Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of Botulinum toxin for the prevention of migraine

Objectives To assess the effects of botulinum toxin for prevention of migraine in adults.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries.Eligibility criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of botulinum toxin compared with placebo, active treatment or clinically relevant different dose for adults with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without the additional diagnosis of medication overuse headache.Data extraction and synthesis Cochrane methods were used to review double-blind RCTs. Twelve week post-treatment time-point data was analysed.Results Twenty-eight trials (n=4190) were included. Trial quality was mixed. Botulinum toxin treatment resulted in reduced frequency of −2.0 migraine days/month (95% CI −2.8 to −1.1, n=1384) in chronic migraineurs compared with placebo. An improvement was seen in migraine severity, measured on a numerical rating scale 0 to 10 with 10 being maximal pain, of −2.70 cm (95% CI −3.31 to −2.09, n=75) and −4.9 cm (95% CI −6.56 to −3.24, n=32) for chronic and episodic migraine respectively. Botulinum toxin had a relative risk of treatment related adverse events twice that of placebo, but a reduced risk compared with active comparators (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) and a low withdrawal rate (3%). Although individual trials reported non-inferiority to oral treatments, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes.Conclusions In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin reduces migraine frequency by 2 days/month and has a favourable safety profile. Inclusion of medication overuse headache does not preclude its effectiveness. Evidence to support or refute efficacy in episodic migraine was not identified

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults

BackgroundMigraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin.Selection criteriaRandomised, double‐blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero‐type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12‐week post‐treatment follow‐up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.Main resultsDescription of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long‐term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and ‘mixed group’ classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty‐three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) ‐4.7 to ‐1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low‐quality evidence). This was reduced to ‐2 days (95% CI ‐2.8 to ‐1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate‐quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI ‐2.7 to ‐1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high‐quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low‐quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI ‐4.2 to ‐2.5, very low‐quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality‐of‐life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate‐quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta‐analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between‐group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low‐quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence.Authors' conclusionsIn chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non‐serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions

Memantine treatment does not affect compulsive behavior or frontostriatal connectivity in an adolescent rat model for quinpirole-induced compulsive checking behavior

RATIONALE: Compulsivity often develops during childhood and is associated with elevated glutamate levels within the frontostriatal system. This suggests that anti-glutamatergic drugs, like memantine, may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to characterize the acute and chronic effect of memantine treatment on compulsive behavior and frontostriatal network structure and function in an adolescent rat model of compulsivity. METHODS: Juvenile Sprague-Dawley rats received repeated quinpirole, resulting in compulsive checking behavior (n = 32; compulsive) or saline injections (n = 32; control). Eight compulsive and control rats received chronic memantine treatment, and eight compulsive and control rats received saline treatment for seven consecutive days between the 10th and 12th quinpirole/saline injection. Compulsive checking behavior was assessed, and structural and functional brain connectivity was measured with diffusion MRI and resting-state fMRI before and after treatment. The other rats received an acute single memantine (compulsive: n = 12; control: n = 12) or saline injection (compulsive: n = 4; control: n = 4) during pharmacological MRI after the 12th quinpirole/saline injection. An additional group of rats received a single memantine injection after a single quinpirole injection (n = 8). RESULTS: Memantine treatment did not affect compulsive checking nor frontostriatal structural and functional connectivity in the quinpirole-induced adolescent rat model. While memantine activated the frontal cortex in control rats, no significant activation responses were measured after single or repeated quinpirole injections. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a memantine treatment effect in quinpirole-induced compulsive adolescent rats may be partly explained by the interaction between glutamatergic and dopaminergic receptors in the brain, which can be evaluated with functional MRI

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson’s Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by ‘trained’ raters and ‘untrained’ raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders

Physiotherapy and occupational therapy vs no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson disease: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE It is unclear whether physiotherapy and occupational therapy are clinically effective and cost-effective in Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVE To perform a large pragmatic randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of individualized physiotherapy and occupational therapy in PD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The PD REHAB Trial was a multicenter, open-label, parallel group, controlled efficacy trial. A total of 762 patients with mild to moderate PD were recruited from 38 sites across the United Kingdom. Recruitment took place between October 2009 and June 2012, with 15 months of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS Participants with limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) were randomized to physiotherapy and occupational therapy or no therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) Scale score at 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (assessed by Parkinson Disease Questionnaire–39 and EuroQol-5D); adverse events; and caregiver quality of life. Outcomes were assessed before trial entry and then 3, 9, and 15 months after randomization. RESULTS Of the 762 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 70 [9.1] years), 381 received physiotherapy and occupational therapy and 381 received no therapy. At 3 months, there was no difference between groups in NEADL total score (difference, 0.5 points; 95%CI, −0.7 to 1.7; P = .41) or Parkinson Disease Questionnaire–39 summary index (0.007 points; 95%CI, −1.5 to 1.5; P = .99). The EuroQol-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favor of therapy (−0.03; 95%CI, −0.07 to −0.002; P = .04). The median therapist contact time was 4 visits of 58 minutes over 8 weeks. Repeated-measures analysis showed no difference in NEADL total score, but Parkinson Disease Questionnaire–39 summary index (diverging 1.6 points per annum; 95%CI, 0.47 to 2.62; P = .005) and EuroQol-5D score (0.02; 95%CI, 0.00007 to 0.03; P = .04) showed small differences in favor of therapy. There was no difference in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Physiotherapy and occupational therapy were not associated with immediate or medium-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in mild to moderate PD. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centered, goal-directed physiotherapy and occupational therapy in patients in the early stages of PD. Future research should explore the development and testing of more structured and intensive physical and occupational therapy programs in patients with all stages of PD