Efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 521-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Poolsup ◽  
V. Leelasangaluk ◽  
J. Jittangtrong ◽  
C. Rithlamlert ◽  
N. Ratanapantamanee ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Moisset ◽  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
Daniel Ciampi de Andrade ◽  
Denys Fontaine ◽  
Michel Lantéri-Minet ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods. Methods We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high. Conclusion Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Diao ◽  
Hang Yang ◽  
Yang Chun Zhou ◽  
Biao Du

Abstract Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant in patients with acute migraine. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to JULY, 2019. Randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and/or tolerability of ubrogepant for migraine were included. Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of 4 RCTs involving 4 163 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that:compared to the control group, the percentage of participants with PF, the percentage of participants with PR, the percentage of participants with SPF, the percentage of participants with SPR,the absence of phonophobia in sound,the absence of phonophobia in light and the absence of nausea (RR=1.31,95%CI:1.18~1.45,P<0.00001, RR=1.63,95%CI:1.46~1.82,P<0.00001, RR=1.22,95%CI:1.15~1.29,P<0.00001, RR=1.32,95%CI:1.22~1.42,P<0.00001, RR=1.16,95%CI:1.05~1.27,P=0.002), all the differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: For adult patients with acute migraine, ubrogepant could effectively abort the acute attack. High-quality, adequately powered RCTs are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant for acute migraine.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document