Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32037549›Full record

Trial reportHeadache2020

A Randomized Trial to Evaluate OnabotulinumtoxinA for Prevention of Headaches in Adolescents With Chronic Migraine.

Paul K Winner, Marielle Kabbouche, Marcy Yonker, Veronica Wangsadipura, Arlene Lum, Mitchell F Brin

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Headache, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Pediatric Episodic Migraine with Aura: A Unique Entity?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Commented on by
    2020
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Paul K WinnerPalm Beach Headache Center, Premiere Research Institute@Palm Beach Neurology, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.
Marielle KabboucheCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Marcy YonkerUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine/Children's Hospital, Aurora, CO, USA.
Veronica WangsadipuraAllergan plc, Irvine, CA, USA.
Arlene LumAllergan plc, Irvine, CA, USA.
Mitchell F BrinAllergan plc, Irvine, CA, USA.
Allergan (United States) · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USPremiere Research Institute · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Allergan
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs a post-approval commitment, this dose-ranging study was undertaken to evaluate efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in adolescents.

backgroundIn adolescents, migraine is often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and can present unique management challenges. OnabotulinumtoxinA was approved for prevention of chronic migraine (CM) in adults in 2010.

methodsThis multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized trial assessed a single treatment of onabotulinumtoxinA (155 U or 74 U) vs placebo (intramuscular saline) administered via the recommended fixed-dose fixed site paradigm in adolescents with CM aged 12 to <18 years. The primary efficacy measure was change in frequency of headache days from baseline at week 12; other measures included change in frequency of headache days at weeks 4 and 8 and change in frequency of severe headache days. Safety and tolerability were assessed.

resultsOf 125 randomized patients (onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U, n = 45; onabotulinumtoxinA 74 U, n = 43; placebo, n = 37), all were included in the primary efficacy analysis, and 115 (92.0%) completed the study. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuing (n = 4; 3.2%); no patients discontinued because of adverse events. All treatments reduced frequency of headache days at week 12, with no significant differences between treatments. The mean (95% confidence interval) changes from baseline in the frequency of headache days during the 28-day period ending at week 12 (primary endpoint) were -6.3 (-8.5, -4.2), -6.4 (-8.8, -4.0), and -6.8 (-9.6, -4.1) days in the onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U, onabotulinumtoxinA 74 U, and placebo groups, respectively (P ≥ .474). All treatments reduced frequency of severe headache days and were well-tolerated; serious adverse events (n = 3) were considered unrelated to treatment and resolved without sequelae. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were neck pain (n = 8), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 7), migraine, and nasopharyngitis (n = 5 each).

conclusionAlthough this study did not meet its efficacy endpoints, onabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in this adolescent population. Given previous data demonstrating the benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults with CM, additional studies with design modifications, including adequate statistical power, to assess the efficacy of multiple treatment cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA for CM prevention in adolescents may be informative.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAdolescentBotulinum Toxins, Type AChildDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMigraine DisordersNeuromuscular AgentsBotulinum Toxins, Type ANeuromuscular Agentsonabotulinum toxin Aadolescentschronic migraineonabotulinumtoxinApreventionsafety

Identifiers

PMID32037549
PMCPMC7065250
OpenAlexW3005452829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.