In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been... Show moreIn 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated. Show less
Migraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues... Show moreMigraine is a common headache disorder. This Primer by Ferrari and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Moreover, quality of life issues faced by patients with migraine and future research avenues are discussed.Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1(F) receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on >= 15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management. Show less
Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with... Show moreMigraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT1B/1D receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1F receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on ≥15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management. Show less
Diener, H.C.; Tassorelli, C.; Dodick, D.W.; Silberstein, S.D.; Lipton, R.B.; Ashina, M.; ... ; Int Headache Soc Clinical Trials C 2020
Clinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and... Show moreClinical trials are a key component of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of theGuidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. Advances in drugs, devices, and biologicals, as well as novel trial designs, have prompted several updates over the nearly 30 years since, including most recently theGuidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine(2018), theGuidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults(2019), andGuidelines for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine in children and adolescents(2019). The present update incorporates findings from new research and is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive pharmacological treatment of episodic migraine in adults. A guideline for clinical trials with devices will be published separately. Show less
Diener, H.C.; Tassorelli, C.; Dodick, D.W.; Silberstein, S.D.; Lipton, R.B.; Ashina, M.; ... ; Int Headache Soc Clinical Trials S 2019
Objective.- To evaluate whether the same or different patients respond to triptans and telcagepant. Background.- Telcagepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist with... Show moreObjective.- To evaluate whether the same or different patients respond to triptans and telcagepant. Background.- Telcagepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist with acute antimigraine efficacy comparable to oral triptans. It is currently unknown whether migraine patients who cannot be adequately helped with triptans might benefit from treatment with telcagepant. Methods.- Post-hoc analysis of data from a randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant (150 mg, 300 mg) zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo for a moderate/severe migraine. Responder rates were analyzed according to patients' self-reported historical triptan response (HTR): (1) good HTR (N = 660): response in 75-100% of attacks; (2) intermediate HTR (N = 248): response in 25-74% of attacks; (3) poor HTR/no use (N = 407): response in < 25% of attacks, or patient did not take triptans. A limitation of the analysis is that the last subgroup comprised mainly (91%) patients who reported that they did not take triptans, but it was not known whether these patients were triptan-naive or had previously used triptans and stopped taking them. Results.- For zolmitriptan, 2-hour pain relief rates were higher in the good HTR subgroup (116/162, 72%) than in the intermediate (29/62, 47%) and poor/no use (44/111, 40%) HTR subgroups. The 2-hour pain relief rates were similar across HTR subgroups for telcagepant 150 mg (48-58%), 300 mg (52-58%), and placebo (26-31%). In the poor/no use HTR subgroup, more patients receiving telcagepant 300 mg (56/98, 57.1%) had 2-hour pain relief than those receiving zolmitriptan (44/111, 39.6%; odds ratio = 2.11 [95% CI: 1.20,3.71], P = .009); the percentage for telcagepant 150 mg (57/119, 47.9%) was not significantly different from zolmitriptan (odds ratio = 1.41 [95% CI: 0.82, 2.40], P = .211). Conclusions.- This suggests that different patients may respond to triptans or telcagepant 300 mg. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results because of the post-hoc nature of the analysis (clinical trial registry: NCT00442936). Show less
