Search

Abstract Objective The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Methods We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Results Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30). Conclusions The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

Abstract Background Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), structurally related to vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), is one of the important mediators in the pathogenesis of migraine and is known to dilate cranial arteries and induce headache and migraine. Our objective was to determine whether Lu AG09222—an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody directed against PACAP ligand—would inhibit the PACAP-signaling cascade by abolishing its vasodilatory and headache-inducing abilities. Methods In a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo-controlled study of Lu AG09222, healthy volunteers aged 18–45 years without history of headache disorders were randomly allocated to three treatment sequences (1:2:2) on two experimental infusion visits with 9 ± 3 days’ interval: placebo + saline + saline (n = 5), placebo + PACAP38 + VIP (n = 10), and Lu AG09222 + PACAP38 + VIP (n = 10). The primary outcome measure was area under the curve (AUC) of the change in superficial temporal artery (STA) diameter from 0 to 120 min after start of infusion of PACAP38. The study was conducted at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. Results In participants who received Lu AG09222 + PACAP38 infusion, there was a significantly lower STA diameter (mean (SE) [95% CI] AUC ‒35.4 (4.32) [‒44.6, ‒26.3] mm × min; P

Abstract Background Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. Main body The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. Conclusions The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

BackgroundPituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) provoked cluster headache attacks in individuals with episodic cluster headache during their active phase and individuals with chronic cluster headache. In this study, we investigated whether infusions of PACAP and VIP caused alterations in plasma levels of VIP and their potential contribution to induced cluster headache attacks.MethodsParticipants received either PACAP or VIP infusion for 20 min on 2 separate days with an interval of at least 7 days in between. Blood collection was performed at T0, T20, T30, and T90. Plasma levels of VIP were measured using a validated radioimmunoassay method.ResultsBlood samples were collected from participants with episodic cluster headache in the active phase (eCHA, n = 14), remission (eCHR, n = 15), and from participants with chronic cluster headache (cCH, n = 15). Baseline levels of VIP did not differ among the three groups (p = 0.1161). During PACAP infusion, mixed-effects analysis revealed a significant increase in plasma levels of VIP in eCHA (p = 0.0300) and eCHR (p = 0.0058) but not in cCH (p = 0.2930). We found no difference in the increase of plasma VIP levels between patients who developed PACAP38- or VIP-induced attacks.ConclusionCluster headache attacks induced by PACAP38 or VIP infusion are not associated with changes in plasma levels of VIP. Further studies are needed to investigate the role of VIP and the parasympathetic system in cluster headache.Clinical trial registrationThe parent study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03814226).

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people.

Abstract Background We aimed to explore patients’ preferences for headache treatments with a self-administered questionnaire including the Q-No questionnaire for nocebo. Methods Questionnaires from 514 outpatients naïve to neurostimulation and monoclonal antibodies were collected. Results Patients assessed that the efficacy of a treatment is more important than safety or route of administration. They preferred to use an external neurostimulation device for both acute (67.1%) and preventive treatment (62.8%). Most patients preferred to take a pill (86%) than any other drug given parenterally for symptomatic pharmaceutical treatment. For preventive pharmaceutical treatment, most patients preferred to take a pill once per day (52%) compared to an injection either subcutaneously or intravenously each month (9% and 4%), or three months (15% and 11%). 56.6% of all participants scored more than 15 in Q-No questionnaire indicating potential nocebo behaviors that contributed significantly in their choices. Conclusion These patient preferences along with efficacy and safety data may help physicians better choose the right treatment for the right person.