TY - JOUR
T1 - Pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine
AU - Webster, Katie E.
AU - Dor, Afrose
AU - Galbraith, Kevin
AU - Haj Kassem, Luma
AU - Harrington-Benton, Natasha A.
AU - Judd, Owen
AU - Kaski, Diego
AU - Maarsingh, Otto R.
AU - MacKeith, Samuel
AU - Ray, Jaydip
AU - van Vugt, Vincent A.
AU - Burton, Martin J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure, Cochrane Programme Grant or Cochrane Incentive funding to Cochrane ENT, as well as an Evidence Synthesis Programme grant (NIHR132217). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Evidence Synthesis Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Funding Information:
The study was supported by funding from the Fluid Research Grants, Christian Medical College Research, based in Vellore
Funding Information:
This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure, Cochrane Programme Grant or Cochrane Incentive funding to Cochrane ENT, as well as an Evidence Synthesis Programme grant (NIHR132217). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Evidence Synthesis Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. The development of the protocol (including the prioritisation of outcomes) for this review was informed by responses to a survey to encourage patient and public involvement in the review process. The development and distribution of this survey would not have been possible without the support of the Ménière's Society and the Migraine Trust, and the authors wish to thank them for their help. The authors would like to thank Lee Yee Chong for her work on generic text that has been used and adapted (with permission) in the methods section of the review protocol. We would also like to extend our thanks to Frances Kellie and Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth for their permission to use and reproduce the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trustworthiness Screening Tool in this review. The authors are grateful to Professor Malcolm Hilton and Dr Pavan S Krishnan for clinical peer review of this systematic review, and to Stella O'Brien for her consumer review. Thanks to John P Carey MD and Pavan S Krishnan for clinical peer review of the protocol, and Iris Gordon, Information Specialist with Cochrane Eyes and Vision, for providing peer review comments on the draft search methods. Our thanks also to Professor Stephen O'Leary for editorial sign-off of the protocol and review. We would also like to thank Yuan Chi, who provided help with translation and data extraction of the study Yuan 2016. Finally, our grateful thanks to Jenny Bellorini, Managing Editor for Cochrane ENT, and Samantha Cox, Information Specialist, without whom the development of this review would not have been possible. Cochrane ENT supported the authors in the development of this review. The following people conducted the editorial process for this article: Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Professor Stephen O'Leary, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne (Cochrane ENT Editor). Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Jenny Bellorini, Cochrane ENT. Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Jenny Bellorini, Cochrane ENT. Peer reviewers: Professor Malcolm Hilton, Department of ENT, Royal Devon University Foundation Trust (clinical/content review), Dr Pavan S Krishnan (clinical/content review), Stella O'Brien (consumer review). Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Professor Stephen O'Leary, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne (Cochrane ENT Editor). Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Jenny Bellorini, Cochrane ENT. Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Jenny Bellorini, Cochrane ENT. Peer reviewers: Professor Malcolm Hilton, Department of ENT, Royal Devon University Foundation Trust (clinical/content review), Dr Pavan S Krishnan (clinical/content review), Stella O'Brien (consumer review).
Funding Information:
Quote: "The PROVEMIG study was not co-sponsored and was supported by the German Center for Vertigo and Balance Disorders (DSGZ), University Hospital Munich, Campus Grosshaden, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the framework of the Integrated Research and Treatment Centers program (funding reference number: 01EO0901). The funder had no role in the design, management, data collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data or in writing the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication." Quote: "MS [Michael Strupp] is Joint Chief Editor of the Journal of Neurology, Editor in Chief of Frontiers of Neuro-otology and Section Editor of F1000. He has received speaker’s honoraria from Abbott, Actelion, Auris Medical, Biogen, Eisai, Grünenthal, GSK, Henning Pharma, Interacoustics, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Otometrics, Pierre-Fabre, TEVA GmBH, and UCB. He is a shareholder in IntraBio. He acts as a consultant for Abbott, Actelion, AurisMedical, Heel, IntraBio and Sensorion. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests."
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
PY - 2023/4/12
Y1 - 2023/4/12
N2 - Background: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used or proposed to be used as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Search methods: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants, diuretics, monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (or its receptor), botulinum toxin or hormonal modification with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included three studies with a total of 209 participants. One evaluated beta-blockers and the other two evaluated calcium channel blockers. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining interventions of interest. Beta-blockers versus placebo. One study (including 130 participants, 61% female) evaluated the use of 95 mg metoprolol once daily for six months, compared to placebo. The proportion of people who reported improvement in vertigo was not assessed in this study. Some data were reported on the frequency of vertigo attacks at six months and the occurrence of serious adverse effects. However, this is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Calcium channel blockers versus no treatment. Two studies, which included a total of 79 participants (72% female), assessed the use of 10 mg flunarizine once daily for three months, compared to no intervention. All of the evidence for this comparison was of very low certainty. Most of our outcomes were only reported by a single study, therefore we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis. Some data were reported on improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo, but no information was available regarding serious adverse events. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results, as these data come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Authors' conclusions: There is very limited evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding the efficacy and potential harms of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. We only identified evidence for two of our interventions of interest (beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers) and all evidence was of low or very low certainty. Further research is necessary to identify whether these treatments are effective at improving symptoms and whether there are any harms associated with their use.
AB - Background: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used or proposed to be used as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Search methods: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants, diuretics, monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (or its receptor), botulinum toxin or hormonal modification with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included three studies with a total of 209 participants. One evaluated beta-blockers and the other two evaluated calcium channel blockers. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining interventions of interest. Beta-blockers versus placebo. One study (including 130 participants, 61% female) evaluated the use of 95 mg metoprolol once daily for six months, compared to placebo. The proportion of people who reported improvement in vertigo was not assessed in this study. Some data were reported on the frequency of vertigo attacks at six months and the occurrence of serious adverse effects. However, this is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Calcium channel blockers versus no treatment. Two studies, which included a total of 79 participants (72% female), assessed the use of 10 mg flunarizine once daily for three months, compared to no intervention. All of the evidence for this comparison was of very low certainty. Most of our outcomes were only reported by a single study, therefore we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis. Some data were reported on improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo, but no information was available regarding serious adverse events. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results, as these data come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Authors' conclusions: There is very limited evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding the efficacy and potential harms of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. We only identified evidence for two of our interventions of interest (beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers) and all evidence was of low or very low certainty. Further research is necessary to identify whether these treatments are effective at improving symptoms and whether there are any harms associated with their use.
KW - Adult
KW - Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use
KW - Calcium Channel Blockers/therapeutic use
KW - Female
KW - Headache
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Migraine Disorders/drug therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85152863498&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD015187.pub2
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD015187.pub2
M3 - Article
C2 - 37073858
SN - 1469-493X
VL - 2023
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 4
M1 - CD015187
ER -