Intramuscular prochlorperazine versus metoclopramide as single-agent therapy for the treatment of acute migraine headache

The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine.

BACKGROUND

Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096).

RESULTS

A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.

METHODS

We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.

CONCLUSION

A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.

Development of Optimized Sumatriptan-Prochlorperazine Combined Orodispersible Films Without Disintegrant: in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo Characterization

Sumatriptan succinate and prochlorperazine maleate are a clinically proven combination for treating migraine and associated nausea and vomiting. Classical oral dosage forms are not frequently workable in migraine because of the associated nausea/vomiting, and no effective fixed dose combination is available. Thus, the aim of the study was to optimize a combined sumatriptan-prochlorperazine orodispersible film for rapid release of drugs. Orodispersible films were prepared by solvent casting method using varied amounts of polyvinyl alcohol and glycerol as film former and plasticizer, respectively, along with fixed levels of other ingredients employing central composite design. The optimum film (VF) demonstrated disintegration and total dispersion times as 21 s and 2.3 min, respectively. Tensile strength and Young's modulus were 8.86 ± 0.37 MPa and 24.15 ± 0.07 MPa, respectively. The in vitro T80% of both drugs from the ODF was achieved within 4 min. The film was palatable and disintegrated in 2 min in buccal cavity of human volunteers. Permeation study through goat mucosa demonstrated 100% permeation of both drugs within 15 min. X-Ray diffraction and differential scanning calorimetry supported drugs being amorphous and Fourier transform infrared demonstrated drug-excipient compatibility in optimized film. A judicious combination of sumatriptan succinate and prochlorperazine maleate could be prepared in orodispersible films for the possible relief of migraine.

Classical prescription Dachuanxiong Formula delays nitroglycerin-induced pain response in migraine mice through reducing endothelin-1 level and regulating fatty acid biosynthesis

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Dachuanxiong Formula (DCXF) is a classical Chinese medicine prescription and is composed of dried rhizomes from Ligusticum striatum DC. (Chuanxiong Rhizoma) and Gastrodia elata Bl. (Gastrodiae Rhizoma) at the ratio of 4:1 (w/w). It has been used as Chinese medicine prescription for thousands of years. DCXF is used traditionally to treat many diseases, including migraine, atherosclerosis and ischemic stroke.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to investigate the effects of DCXF on pain response in migraine mice, and the underlying mechanisms using proteomics and bioinformatics analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DCXF extract was prepared by mixing Chuanxiong Rhizoma and Gastrodiae Rhizoma at a mass ratio of 4:1 (w/w). After extraction, the extract was filtered prior to high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Nitroglycerin (NTG) was used to establish a mouse migraine model, and a behaviour study was conducted by hot plate test. In addition, proteomics and bioinformatics studies were conducted to investigate the mechanisms of DCXF-mediating anti-migraine treatment.

RESULTS

Our results showed that there were significant differences in the latencies between NTG-treated and DCXF low dose- and high doses-treated groups at 30 min after NTG injection, this suggested that DCXF could ameliorate pain response in migraine mice. Besides, the plasma levels of endothelin-1 were also measured. NTG group significantly enhanced the endothelin-1 level compared to the control group. In contrast, DCXF low dose and high dose groups significantly reduced this level compared to NTG group. In addition, the underlying mechanisms were also investigated. Our results demonstrated that the anti-migraine treatment of DCXF was highly associated with fatty acid synthesis, suggesting that DCXF ameliorated pain response through reducing endothelin-1 level and regulating fatty acid synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed the anti-migraine effect of DCXF in migraine mice and provided insights into the mechanisms of DCXF-mediating anti-migraine treatment.

Optimal management strategies for primary headache in the emergency department

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the factors associated with better outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients treated for primary headache.

METHODS

This was a health records review of consecutive patients over a 3-month period presenting to two tertiary EDs and discharged with a diagnosis of primary headache. The primary outcome was the need for second round medications, defined as medications received > 1 h after the initial physician-ordered medications were administered. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine treatment factors associated with need for second round medications.

RESULTS

We included 553 patients, mean age was 42.2 years and 72.9% were females. The most common diagnoses were headache not otherwise specified (48.8%) and migraine (43%). Ketorolac IV (62.2%) and metoclopramide IV (70.2%) were the most frequently administered medications. 18% of patients met the primary outcome. Dopamine antagonists (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.5]) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3-0.8]) ordered with initial medications were associated with reduced need for second round medications. Intravenous fluid boluses ≥ 500 ml (OR 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5-5.2]) and non-dopamine antagonist antiemetics (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-4.2]) were associated with increased need. Opioid use approached statistical significance for receiving second round medication (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We determined that use of dopamine antagonists and NSAIDs were associated with a reduced need for second round medications in ED primary headache patients. Conversely, non-dopamine antagonist antiemetic medications and intravenous fluids were associated with a significantly increased need for second round medications. Careful choice of initial therapy may optimize management for these patients.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

