Biomedical subjects

Paul Winner

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Winner.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Triptans for migraine management in adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To review triptan efficacy and tolerability data for adolescent migraine sufferers to assist clinicians in selecting triptans for this age group. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common cause of headache among adolescents. To date, no medications, including those with proven headache relief in adults, have been approved for treatment of migraine in adolescents. METHODS: Recent triptan clinical trials conducted in adolescent migraine sufferers 12 to 17 years of age were reviewed and results were summarized. RESULTS: The success of individual triptan clinical trials conducted in adolescent appears related to time to treatment (1.9 to 6 hours), placebo response (25% to 57%), and day of the week (weekday versus weekend). Overall, triptan tolerability in adolescents is similar to that reported in adults. CONCLUSION: Study results suggest that the triptan class of antimigraine drugs may effectively alleviate migraine in adolescents. Future research should address placebo response and earlier treatment paradigms.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of therapeutic gain with therapeutic ratio for the assessment of selective 5HT(1B/1D) agonist efficacy in migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of use of therapeutic gain (TG) and therapeutic ratio (TR) for relative assessments of selective 5HT(1B/1D) agonist efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Comparison of selective 5HT(1B/1D) agonist efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine is complicated by the impracticality of conducting high-quality head-to-head active comparator trials for all permutations of drug, dose, and route of administration; the clinical trials that are available are usually noncontemporaneous, and have fluctuating active and placebo response rates (ARR and PRR, respectively) for the necessarily subjective endpoints. The standard primary endpoint is conversion of headache score 2 (moderate pain) or score 3 (severe pain) into score 0 (no pain) or score 1 (mild pain) at a single timepoint (usually 2 or 4 hours postdose). Two principal methods have been used for comparison of ARR between studies: TG = ARR - PRR and TR = ARR/PRR. Secondary endpoints can be treated in the same way, although the 24-hour remedication rate is the only secondary endpoint that is subject to regulatory authority standardization. Does either TG or TR have an advantage over the other? METHODS: Efficacy data were collected from published sources and included pain score conversion at 2- and 4-hour, as well as 24-hour remedication rates. TG and TR were calculated for each endpoint, as shown above. The ranges of these variables were found from all observed measures. Correlations between TG and TR were found using least squares methods. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for TG and TR were then found for all clinical trials, and for the whole range of observed PRR. RESULTS: Values for TR and TG generally were well correlated for pain score conversion at 2 hours postdose (n = 51 clinical trials). Deviations from this correlation were greatest for drugs that were evidently very efficacious. When standardized for the observed ranges of PRR and ARR, the 95% CI for TR were narrower than for TG. A subset of these studies also reported 4-hour data (n = 23 clinical trials), but the correlation between TR and TG was again good, with narrower 95% CI for TR than TG. For the 24-hour remedication data (n = 18 trials), PRR was less variable; TR and TG again correlated well, but there was little difference in their relative 95% CI. CONCLUSIONS: For comparison of drugs in noncontemporaneous studies, when PRR fluctuates, relative ranges for TR are narrower than for TG. For assessing single clinical trial results (ie, point estimates of efficacy) TR will generally be relatively nearer to its mean than TG. For both these reasons, TR is a more robust statistic than TG.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Use of the ICHD-II criteria in the diagnosis of pediatric migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the new International Classification of Headache Disorders-2nd edition (ICHD-II) criteria in the diagnosis of childhood migraine and to propose specific criteria for the diagnosis of childhood migraine. BACKGROUND: In 2004, ICHD-II was adopted by the International Headache Society. The prior version had been criticized for its lack of sensitivity in diagnosing childhood headaches. ICHD-II is felt to be an improvement as it provides for some differences between pediatric and adult migraine diagnosis in its footnotes, however, has yet to be validated. Clinically, it is the impression of many pediatric headache specialists that children's migraines are of shorter duration, tend to be bilateral rather than unilateral, and that children more often report either photophobia or phonophobia, rather than both. METHODS: The characteristics of headache in 260 patients, ages 18 and under, clinically diagnosed with migraine at two large pediatric headache centers were compiled using standard intake questionnaires. Inter-rater reliability in clinical diagnosis was determined by consensus of the clinical diagnosis. These data were analyzed applying the International Classification of Headache Disorders-1st edition (ICHD-I) and ICHD-II criteria for migraine to determine sensitivity of migraine diagnosis in comparison with clinical impression. Each headache characteristic in ICHD-II was analyzed individually to determine its effect on sensitivity of diagnosis. RESULTS: 183/260 patients (70.4%) met ICHD-I criteria. 