Economic and social impact of migraine

Steroids in Headache: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research

Background

Headache is an extremely common symptom of the general outpatient department and also the headache clinic, with prevalence of 48.9% in the general population. None has ever experienced headache in life time. Headache is seen in 1 patient out of 10 general practitioner (GP) consultations, 1 referral out of 3 is headache in neurology OPD, and 1 in 5 of all emergency medical admissions. Of all headaches, around 98% constitute primary headache: migraine without aura, tension headache, and cluster headache. With advancement in various drug modalities, certain headache forms respond less well to the regular approved medications, and some headaches are complicated by the analgesic itself. Steroids have been tried in many subtypes of headache, especially in primary forms of headache with dysautonomia, headache with trigeminal pathway activation and disinhibition, and in certain medication-culprit headaches. This subgroup of headaches is almost a challenge in an emergency for the headache expert as well. So, we need to assess the role of steroids in less well-responsive headaches.

Summary

Current reviewed evidence on the role of steroids in primary headache suggests that steroids have a role in status migrainosus and medication overuse headache when used in the mentioned and monitored manner. Consideration and further exploration of its role in other primary headaches may reveal insight into steroid efficacy as a treatment modality in various subtypes of headache.

Key message

Steroids, when used cautiously in specifically selected primary headaches under supervision, proved miraculous where other modalities failed.

Migraine: Advances in the Pathogenesis and Treatment

This article presents a comprehensive review on migraine, a prevalent neurological disorder characterized by chronic headaches, by focusing on their pathogenesis and treatment advances. By examining molecular markers and leveraging imaging techniques, the research identifies key mechanisms and triggers in migraine pathology, thereby improving our understanding of its pathophysiology. Special emphasis is given to the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine development. CGRP not only contributes to symptoms but also represents a promising therapeutic target, with inhibitors showing effectiveness in migraine management. The article further explores traditional medical treatments, scrutinizing the mechanisms, benefits, and limitations of commonly prescribed medications. This provides a segue into an analysis of emerging therapeutic strategies and their potential to enhance migraine management. Finally, the paper delves into neuromodulation as an innovative treatment modality. Clinical studies indicating its effectiveness in migraine management are reviewed, and the advantages and limitations of this technique are discussed. In summary, the article aims to enhance the understanding of migraine pathogenesis and present novel therapeutic possibilities that could revolutionize patient care.

Characteristics of migraine in patients with headache disorders: A clinic‐based study from Central American and Caribbean countries

Objective

The objective of the study was to measure the proportion of patients who consulted for headache and of those who had a final diagnosis of migraine. We also assessed the proportion and characteristics of patients with migraine and the impact of migraine on the daily activities and the professional and social lives of patients visiting private/public medical centers in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Dominican Republic.

Background

Underdiagnosis of migraine is high in Central America and Caribbean urban communities. However, there is limited knowledge on characteristics of headache disorders for the appropriate classification of migraine, which is a prerequisite for targeted treatment. Hence, there is a need to improve migraine awareness among patients and medical professionals in this region.

Methods

Central America and Caribbean countries epidemioLogy study of Migraine (CALM) was a non‐interventional, cross‐sectional, multinational study in adults aged 18–65 years with a history of or current headache. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with migraine visiting medical centers due to headache disorders. Using a specially designed migraine survey questionnaire, patients self‐reported migraine characteristics, duration, and severity of attacks and impact on work and social life.

Results

Of the 313 enrolled patients, 308 (98.4%) completed the study. Approximately 75.3% (232/308) of patients with headache visiting medical centers had migraine, with episodic migraine being the most common (193 [83.2%]). Overall, 34/308 (11.0%) patients had a new diagnosis of migraine. Among patients with migraine, 66 (28.4%) had a history of migraine for ≥20 years and 59 (25.4%) experienced severe pain. Overall, 52.2% (121/232) of patients reported that migraine affected their professional life and 78.4% (182/232) reported an impact on social life.

Conclusion

The CALM study establishes that a high proportion of patients with migraine had a long duration and high severity of migraine attacks, leading to a direct impact on work/social life as well as on costs incurred by patients in these countries.

The burden and health care use of patients with migraine and tension-type headache in post-conflict area of Serbia

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to assess the burden and health care use of adult patients with migraine and tension type headache in a post-conflict area of Serbia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted on a representative sample of adults, living in predominantly Serb communities on the Kosovo and Metohija territory. The required data was obtained through a survey, utilizing a culturally-adapted questionnaire. The study sample comprised of 1,062 adults.

RESULTS

In the year preceding the study, 49.7% of included subjects suffering from migraines and 27.5% of those experiencing tension type headache sought medical assistance for their condition. The majority (88.5%) of the respondents utilized non steroid antiinfammatory drugs as analgesic, while 14.2% used prophylactic treatment. Migraine sufferers reported losing on average 11.1 days in a 3-month period, while those experiencing tension type headache lost 4.7 days (p < 0.001) due to headaches, preventing them from partaking in professional, family and social activities. On headache-free days, 24.5% of the respondents were anxious or tense in anticipation of a headache onset, while 30% did not feel that the headache had completely resolved. Moreover, 11.5% of the sample reported never or rarely feeling in control of the headache, while 20% of the respondents were of view that their headaches were not taken seriously by their employer and co-workers and rarely discuss them. Adverse effect of headaches on education is more frequently noted by migraine sufferers than those experiencing tension type headache (p = 0.001), and this disparity persists in relation to career (p < 0.001) and family planning (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Kosovo and Metohija, primary headaches exert a profound influence on the affected individuals and their community, and thus require recognition as one of the priorities of social initiatives aimed at the enhancement of public health.