FINDINGS

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Intravenous metoclopramide versus dexketoprofen trometamol versus metoclopramide+ dexketoprofen trometamol in acute migraine attack in the emergency department: A randomized double-blind controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous, single-dose metoclopramide versus dexketoprofen trometamol versus metoclopramide+ dexketoprofen trometamol in patients presenting with acute migraine attack to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in a tertiary care ED. Eligible patients met the migraine criteria of the International Headache Society were randomized to receive 10 mg intravenous metoclopramide, 50 mg intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol, or 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol +10 mg metoclopramide. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain measurement at baseline, after 15 and 30 min. The primary outcome measure was the changes in the VAS scores at the 15th and 30th minutes of treatment. The secondary outcome measures were the presence of adverse effects and the requirement of rescue medicine.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 150) were randomized into 3 groups with similar VAS scores at baseline. While there was no significant difference between metoclopramide and dexketoprofen trometamol in reducing pain at the 15th and 30th minute (p = 0.618 and p = 0.862, respectively) and between metoclopramide and metoclopramide + dexketoprofen trometamol at the 15th minute (p = 0.074), metoclopramide + dexketoprofen trometamol was superior to both metoclopramide [mean difference: -13.2 mm (95% CI -23.1 to -3.3)] and dexketoprofen trometamol [mean difference: -11.02 mm (95% CI -20.9 to -1.1)] at the 30th min (p = 0.006 and p = 0.025 respectively). The rescue drug was required by 3 patients (6%) were in metoclopramide group, 4 patients (8%) in dexketoprofen trometamol group and one patient (2%) in the metoclopramide + dexketoprofen trometamol group. No side effects were observed in subjects in three treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in VAS was found between three treatment groups at the 15th minute, but metoclopramide + dexketoprofen trometamol was superior to both metoclopramide and dexketoprofen trometamol at the 30th min.

Out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with atraumatic headache

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the presentation or management of patients with headache in the out-of-hospital setting. Our primary objective is to describe the out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with benign headache. We also describe meaningful pain reduction stratified by commonly administered medications.

METHODS

This retrospective evaluation was conducted using data from a large national cohort. We included all 911 responses by paramedics for patients 18 and older with headache. We excluded patients with trauma, fever, suspected alcohol/drug use, or who received medications suggestive of an alternate condition. We presented our findings with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 5,977,612 emergency responses, 1.1% (66,235) had a provider-documented primary impression of headache or migraine and 52.5% (34,763) met inclusion criteria. An initial pain score was recorded for 73.5% (25,544) of patients, and 58.5% (14,948) of these patients had multiple pain scores documented. Of the patients with multiple pain scores documented, 53.8% (8037) of patients had an initial pain score >5. Of these, 7.1% (573) were administered any medication. Among patients receiving a single medication, Fentanyl was the most commonly administered (32.1%, 126). As a group, opioids were the most commonly administered class of drugs (38.9%, 153) and were associated with the largest proportion of clinically significant pain reduction (69.3%, 106). Dopamine antagonists were given least frequently (9.9%, 39) but had the second largest proportion of pain reduction (43.6%, 17).

CONCLUSION

Out-of-hospital pain scores were documented infrequently and less than one in five patients with initial pain scores >5 received medication. Additionally, adherence to evidence-based guidelines was infrequent.

Efficacy of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND

In this study, we will assess the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine (AM).

METHODS

We will comprehensively search Cochrane Library, PUMBED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from the inception to July 1, 2019 to identify any eligible studies. Only randomized controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. The study selection, data collection, and management will be completed by two authors independently. The risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The primary outcome includes pain intensity, as measured by visual analogue scale or others. The secondary outcomes are success rate, requirement of rescue medicine, quality of life, relapse, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will summarize the latest evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of AM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142795.

The Efficacy and Safety of Prochlorperazine in Patients With Acute Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prochlorperazine (PCP) in patients with acute migraine headache in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were searched for randomized clinical trials that investigated the effect of PCP on headache relief. The outcomes were the number of patients without headache or with reduced headache severity, the number of adverse events, and the need for rescue analgesia.

RESULTS

From 450 citations, 11 studies (n = 771) with 15 comparison arms met the inclusion criteria. Overall, PCP was more effective than placebo (OR = 7.23; 95% CI = 3.82-3.68), metoclopramide (OR = 2.89; 95% CI = 1.42-5.86), and other active comparators (OR = 3.70; 95% CI = 2.41-5.67) for headache relief. The odds ratio of experiencing adverse events with PCP compared with placebo was 5.79 (95% CI = 2.43-13.79). When PCP compared with other active comparators, no statistical difference was found regarding the overall number of adverse events (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 0.99-3.59). However, PCP significantly increased the odds of akathisia/dystonia (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.03-6.31). The request for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the PCP group compared with other groups (16% vs 84%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.09-27).