161/260 patients (61.9%) met the ICHD-II criteria with a 4- to 72-hour range. When the footnoted allowance of ICHD-II for short duration (2 hours) was utilized, 187/260 patients (71.9%) met criteria, while this improved to 192/260 patients (73.9%) with 1-hour duration. If duration was excluded, 210/260 patients (80.8%) met criteria. The most common reasons for patients not meeting the standard criteria were the requirement of unilateral location, headache duration and number of associated symptoms. Based on these observations, modified criteria were empirically derived and the sensitivity increased to 84.4%. Data were reanalyzed using the criteria of focal head pain, either bilateral or unilateral, shortened duration, and modified associated symptoms, which resulted in an improved sensitivity in migraine diagnosis of 84.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of ICHD-II criteria to include bilateral headache, headache duration of 1 to 72 hours, and nausea and/or vomiting plus two of five other associated symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, difficulty thinking, lightheadedness, or fatigue), in addition to the usual description of moderate to severe pain of a throbbing or pulsating nature worsening or limiting physical activity, improved sensitivity of migraine diagnosis to 84.4%.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Topiramate for migraine prevention in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate for the prevention of pediatric migraine with or without aura in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pediatric migraine are currently limited, and no migraine preventive agents are approved for use in children in the United States. Topiramate is an effective migraine preventive therapy in adults, as demonstrated in several large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two children with migraine (age, 6 to 15 years) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive topiramate (n = 112) or placebo (n = 50). This study was designed to ensure that 150 participants were randomized to study medication. An additional 12 qualified patients were randomized because they had successfully completed the screening phase. The double-blind phase of the trial consisted of a titration period and a maintenance period. Topiramate was initiated at 15 mg/day and titrated over 8 weeks to 2 to 3 mg/kg per day, or maximum tolerated dose, whichever was less (maximum allowed dose was 200 mg/day). The target dose was maintained for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in mean number of migraine days per month (28 days) during the double-blind phase relative to the 4-week prospective baseline phase for each treatment group. RESULTS: Topiramate treatment was associated with a mean reduction over the entire double-blind phase of 2.6 migraine days per month, compared with a mean reduction of 2.0 migraine days per month for placebo (P = .061 topiramate vs. placebo). A significantly greater percentage of topiramate patients (32%) experienced a > or = 75% reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo (14%, P = .02). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low: 6.5% for the topiramate group and 4.0% for the placebo group. The adverse events that occurred most commonly in the topiramate group at an incidence rate greater than in the placebo group were: upper respiratory tract infection, anorexia, weight decrease, gastroenteritis, paresthesia, and somnolence. The mean average daily dose of topiramate during the maintenance period was 2.0 mg/kg per day. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that topiramate may be an effective migraine preventive therapy in children. Topiramate was well tolerated in this population. Further randomized studies would be required to definitively establish the efficacy of topiramate for pediatric migraine prevention.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents: a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficacy and safety of topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents from 3 randomized, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding the efficacy and safety of prophylactic medications for treatment of adolescent migraine, a significant health problem. In studies that included adults and children, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day were effective and generally well-tolerated in the prevention of migraine headache. METHODS: We performed a post hoc subset analysis of the efficacy and safety data from the 51 patients, ages 12-17 years, enrolled in 3 pivotal trials of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. RESULTS: Daily treatment with topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg for 26 weeks reduced monthly migraine frequency from baseline 46% (P= .07), 63% (P= .02), and 65% (P= .04), respectively, compared with placebo (16%). Similarly, topiramate reduced both the monthly mean number of migraine days (1, 4, and 5 days for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 1 day for placebo) and percentage of days during which acute migraine medications were administered (59%, 54%, and 67% for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 42% for placebo), although the treatment differences did not reach nominal statistical significance. Topiramate 200 mg/day did not appear to offer greater efficacy than 100 mg/day. Treatment was generally well-tolerated, although adverse events were most frequent in the 200 mg/day dose group. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc subset analysis suggests that topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, and possibly 50 mg/day, administered prophylactically for 26 weeks may reduce migraine in adolescents.

Adolescent↗