Topiramate Versus Amitriptyline in Migraine Prevention: A 26-Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Parallel-Group Noninferiority Trial in Adult Migraineurs

Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona 85054, USA.
Clinical Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 2.59). 03/2009; 31(3):542-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.03.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate and amitriptyline in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine headache.
This was a 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group noninferiority study. Adults with 3 to 12 migraines per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive an initial dose of 25 mg/d of either topiramate or amitriptyline, subsequently titrated to a maximum of 100 mg/d (or the maximum tolerated dose). The primary efficacy outcome was the change from prospective baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine episodes. Secondary efficacy variables included changes from the prospective baseline phase to the end of the double-blind phase in the mean monthly (28-day) rate of days with migraine, mean monthly rate of days with headache (migraine and nonmigraine), mean monthly rate of acute abortive medication use, mean monthly migraine duration, and mean monthly migraine severity. Additional secondary efficacy variables included changes in the mean monthly severity of migraine-associated symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea), change in the mean monthly frequency f migraine-associated vomiting, and response rates (based on monthly migraine days and total headache days). The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Weight Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire, which measures subjective satisfaction with current weight, were administered. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored through the end of double-blind treatment.
The intent-to-treat population included 331 subjects (172 topiramate, 159 amitriptyline; 84.9% female; 84.6% white; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [11.0] years; mean weight, 77.1 [20.1] kg) who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment. The least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine episodes was not significantly different between the topiramate and amitriptyline groups (-2.6 and -2.7, respectively; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in any of the prespecified secondary outcome measures. Subjects receiving topiramate had a significantly greater improvement in mean functional disability scores during migraine attacks compared with amitriptyline (LSM change: -0.33 vs -0.19; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.0; P = 0.040) and in the role function-restrictive, role function-preventive, and emotional function domains of the MSQ (P = 0.012, P = 0.014, and P = 0.029, respectively). Subjects receiving topiramate had a mean weight loss of 2.4 kg, compared with a mean weight gain of 2.4 kg in subjects receiving amitriptyline. Subjects in the topiramate group reported an overall improvement from baseline in weight satisfaction, whereas the amitriptyline group reported an overall deterioration in weight satisfaction (P < 0.001, topiramate vs amitriptyline). TEAEs of mild or moderate severity were reported in 118 subjects (66.7%) in the topiramate group and 112 subjects (66.3%) in the amitriptyline group. Among the most common TEAEs (reported in +/-5% of subjects during the double-blind phase) in the topiramate group were paresthesia (29.9%), fatigue (16.9%), somnolence (11.9%), hypoesthesia (10.7%), and nausea (10.2%). The most commonly reported TEAEs in the amitriptyline group were dry mouth (35.5%), fatigue (24.3%), somnolence (17.8%), weight increase (13.6%), dizziness (10.7%), and sinusitis (10.7%).
In this noninferiority study, topiramate was at least as effective as amitriptyline in terms of reducing the rate of mean monthly migraine episodes and all prespecified secondary efficacy end points. Topiramate was associated with improvement in some quality-of-life indicators compared with amitriptyline and was associated with weight loss and improved weight satisfaction.

Download full-text


Available from: David W Dodick, Feb 24, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Migraine and metabolic syndrome are highly prevalent and costly conditions. The two conditions coexist, but it is unclear what relationship may exist between the two processes. Metabolic syndrome involves a number of findings, including insulin resistance, systemic hypertension, obesity, a proinflammatory state, and a prothrombotic state. Only one study addresses migraine in metabolic syndrome, finding significant differences in the presentation of metabolic syndrome in migraineurs. However, controversy exists regarding the contribution of each individual risk factor to migraine pathogenesis and prevalence. It is unclear what treatment implications, if any, exist as a result of the concomitant diagnosis of migraine and metabolic syndrome. The cornerstone of migraine and metabolic syndrome treatments is prevention, relying heavily on diet modification, sleep hygiene, medication use, and exercise.
    Frontiers in Neurology 11/2012; 3:161. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2012.00161
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After the triptans, a calcitonin gene-related peptide blocker (telcagepant) is the first acute medicine that has been developed primarily for treatment of acute migraine. Otherwise, the new drugs have been developed first for other purposes, like anticonvulsants, antihypertensives and antidepressants used for migraine prophylaxis. For acute attacks, a new way to administer a traditional drug like dihydroergotamine is under way, and documentation of efficacy in migraine has been gained for some commonly used painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and for some herbal extracts. Based on insights into the basic pathophysiological mechanisms of the disorder, some drugs have been developed which seem promising in early phase II studies (NOS inhibitors and 5HT1F-receptor agonists). In the future, development and enhancements of existing medicines must be accompanied by increased efforts to develop truly new migraine drugs based on knowledge of the pathophysiology if one wishes to reduce substantially the great burden migraine poses on patients and society.
    The Journal of Headache and Pain 10/2009; 10(6):395-406. DOI:10.1007/s10194-009-0156-9 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The majority of patients with migraine headaches are treated in non-specialized institutions though data on treatment outcomes are largely derived from tertiary care centers. The current non-interventional study explores efficacy and tolerability outcomes of patients with episodic migraines receiving topiramate as preventive agent in a general practice setting. A total of 366 patients (87% female, mean age 41.8 +/- 11.6 years) were eligible for migraine prevention and treated with flexible dose topiramate for 6 months (core phase), and optionally for a total of 12 months (follow-up phase). Overall, 261 patients (77.7% of safety analysis set, SAF) completed the core phase. Reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (2.1%), lost to follow-up (1.8%), other reasons (1.5%), and end of therapy (0.3%) though in the majority of patients who discontinued no reasons were listed. The median daily dose at endpoint was 50 mg/day (range, 25-187.5 mg/day). The median days with migraine headaches decreased from 6.0 to 1.2 days (p < 0.001), median pain intensity score decreased from 17.0 to 3.2 points (p < 0.001). In women with reported menstruation-associated migraine, the median number of migraine attacks decreased from 4.0 to 0.9 (p < 0.001). Absenteeism as well as triptan use decreased significantly, and significant improvements in activities of daily living and quality of life were reported. The most frequently reported AEs were paraesthesia (4.2%) and nausea (3%). Results suggest that migraine prevention with topiramate in a general practice is generally well tolerated and associated with a significant improvement in migraine headaches and related functional impairment.
    The Journal of Headache and Pain 11/2009; 11(1):33-44. DOI:10.1007/s10194-009-0163-x · 3.28 Impact Factor