Have the IHS Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks been followed? Laying the ground for the 4th edition

Author:

Alpuente Alicia12ORCID,Tassorelli Cristina34ORCID,Diener Hans-Christoph5,Silberstein Stephen D6ORCID,Pozo-Rosich Patricia12

Affiliation:

1. Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

2. Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, VHIR, Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

3. Headache Science Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy

4. Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

5. Medical Faculty of the University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

6. Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Abstract

Background The International Headache Society (IHS) has published four editions of Guidelines for acute clinical trials in migraine in the past 28 years. This continuous update process has been driven by the increasing amount of scientific data in the field of migraine and by the need to continuously improve the quality of trials. Objectives To illustrate: i) the results of the analysis on the adherence of published trials to the 3rd edition published in 2012, in order to identify the critical areas that needed to be addressed in the 4th edition and ii) the changes introduced in this latter edition for improving adherence and methodology robustness. Methods We searched and reviewed all controlled trials on acute treatment of migraine published in the period 2012–2018 and we assessed their adherence to the 3rd edition of the IHS Guidelines using a score system based on the most important recommendations. Afterwards, we compared the two editions of the Guidelines and assessed the changes between them. Results We included data from 24 controlled clinical trials. Most trials had a randomized double-blind controlled (RDB) design, while a minority (16.7%) were non-randomized double-blind trials. Less than half (44.6%) of the RDB trials used the recommended “pain-free at 2 hours” endpoint as the primary efficacy measure. Trial design and evaluation of results were the areas that diverged the most from the recommendations. Conclusion Adherence to IHS guidelines for clinical trials has been suboptimal so far. The new edition has been adapted and optimized to facilitate uptake and strengthen the quality of evidence.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Clinical Neurology,General Medicine

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3