Effectiveness of wet cupping therapy on relieving pain in patients with chronic migraine: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a disabling condition that negatively affects many aspects of migraineurs' lives. Patients who use pharmacological agents experience various side effects. Some studies have reported clinical improvement following wet cupping therapy in migraine patients. This study examined the effectiveness of wet cupping therapy on headache severity and its complications in patients with migraine.

METHODS

In this study, a total of 29 patients previously diagnosed with migraine were treated with wet cupping therapy and followed up for headache severity. The severity of pain was measured before therapy, 1 h after therapy, and one month after therapy. The wet cupping therapy was performed by an experienced nurse who was not part of the research team.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 36.17 (Sta. Deviation: 10.74 years; range: 22-68 years), and on average, patients had experienced migraine for 11.14 years. The severity of headache pain was decreased significantly from 6.66 (very intense pain) before cupping therapy to 2.48 (discomforting pain) 1 h after cupping therapy and 0.72 (very mild pain) one month after cupping therapy (p<0.001). The observed complications were skin pigmentation (6.9%), skin scarring (24.1%), and itching in the cupping region (31.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests a significant improvement in the severity of headache in migraine patients 1 h and one month after wet cupping therapy.

Primary Headache Disorder Among School Students in Kuwait

Background: Primary headaches are remarkably prevalent worldwide and are increasingly reported among children. However, the exact trend in this age group, particularly in the Gulf region, remains largely unknown. Aims and Objectives: To examine the prevalence of primary headache disorders among primary and middle school students in Kuwait. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study that included Kuwaiti primary and middle school children and adolescents of both genders in randomly selected schools located in two governorates in Kuwait in the 2018/2019 academic year. Prevalence and attributable burden of headaches, definite and probable migraines, definite and probable tension-type headaches, chronic headaches (≥15 days/month), and probable medication-overuse headaches were assessed using the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap, and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire for children and adolescents. Results: Of 1,485 questionnaires that were distributed, 1,089 students completed the questionnaire with a respondent rate of 73.4%. The study population consisted of 420 boys (38.56%) and 669 girls (61.43%) students with a mean age of 11.5 ± 2.11 years. The 1-year prevalence of primary headache disorders was 42.78%, with more middle schoolers reporting headaches than primary schoolers (50.37 vs. 30.48%; p < 0.02). The mean age of students with primary headaches was 11.98 ± 2.03 years in both genders. When stratified according to diagnostic criteria, migraine headaches were the most frequently reported (20.75%), followed by tension type headaches (18.8%), chronic headaches (2.75%), and probable medication-overuse headaches (0.46%). Primary headaches were significantly higher in girls compared to boys among middle schoolers (66.46 vs. 38.49%; p < 0.001); however, no significant difference between genders was noted among primary school students (33.12 vs. 22.33%; p < 0.118). Conclusion: Primary headaches are remarkably common in Kuwaiti school students, with migraine headaches being the most frequently reported type. Age and female gender may play a role in the development of primary headaches. These findings necessitate the direction of health services and research efforts toward this age group and warrant the need for further epidemiological studies.

Mapping Social Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis

Social dimension is a fundamental element in the evaluation of initiatives and policies that are demanded and promoted by public and private organizations as well as society as a whole. Thus, there is a thriving interest in social impact research, especially from the point of view of its measurement and valuation. In this work, we explored the rising attention on the concept of social impact to identify salient agents in the field and categorize the conceptual structure of research. To achieve this, we used evaluative and relational techniques combining traditional bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer and a text mining analysis based on natural processing language (NLP) to search for documents with the term “social impact” in the title. The documents were extracted from the database Web of Science (WoS) for the period of 1938–2020. As a result, we mapped the concept of social impact from up to 1677 documents, providing an overview of the topics in which the concept was used (e.g., health, finance, environment and development, etc.) and the trends of research. This work seeks to serve as a roadmap that reflects not only the evolution of social impact but also future lines of research that require attention.

Productivity Losses Due to Migraine in Slovenia: An Analysis of Absenteeism and Presenteeism Costs Based on Administrative and Self-Reported Data

Introduction

Migraine is associated with significant morbidity and a significantly negative impact on the quality of life. A better understanding of the economic impact of migraine is becoming increasingly important. This paper aims to shed light on absenteeism and presenteeism costs of migraine in Slovenia.

Methods

We use the administrative national-level database on sick leave due to migraine for 2016. The absenteeism cost estimate is based on the number of patients with migraine on physician-determined sick leave and average daily labour costs. We calculate productivity costs from a social perspective regardless of who incurs them. Data from the national registry on sick leave are coupled with data from a web-based self-reported survey to also include the cost of presenteeism. MIDAS and WPAI presenteeism items were used and several different scenarios were designed to assess presenteeism costs.

Results

We estimated annual absenteeism costs per absentee due to migraine at the amount of EUR 531 in 2016 using the NIPH’s administrative data on sick leave. Annual absenteeism costs per absentee due to migraine based on self-reported data amounted to EUR 626. The estimated annual presenteeism costs per patient range from EUR 344 – 900.

Conclusion

Estimating the economic burden of a disease is becoming increasingly important. This paper is an insight into the absenteeism and presenteeism costs of migraine in Slovenia.