CONCLUSIONS

For adult patients with acute migraine, PCP could effectively abort the acute attack and reduce the request for rescue analgesia in the ED. However, compared with placebo, PCP could increase the risk of adverse events.

Intravenous metoclopramide in the treatment of acute migraines: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous metoclopramide for acute migraine treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in an academic emergency department. After the patients were assessed for eligibility via the International Headache Society criteria for migraines, they were randomized into 10 mg intravenous metoclopramide and normal saline groups. The headache intensity was evaluated using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) score. The primary outcome measure was determined as the median between-group change in the score at the 30th minute. The secondary outcome measures were rescue medication needs, adverse events, and emergency department (ED) revisits after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were randomized into two equal groups with similar baseline characteristics, including the baseline NRS scores (8 points). The median reduction in the NRS scores at the 30th minute was 4 [interquartile range (IQR): 2-6)] in the metoclopramide group and 3 (IQR: 1-4) in the normal saline group [median difference: -1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.1 to 0.1]. No serious adverse events were observed, and the rescue medication needs were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between intravenous metoclopramide and placebo regarding efficacy and safety in patients with acute migraines.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Which is more effective for the treatment of Acute Migraine Attack: Dexketoprofen, Ibuprofen or Metoclopramide?

Objective:

The aim of this study was head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and rate of adverse events of metoclopramide, ibuprofen and dexketoprofen for the acute treatment of migraine attack in the real-life conditions of a busy emergency department (ED).

Methods:

This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. All patients who presented to the ED with a headache fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All patients were treated by the attending emergency physicians in their daily routine. If an IV treatment in the ED was found indicated by the EP, they selected one of the options in the written departmental migraine treatment protocol.

Results:

During the study period, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median change in the pain score was significantly different among treatment options (p<0.0001). The median pain score change at the end of the 30 minutes for treatment groups were 7.5 mm (IQR: 7.0-8.0), 5.0 mm (IQR: 4.75-7.0), and 7.0 mm (IQR: 6.0-7.25), respectively (p=0.0002). All three groups were found to be significantly different from each other in the post-hoc analysis.

Conclusion:

All drugs compared in this study are effective in the relief of migraine headache. However, IV dexketoprofen seems to be faster and more effective than metoclopramide and ibuprofen.

Stability of extemporaneously prepared preservative-free prochlorperazine nasal spray

PURPOSE

The stability of an extemporaneously prepared preservative-free prochlorperazine 5-mg/mL nasal spray was evaluated.

METHODS

The preservative-free prochlorperazine nasal spray was prepared by adding 250 mg of prochlorperazine edisylate to 50 mL of citrate buffer in a low-density polyethylene nasal spray bottle. A stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was developed and validated using the major degradant prochlorperazine sulfoxide and by performing forced-degradation studies. For chemical stability studies, 3 100-μL samples of the preservative-free prochlorperazine from 5 nasal spray bottles stored at room temperature were collected at days 0, 20, 30, 45, and 60 and were assayed in triplicate using the stability-indicating HPLC method. Microbiological testing involved antimicrobial effectiveness testing based on United States Pharmacopeia (USP) chapter 51 and quantitative microbiological enumeration of aerobic bacteria, yeasts, and mold based on USP chapter 61. Samples for microbiological testing were collected at days 0, 30, and 60.

RESULTS

The stability-indicating HPLC method clearly identified the degradation product prochlorperazine sulfoxide without interference from prochlorperazine. All tested solutions retained over 90% of the initial prochlorperazine concentration for the 60-day study period. There were no detectable changes in color, pH, and viscosity in any sample. There was no growth of bacteria, yeast, and mold for 60 days in all samples tested.

CONCLUSION

An extemporaneously prepared preservative-free nasal spray solution of prochlorperazine edisylate 5 mg/mL was physically, chemically, and microbiologically stable for 60 days when stored at room temperature in low-density polyethylene bottles.

Is the Generally Held View That Intravenous Dihydroergotamine Is Effective in Migraine Based on Wrong "General Consensus" of One Trial? A Critical Review of the Trial and Subsequent Quotations

BACKGROUND

The claim that parenteral dihydroergotamine (DHE) is effective in migraine is based on one randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial from 1986. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the original article. It was also found to be of interest to review quotes concerning the results in the more than 100 articles subsequently referring to the article.

METHODS

The correctness of the stated effect of intravenous DHE in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) was first critically evaluated. Then, Google Scholar was searched for references to the article and these references were classified as to whether they judged the reported RCT as positive or negative.

