A randomized sequential cross-over trial evaluating five purportedly ICP-lowering drugs in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Headache Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1111/head.14897
James L Mitchell, Hannah S Lyons, Jessica K Walker, Andreas Yiangou, Mark Thaller, Olivia Grech, Zerin Alimajstorovic, Georgios Tsermoulas, Kristian Brock, Susan P Mollan, Alexandra J Sinclair
{"title":"A randomized sequential cross-over trial evaluating five purportedly ICP-lowering drugs in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.","authors":"James L Mitchell, Hannah S Lyons, Jessica K Walker, Andreas Yiangou, Mark Thaller, Olivia Grech, Zerin Alimajstorovic, Georgios Tsermoulas, Kristian Brock, Susan P Mollan, Alexandra J Sinclair","doi":"10.1111/head.14897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To gain initial insight into the efficacy to lower intracranial pressure (ICP), side effects, and effects on cognition of five drugs commonly used to treat idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited clinical data exist for the treatment for IIH. Impaired cognition is recognized in IIH and can be exacerbated by medications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This human experimental medicine study was a secondary analysis that focused on an unblinded randomized, sequential, cross-over extension of a previously completed randomized controlled trial. This study evaluated females with active IIH, recruited from University Hospital Birmingham, UK. Participants were treated, in randomized order, for 2 weeks with acetazolamide, amiloride, furosemide, spironolactone, and topiramate; assessment was at baseline and 2 weeks with a minimum 1-week drug washout between drugs. The primary outcome was change in ICP at 2 weeks post-drug administration. The cognitive evaluation was an exploratory study of the trial. ICP was recorded with telemetric, intraparenchymal ICP monitors (Raumedic, Hembrechts, Germany). Adverse events were recorded, and cognition was assessed utilizing the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen participants were recruited and evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis. Mean (standard deviation) body mass index was 37.3 (7.0) kg/m<sup>2</sup> and ICP was 33.2 (7.1) cm cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) at baseline. ICP fell with four drugs (mean [standard error (SE)]), acetazolamide -3.3 (1.0) mmHg, p = 0.001, furosemide -3.0 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.001, spironolactone -2.7 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.003, and topiramate -2.3 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.010. There was no significant difference between drugs. Side effects were common with acetazolamide (100%, 11/11) and topiramate (93%, 13/14). Baseline cognitive performance was impaired, T-score (mean [SE]) 37.2 (2.6). After treatment, there was a further significant reduction in the fluid cognition domain (ability to process and integrate) with acetazolamide (mean T-score [SE]), -5.0 (2.6), p = 0.057 and topiramate -4.1 (2.0), p = 0.061.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acetazolamide, furosemide, spironolactone, and topiramate marginally reduced ICP. While their effects were not significant, this study was not powered to detect a difference between drugs. Participants reported significant side effects with acetazolamide and topiramate including cognitive decline. Cognitive measures were impaired by acetazolamide and topiramate. Therapeutics with greater efficacy and a favorable side effect profile are an unmet need in the treatment of IIH.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14897","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To gain initial insight into the efficacy to lower intracranial pressure (ICP), side effects, and effects on cognition of five drugs commonly used to treat idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).

Background: Limited clinical data exist for the treatment for IIH. Impaired cognition is recognized in IIH and can be exacerbated by medications.

Methods: This human experimental medicine study was a secondary analysis that focused on an unblinded randomized, sequential, cross-over extension of a previously completed randomized controlled trial. This study evaluated females with active IIH, recruited from University Hospital Birmingham, UK. Participants were treated, in randomized order, for 2 weeks with acetazolamide, amiloride, furosemide, spironolactone, and topiramate; assessment was at baseline and 2 weeks with a minimum 1-week drug washout between drugs. The primary outcome was change in ICP at 2 weeks post-drug administration. The cognitive evaluation was an exploratory study of the trial. ICP was recorded with telemetric, intraparenchymal ICP monitors (Raumedic, Hembrechts, Germany). Adverse events were recorded, and cognition was assessed utilizing the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery.

Results: Fourteen participants were recruited and evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis. Mean (standard deviation) body mass index was 37.3 (7.0) kg/m2 and ICP was 33.2 (7.1) cm cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) at baseline. ICP fell with four drugs (mean [standard error (SE)]), acetazolamide -3.3 (1.0) mmHg, p = 0.001, furosemide -3.0 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.001, spironolactone -2.7 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.003, and topiramate -2.3 (0.9) mmHg, p = 0.010. There was no significant difference between drugs. Side effects were common with acetazolamide (100%, 11/11) and topiramate (93%, 13/14). Baseline cognitive performance was impaired, T-score (mean [SE]) 37.2 (2.6). After treatment, there was a further significant reduction in the fluid cognition domain (ability to process and integrate) with acetazolamide (mean T-score [SE]), -5.0 (2.6), p = 0.057 and topiramate -4.1 (2.0), p = 0.061.

Conclusions: Acetazolamide, furosemide, spironolactone, and topiramate marginally reduced ICP. While their effects were not significant, this study was not powered to detect a difference between drugs. Participants reported significant side effects with acetazolamide and topiramate including cognitive decline. Cognitive measures were impaired by acetazolamide and topiramate. Therapeutics with greater efficacy and a favorable side effect profile are an unmet need in the treatment of IIH.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Headache
Headache 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.
期刊最新文献
Erenumab in a patient with persistent headaches after subarachnoid hemorrhage: A case report of an effective treatment. A randomized sequential cross-over trial evaluating five purportedly ICP-lowering drugs in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Sex differences in pain, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts in patients with migraine. Today in headache medicine: Helpful analogies in headache medicine. Development of the Migraine-Related Stigma (MiRS) Questionnaire: Results of the OVERCOME (US) Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1