Headache and Pain Research

Review Articles

Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Abdallah Abbas, Basant Lashin, Mohamed Abouzid, Hadir Mustafa Mohamed, Mohamed El-Moslemani, Mohamed A. Zanaty, Haneen Sabet, Dina Essam Abo-elnour, Ahmed Ibrahim Ghonimy Shedid, Mohamed Salah Mohamed Syed, Amna Hussein, Hoda Awad, Ahmed M. Raslan; Received December 6, 2024 Accepted January 10, 2025 Published online April 16, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.62087/hpr.2024.0032 [Epub ahead of print]

233 View
15 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for pain management in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). A comprehensive literature search was conducted through May 2024 in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included clinical trials, observational, and case-control studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager v.5.3, with heterogeneity evaluated by chi-square and I² tests. Five studies (245 patients) were included, with rTMS sessions ranging from 10 to 28. Meta-analysis showed significant pain reduction with rTMS compared to sham treatment. At 2 weeks post-treatment, the mean pain score difference (visual analogue scale) was –1.44 (95% CI: –2.12 to –0.77; p<0.0001), with sustained relief at 1 and 3 months. However, no significant differences were found in the patient’s global impression of change scale, sleep quality, quality of life (QoL), medication regulation, or adverse events. rTMS exerted a consistent pain relief effect of rTMS, but its impact on broader aspects of patient well-being was less clear. rTMS provides sustained pain relief in PHN for up to 3 months, but its impact on QoL and secondary outcomes remains unclear, warranting further investigation.

Does Atogepant Offer a Safe and Efficacious Option for Episodic Migraine Prophylaxis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Ahmed Mostafa Amin, Abdallah Abbas, Samar Ahmed Amer, Hoda Awad, Mahmoud Tarek Hefnawy, Anas Mansour, Mohamed El-Moslemani, Haneen Sabet, Aynur Ozge; Headache Pain Res. 2025;26(1):21-37. Published online February 17, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.62087/hpr.2024.0030

451 View
26 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Migraine, a chronic neurological disorder, imposes a significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of atogepant in preventing episodic migraine (EM) in adults. A systematic search was conducted in four major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) up to June 2024. The inclusion criteria targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing atogepant to placebo or standard care in patients with EM. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software. Four RCTs with 2,018 patients receiving atogepant and 761 patients receiving placebo or standard care were included. Atogepant significantly reduced monthly migraine days compared to placebo at 10 mg daily (mean difference [MD], –1.16 days; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], –1.60 to –0.73), 30 mg daily (MD, –1.15 days; 95% CI, –1.64 to –0.66), 60 mg daily (MD, –1.48 days; 95% CI: –2.36 to –0.61 days), 30 mg twice daily (MD, –1.30 days; 95% CI, –2.17 to –0.43), and 60 mg twice daily (MD, –1.20 days; 95% CI, –1.90 to –0.50). A ≥50% reduction in migraine days was frequently significantly achieved with atogepant across all dosages. Atogepant was generally well tolerated, though it was associated with higher incidence rates of constipation and nausea compared to placebo. Atogepant is an effective and well-tolerated option for preventing EM, offering patients a noninvasive oral alternative to injectable therapies. Further research is warranted to explore its long-term safety and efficacy in diverse patient populations and refine its role in this field.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search