Randomised trial of IV metoclopramide vs IV ketorolac in treatment of acute primary headaches

Ketorolac use in the emergency department in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute pain is a frequent reason for pediatric patients visiting the emergency department (ED). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are often used to manage pain in this setting. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of ketorolac, a NSAIDs, in managing acute pain in children in the ED, comparing its efficacy and potential advantages over other pain management options. The search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science, for English-language articles published from 1991 to February 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the analgesic effect of ketorolac in commonly painful conditions such as migraine, traumatic and non-traumatic musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, and renal colic treated in the ED were included. Pediatric studies were specifically selected. A meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to compare efficacy of ketorolac with other analgesic medications. Eight RCTs have investigated the efficacy of ketorolac for acute pain in children in the ED, reflecting limited pediatric evidence. Ketorolac showed variable effectiveness for conditions such as migraine, musculoskeletal trauma, acute abdominal pain, renal colic, and vaso-occlusive crisis in sickle cell disease. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in analgesic performance between ketorolac and other drugs, including opioids and other NSAIDs. The risk of bias across the studies was evaluated. However, the evidence remains insufficient to confidently recommend a specific intervention, highlighting the need for further research to guide clinical decision-making.Conclusion: Despite its limitations, the systematic review highlights that ketorolac seems effective for managing acute pain in pediatric ED patients, but not superior to other analgesic drugs. It emphasizes the necessity for further research to define optimal dosing, administration methods, and its comparative effectiveness with other analgesics across various clinical scenarios.

2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Headache

DESCRIPTION

Headache medicine and therapeutics evidence have been rapidly expanding and evolving since the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of headache. Therefore, the CPG was revised in 2023, earlier than the standard 5-year cycle. This article reviews the 2023 CPG recommendations relevant to primary care clinicians for treatment and prevention of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS

Subject experts from the VA and the DoD developed 12 key questions, which guided a systematic search using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After reviewing evidence from 5 databases published between 6 March 2019 and 16 August 2022, the work group considered the strength and quality of the evidence, patient preferences, and benefits versus harms on critical outcomes before making consensus recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The revised CPG includes 52 recommendations on evaluation, pharmacotherapy, invasive interventions, and nonpharmacologic interventions for selected primary and secondary headache disorders. In addition to triptans and aspirin-acetaminophen-caffeine, newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors (gepants) are options for treatment of acute migraine. Medications to prevent episodic migraine (EM) include angiotensin-receptor blockers, lisinopril, magnesium, topiramate, valproate, memantine, the newer CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and atogepant. AbobotulinumtoxinA can be used for prevention of chronic migraine but not EM. Gabapentin is not recommended for prevention of EM. Ibuprofen (400 mg) and acetaminophen (1000 mg) can be used for treatment of TTH, and amitriptyline for prevention of chronic TTH. Physical therapy or aerobic exercise can be used in management of TTH and migraines.

Pathophysiology and Therapy of Associated Features of Migraine

Migraine is a complex and debilitating disorder that is broadly recognised by its characteristic headache. However, given the wide array of clinical presentations in migraineurs, the headache might not represent the main troublesome symptom and it can even go unnoticed. Understanding migraines exclusively as a pain process is simplistic and certainly hinders management. We describe the mechanisms behind some of the most disabling associated symptoms of migraine, including the relationship between the central and peripheral processes that take part in nausea, osmophobia, phonophobia, vertigo and allodynia. The rationale for the efficacy of the current therapeutic arsenal is also depicted in this article. The associated symptoms to migraine, apart from the painful component, are frequent, under-recognised and can be more deleterious than the headache itself. The clinical anamnesis of a headache patient should enquire about the associated symptoms, and treatment should be considered and individualised. Acknowledging the associated symptoms as a fundamental part of migraine has permitted a deeper and more coherent comprehension of the pathophysiology of migraine.

Parenteral NSAIDs for acute treatment of migraine: Adherence to the IHS guidelines for controlled trials

Background:

Parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are important alternatives to oral NSAIDs, especially in patients with severe migraine who have emesis or gastroparesis. With increasing research on using parenteral NSAIDs for acute migraine, it is critical to examine the quality of these studies. Our goal was to assess the adherence of these trials to the International Headache Society (IHS) controlled trial guidelines for acute treatment of migraine.

Methods:

We queried PubMed for clinical trials investigating parenteral NSAIDs for acute treatment of migraine in adult patients. We developed a 14-point scoring system based on the essential components of the IHS guidelines. To date, four versions of the IHS’s Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks have been published. Each trial was evaluated with the appropriate edition of the guidelines.

Results:

We identified 216 studies and assessed 27 eligible clinical trials. The mean score was 6.7 ± 2.1 (2–11). Most trials followed the IHS migraine diagnosis criteria (85.2%), but only six (22.2%) selected patients based on the recommended headache frequency. Most trials were randomized (88.8%), but fewer were double-blinded (74.1%) or placebo-controlled (11.1%). Almost every trial clearly explained the pain scale (96.3%), and three-quarters (77.8%) assessed headache-associated symptoms. However, no trial utilized the recommended primary endpoint: pain-freedom at 2-hours.

Conclusions:

Most clinical trials on parenteral NSAIDs for acute migraine did not fully adhere to the IHS recommendations. Future studies should pay special attention to the IHS guideline to improve the quality of clinical trials for the acute treatment of migraine.