Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 1: triptans, dihydroergotamine, and magnesium

Cabergoline as a preventive migraine treatment: A randomized clinical pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Beneficial effects of dopamine agonist treatment on migraine have been reported but remain to be properly tested. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of cabergoline as preventive treatment for migraine.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study, 36 adults with ≥  6 monthly migraine days were enrolled at Aarhus University Hospital. Following a 28-days baseline period, participants were randomized to receive cabergoline 0.5 mg or placebo once weekly for 12 weeks as add-on treatment. An electronic headache diary was completed daily, and headache questionnaires and blood tests were collected at baseline and following the treatment period. Primary outcome was change in monthly migraine days. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05525611).

RESULTS

Of 101 assessed participants, 36 were enrolled. Baseline monthly migraine days were 13.6 (4.1) in the cabergoline group and 14.0 (5.3) in the placebo group. No significant overall difference in the reduction of monthly migraine days was observed. However, among participants with episodic migraine (n = 20), the mean (SE) reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline to the last 28 days of the treatment period was -5.4 (1.3) with cabergoline compared to -1.8 (0.9) with placebo (p = 0.04) [odds ratio: 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.95), p = 0.014]. In participants with chronic migraine (n = 13), the reduction in monthly migraine days was not significantly different in the two groups. Patients' global impression of change significantly improved after cabergoline treatment as compared to placebo in the entire group of participants (p = 0.006). The number of participants with episodic migraine achieving ≥  50% reduction in monthly migraine days tended to increase after cabergoline (p = 0.07). Adverse effects were reported by seven participants on cabergoline and four on placebo, none of which were serious.

CONCLUSION

Cabergoline significantly reduced monthly migraine days in episodic migraine without serious adverse effects, supporting further investigation into the use of cabergoline for migraine prevention.

Pain relief effect of metoclopramide vs. sumatriptan for acute migraine attack: A single-center, open-label, cluster-randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Triptans are recommended as a treatment for moderate to severe migraines; however, barriers to administration include contraindications or possible side effects. In contrast, metoclopramide, which is frequently used as an antiemetic in the emergency department setting, has shown efficacy in alleviating migraine pain. This study investigated the non-inferiority of intravenously (IV) administered metoclopramide 10 mg compared with subcutaneously (SQ) administered sumatriptan 3 mg for alleviating migraine pain. In this single-center, open-label, cluster-randomized controlled trial, patients presenting to the emergency department with migraine attacks were allocated to either the IV metoclopramide 10 mg group or the SQ sumatriptan 3 mg group. The primary outcome was change in numerical rating scale (NRS) score for headache at 1 h after baseline. The non-inferiority margin was set as -1.0 NRS points. Thirty-six patients were enrolled over a period of 3 years, starting from July 2019. Reduction in NRS at 1 h was 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8, 5.4) in the metoclopramide group and 5.2 (95% CI: 4.2, 6.1) in the sumatriptan group, with a mean difference of -1.1 (95% CI: -2.7, 0.4), indicating that metoclopramide was not non-inferior to sumatriptan. Four patients required rescue medication: 3 (18%) in the metoclopramide group and 1 (7%) in the sumatriptan group (p = 0.34). There were no serious adverse events in either group. One hour after metoclopramide administration, migraine pain was reduced compared with baseline, but metoclopramide did not demonstrate non-inferiority for alleviating acute migraine pain compared with sumatriptan.

Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023.

METHODS

Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders.

RESULTS

137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kq3ys/.

Efficacy of Lasmiditan as a Secondary Treatment for Migraine Attacks after Unsuccessful Treatment with a Triptan

The combined use of lasmiditan and triptan is unexplored in medical literature. This study aimed to investigate whether the intake of lasmiditan following triptan improves migraine pain. Following triptan intake, if headache relief was less than 50% at 1 h, patients took 50 mg of lasmiditan within 2 h of migraine onset. Patients recorded headache intensity and adverse events (AEs) caused by lasmiditan at 1, 2, and 4 h after the intake of an additional 50 mg of lasmiditan. A significant reduction in pain scale was observed post 50 mg lasmiditan intake (p < 0.001, t-test). Pain relief was reported for 32 migraine attacks (80%) at 1 h after additional lasmiditan intake. Although AEs were observed in 63% of the patients who took an additional lasmiditan, most were mild and resolved 1 h after lasmiditan intake. Our study revealed the significant headache relief provided by an additional lasmiditan for patients who did not achieve satisfactory results following initial triptan intake for treating migraine. The AEs associated with this treatment strategy were mild and lasted for a short time. This study suggested that the combination of triptan and lasmiditan is promising for the treatment of migraine and should be studied in a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Acute Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with migraine require acute treatment for at least some attacks. This article reviews the approach to the acute treatment of migraine, migraine-specific and nonspecific treatment options, rescue treatment and options for management in the emergency department and inpatient settings, and treatment during pregnancy and lactation.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Triptans, ergot derivatives, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have historically been the main acute treatments for migraine. The development of new classes of acute treatment, including the small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) and a 5-HT1F receptor agonist (lasmiditan), expands available options. These new treatments have not been associated with vasospasm or increased cardiovascular risk, therefore allowing migraine-specific acute treatment for the more than 20% of adults with migraine who are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Neuromodulation offers a nonpharmacologic option for acute treatment, with the strongest evidence for remote electrical neuromodulation.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The number of available migraine treatments continues to expand, although triptans are still the mainstay of migraine-specific acute treatment. There is no one-size-fits-all acute treatment and multiple treatment trials are sometimes necessary to determine the optimal regimen for patients. Switching within and between classes, using the maximum allowed dose, using combination therapy, and counseling patients to treat early are all strategies that may improve patient response to acute treatment.

Optimal management strategies for primary headache in the emergency department

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Improving Acute Treatment of Pediatric Primary Headache Disorders With a Novel Headache Treatment Center: Retrospective Review of Preliminary Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine preliminary outcomes of targeted headache treatments provided at a novel outpatient acute care pediatric headache treatment center.

BACKGROUND

Limitations exist in acute management of pediatric headaches, including inadequate access to specialty headache therapies and headache specialists in acute settings, variable success of emergency room treatments, and omission of comfort measures. An outpatient acute headache care clinic (the "Headache Treatment Center") was strategically initiated at a Midwestern pediatric academic hospital to provide acute and targeted headache therapies for children with active headaches.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 154 visits from September through November 2018 of patients ages 7-18 years visiting the Headache Treatment Center.

RESULTS

On average, headache intensity (measured on an 11-point pain numeric rating scale) decreased after interventions used in the Headache Treatment Center (mean change = 2.85 ± 2.81, P < .05, Cohen d = 1.01). Large effect sizes for reducing headache intensity were observed for pericranial, occipital/auriculotemporal, and occipital nerve blocks, