven therapies and their potential adverse effects in this unique population. METHODS: We performed a literature search for English-language studies published up to June 2012 that compared symptomatic therapies for chronic cough. Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted data, and rated quality. Meta-analysis with random-effects models was used to summarize effects of treatments. RESULTS: We identified 49 studies (3,067 patients) comprising 68 therapeutic comparisons. Of the studied agents, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives had demonstrated efficacy for chronic cough in adults. Compared with placebo, effect sizes (standardized mean differences for cough severity and rate ratios for cough frequency) for opioids were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P < .0001) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P = .0260), respectively. For dextromethorphan, effect sizes were 0.37 (95% CI, 0.19-0.56; P = .0008) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P = .0248), respectively. The overall strength of evidence was limited by inconsistency and imprecision of results and by small numbers of direct comparisons. Nonpharmacologic therapies and the management of cough in children were infrequently studied. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence is limited, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives demonstrated efficacy for treating chronic cough in adults. There is a need for further studies in patients with unexplained or refractory cough as well as for more systematic study designs, assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and reporting.

Antiepileptics other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate (which are the subjects of separate Cochrane reviews) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between antiepileptic drugs and comparators (placebo, active control, or same drug in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. The 10 trials reported results for nine antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate. Six of the eight drugs investigated in placebo-controlled trials were not better than placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin) and/or in the proportion of responders (acetazolamide, carisbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine). One prospective, randomised, double-blind, single cross-over trial of 48 patients demonstrated a significant superiority of carbamazepine over placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 11.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.92 to 35.32). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 2 to 3). In a small prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, levetiracetam 1000 mg was significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.52 to -0.28; 26 patients), as well as in the proportion of responders (OR 26.07; 95% CI 1.30 to 521.91; 26 patients). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 1 to 4). The same trial examined levetiracetam 1000 mg versus topiramate 100 mg and found a small but significant difference favouring topiramate in headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD 1.40; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.66; 28 patients). There was no significant difference between levetiracetam and topiramate in the proportion of responders (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.23; 28 patients). Finally, one trial with 75 participants examined zonisamide versus topiramate (200 and 100 mg, respectively) and found no significant difference between them in reduction of headache frequency from baseline during the third month of treatment. Adverse events for active treatment versus placebo were available for all investigated drugs except levetiracetam, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. A high prevalence of adverse events was noted for carbamazepine, with a NNH of only 2 (95% CI 2 to 4). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not allow robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine among adults. Acetazolamide, carisbamate, clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin were not more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. In one trial each, carbamazepine and levetiracetam were significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency, and there was no significant difference in proportion of responders between zonisamide and active comparator. These three positive studies suffer from considerable methodological limitations.

Topiramate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of topiramate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between topiramate and comparator (placebo, active control, or topiramate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for selected quality of life instruments. Finally, we summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty papers describing 17 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from nine trials (1737 participants) showed that topiramate reduced headache frequency by about 1.2 attacks per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.59 to -0.80). Data from nine trials (1190 participants) show that topiramate approximately doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.60; NNT 4; 95% CI 3 to 6). Separate analysis of different topiramate doses produced similar MDs versus placebo at 50 mg (-0.95; 95% CI -1.95 to 0.04; three studies; 520 participants), 100 mg (-1.15; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.71; six studies; 1620 participants), and 200 mg (-0.94; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.36; five studies; 804 participants). All three doses significantly increased the proportion of responders relative to placebo; ORs were as follows: for 50 mg, 2.35 (95% CI 1.60 to 3.44; three studies; 519 participants); for 100 mg, 3.49 (95% CI 2.23 to 5.45; five studies; 852 participants); and for 200 mg, 2.49 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.87; six studies; 1025 participants). All three doses also significantly improved three or more domains of quality of life as compared to placebo. Meta-analysis of the three studies that included more than one dose of topiramate suggests that 200 mg is no more effective than 100 mg. With regard to mean headache frequency and/or responder rate, seven trials using active comparators found (a) no significant difference between topiramate and amitriptyline (one study, 330 participants); (b) no significant difference between topiramate and flunarizine (one study, 83 participants); (c) no significant difference between topiramate and propranolol (two studies, 342 participants); (d) no significant difference between topiramate and relaxation (one study, 61 participants); but (e) a slight significant advantage of topiramate over valproate (two studies, 120 participants). Relaxation improved migraine-specific quality of life significantly more than topiramate. In trials of topiramate against placebo, seven adverse events (AEs) were reported by at least three studies. These were usually mild and of a non-serious nature. Except for taste disturbance and weight loss, there were no significant differences in the frequency of AEs in general, or of the seven specific AEs, between placebo and topiramate 50 mg. AEs in general and all of the specific AEs except nausea were significantly more common on topiramate 100 mg than on placebo, with NNHs varying from 3 to 25, and the RDs versus placebo were even higher for topiramate 200 mg, with NNHs varying from 2 to 17. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis demonstrates that topiramate in a 100 mg/day dosage is effective in reducing headache frequency and reasonably well-tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine. This provides good evidence to support its use in routine clinical management. More studies designed specifically to compare the efficacy or safety of topiramate versus other interventions with proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of migraine are needed.

Gabapentin or pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs). MAIN RESULTS: Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.

WITHDRAWN: Oral sumatriptan for acute migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of disabling headache, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and, in some patients, neurological aura symptoms. Sumatriptan is one of a class of selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT1B/1D) agonists (triptans) thought to relieve migraine attacks by several mechanisms, including cranial vasoconstriction and peripheral and central neural inhibition. OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 through November 2001), and reference lists of articles and books. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind RCTs comparing oral sumatriptan (100 mg, 50 mg, 25 mg) with placebo, no intervention, other drug treatments, behavioral therapy, or physical therapy for the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in adults. Trials comparing different doses of sumatriptan or dosing regimens were also included. Outcomes considered were: 2-hour pain-free response, headache relief/headache intensity, and functional disability; headache recurrence; and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by one reviewer and over-read by the other. The two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Information on adverse events was collected from trial reports. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 16,200 participants were included. Methodological quality was generally good. Sixteen trials were placebo comparisons and showed that sumatriptan in doses of 100 mg (14 trials), 50 mg (five trials), and 25 mg (three trials) provided significantly better pain-free response (100 mg and 25 mg only), headache relief, and relief of disability at 2 hours. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for pain-free response at 2 hours were 5.1 (3.9 to 7.1) for the 100-mg dose (n = 2221) and 7.5 (2.7 to 142) for the 25-mg dose (n = 131); there was no significant difference between the 50-mg dose and placebo for this outcome (n = 127). For headache relief at 2 hours, NNTs were 3.4 (3.0 to 4.0), 3.2 (2.4 to 5.1), and 3.4 (2.3 to 6.6) for sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 2940), 50 mg (n = 420), and 25 mg (n = 226), respectively. Precise estimates of the efficacy of the 50- and 25-mg doses relative to the 100-mg dose could not be obtained.Adverse events were more common with sumatriptan 100 mg than with placebo (risk difference [RD] = 0.14 [0.09 to 0.20]; number-needed-to-harm [NNH] = 7.1 [5.0 to 11.1]; n = 3172). RDs for the 50- and 25-mg vs. placebo comparisons were not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral sumatriptan has been shown to be an effective drug for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine. It is well tolerated, though minor adverse events were not uncommon in the included trials. Other triptans were generally similar in efficacy and adverse events. Among non-triptan drugs, ergotamine + caffeine was significantly less effective than sumatriptan, and other drugs have been insufficiently studied to draw firm conclusions.