Репозиторий Университета

Background: Migraine and depression are highly prevalent and partly overlapping disorders that cause strong limitations in daily life. Patients tend to respond poorly to the therapies available for these diseases. OnabotulinumtoxinA has been proven to be an effective treatment for both migraine and depression. While many studies have addressed the effect of onabotulinumtoxinA in migraine or depression separately, a growing body of evidence suggests beneficial effects also for patients comorbid with migraine and depression. The current meta-analysis systematically investigates to what extent onabotulinumtoxinA is efficient in migraineurs with depression. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed based on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from the earliest date till October 30 th, 2020. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and sample size have been used to evaluate improvement in depressive symptoms and migraine using random-effects empirical Bayes model. Results: Our search retrieved 259 studies, eight of which met the inclusion criteria. OnabotulinumtoxinA injections administered to patients with both chronic migraine and major depressive disorder led to mean reduction of -8.94 points (CI [-10.04,-7.84], p < 0.01) in the BDI scale, of -5.90 points (CI [-9.92,-1.88], p < 0.01) in the BDI-II scale and of -6.19 points (CI [-9.52,-2.86], p < 0.01) in the PHQ-9 scale, when evaluating depressive symptoms. In the case of the migraine-related symptoms, we found mean reductions of -4.10 (CI [-7.31,-0.89], p = 0.01) points in the HIT6 scale, -32.05 (CI [-55.96,-8.14], p = 0.01) in the MIDAS scale, -1.7 (CI [-3.27,-0.13], p = 0.03) points in the VAS scale and of -6.27 (CI [-8.48,-4.07], p < 0.01) migraine episodes per month. Comorbid patients showed slightly better improvements in BDI, HIT6 scores and migraine frequency compared to monomorbid patients. The latter group manifested better results in MIDAS and VAS scores. Conclusion: Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA leads to a significant reduction of disease severity of both chronic migraine and major depressive disorder in patients comorbid with both diseases. Comparative analyses suggest an equivalent strong effect in monomorbid and comorbid patients, with beneficial effects specifically seen for certain migraine features.

Background: There is currently a wide therapeutic arsenal for migraine patients, without a single first-line preventive drug and we choose the different available alternatives taking into account comorbidities, national guidelines, previous treatments and personal experiences. Our objective was to evaluate the differences in the use of migraine treatments between neurologists from different countries. Methods: This is a multi-centre observational study carried out by neurologists from specialized headache units in seven countries, retrospective with consecutive inclusion of all patients presenting with a migraine diagnosis, over a period of three months. Results: A total of 734 patients were recruited but only 600 were considered in the analysis in order to homogenize the patient cohorts from countries: 200 Spain (ES), 100 Italy (IT), 85 Russia (RUS), 80 Germany (DE), 60 Portugal (PT), 45 Poland (PL) and 30 Australia (AU). 85.4 % of patients were women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 11.8 years. Considering previous and current preventive treatment, the order of use was: antidepressants (69.3 %), antiepileptic drugs (54.7 %), beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs (49.7 %), OnabotulinumtoxinA (44.0 %) and others (36.2 %). Statistically significant differences were found between all pharmacological classes: antidepressants were commonly used in all countries, with the exception of Poland (AU: 76.7 %, IT: 71.0 %, DE: 60.0 %, PL: 31.1 %, PT: 71.7 %, RUS: 70.6 %, ES: 78.5 %; p < 0.0001); antiepileptic drugs were more frequently prescribed in Portugal, Australia and Spain (AU: 73.3 %, IT: 40.0 %, DE: 37.5 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 85.0 %, RUS: 29.4 % and ES: 69.0 %; p < 0.0001); beta-blockers and antihypertensive drugs were frequently used in all countries except Italy (AU: 60.0 %, IT: 14.0 %, DE: 53.8 %, PL: 48.9 %, PT: 68.3 %, RUS: 49.4 % and ES: 59.0 %; p < 0.0001); BTX-A were predominately used in Spain, Italy and Australia (AU:56.7 %, IT:58.0 %, DE:20.0 %, PL: 42.2 %, PT: 26.7 %, RUS: 24.7 % and ES: 58.5 %; p < 0.0001) and others were most frequently used in Poland (AU: 0.0 %, IT: 19.0 %, DE: 42.5 %, PL: 95.6 %, PT: 31.7 %, RUS: 3.5 % and ES: 49.5 %; p < 0.0001). If only patients without comorbidities are considered (200/600), statistically differences between countries persist in all preventive treatments. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity in the choice of preventive treatment between different countries. Prospective comparative studies of the different oral and subcutaneous alternatives would help to create a global therapeutic algorithm that would guarantee the best option for our patients.