ObjectiveTo examine the effect of sex on clinical response to triptans in migraine and to determine whether these differences are related to pharmacokinetics of triptans in men and women, we... Show moreObjectiveTo examine the effect of sex on clinical response to triptans in migraine and to determine whether these differences are related to pharmacokinetics of triptans in men and women, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched clinical trials distinguishing clinical response to or pharmacokinetic parameters of triptans between sexes in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up to Dec 12, 2019. Analysis was based on data extracted from published reports. Male-to-female pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated for clinical outcomes and pooled ratio of means (RoM) for pharmacokinetic outcomes using random-effects models.ResultsOf 1,188 publications on clinical trials with triptans, 244 were identified with sex-related search terms. Only 19 publications presented sex-specific results, comprising n = 2,280 men and n = 13,899 women. No sex differences were revealed for 2-hour headache and pain-free responses, but men had a lower risk for headache recurrence (male-to-female RR 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.76, Q = 0.81) and adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72-0.93, Q = 4.93). Men had lower drug exposure with lower area under the curve (RoM 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.81, Q = 18.06) and peak drug concentration (RoM 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64-0.82, Q = 8.24) than women.ConclusionsRemarkably few publications about sex differences in triptan response are available. The limited number of eligible studies show sex differences in adverse event frequency, which may be partly because of drug exposure differences. This higher drug exposure in women is not reflected in different response rates. Despite higher exposure, women have higher headache recurrence rates possibly because of longer attack duration related to sex hormonal changes. Show less
Meier, K.; Glatz, T.; Guijt, M.C.; Piccininni, M.; Meulen, M. van der; Atmar, K.; ... ; COVID 19 Survey Study Grp 2020
BackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2... Show moreBackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Our study aimed to describe the public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures, the reported implementation of these measures, and to identify communication channels used to acquire information on COVID-19 in European countries during the early stage of the pandemic.Methods and findingsAn online survey available in multiple languages was disseminated starting on March 19th, 2020. After five days, we computed descriptive statistics for countries with more than 500 respondents. Each day, we assessed enacted community containment measures by stage of stringency (I-IV). In total, 9,796 adults responded, of whom 8,611 resided in the Netherlands (stage III), 604 in Germany (stage III), and 581 in Italy (stage IV). To explore possible dynamics as containment strategies intensified, we also included 1,365 responses submitted during the following week. Participants indicated support for governmental measures related to avoiding social gatherings, selective closure of public places, and hand hygiene and respiratory measures (range for all measures: 95.0%-99.7%). Respondents from the Netherlands less frequently considered a complete social lockdown effective (59.2%), compared to respondents in Germany (76.6%) or Italy (87.2%). Italian residents applied enforced social distancing measures more frequently (range: 90.2%-99.3%, German and Dutch residents: 67.5%-97.0%) and self-initiated hygienic and social distancing behaviors (range: 36.3%-96.6%, German and Dutch residents: 28.3%-95.7%). Respondents reported being sufficiently informed about the outbreak and behaviors to avoid infection (range: 90.2%-91.1%). Information channels most commonly reported included television newspapers, official health websites, and social media. One week later, we observed no major differences in submitted responses.ConclusionsDuring the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, belief in the effectiveness of protective measures among survey respondents from three European countries was high and participants reported feeling sufficiently informed. In March 2020, implementation of measures differed between countries and were highest among respondents from Italy, who were subjected to the most stringent lockdown measures and greatest COVID-19 burden in Europe during this period. Show less
ObjectiveTo assess whether the polygenic risk score (PRS) for migraine is associated with acute and/or prophylactic migraine treatment response.MethodsWe interviewed 2,219 unrelated patients at the... Show moreObjectiveTo assess whether the polygenic risk score (PRS) for migraine is associated with acute and/or prophylactic migraine treatment response.MethodsWe interviewed 2,219 unrelated patients at the Danish Headache Center using a semistructured interview to diagnose migraine and assess acute and prophylactic drug response. All patients were genotyped. A PRS was calculated with the linkage disequilibrium pred algorithm using summary statistics from the most recent migraine genome-wide association study comprising similar to 375,000 cases and controls. The PRS was scaled to a unit corresponding to a twofold increase in migraine risk, using 929 unrelated Danish controls as reference. The association of the PRS with treatment response was assessed by logistic regression, and the predictive power of the model by area under the curve using a case-control design with treatment response as outcome.ResultsA twofold increase in migraine risk associates with positive response to migraine-specific acute treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.49]). The association between migraine risk and migraine-specific acute treatment was replicated in an independent cohort consisting of 5,616 triptan users with prescription history (OR = 3.20 [95% CI = 1.26-8.14]). No association was found for acute treatment with non-migraine-specific weak analgesics and prophylactic treatment response.ConclusionsThe migraine PRS can significantly identify subgroups of patients with a higher-than-average likelihood of a positive response to triptans, which provides a first step toward genetics-based precision medicine in migraine. Show less