Intranasal spray formulation containing rizatriptan benzoate for the treatment of migraine

Rizatriptan produces antimigraine activity by acting as selective agonist of 5-HT_1B and 5-HT_1D receptors present on intracranial and extracerebral blood vessels. Absorption from oral tablet is slow with T_max of approximately 1-1.5 h. A few attempts have been made to promote rapid absorption such as oral or sublingual films with limited success. The aim of our study was to develop intranasal spray formulation of rizatriptan with quick onset of action. Solubility was enhanced by a co-solvent system where we studied solubility of rizatriptan benzoate in pure solvents, binary and ternary mixtures. Binary and ternary co-solvents using ethanol, water, propylene glycol and polyethylene glycol resulted rizatriptan equivalent base solubility more than 60 mg/mL. Same co-solvents were used at different level to make nasal spray formulations and evaluated pharmacokinetics using beagle dog animal model. Nasal spray formulation containing 20% w/w ethanol exhibited highest exposure, where C_max (312 ng/mL) reached in 5 min and maintained higher concentration than oral dose for more than 30 min.

The adult patient with headache

Headaches are common in primary care. For safe assessment and management of the patient with headache, a focused history and physical examination are important to identify secondary headache, and find out whether an immediate referral to the emergency department or a non-emergent referral to the neurologist is warranted. The majority of patients with primary headache may be safely managed in the outpatient setting. Key steps include proper categorisation of the primary headache, attention to lifestyle and psychosocial factors, prescription of analgesics for acute pain relief, and the use of preventive medication when indicated. The patient with a cluster headache, a headache of uncertain diagnosis and/or poor response to preventive strategies or a migraine with persistent aura, or a headache with associated motor weakness, should be referred to a neurologist. Secondary headache and the diagnosis of medication overuse headache should be considered in a patient on long-term analgesics with unremitting headache.

Relationship between air mass type and emergency department visits for migraine headache across the Triangle region of North Carolina

An estimated 240 million people worldwide suffer from migraines. Because migraines are often debilitating, understanding the mechanisms that trigger them is crucial for effective prevention and treatment. Synoptic air mass types and emergency department (ED) visits for migraine headaches were examined over a 7-year period within a major metropolitan area of North Carolina to identify potential relationships between large-scale meteorological conditions and the incidence of migraine headaches. Barometric pressure changes associated with transitional air masses, or changing weather patterns, were also analyzed for potential relationships. Bootstrapping analysis revealed that tropical air masses (moist and dry) resulted in the greatest number of migraine ED visits over the study period, whereas polar air masses led to fewer. Moist polar air masses in particular were found to correspond with the fewest number of migraine ED visits. On transitional air mass days, the number of migraine ED visits fell between those of tropical air mass days and polar air mass days. Transitional days characterized by pressure increases exhibited a greater number of migraine ED visits than days characterized by pressure decreases. However, no relationship was found between migraine ED visits and the magnitude of barometric pressure changes associated with transitional air masses.

Attitudes and Burden of disease among Self-Considered Migraineurs — a Nation-wide Population-based Survey in Sweden

The authors have earlier reported a 1-year prevalence of 13.2 ± 1.9% for migraine in Sweden. This is a subsequent extensive postal survey of the burden of disease and attitudes among migraineurs in a sample ( n = 423, 23% men and 77% women, aged 18-74 years) randomly recruited from all main regions of the country, representative of adults in the general Swedish population with self-considered migraine. Results are presented only from participants who after analysis of symptoms were found to fulfil the International Headache Society's migraine criteria. In order to assess headache duration open-mindedly, the strict time criterion 4-72 h was deliberately disregarded as an inclusion criterion. Individuals who did not consider themselves to have migraine were excluded. Less than half of the group (45%) had received a diagnosis of migraine from a physician. Accordingly, a large number of individuals that would not have come to attention in a clinic-based study have been included. The mean attack frequency was 1.3 per month, and the number of attacks per year in Swedish adults is approximately 10 million. A minority (27%) of sufferers have a majority (68%) of all attacks. The mean attack duration was 19 h. A considerable number of individuals reported attacks < 4 h (15.8%) or > 72 h (6.4%). Less than half of the individuals recovered completely between the attacks. Despite this, only every fourth (27%) participant was currently consulting a physician (6% regularly; 21% occasionally). Most of the migraineurs reported absence from school or work, a negative influence of migraine on the most important aspects of life, and an interest in testing other treatments for migraine during the last year. Of those ( n = 231) migraineurs who had consulted a physician, about 60% were satisfied with information given or treatment offered. This implies, however, that there is still room for improvement in the management of migraine in Sweden.

Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment in the UK. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency, treatment discontinuation and response, preventive and acute medical cost per attack [2005 GBP (£)] and gain in health utility. Outcomes included monthly migraines averted, acute and preventive treatment costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Topiramate was associated with 1.8 fewer monthly migraines and a QALY gain of 0.0384. The incremental cost of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment was about £10 per migraine averted and £5700 per QALY. Results are sensitive to baseline monthly migraine frequency, triptan use rate and the gain in utility. Incorporating savings from reduced work loss (about £36 per month) suggests that topiramate would be cost saving compared with no preventive treatment. This analysis suggests that topiramate is a cost-effective treatment for migraine prevention compared with no preventive treatment.

