Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37073858›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

Katie Webster, Afrose Dor, Kevin Galbraith, Luma Haj Kassem, Natasha Harrington-Benton, Owen Judd, Diego Kaski, Otto Maarsingh, Samuel MacKeith, Jaydip Ray and 2 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT06748664 phase2not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Clinical Trial of Rimegepant for Vestibular Migraine Evaluation: Pre-experiment

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineRan2025 to 2027Enrolled240ConditionsVestibular Migraine, Adults 18 Years and Older (no Other Exclusion Criteria)ArmsRimegepant, Placebo
NCT06992674 phase2active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Placebo Controlled, National, Multi-center, Randomized Clinical Trial of Rimegepant for Vestibular Migraine Evaluation: The REVIVAL Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineRan2025 to 2026Enrolled240ConditionsVestibular MigraineArmsRimegepant, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Non-pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pharmacological interventions for acute attacks of vestibular migraine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Migraine management for the otolaryngologist.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Katie WebsterCochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Afrose DorWadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kevin GalbraithCochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Luma Haj KassemAleppo University Hospital, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic.
Natasha Harrington-BentonMénière's Society, Dorking, UK.
Owen JuddENT Department, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Diego KaskiNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Otto MaarsinghAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Samuel MacKeithENT Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Jaydip RayUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Vincent Van VugtAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martin BurtonNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLCochrane · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Aleppo · SYUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVestibular 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.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. SEARCH

methodsThe 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

resultsWe 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

conclusionsThere 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.

Indexed as

Calcium Channel BlockersMigraine DisordersAdultAntibodies, MonoclonalFemaleHeadacheHumansMaleAntibodies, MonoclonalCalcium Channel Blockers

Identifiers

PMID37073858
PMCPMC10093999
OpenAlexW4365150208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.