CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Migraine and Headache StudiesTemporomandibular Joint DisordersBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders

A Double‐Blind Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX ® ) and Topiramate (TOPAMAX ® ) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Chronic Migraine: A Pilot Study

Mathew, Ninan T., Jaffri, Sayyed Farhan A.·2009·Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
DOI 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01566.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background.— There is a need for effective prophylactic therapy for chronic migraine (CM) that has minimal side effects. Objective.— To compare the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX ® , Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) and topiramate (TOPAMAX ® , Ortho‐McNeil, Titusville, NJ) prophylactic treatment in patients with CM. Methods.— In this single‐center, double‐blind trial, patients with CM received either onabotulinumtoxinA, maximum 200 units (U) at baseline and month 3 (100 U fixed‐site and 100 U follow‐the‐pain), plus an oral placebo, or topiramate, 4‐week titration to 100 mg/day with option for additional 4‐week titration to 200 mg/day, plus placebo saline injections. OnabotulinumtoxinA or placebo saline injection was administered at baseline and month 3 only, while topiramate oral treatment or oral placebo was continued through the end of the study. The primary endpoint was treatment responder rate assessed using Physician Global Assessment 9‐point scale (+4 = clearance of signs and symptoms and −4 = very marked worsening [about 100% worse]). Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in the number of headache (HA)/migraine days per month (HA diary), and HA disability measured using Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6), HA diary, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, and Migraine Impact Questionnaire (MIQ). The overall study duration was approximately 10.5 months, which included a 4‐week screening period and a 2‐week optional final safety visit. Follow‐up visits for assessments occurred at months 1, 3, 6, and 9. Adverse events (AEs) were documented. Results.— Of 60 patients randomized to treatment (mean age, 36.8 ± 10.3 years; 90% female), 36 completed the study at the end of the 9 months of active treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, 19/30 [63.3%]; topiramate, 17/30 [56.7%]). In the topiramate group, 7/29 (24.1%) discontinued study because of treatment‐related AEs vs 2/26 (7.7%) in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. Between 68% and 83% of patients for both onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate groups reported at least a slight (25%) improvement in migraine; response to treatment was assessed using Physician Global Assessment at months 1, 3, 6, and 9. Most patients in both groups reported moderate to marked improvements at all time points. No significant between‐group differences were observed, except for marked improvement at month 9 (onabotulinumtoxinA, 27.3% vs topiramate, 60.9%, P = .0234, chi‐square). In both groups, HA/migraine days decreased and MIDAS and HIT‐6 scores improved. Patient‐reported quality of life measures assessed using MIQ after treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA paralleled those seen after treatment with topiramate in most respects. At month 9, 40.9% and 42.9% of patients in the onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate groups, respectively, reported ≥50% reduction in HA/migraine days. Forty‐one treatment‐related AEs were reported in 18 onabotulinumtoxinA‐treated patients vs 87 in 25 topiramate‐treated patients, and 2.7% of patients in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 24.1% of patients in the topiramate group reported AEs that required permanent discontinuation of study treatment. Conclusions.— OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate demonstrated similar efficacy in the prophylactic treatment of CM. Patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA had fewer AEs and discontinuations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01566.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mathew, N. T., & Jaffri, S. F. A.
Affiliations
Houston Headache & Neurological Institute (US)
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11
Volume
49
Issue
10
Pages
1466-1478
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
DOI
10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01566.x
OpenAlex
W2084866959
Cited by
153
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2 d)
Locations
  • Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Keywords
chronic migraine, migraine prophylaxis, onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, botulinum toxin, antiepileptic drugs, headache days, migraine disability, Headache Impact Test, Migraine Disability Assessment, adverse events, drug safety, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Topiramate, Adult, Chronic Disease, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fructose, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Migraine Disorders, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Botulinum Toxins, Type A

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review