Epidemiology and Clinical Characteristics of Migraine Among School Children In The Menderes Region

The goal of this study was to collect and analyse information on the prevalence of childhood migraine and disability due to migraine in primary school children of 4th to 8th grades (ages ranging from 9 to 17 years) in the Aydin urban area. A cross-sectional school-based study was conducted between March and June 2004. There were 76 333 children of 4th to 8th grades in primary schools in Aydin. Nearly 10% of this population (7721 out of 76 333) was evaluated by a multistage clustered sampling procedure. Four questionnaire forms were applied to each child by a study neurologist during class time. Questionnaire A consisted of a single question, ‘Have you ever had a headache?’. To those who responded ‘yes’, questionnaire B was applied as a second step, which consisted of eight questions. Diagnosis of migraine headache was made according to International Classification of Headache Disorders 2004. Migraine disability was measured with questionnaire C, which was originally the Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (PedMIDAS). Migraine history, previous migraine diagnosis and pain intensity were measured with questionnaire D. According to questionnaire A, 79.6% of boys and 87.1% of girls suffered from headaches. The prevalence of migraine was 9.7% (7.8% in boys, 11.7% in girls) according to questionnaire B. The male:female ratio was 1:1.5. Total PedMIDAS score was 9.94 ± 8.41 days in boys and 11.50 ± 12.28 days in girls. Only 1.9% of the children had previously been diagnosed with migraine. The average migraine headache history was 2.48 ± 1.18 years in girls and 2.57 ± 1.18 years in boys. Although migraine is a common health problem among school children in Aydin, it is mostly still under-recognized.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsant drugs for migraine prophylaxis

July 2015: This review has been split and updated in a series of four new reviews (Linde 2013a; Linde 2013b; Linde 2013c; Linde 2013d). Readers are referred to those reviews for updated results. This review will not be updated.

May 2016: This review has now been withdrawn as it has been replaced by the four new titles listed above.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

[Formalized consensus: clinical practice recommendations for the management of the migraine in African adult patients]

Migraine is a primary headache disorder (according to the latest International Headache Society criteria) affecting approximately 8% of African population. Women are more often affected than men and attacks usually occur before the age of 40 years Although some treatments, hygienic-dietary measures and other non-pharmacological methods can reduce the intensity and frequency of attacks, medicinal treatment of migraine attack is often necessary. Availability of treatments and access to care differ in Africa and led to the implementation of the first expert consensus recommendations for the management of the migraine in african adult patients. This multinational collaborative study is intended for health practitioners. It aims to provide 16 simple, evidence-based recommendations and is adapted to african medical practice.

Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: findings from the Eurolight project

BACKGROUND

Most primary headaches are episodic, and most estimates of the heavy disability burden attributed to headache derive from epidemiological data focused on the episodic subtypes of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH). These disorders give rise directly but intermittently to symptom burden. Nevertheless, people with these disorders may not be symptom-free between attacks. We analysed the Eurolight dataset for interictal burden.

METHODS

Eurolight was a cross-sectional survey using modified cluster sampling from the adult population (18-65 years) in 10 countries of the European Union. We used data from nine. The questionnaire included headache-diagnostic questions based on ICHD-II and several question sets addressing impact, including interictal and cumulative burdens.

RESULTS

There were 6455 participants with headache (male 2444 [37.9 %]). Interictal symptoms were reported by 26.0 % of those with migraine and 18.9 % with TTH: interictal anxiety by 10.6 % with migraine and avoidance (lifestyle compromise) by 14.8 %, both much more common than in TTH (3.1 % [OR 3.8] and 4.7 % [OR 3.5] respectively). Mean time spent in the interictal state was 317 days/year for migraine, 331 days/year for TTH. Those who were "rarely" or "never" in control of their headaches (migraine 15.2 %, TTH 9.6 %) had significantly raised odds of interictal anxiety, avoidance and other interictal symptoms. Among those with migraine, interictal anxiety increased markedly with headache intensity and frequency, avoidance less so but still significantly. Lost productive time was associated with high ORs (up to 5.3) of anxiety and avoidance. A third (32.9 %) with migraine and a quarter (26.7 %) with TTH (difference: p < 0.0001) were reluctant to tell others of their headaches. About 10 % with each disorder felt families and friends did not understand their headaches. Nearly 12 % with migraine reported their employers and colleagues did not. Regarding cumulative burden, 11.8 % reported they had done less well in education because of headache, 5.9 % reported reduced earnings and 7.4 % that their careers had suffered.

CONCLUSIONS

Interictal burden in those with episodic headache is common, more so in migraine than TTH. Some elements have the potential to be profoundly consequential. New methodology is needed to measure interictal burden if descriptions of headache burden are to be complete.

Evidence-Based Treatments for Adults with Migraine

Migraine, a significantly disabling condition, is treated with acute and preventive medications. However, some individuals are refractory to standard treatments. Although there is a host of alternative management options available, these are not always backed by strong evidence. In fact, most of the drugs used in migraine were initially designed for other purposes. Whilst effective, the benefits from these medications are modest, reflecting the need for newer and migraine-specific therapeutic agents. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of novel treatments, of which noninvasive neuromodulation appears to be the most attractive given its ease of use and excellent tolerability profile. This paper reviews the evidence behind the available treatments for migraine.

Productivity losses attributable to headache, and their attempted recovery, in a heavy-manufacturing workforce in Turkey: implications for employers and politicians

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders cause substantial productivity losses through absenteeism and impaired effectiveness at work (presenteeism). We had previously found these losses to be high in a mostly male, heavy-manufacturing workforce at Ford Otomotiv Sanayi AŞ (FO), in north-western Turkey. Here we aimed to confirm this finding in a year-long study to eliminate any effect of seasonal variation. The question then was how much of this lost productivity could be recovered by the effective provision of headache care.

METHODS

We used the HALT-30 Index to estimate productivity losses, surveying FO's entire workforce (N = 7,200) during annual health-checks provided by the company's on-site health clinic. Then we established, and widely advertised, a headache clinic within the same health clinic, providing specialist care free for 15 months. Outcome measures were HALT-30, company sickness records and the HURT questionnaire.

