Browsing by Author "Gil-Gouveia, Raquel"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 23
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Alterations of white matter microstructure in migraine patients vary in the peri-ictal phasesPublication . Fouto, Ana R.; Nunes, Rita G.; Guadilla, Irene; Ruiz-Tagle, Amparo; Esteves, Inês; Caetano, Gina; Silva, Nuno A.; Vilela, Pedro; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Figueiredo, PatriciaAlterations in white matter (WM) microstructure are commonly found in migraine patients. Here, we employ a longitudinal study of episodic migraine without aura using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) to investigate whether such WM microstructure alterations vary through the different phases of the pain cycle. Fourteen patients with episodic migraine without aura related with menstruation were scanned through four phases of their (spontaneous) migraine cycle (interictal, preictal, ictal, and postictal). Fifteen healthy controls were studied in the corresponding phases of the menstrual cycle. Multishell dMRI data were acquired and preprocessed to obtain maps of diffusion parameters reflecting WM microstructure. After a whole-brain analysis comparing patients with controls, a region-of-interest analysis was performed to determine whether the patients’ microstructural changes varied across the migraine cycle in specific WM tracts. Compared with controls, patients showed reduced axial diffusivity (AD) in several WM tracts across the whole brain in the interictal phase and increased fractional anisotropy (FA) in commissural fibers in the ictal phase. Interestingly, AD returned to baseline levels during peri-ictal phases in specific projection and association fibers. In contrast, FA values decreased in the ictal phase away from normal values in a few commissural and projection tracts. Widespread WM fiber tracts suffer structural variations across the migraine cycle, suggesting microstructural changes potentially associated with limbic and salience functional networks and highlighting the importance of the cycle phase in imaging studies of migraine.
- CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic reviewPublication . Oliveira, Renato; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Puledda, FrancescaBACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder. METHODS: We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine. RESULTS: A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine.
- Cognitive aging in migraine sufferers is associated with more subjective complaints but similar age-related decline: a 5-year longitudinal studyPublication . Martins, Isabel Pavão; Maruta, Carolina; Alves, Pedro Nacimento; Loureiro, Clara; Morgado, Joana; Tavares, Joana; Gil-Gouveia, RaquelObjectives and background: The effect of headache on cognitive performance is controversial, due to conflicting results obtained from studies in clinical or population settings. We aimed to understand if migraine and other headaches modify the rates of decline on different cognitive measures, during a 5-year interval. Design and method: A cohort of community dwelling adults (> 50 years) with migraine (MH), non-migraine headaches (NMH) and controls without headache (WoH), was assessed by a comprehensive neuropsychological battery with tests of memory, language and executive functions, repeated 5 years apart. Change in performance between baseline and reevaluation was compared between groups, and controlled for age, gender, literacy and depressive symptoms. Results: A total of 275 participants (78.5% WoH, 12.7% MH, 8.7% NMH) were reevaluated (average age 70.40 + 8.34 years, 64% females). Cognitive decline or dementia occurred in 11.4%, with a similar proportion among the three groups. Although MH participants had significantly more subjective cognitive complaints (p = 0.030, 95%CI:]-3.929,-0.014[), both MH and NMH subjects showed an age-associated decline identical to controls. Furthermore, migraine features (disease and attack duration, frequency and aura) were unrelated with cognitive performance. Conclusion: Migraine and non-migraine headache are not associated with increasing risk of dementia or cognitive decline at an older age although subjects with migraine have more cognitive complaints. Longer longitudinal studies are necessary to understand if this pattern persists for more than 5 years.
- Cognitive performance along the migraine cycle: a negative exploratory studyPublication . Quadros, Maria Ana; Granadeiro, Marta; Ruiz-Tagle, Amparo; Maruta, Carolina; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Martins, Isabel PavãoMigraine patients frequently report cognitive difficulties in the proximity and during migraine attacks. We performed an exploratory comparison of executive functioning across the four stages of the migraine cycle. Consecutive patients with episodic migraine undertook cognitive tests for attention, processing speed, set-shifting, and inhibitory control. Performance was compared between patients in different migraine stages, controlling for attack frequency and prophylactic medication. One hundred forty-three patients (142 women, average age 36.2 ± 9.9 years) were included, 28 preictal (≤48 h before the attack), 21 ictal (during the attack), 18 postictal (≤24 h after attack), and 76 interictal. Test performance (age and literacy adjusted z-scores) was not significantly different across migraine phases, despite a tendency for a decline before the attack. This negative study shows that cognitive performance fluctuates as patients approach the attack. To control for individual variability, this comparison needs to be better characterized longitudinally with a within-patient design.
