Modifications to the PREEMPT Protocol for OnabotulinumtoxinA Injections for Chronic Migraine in Clinical Practice

Objective To assess the PREEMPT protocol modifications that have developed in clinical practice over time. Background The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the 155‐unit fixed‐dose, fixed‐site PREEMPT protocol of onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT‐A) injections for migraine prevention 9 years...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Headache 2020-07, Vol.60 (7), p.1365-1375
Hauptverfasser: Begasse de Dhaem, Olivia, Gharedaghi, Mohammad Hadi, Rizzoli, Paul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To assess the PREEMPT protocol modifications that have developed in clinical practice over time. Background The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the 155‐unit fixed‐dose, fixed‐site PREEMPT protocol of onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT‐A) injections for migraine prevention 9 years ago. Methods This is an anonymous survey with free text response options of Headache Medicine clinicians. Results Out of the 878 contacted Headache Medicine clinicians, 182 (20.7%) completed the survey. Of the 182 respondents, 141 (77.5%) reported that they did not always follow the PREEMPT protocol. Of the 182 respondents, 128 (70%) changed the number of injections, 115 (63%) changed the total units of BoNT‐A injected, 105 (57.7%) altered the location of injection sites (58%); 101 (55.5%) do not aspirate to ensure the absence of blood return; 22 (12.1%) changed the dilution; and 4 (2.2%) added lidocaine. The main reported reasons for changes in number, dose, and location of injections included adapting to the patients’ pain, anatomy, and preferences. Conclusions The wide inter‐ and intra‐personal variations in BoNT‐A injections for chronic migraine prevention seen in this survey raise concerns about the standardization of the procedure and suggest that an advisory protocol containing more evidence and discussion of the reasoning behind the recommendations might be more helpful than the current prescriptive protocol.
ISSN:0017-8748
1526-4610
1526-4610
DOI:10.1111/head.13823