RESULTS

Usable data were collected from 5,916 employees (82.2 %; 5,485 males [92.7 %], 431 females [7.3 %]; mean age 32.5 ± 5.4 years). One-month headache prevalence was 45.4 % (n = 2,688). Productivity losses were reported by 968 employees (16.4 %) and, per affected employee, increased from 0.23 to 7.56 days/month as headache frequency increased (P <0005). Employees reporting headache on ≥15 days/month (n = 64; 1.1 %) accounted for 21.1 % of productivity losses, those with headache on 10-14 days (n = 104; 1.8 %) another 18.5 %. With increasing headache frequency, absenteeism/presenteeism ratio (overall 1:16) declined from about 1:4 to about 1:25 in those with headache on ≥10 days/month. Headache frequency and lost productivity were higher in females than males (P <0.0005). Both absenteeism and presenteeism rates declined after age 34 years (P <0.0005). Only 344 employees with headache (12.8 %) requested appointments, and only 211 (7.8 %) actually consulted. Attendance was related to headache frequency (P <0.0005). Too few returned for follow-up to allow useful outcome assessment.

CONCLUSION

The high productivity losses in this young mostly male workforce correlated with but were not wholly explained by headache frequency. A small minority of employees with high-frequency headache contributed highly disproportionately to the productivity losses. These should be the target of interventions aimed at productivity recovery. It is not clear what form such interventions should take: making headache care optimally available is not of itself sufficient.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine: a critical appraisal

Chronic migraine (CM) is a severe disabling condition with a few available evidence-based management options. OnabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNTA) is approved for use in a number of disorders. Its benefits and potential use in migraine were observed incidentally while treating patients cosmetically for wrinkles. The mechanism of action of onaBoNTA in CM is not fully understood, but there is evidence that this involves axonal transport via sensory fibers. The Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy trials have established the efficacy as well as the long-term safety and tolerability of onaBoNTA in CM. This review will discuss the evidence behind its use in this setting.

Migraine headache and labor market outcomes

While migraine headache can be physically debilitating, no study has attempted to estimate its effects on labor market outcomes. Using data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we estimate the effect of being diagnosed with migraine headache on labor force participation, hours worked, and wages. Ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates suggest that migraines are associated with reduced labor force participation and lower wages among females. A negative association between migraine headache and the wages of female respondents is also obtained using an instrumental variables (IV) approach, although the IV estimates are imprecise relative to the OLS estimates.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the prevention of migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards migraine prevention. Another updated review is under development to cover tension-type headache.Migraine is a common disorder. The chronic forms are associated with disability and have a high economic impact. In view of discoveries about the role of serotonin and other neurotransmitters in pain mechanisms, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we applied a revised search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older of either sex with migraine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data (migraine frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; days off work; quality of life; mood improvement; cost-effectiveness; and adverse events) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome of this updated review is migraine frequency.

MAIN RESULTS

The original review included eight studies on migraine. Overall, we now include 11 studies on five SSRIs and one SNRI with a total of 585 participants. Six studies were placebo-controlled, four compared a SSRI or SNRI to amitriptyline, and one was a head-to-head comparison (escitalopram versus venlafaxine). Most studies had methodological or reporting shortcomings (or both): all studies were at unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Follow-up rarely extended beyond three months. The lack of adequate power of most of the studies is also a major concern.Few studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on migraine frequency, the primary endpoint. Two studies with unclear reporting compared SSRIs and SNRIs to placebo, suggesting a lack of evidence for a difference. Two studies compared SSRIs or SNRIs versus amitriptyline and found no evidence for a difference in terms of migraine frequency (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.80; I(2) = 72%), or other secondary outcomes such as migraine intensity and duration.SSRIs or SNRIs were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of participants who withdrew due to adverse advents or for other reasons (one study, odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.50 and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.34).We did not find studies comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. antiepileptics and anti-hypertensives).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine as preventive drugs for migraine. There is no evidence to consider SSRIs or venlafaxine as more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing migraine frequency, intensity, and duration over two to three months of treatment. No reliable information is available at longer-term follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and SNRIs for migraine prophylaxis is not supported by evidence.

Antiepileptics in migraine prophylaxis: an updated Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of several antiepileptics in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults has been systematically reviewed. Because many trial reports have been published since then, an updated systematic review was warranted.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to January 15, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, January 15, 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to January 15, 2013) and hand-searched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013. Prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptics taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both, were selected.

RESULTS

Mean headache frequency on topiramate and sodium valproate is significantly lower than placebo. Likewise, topiramate and divalproex demonstrated favorable results for the proportion of subjects with ≥ 50% reduction of migraine attacks. For topiramate, 100 mg and 200 mg outperformed 50 mg, but this was paralleled by a higher adverse event rate. For valproate/divalproex, a dose-effect correlation could not be established. There was no unequivocal evidence of efficacy for any of the other antiepileptics.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate, sodium valproate and divalproex are effective prophylactic treatments for episodic migraine in adults. In contrast to previous reports, there is insufficient evidence to further support the use of gabapentin.

Reliability and validity of the migraine disability assessment scale among migraine and tension type headache in Iranian patients

Introduction. MIDAS is a valid and reliable short questionnaire for assessment of headache related disability. Linguistic validation of Persian MIDAS and assessment of psychometric properties between tension type headache (TTH) and migraine were the aims of this study. Methods. Patients with migraine or TTH were included. At the first visit, we administered a headache symptom questionnaire, MIDAS, and SF-36. Patients filled out MIDAS in second and third visit within three and eight weeks after base line visit. Internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reproducibility (Spearman correlation coefficient) were used to assess reliability. Convergent validity and MIDAS capability to differentiate between chronic and episodic headaches (migraine and TTH) were also assessed. Results. The 267 participants had episodic migraine (EM-64%), chronic migraine (CM-13.5%), episodic TTH (ETTH-13.5%), and chronic TTH (CTTH-9). Internal consistency reliability was 0.8 for the entire sample, 0.72 for TTH, and 0.82 for migraine. Test-retest reliability for all questions between visit 1 and visit 2 varied from 0.54 to 0.71. Convergent validity was assessed using SF-36 as an external referent. Patients with episodic headaches (EM and ETTH) had significantly lower MIDAS scores than chronic headaches (CM and CTTH). Conclusion. Persian MIDAS is a valid and reliable questionnaire for migraine and TTH that can differentiate between episodic headache and chronic headache.

Improving quality in population surveys of headache prevalence, burden and cost: key methodological considerations

Population-based studies of headache disorders are important. They inform needs assessment and underpin service policy for a set of disorders that are a public-health priority. On the one hand, our knowledge of the global burden of headache is incomplete, with major geographical gaps; on the other, methodological differences and variable quality are notable among published studies of headache prevalence, burden and cost. The purpose here was to start the process of developing standardized and better methodology in these studies. An expert consensus group was assembled to identify the key methodological issues, and areas where studies might fail. Members had competence and practical experience in headache epidemiology or epidemiology in general, and were drawn from all WHO world regions. We reviewed the relevant literature, and supplemented the knowledge gathered from this exercise with experience gained from recent Global Campaign population-based studies, not all yet published. We extracted methodological themes and identified issues within them that were of key importance. We found wide variations in methodology. The themes within which methodological shortcomings had adverse impact on quality were the following: study design; selection and/or definition of population of interest; sampling and bias avoidance; sample size estimation; access to selected subjects (managing and reporting non-participation); case definition (including diagnosis and timeframe); case ascertainment (including diagnostic validation of questionnaires); burden estimation; reporting (methods and results). These are discussed.

Topiramate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of topiramate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between topiramate and comparator (placebo, active control, or topiramate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for selected quality of life instruments. Finally, we summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty papers describing 17 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from nine trials (1737 participants) showed that topiramate reduced headache frequency by about 1.2 attacks per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.59 to -0.80). Data from nine trials (1190 participants) show that topiramate approximately doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.60; NNT 4; 95% CI 3 to 6). Separate analysis of different topiramate doses produced similar MDs versus placebo at 50 mg (-0.95; 95% CI -1.95 to 0.04; three studies; 520 participants), 100 mg (-1.15; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.71; six studies; 1620 participants), and 200 mg (-0.94; 95% CI -1.53 to -0.36; five studies; 804 participants). All three doses significantly increased the proportion of responders relative to placebo; ORs were as follows: for 50 mg, 2.35 (95% CI 1.60 to 3.44; three studies; 519 participants); for 100 mg, 3.49 (95% CI 2.23 to 5.45; five studies; 852 participants); and for 200 mg, 2.49 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.87; six studies; 1025 participants). All three doses also significantly improved three or more domains of quality of life as compared to placebo. Meta-analysis of the three studies that included more than one dose of topiramate suggests that 200 mg is no more effective than 100 mg. With regard to mean headache frequency and/or responder rate, seven trials using active comparators found (a) no significant difference between topiramate and amitriptyline (one study, 330 participants); (b) no significant difference between topiramate and flunarizine (one study, 83 participants); (c) no significant difference between topiramate and propranolol (two studies, 342 participants); (d) no significant difference between topiramate and relaxation (one study, 61 participants); but (e) a slight significant advantage of topiramate over valproate (two studies, 120 participants). Relaxation improved migraine-specific quality of life significantly more than topiramate. In trials of topiramate against placebo, seven adverse events (AEs) were reported by at least three studies. These were usually mild and of a non-serious nature. Except for taste disturbance and weight loss, there were no significant differences in the frequency of AEs in general, or of the seven specific AEs, between placebo and topiramate 50 mg. AEs in general and all of the specific AEs except nausea were significantly more common on topiramate 100 mg than on placebo, with NNHs varying from 3 to 25, and the RDs versus placebo were even higher for topiramate 200 mg, with NNHs varying from 2 to 17.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis demonstrates that topiramate in a 100 mg/day dosage is effective in reducing headache frequency and reasonably well-tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine. This provides good evidence to support its use in routine clinical management. More studies designed specifically to compare the efficacy or safety of topiramate versus other interventions with proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of migraine are needed.

Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.

Gabapentin or pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.

Antiepileptics other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults

BACKGROUND

Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate (which are the subjects of separate Cochrane reviews) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between antiepileptic drugs and comparators (placebo, active control, or same drug in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. The 10 trials reported results for nine antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate. Six of the eight drugs investigated in placebo-controlled trials were not better than placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin) and/or in the proportion of responders (acetazolamide, carisbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine). One prospective, randomised, double-blind, single cross-over trial of 48 patients demonstrated a significant superiority of carbamazepine over placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 11.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.92 to 35.32). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 2 to 3). In a small prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, levetiracetam 1000 mg was significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.52 to -0.28; 26 patients), as well as in the proportion of responders (OR 26.07; 95% CI 1.30 to 521.91; 26 patients). The NNT was 2 (95% CI 1 to 4). The same trial examined levetiracetam 1000 mg versus topiramate 100 mg and found a small but significant difference favouring topiramate in headache frequency per 28-day period during treatment (MD 1.40; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.66; 28 patients). There was no significant difference between levetiracetam and topiramate in the proportion of responders (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.23; 28 patients). Finally, one trial with 75 participants examined zonisamide versus topiramate (200 and 100 mg, respectively) and found no significant difference between them in reduction of headache frequency from baseline during the third month of treatment. Adverse events for active treatment versus placebo were available for all investigated drugs except levetiracetam, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. A high prevalence of adverse events was noted for carbamazepine, with a NNH of only 2 (95% CI 2 to 4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence does not allow robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs other than gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and valproate in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine among adults. Acetazolamide, carisbamate, clonazepam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and vigabatrin were not more effective than placebo in reducing headache frequency. In one trial each, carbamazepine and levetiracetam were significantly superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency, and there was no significant difference in proportion of responders between zonisamide and active comparator. These three positive studies suffer from considerable methodological limitations.

"It's a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all"--a qualitative study of migraine prevention from patients' perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to elucidate migraine prevention from a patient perspective.

METHOD

Twenty-one participants who suffered from migraine were interviewed and the data analysed by means of qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed two categories; Avoiding migraine triggers and introducing migraine inhibiting strategies. In both categories, decisions were influenced by an appraisal of the advantages versus disadvantages, attitudes, support and knowledge. An overarching theme: "migraine prevention from the patients' perspective is a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all" was identified from the interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

As migraine is a chronic disorder that cannot be cured, merely relieved, prevention is of great importance. The present study highlights migraine prevention from the patients' perspective and the important issue of how much prevention is allowed to influence life. Either of the directions involves a risk that life can be controlled by migraine. Acceptance of the disease and allowing migraine prevention to influence life to some degree can be a way of regaining control.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Migraine prevention from the patients' perspective is described as a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all, which in either direction can lead to a life controlled by migraine. • To take the patients' perspectives of the illness in consideration as well as finding the most suitable treatment, based on an appraisal of individual advantages versus disadvantages is important to meet the need of the patient and to improve migraine prevention. Increased knowledge about migraine prevention is imperative both in health care and for the individual patient. Support during prevention is requested by patients.

Chronic daily headaches

Chronic Daily Headache is a descriptive term that includes disorders with headaches on more days than not and affects 4% of the general population. The condition has a debilitating effect on individuals and society through direct cost to healthcare and indirectly to the economy in general. To successfully manage chronic daily headache syndromes it is important to exclude secondary causes with comprehensive history and relevant investigations; identify risk factors that predict its development and recognise its sub-types to appropriately manage the condition. Chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and medication overuse headache accounts for the vast majority of chronic daily headaches. The scope of this article is to review the primary headache disorders. Secondary headaches are not discussed except medication overuse headache that often accompanies primary headache disorders. The article critically reviews the literature on the current understanding of daily headache disorders focusing in particular on recent developments in the treatment of frequent headaches.

Headache disorders: differentiating and managing the common subtypes

Headache is an extremely common symptom and collectively headache disorders are among the most common of the nervous system disorders, with a prevalence of 48.9% in the general population.(1) Headache affects people of all ages, races and socioeconomic status and is more common in women. Some headaches are extremely debilitating and have significant impact on an individual's quality of life, imposing huge costs to healthcare and indirectly to the economy in general. Only a small proportion of headache disorders require specialist input. The vast majority can be effectively treated by a primary care physician or generalist with correct clinical diagnosis that requires no special investigation. Primary headache disorders - migraine, tension headache and cluster headache - constitute nearly 98% of all headaches; however, secondary headaches are important to recognise as they are serious and may be life threatening. This article provides an overview of the most common headache disorders and discusses the red flag symptoms that help identify serious causes that merit urgent specialist referral. The current pathway of headache care in the UK is discussed with a view to proposing a model that might fit well in the financially constrained National Health Service (NHS) and with new NHS reforms. The role of the national society, the British Association for the Study of Headache, and the patient organisations such as Migraine Trust in headache education to the professionals and the general public in shaping headache care in the UK is described. The article concludes by summarising evidence-based management of common headache diagnoses.

Sumatriptan (rectal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Rectal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of rectal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using rectally administered sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (866 participants) compared rectally administered sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses. For the majority of efficacy outcomes, sumatriptan surpassed placebo. For sumatriptan 12.5 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 5.2 and 3.2 for headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 12.5 mg dose, and there were no significant differences between the two doses for any of the outcomes analysed. The NNTs for sumatriptan 25 mg versus placebo were 4.2, 3.2, and 2.4 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at one hour, and headache relief at two hours, respectively.Relief of functional disability was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, with NNTs of 8.0 and 4.0 for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses, respectively. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than with placebo, but there were insufficient data to perform any analyses.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to one study comparing sumatriptan 25 mg with ergotamine tartrate 2 mg + caffeine 100 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited amounts of data, sumatriptan 25 mg, administered rectally, is an effective treatment for acute migraine attacks, with participants in these studies experiencing a significant reduction in headache pain and functional disability within two hours of treatment. The lack of data on relief of headache-associated symptoms or incidence of adverse events limits any conclusions that can be drawn.

Sumatriptan (subcutaneous route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Subcutaneous administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using subcutaneous sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (9365 participants) compared subcutaneous sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 6 mg dose. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 6 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 2.9, 2.3, 2.2, and 2.1 for pain-free at one and two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively, and 6.1 for sustained pain-free at 24 hours. Results for the 4 mg and 8 mg doses were similar to the 6 mg dose, with 6 mg significantly better than 4 mg only for pain-free at one hour, and 8 mg significantly better than 6 mg only for headache relief at one hour. There was no evidence of increased migraine relief if a second dose of sumatriptan 6 mg was given after an inadequate response to the first.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide, and dihydroergotamine, but there were insufficient data for any pooled analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, quickly relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

Diclofenac with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1356 participants) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and functional disability were reduced within two hours, and similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.