RESULTS

The design of the RCT, with a crossover within one migraine attack, only allows evaluation of the results for the first period and the effect of DHE and placebo were quite comparable. About 151 references were found for the article in Google scholar. Among the 95 articles with a judgment on the efficacy of intravenous DHE in the RCT, 90 stated that DHE was effective or likely effective whereas only 5 articles stated that DHE was ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a "negative" RCT, authors of subsequent articles on the efficacy of parenteral DHE overwhelmingly reported this RCT as "positive." This is probably due to the fact that the authors concluded in the abstract that DHE is effective, and to a kind of "wrong general consensus."

Intravenous dexketoprofen vs placebo for migraine attack in the emergency department: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a leading headache etiology that frequently presents to the emergency department (ED). In the present study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of dexketoprofen in aborting migraine headaches in the ED.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in an ED of a tertiary care hospital using allocation concealment. Patients were allocated into two arms to receive the study drug; 50 mg dexketoprofen in 50 ml saline and 50 ml saline as placebo. Change in pain intensity was measured by the visual analog scale at baseline, both at 30 and 45 minutes after the study medication was administered. Rescue medication requirement and pain relapse were also recorded by a telephone follow-up at 48 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients (112 in each group) were included into the final analysis. Mean age of the study participants was 37 ± 11 (SD) and 25% (n = 56) of them were male. The median pain improvement at 45 minutes for patients receiving dexketoprofen was 55 (IQR: 49 to 60) and 30 (IQR: 25 to 35) for those receiving placebo. The mean difference between the two groups at 45 minutes was 21.4 (95% CI: 14.4. to 28.5). Rescue drugs were needed in 22.3% of patients who received dexketoprofen compared to 55.4% in patients who received placebo (dif: 33.1%; 95% CI: 20% to 45%). There were no adverse events reported in either group during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous dexketoprofen is superior to placebo in relieving migraine headaches in the ED. It may be a suitable therapy with minimum side effects in patients presenting with a migraine headache to the ED.

Critical reappraisal of intravenous metoclopramide in migraine attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Migraine is one of the most common causes of headache presentations to emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine attack need rapid pain relief rather than diagnostic modalities. Metoclopramide, a dopamine antagonist with a primary use of antiemetic, has been used commonly in ceasing migraine attack. An earlier meta-analysis favors metoclopramide over placebo but includes studies with significant methodological errors and heterogeneity. The present article aimed to review the literature to reveal studies comparing metoclopramide to either placebo or active comparators. A literature search including PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar was performed by using the evidence-based process for determining the study quality. Although the studies comparing parenteral metoclopramide to placebo in ceasing migraine headache favor metoclopramide to placebo and lower rates of rescue drug need, however, they lack high methodological quality even to perform a meta-analysis. Meanwhile, the effect of metoclopramide in ceasing migraine headache is also comparable to active comparators. It seems reasonable to use metoclopramide in migraine attacks in EDs according to the current literature. However, further studies with high methodological quality are needed to reveal whether and how much metoclopramide is superior to placebo.

Relatively slow and long-lasting antimigraine effect of dihydroergotamine is most likely due to basic pharmacological attributes of the drug: A review

Introduction

If a drug has a slow dissociation from the receptor this can result in a long duration of effect and a slow effect. The long duration of the antimigraine effect of dihydroergotamine (DHE) has been reported previously whereas a possible slow onset of DHE’s antimigraine effect, which is the subject of this review, has only rarely been mentioned.

Methods

Eight randomised, controlled trials (RCT) with DHE for acute treatment with migraine were selected from the literature. The speed of the effect of DHE in migraine was evaluated by plotting the effect up to four hours against time.

Findings

Subcutaneous DHE 1 mg was inferior to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg for headache relief for the first two hours but equally effective after three hours. After intranasal DHE 2 mg the mean therapeutic gain increased slowly up to four hours. For orally inhaled DHE 0.5 mg there was a considerable time lag between therapeutic gain (maximum after two hours) and plasma concentrations of DHE (Tmax = 12 min).

Conclusion

DHE has a slow dissociation from the receptor; and this basic attribute of the drug is the most likely cause of the general relatively slow anti-migraine effect of DHE.

Use of dopamine antagonists in treatment of migraine

OPINION STATEMENT

Dopamine antagonists are indicated for treatment of nausea or psychosis and have an established role in the treatment of migraine. Neuroleptics, including antipsychotics, act as antagonists at the dopamine D2 receptor type. These medications also have variable activity as antihistamines and anticholinergics, and they block alpha-adrenergic and some serotonin receptor types, but their actions on dopamine are likely the reason for their efficacy in treating nausea, psychosis, and acute migraine. Neuroleptics are first-line agents in the emergency room setting for migraine, especially for patients with nausea and vomiting. In the setting of a clear prodrome, antiemetics may prevent migraine when taken before an attack. They are also indicated in clinical situations such as patients who are pregnant or have contraindications to migraine-specific medications or NSAIDs. Recent developments suggest that dopamine is particularly important in chronic pain, and we most commonly use neuroleptic medications in the treatment of status migrainosus or medication-overuse headache. Clinicians may avoid dopamine antagonists because of unfamiliarity and a lack of large, controlled clinical trials. Their use requires special care to avoid adverse events such as sedation, akathisia or dystonic reactions, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, or movement disorders with long-term use. Some newer atypical neuroleptic agents appear promising for both acute and prophylactic migraine treatment with a lower risk of adverse events.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others

OBJECTIVES

This second portion of a 3-part series examines the relative effectiveness of headache treatment with neuroleptics, antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, valproate, and other drugs (octreotide, lidocaine, nitrous oxide, propofol, and bupivacaine) in the setting of an emergency department, urgent care center, or headache clinic.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched using the terms "migraine" AND "emergency" AND "therapy" OR "treatment." Reports were from emergency department and urgent care settings and involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinics were only included if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Prochlorperazine, promethazine, and metoclopramide, when used alone, were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also have more side effects (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meperidine was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking droperidol and prochlorperazine was equivalent to sumatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and the effectiveness of each is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in producing migraine pain relief. Dopamine antagonists, in general, appear to be equivalent for migraine pain relief to the migraine-"specific" medications sumatriptan and dihydroergotamine, although there are fewer studies involving the last two. Lack of comparisons to placebo and the frequent use of combination medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one other.

A Neurologist's Guide to Acute Migraine Therapy in the Emergency Room

Migraine is a common reason for visits to the emergency room. Attacks that lead patients to come to the emergency room are often more severe, refractory to home rescue medication, and have been going on for longer. All of these features make these attacks more challenging to treat. The purpose of this article is to review available evidence pertinent to the treatment of acute migraine in adults in the emergency department setting in order to provide neurologists with a rational approach to management. Drug classes and agents reviewed include opioids, dopamine receptor antagonists, triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and sodium valproate.

Management of primary headaches in adult Emergency Departments: a literature review, the Parma ED experience and a therapy flow chart proposal

Adults seeking treatment at hospitals' Emergency Departments (EDs) because of headache represent a major health-care issue. To date, there are no special guidelines for management of primary headache in adults seen at EDs and therapeutic approaches are often inconsistent. This review describes the therapeutic strategies that are most frequently used to treat primary headache in adult ED patients and their in situ efficacy, based on literature data, the type of medications studied in randomized clinical trials for the management of adult ED patients, and the recommendations found in the guidelines for symptomatic treatment of migraine. We also report on the experience of the Parma University Hospital ED in the year 2007 for the management of adult patients diagnosed with primary headache. Finally, we propose an algorithm for primary headache management in ED patients, which is based on the literature data and clinical experience, and is suitable for application in Italy.

Pitfalls in the management of headache in the emergency department

Headache is the fifth most common primary complaint of patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in the United States. The emergency physician (EP) plays a unique role in the management of these patients, one that differs from that of the primary care physician, the neurologist, and other specialists. Diagnostic nomenclature used in the ED is necessarily less specific, as care is more appropriately focused on the relief of symptoms and the identification of life-threatening causes. By seeking a limited number of specific critical features on history and physical examination, the EP can minimize the risk of overlooking one of these dangerous causes of headache. When certain features are present, empirical therapies and diagnostic testing should be initiated in the ED. The most frequently encountered pitfalls in the management of patients with headache in emergency medicine practice, and those with the greatest likelihood to adversely affect patient outcomes, are discussed.

Standardizing emergency department-based migraine research: an analysis of commonly used clinical trial outcome measures

OBJECTIVES

Although many high-quality migraine clinical trials have been performed in the emergency department (ED) setting, almost as many different primary outcome measures have been used, making data aggregation and meta-analysis difficult. The authors assessed commonly used migraine trial outcomes in two ways. First, the authors examined the association of each commonly used outcome versus the following patient-centered variable: the research subject's wish, when asked 24 hours after investigational medication administration, to receive the same medication the next time they presented to an ED with migraine ("would take again"). This variable was chosen as the criterion standard because it provides a simple, dichotomous, clinically sensible outcome, which allows migraineurs to factor important intangibles of efficacy and adverse effects of treatment into an overall assessment of care. The second part of the analysis assessed how sensitive to true efficacy each outcome measure was by calculating sample size requirements based on results observed in previously conducted clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data previously collected in four ED-based migraine randomized trials performed between 2003 and 2007. In each of these trials, subjects were asked 24 hours after administration of an investigational medication whether or not they would want to receive the same medication the next time they came to the ED with a migraine. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for sex and medication received, were calculated as measures of association between the most commonly used outcome measures and "would take again." The sensitivity of each outcome measure to treatment efficacy was determined by calculating the sample size that would be required to detect a statistically significant result using estimates of that outcome obtained in two clinical trials.

RESULTS

Data from 378 subjects were used for this analysis. Adjusted ORs for association of "would take again" and other commonly used primary headache outcomes are as follows: achieving a pain-free state by 2 hours, OR = 3.1 (95% CI = 1.8 to 5.4); sustained pain-free status, OR = 4.5 (95% CI = 1.9 to 11.0); and no need for rescue medication, OR = 3.7 (95% CI = 2.1 to 6.6). An improvement on a standardized 11-point pain scale of > or =33% had an adjusted OR = 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2 to 12.4). The best performing alternate outcome, > or =33% improvement, correctly classified 288 subjects and misclassified 77 subjects when compared to "would take again." At least 33% improvement and pain-free by 2 hours required the smallest sample sizes, while sustained pain-free and "would take again" required many more subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

"Would take again" was associated with all migraine outcome measures we examined. No individual outcome was more closely associated with "would take again" than any other. Even the best-performing alternate outcome misclassified more than 20% of subjects. However, sample sizes based on "would take again" tended to be larger than other outcome measures. On the basis of these findings and this outcome measure's inherent patient-centered focus, "would take again," included as a secondary outcome in all ED migraine trials, is proposed.

Education initiative improves the evidence-based use of metoclopramide following morphine administration in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate a multifaceted education initiative designed to reduce the prophylactic use of metoclopramide.

METHODS

This was a pre- and post-intervention trial undertaken in a single ED. All ED doctors and nurses were targeted. The intervention comprised a specifically designed, 19-slide 'e-learning module', accessible via the ED intranet, supplemented by in-service training and a range of reminder techniques (posters, emails and drug room flyers). The primary end-point was the proportion of patients administered metoclopramide prophylactically with their initial morphine dose. Data were collected on random samples of patients who received morphine, using explicit medical chart review.

RESULTS

Both pre- and post-intervention periods were of 3 month duration. The charts of 146 cases were reviewed in each period. In the post-intervention period: * The proportion of patients administered metoclopramide prophylactically decreased from 22.6% to 4.1% (difference 18.5% [95% CI 10.3-26.7], P < 0.001) * The proportion of patients administered metoclopramide appropriately (for known morphine sensitivity, established nausea and rescue anti-emesis) rose marginally from 28.8% to 32.9% (difference 4.1% [95% CI -7.2-15.4], P = 0.53) * There was a 12.7% decrease in the number of ampoules of metoclopramide issued to the ED without a concurrent rise in the issue of other anti-emetic drugs

CONCLUSION

The education initiative resulted in a significant improvement in the evidence-based use of metoclopramide.

Comparison of the effects of central and peripheral dopamine receptor activation on evoked firing in the trigeminocervical complex

Dopaminergic mechanisms have been suggested to play a role in migraine. Here, electrophysiological techniques were used to study the effects of intravenously administered centrally or peripherally active dopamine receptor agonists and antagonists on evoked firing in the trigeminocervical complex (TCC). After establishing baseline firing evoked by electrical stimulation of the dural middle meningeal artery (MMA) and mechanical noxious and innocuous stimulation of the ophthalmic dermatome, D(1)- or D(2)-like receptor agonists or antagonists were administered intravenously and the effect on firing was determined. In addition, with use of intravital microscopy, we monitored changes in dural vessel diameter in response to varying doses of D(1)- or D(2)-like receptor agonists to determine whether their effects were related to blood vessel caliber. The central D(2)-like receptor agonist quinpirole hydrochloride inhibited firing in the TCC evoked by stimulation of the MMA. Conversely, the central D(2)-like receptor antagonists, eticlopride hydrochloride and remoxipride hydrochloride, facilitated MMA-evoked firing and also firing evoked by noxious and innocuous stimulation of the ophthalmic dermatome. Both the peripheral D(1)-like receptor agonist fenoldopam and the central D(1)-like receptor agonists cis-(+/-)-1-(aminomethyl)-3,4-dihydro-3-phenyl-1H-2-benzopyran-5,6-diol hydrochloride (A68930 hydrochloride) and dihydrexidine facilitated innocuous brush-evoked firing, with A68930 hydrochloride having the greatest effect. The data suggest that dopamine binding to peripheral D(1)-like receptors may play a role in peripheral sensitization, and that the inhibitory or excitatory effects seen with administration of dopamine receptor agonists are independent of blood vessel changes. In addition, these studies maintain that central D(2)-like receptors inhibit trigeminocervical neurons, and may provide insight into the conflicting literature on the role of dopamine and its receptors in migraine.

Effectiveness of prokinetic agents against diseases external to the gastrointestinal tract

Prokinetic agents are effective not only for disease of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract but also for those external to the GI tract such as the central nervous system, and the respiratory, urologic, and metabolic organs. This article reviews the effectiveness of prokinetic agents against diseases external to the GI tract. Studies were identified by computerized and manual searches of the available literature. A Medline search was performed (1975-July, 2008) using the following medical subject headings: prokinetic agent, metoclopramide, domperidone, trimebutine, cisapride, itopride, mosapride, tegaserod, and human. The identified diseases for which prokinetic agents may be effective are various: bronchial asthma, chronic cough, hiccup, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, cholelithiasis, diabetes mellitus, acute migraine, Parkinson's disease, anorexia nervosa, Tourette's disorder, urologic sequelae of spinal cord injury and of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, laryngeal dysfunction and so on. These agents are also useful for prevention of aspiration pneumonia during anesthesia, and in tube-fed patients. Prokinetic agents should be a valuable addition to our currently limited pharmacological armamentarium not only for functional bowel disease, but also for diseases external to the GI tract.

Olanzapine versus droperidol for the treatment of primary headache in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if there is a difference in pain relief or frequency and severity of side effects in emergency department (ED) patients with primary headache treated with either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or IM droperidol.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial of adult ED patients undergoing treatment for suspected primary headache. Consenting patients were randomized to receive either droperidol 5 mg IM or olanzapine 10 mg IM. Prior to receiving treatment, patients were asked to complete a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) describing their pain and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) describing their pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients also completed a 100-mm VAS describing their level of nausea. Pain and nausea measurements were repeated 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Patients also completed the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Pain relief was compared both in terms of the decrease in VAS scores and in the proportion of patients who reported moderate or severe pain whose report later changed to mild or no pain.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients were enrolled; 13 were withdrawn before administration of the study medication, 8 in the droperidol group and 5 in the olanzapine group, leaving 87 patients for analysis. Forty-two patients received droperidol and 45 received olanzapine. In the droperidol group, 35/40 (87.5%) patients who had reported moderate or severe pain at baseline reported mild or no pain at 60 minutes. In the olanzapine group, 38/44 (86.4%) reported this change (p = 0.89). The mean percent change from baseline VAS pain score at 60 minutes was -37% (95% CI = -84% to 11%) for droperidol and -37% (95% CI = -64% to 10%) for olanzapine (p = 0.30). The mean percent change from baseline for the VAS nausea score was -59% (95% CI = -70% to -47%) for droperidol and -64% (95% CI = -77% to -51%) for olanzapine (p = 0.83). There was no difference in any report of akathisia by the BAS between the groups (p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Both olanzapine and droperidol are effective treatments for primary headaches in the ED. No significant differences were found between the medications in terms of pain relief, antiemetic effect, or akathisia. Olanzapine may be used to treat primary headache and it is an effective alternative to droperidol.

Haloperidol in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. haloperidol in treatment of acute migraine headache in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study design.

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptics are mainly used as antiemetics in acute migraine. In a previous open trial haloperidol was effective in relieving migraine pain.

DESIGN

Patients were randomized into 2 groups receiving intravenously either 5 mg haloperidol in 500 mL of normal saline or 500 mL of normal saline alone. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) before and 1 to 3 hours after the infusion. If the patient felt no relief in pain intensity 1 to 3 hours after the infusion and had received placebo, he/she then received haloperidol infusion as an open trial. The open trial also included 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled trial. About 1 month after the infusion the patients were contacted by telephone and interviewed about the side effects of the treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled into the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Before the infusion the VAS values were 7.7 in the haloperidol and 7.2 in the placebo group. After the infusion the VAS values were 2.2 in the haloperidol and 6.3 in the placebo group (P < .0001). Significant pain relief was achieved in 80% of the patients treated with haloperidol, whereas only 3 patients (15%) responded to placebo (P < .0001). Seventeen patients treated with placebo without response together with 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled study participated in the open trial. In this group VAS declined from 6.7 to 2.4 and 79% of these patients felt significant pain relief. The most common side effects caused by haloperidol were sedation and akathisia, the latter being more troublesome. These effects were very common in patients participating in the double-blind (80%) and open (88%) trials. Sixteen percent of the patients considered the side effects intolerable and would not like the migraine attacks to be treated with haloperidol in the future. Three patients (7%) returned to the emergency ward because of a relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that i.v. haloperidol is very effective in relieving migraine-associated pain. Because the majority of the patients had taken other medication without response, haloperidol appears to be an effective rescue medication even when other types of treatment have failed. Relapses are rare, but side effects are common, limiting the use of haloperidol in some patients.

Intravenous treatment of chronic daily headaches in the outpatient headache clinic

The most likely future of aggressive headache treatment will reside in the sphere of the specialist's clinic. This is a far more cost- and time-effective mode of treating intractable chronic daily headaches (CDH), including chronic migraines. We have used this technique successfully in our clinic for many years. Our experience with intravenous treatment of headaches and migraines was summarized recently and a 97.5% success rate for this type of treatment was found in the clinic. Compared with the treatments commonly available in the emergency department, the specialist's clinic can offer more effective headache-altering definitive treatments. Patients can be offered a maximum degree of success for control of their intractable headaches. In this article, approaches to aggressive treatment of ongoing CDH using intravenous methods of therapy are discussed. All of these can be performed in the clinic setting, avoiding some of the costly aspects of treatment that are present in an emergency room setting.

