Browsing by Author "Amin, Faisal Mohammad"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Correction to: The role of community pharmacists in managing common headache disorders, and their integration within structured headache services: position statement on behalf of the European Headache Federation (EHF) and Lifting The Burden (LTB: the Global Campaign against Headache), with the formal endorsement of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (The Journal of Headache and Pain, (2025), 26, 1, (100), 10.1186/s10194-025-02021-3)Publication . Banihani, Heba; Lampl, Christian; Maassenvandenbrink, Antoinette; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Carlsen, Louise Ninett; Coppola, Gianluca; Deligianni, Christina; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Holland, Philip R.; Husoy, Andreas K.; Jensen, Rigmor; Plácido, Madalena; Reuter, Uwe; Ryliskiene, Kristina; Rio, Margarita Sanchez del; Schytz, Henrik Winther; Tronvik, Erling; Versijpt, Jan; Steiner, Timothy J.Correction: J Headache Pain 26, 100 (2025) In this article, the text “on behalf of the European Headache Federation, the Norwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead) and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache” has been removed from the author list because it erroneously duplicated text from the article title.
- European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failurePublication . Sacco, Simona; Lampl, Christian; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Braschinsky, Mark; Deligianni, Christina; Uludüz, Derya; Versijpt, Jan; Ducros, Anne; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Katsarava, Zaza; Martelletti, Paolo; Ornello, Raffaele; Raffaelli, Bianca; Boucherie, Deirdre M.; Pozo-Rosich, Patricia; Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita; Sinclair, Alexandra; Maassen van den Brink, Antoinette; Reuter, UweBACKGROUND: 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.
- European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptylinePublication . Lampl, Christian; Versijpt, Jan; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Deligianni, Christina I.; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Jassal, Tanvir; MaassenVanDenBrink, Antoinette; Ornello, Raffaele; Paungarttner, Jakob; Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita; Reuter, Uwe; Uluduz, Derya; de Vries, Tessa; Zeraatkar, Dena; Sacco, SimonaOBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We report our 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 amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the 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 migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.
- European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention – part 3: topiramatePublication . Raffaelli, Bianca; García-Azorín, David; Boucherie, Deirdre M.; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Deligianni, Christina I.; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Kirsh, Sarah; Lampl, Christian; Sacco, Simona; Uluduz, Derya; Versijpt, Jan; MaassenVanDenBrink, Antoinette; Zeraatkar, Dena; Sanchez-del-Rio, Margarita; Reuter, UweObjective: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. Results: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41–0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. Conclusions: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.
- European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention – 2022 updatePublication . Sacco, Simona; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Ashina, Messoud; Bendtsen, Lars; Deligianni, Christina I.; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Katsarava, Zaza; MaassenVanDenBrink, Antoinette; Martelletti, Paolo; Mitsikostas, Dimos Dimitrios; Ornello, Raffaele; Reuter, Uwe; Sanchez-del-Rio, Margarita; Sinclair, Alexandra J.; Terwindt, Gisela; Uluduz, Derya; Versijpt, Jan; Lampl, ChristianBackground: A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments. Methods: The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided. Results: We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts’ opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives. Conclusion: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.
- The role of community pharmacists in managing common headache disorders, and their integration within structured headache services: position statement on behalf of the European Headache Federation (EHF) and Lifting The Burden (LTB: the Global Campaign against Headache), with the formal endorsement of the International Pharmaceutical FederationPublication . BaniHani, Heba; Lampl, Christian; MaassenvandenBrink, Antoinette; Amin, Faisal Mohammad; Carlsen, Louise Ninett; Coppola, Gianluca; Deligianni, Christina; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Holland, Philip R.; Husøy, Andreas K.; Jensen, Rigmor; Plácido, Madalena; Reuter, Uwe; Ryliškienė, Kristina; Río, Margarita Sanchez del; Schytz, Henrik Winther; Tronvik, Erling; Versijpt, Jan; Steiner, Timothy J.In the sustainable development goals (SDG) context of seeking universal health coverage, the expanding gap between the supply of specialized and primary health-care providers of headache-related health care and the care needs of the very large number of people affected by headache is a formidable but not insoluble public-health challenge. Structured headache services provide a cost-effective framework wherein controlled patient flows enable the care needs of people with headache to be met at appropriate levels, but these services may still be overwhelmed by inappropriate demand. Community pharmacists are an underutilized resource, potentially well able to provide the solution. To do so, they must, as a profession, be integrated into structured headache services. What remains to be determined is how to achieve this integration in an encouraging climate for change, which recognises the potential for relieving strained health-care systems and meeting a range of health-care needs by expanding pharmacists’ scope of practice. This position statement on behalf of the European Headache Federation (EHF) and Lifting The Burden (LTB) is formally endorsed by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP).
- Use of non-pharmacological therapies in individuals with migraine eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-signaling: a single-center cross-sectional observational studyPublication . Rundblad, Lucas; Cullum, Christopher Kjaer; Sacco, Simona; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Uludüz, Derya; Do, Thien Phu; Amin, Faisal MohammadIntroduction: Accessibility of treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway is impeded by regulatory restrictions. Affected individuals may seek out other services including non-pharmacological therapies. Thus, we found it timely to ascertain the use of non-pharmacological therapies in individuals with treatment-resistant migraine eligible for and naïve to treatment with CGRP-signaling targeting monoclonal antibodies. Methods: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional observational study of patients eligible for and naïve to treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor. We recorded demographical information (gender, age, educational level, employment status, and income), disease burden (frequency of headache days and migraine days), previous use of preventive pharmacological medications for migraine, and use of non-pharmacological therapies over the past 3 months including frequency of interventions, costs, and patient-reported assessment of efficacy on a 6-point scale (0: no efficacy, 5: best possible efficacy). Results: We included 122 patients between 17 June 2019 and 6 January 2020; 101 (83%) were women and the mean age was 45.2 ± 13.3 years. One-third (n = 41 [34%]) had used non-pharmacological therapy within the past 3 months. Among these participants, the median frequency of different interventions was 1 (IQR: 1–2), the median number of monthly visits was 2.3 (IQR: 1.3–4), mean and median monthly costs were 1,086 ± 1471, and 600 (IQR: 0–1200) DKK (1 EUR = ~7.5 DKK), respectively, and median patient-reported assessment of the efficacy of interventions was 2 (IQR: 0–3). Conclusion: Even in a high-income country with freely accessible headache services and universal healthcare coverage, there was a non-negligible direct cost in parallel with low satisfaction for non-pharmacological therapies among patients at a tertiary headache center.