Sumatriptan (oral route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using oral sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one studies (37,250 participants) compared oral sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 50 mg and 100 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 50 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 6.1, 7.5, and 4.0 for pain-free at two hours and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. NNTs for sustained pain-free and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose were 9.5 and 6.0, respectively. For sumatriptan 100 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 6.8, 3.5, 6.5, and 5.2, respectively, for the same outcomes. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 50 mg dose, while sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than 50 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours, and for sustained pain-free during 24 hours. Treating early, during the mild pain phase, gave significantly better NNTs for pain-free at two hours and sustained pain-free during 24 hours than did treating established attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity.Relief of associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than with placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with the sumatriptan than with placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (25 mg to 100 mg).Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, paracetamol (acetaminophen), acetylsalicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and ergotamine combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

Sumatriptan (intranasal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Intranasal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting, although it is primarily absorbed in the gut, not the nasal mucosa.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using intranasal sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (4755 participants) compared intranasal sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 10 mg and 20 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 10 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 7.3, 7.4, and 5.5 for pain-free at two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. For sumatriptan 20 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 4.9, and 3.5, respectively, for the same outcomes. The 20 mg dose was significantly better than the 10 mg dose for each of these three primary efficacy outcomes.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to two studies, one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg and dihydroergotamine (DHE) 1 mg, and one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg with rizatriptan 10 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events compared with placebo.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (2769 participants, 4062 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12, 5.2 and 5.0 for 2-hour pain-free and 1- and 2-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced more with paracetamol than with placebo at 2 hours (NNTs of 7 to 11); more individuals were free of any functional disability at 2 hours with paracetamol (NNT 10); and fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours (NNT 6).Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data. There was no significant difference between the paracetamol plus metoclopramide combination and sumatriptan for relief of "light/noise sensitivity" at 2 hours, but slightly more individuals needed rescue medication over 24 hours with the combination therapy (NNT 17).Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more "major" adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, and the addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; "major" adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.

Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 22 April 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better for 2-hour headache relief than the lower dose. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia and functional disability were reduced within 2 hours, and fewer participants used rescue medication with ibuprofen compared with placebo. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour headache relief or use of rescue medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.

Employment and work impact of chronic migraine and episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To determine work impact of chronic migraine (CM) versus episodic migraine (EM).

METHODS

Data were from the 2005 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, a longitudinal population survey of more than 11,000 migraineurs. Lost productive time (LPT) was measured as missed work hours plus reduced productivity hour equivalents.

RESULTS

Those with CM were 19% less likely to be working for pay compared with migraineurs with <or=3 headache-days/month. On average, those with CM lost 4.6 hours/wk from headache compared with 1.1 hours for those with <or=3 headache-days/month. Those with 10 to 14 headache-days/month or with CM accounted for 9.1% of employed migraineurs, 20.8% of work-related LPT, and 35% of the overall lost work time when considering medical leave and unemployment.

CONCLUSIONS

The work impact of CM and high frequency EM will be underestimated if employment status is not measured.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Predictors of outcome of the treatment programme in a multidisciplinary headache centre

INTRODUCTION

Despite the high prevalence of headaches, multidisciplinary headache clinics are few and their efficacy still needs validation. The objective was to characterise patients and treatment results in a tertiary headache centre.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of all referred patients in the Danish Headache Centre in a 2-year period. Outcome results were analysed with respect to diagnoses and sociodemographics.

RESULTS

A total of 1326 patients with a mean age of 43.7 years and male : female ratio of 3 : 7 were included. In total, frequency and absence rate from work were reduced from 20 to 11 days (P < 0.001) and 5 to 2 days/month (P < 0.001), respectively. Predictors for good outcome were female gender, migraine, triptan overuse and a frequency of 10 days/month, whereas tension-type headache and overuse of simple analgesics predicted a poor outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis provided support for a multidisciplinary approach in a tertiary headache centre. Further evaluation of specific treatment strategies and outcome predictors are important for future planning.

Cross-sectional survey of medication used for headache in a general population

Objective

To determine the level and types of medication used to treat headache in the general population and to compare this with current recommendations.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey to an adult general population sample. A questionnaire gathered information on occurrence, characteristics of, and medication use for headaches in the previous three months.

Setting

Patients aged 18 years and over registered with five general practices in North Staffordshire, England.

Key findings

The response rate was 56%. Eighty-five per cent of headache sufferers (60% of all questionnaire respondents) reported using medication for their headaches in the three months prior to the survey. Medication use was more likely to be reported by women, respondents aged 36 to 50 years, those reporting more painful and more disabling headaches, those experiencing at least five associated symptoms, and those whose untreated headaches lasted 4 to 24 hours. Paracetamol was by far the most widely used medication, with 74% of medication users taking it in the three-month period. Fifty-eight per cent of acute medication users took only one single therapy for their headaches. Only a small number of medication users (3%) took their headache medication before the pain began, with most (63%) taking it when the pain started and the remainder waiting until the pain was unbearable. Half of medication users (47%) reported that the medication completely relieved their headache, 51% obtained partial relief and 2% did not obtain relief.

Conclusion

Medication use for headache appears to be appropriate for most patients. Although only a minority used combination therapy, the high prevalence of headache means that this translates to substantial numbers in the population as a whole. Some headache sufferers might benefit from advice to make better use of the treatments available.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate agents or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Rizatriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.