Neuroleptics in Headache

OBJECTIVES

To review the mechanism of action of neuroleptics, the evidence for their efficacy, and their clinical use in headache treatment.

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptics and antiemetics have long been used for headache treatment; however, they have not been widely utilized because of general unfamiliarity with them and concerns about their adverse events. With the recent advent of the atypical neuroleptics and their improved adverse event profile, our armamentarium for headache treatment has expanded. In this review, we explore the mechanism of action of these classes of drugs, their adverse events, and the evidence for their efficacy. We also detail our experience with the different drugs and how we use them as both acute and preventive headache therapy.

DESIGN

A review of published literature was obtained through a MEDLINE search on the use of neuroleptics in headache therapy.

CONCLUSION

Neuroleptics have widespread evidence supporting their use in headache treatment and present an important part of the armaterium against headache.

Prospective, randomised, double blind, controlled comparison of metoclopramide and pethidine in the emergency treatment of acute primary vascular and tension type headache episodes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare analgesic effects of metoclopramide (MTP), pethidine (PET), and combination of metoclopramide-pethidine (M-PET) in the treatment of adult patients with acute primary vascular and tension type headache admitted in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

All consecutive adult patients admitted into a university hospital ED in six months with acute vascular and tension type headache were recruited. The patients whose complaints had lasted no longer than seven days were randomised to four groups and thereby received 10 mg MTP intravenously plus placebo intramuscularly (MTP), 10 mg MTP intravenously plus 50 mg PET intramuscularly (M-PET), 50 mg PET intramuscularly plus placebo intravenously (PET); and intramuscular and intravenous placebo (PLC) in a blinded fashion. The patients were asked to report the degree of pain at 0, 15, 30, and 45 minutes on visual analogue scale (VAS) and demographic data and any side effects encountered were recorded. Rescue medication was used if required by the patient because of poor pain relief.

RESULTS

Data regarding 336 patients meeting inclusion criteria were analysed. Mean VAS values recorded at 45 minutes were significantly higher in PLC group than in others (p = 0.000). When the PLC group was excluded, VAS scores in MTP and M-PET groups were significantly lower than in PET group (p = 0.038). Though unimportant, the incidence of side effects recorded in PET group was found to be significantly higher than in the other groups (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that MTP produces more effective analgesia than PET in both vascular and tension type headache in patients with acute primary headache episodes.

Parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines, and other sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine in adults.

RESULTS

We reviewed 596 potentially relevant abstracts and found 13 eligible trials totalling 655 adults. In studies comparing metoclopramide with placebo, metoclopramide was more likely to provide significant reduction in migraine pain (odds ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 7.68). Used as the only agent, metoclopramide showed mixed effectiveness when compared with other single agents. Heterogeneity of studies for combination treatment prevented statistical pooling. Treatments that did include metoclopramide were as, or more, effective than comparison treatments for pain, nausea, and relapse outcomes reported in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoclopramide is an effective treatment for migraine headache and may be effective when combined with other treatments. Given its non-narcotic and antiemetic properties, metoclopramide should be considered a primary agent in the treatment of acute migraines in emergency departments.

Treatment of primary headache in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Each year many patients present to an emergency department for treatment of acute primary headache. We investigated the diagnosis and clinical outcome of patients treated for primary headache in the emergency department.

METHODS

Patients treated for acute primary headache in the emergency department completed a questionnaire related to their headache symptoms, response to treatment, and ability to return to normal function. These responses were compared to the treating physicians' observations of the patient's condition at the time of discharge from the emergency department.

RESULTS

Based on the questionnaire, 95% of the 57 respondents met International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine. Emergency department physicians, however, diagnosed only 32% of the respondents with migraine, while 59% were diagnosed as having "cephalgia" or "headache NOS" (not otherwise specified). All patients previously had taken nonprescription medication, and 49% had never taken a triptan. In the emergency department, only 7% of the patients received a drug "specific" for migraine (ie, a triptan or dihydroergotamine). Sixty-five percent of the patients were treated with a "migraine cocktail" comprised of a variable mixture of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent, a dopamine antagonist, and/or an antihistamine; 24% were treated with opioids. All 57 patients reported that after discharge they had to rest or sleep and were unable to return to normal function. Sixty percent of patients still had headache 24 hours after discharge from the emergency department.

CONCLUSION

The overwhelming majority of patients who present to an emergency department with acute primary headache have migraine, but the majority of patients receive a less specific diagnosis and a treatment that is correspondingly nonspecific.