- Cranial autonomic symptoms and neck pain in differential diagnosis of migrainePublication . Vicente, Beatriz Nunes; Oliveira, Renato; Martins, Isabel Pavão; Gil-Gouveia, RaquelCranial autonomic symptoms and neck pain have been reported to be highly prevalent in migraine, although they are rarely considered in clinical evaluation. The aim of this review is to focus on the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical characteristics of these two symptoms, and their importance in the differential diagnosis between migraines and other headaches. The most common cranial autonomic symptoms are aural fullness, lacrimation, facial/forehead sweating, and conjunctival injection. Migraineurs experiencing cranial autonomic symptoms are more likely to have more severe, frequent, and longer attacks, as well as higher rates of photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, and allodynia. Cranial autonomic symptoms occur due to the activation of the trigeminal autonomic reflex, and the differential diagnosis with cluster headaches can be challenging. Neck pain can be part of the migraine prodromal symptoms or act as a trigger for a migraine attack. The prevalence of neck pain correlates with headache frequency and is associated with treatment resistance and greater disability. The convergence between upper cervical and trigeminal nociception via the trigeminal nucleus caudalis is the likely mechanism for neck pain in migraine. The recognition of cranial autonomic symptoms and neck pain as potential migraine features is important because they often contribute to the misdiagnosis of cervicogenic problems, tension-type headache, cluster headache, and rhinosinusitis in migraine patients, delaying appropriate attack and disease management.
- Early use of erenumab vs nonspecific oral migraine preventives: the APPRAISE randomized clinical trialPublication . Pozo-Rosich, Patricia; Dolezil, David; Paemeleire, Koen; Stepien, Adam; Stude, Philipp; Snellman, Josefin; Arkuszewski, Michal; Stites, Tracy; Ritter, Shannon; Lopez, Cristina Lopez; Maca, Jeff; Ferraris, Matias; Gil-Gouveia, RaquelImportance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden. Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment. Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P <.001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.
- Efficacy and safety of erenumab for nonopioid medication overuse headache in chronic migraine a phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled trialPublication . Tepper, Stewart J.; Dodick, David W.; Lanteri-Minet, Michel; Dolezil, David; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; Lucas, Christian; Piasecka-Stryczynska, Karolina; Szabo, Gyoengyi; Mikol, Daniel D.; Chehrenama, Mahan; Chou, Denise E.; Yang, Yiping; Lima, Gabriel Paiva da SilvaIMPORTANCE Patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headaches (CM-MOH) represent a particularly burdened subpopulation. This trial provides first, to our knowledge, American Academy of Neurology class I evidence for a preventive therapy in CM-MOH. OBJECTIVE To assess erenumab efficacy and safety in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial took place at 67 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia from October 7, 2019, to November 2, 2022. This report reflects the primary analysis conducted in January 2023, using a database snapshot from December 1, 2022, which contains the complete dataset of the double-blind treatment period (DBTP). Participants included adults with CM-MOH who had 1 or more preventive treatment failure(s). There were 992 participants screened and 620 participants enrolled (584 in nonopioid cohort and 36 in opioid cohort) INTERVENTIONS Erenumab, 70 mg, 140 mg, or placebo, once monthly for 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was MOH remission at month 6. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean monthly acute headache medication days (AHMD) at month 6 and sustained MOH remission throughout the DBTP. Safety end points were adverse events and changes in vital signs. RESULTS The primary analysis population included 584 participants in the nonopioid-treated cohort with a mean age of 44 years and 482 participants were female (82.5%). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced across groups. At month 6, 134 participants in the erenumab, 140 mg group (69.1%) (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.33-3.05; P < .001 vs placebo) and 117 in the erenumab, 70 mg group (60.3%) (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.92-2.05; P = .13 vs placebo) achieved MOH remission vs 102 participants in the placebo group (52.6%). AHMD use was also reduced in the erenumab groups vs placebo. Least squares mean (standard error) change from baseline in average monthly AHMD was –9.4 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 140 mg group (difference from placebo, –2.7; 95% CI, –3.9 to –1.6; P < .001) and –7.8 (0.4) days in the erenumab, 70 mg group (difference from placebo, –1.2; 95% CI, –2.4 to –0.1; P = .03), vs –6.6 (0.4) days in the placebo group. MOH remission throughout the DBTP was sustained in 119 participants (61.3%,) 96 participants (49.5%), and 73 participants (37.6%) in the erenumab, 140 mg, 70 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of erenumab. Treatment-emergent adverse events incidence in the combined erenumab group was 66.8% (259 participants; constipation 15.2% (59 participants) and COVID-19 13.9% (54 participants) were most common. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, monthly, 140 mg, erenumab injections safely and effectively achieved MOH remission in patients with nonopioid CM-MOH within 6 months.
- 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 2: flunarizinePublication . Deligianni, Christina I.; Sacco, Simona; Ekizoglu, Esme; Uluduz, Derya; Gil-Gouveia, Raquel; MaassenVanDenBrink, Antoinette; Ornello, Raffaele; Sanchez-del-Rio, Margarita; Reuter, Uwe; Versijpt, Jan; Vries, Tessa de; Hussain, Muizz; Zeraatkar, Dena; Lampl, ChristianObjective: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo–controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. Results: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). Conclusions: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large‐scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.
- 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.
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »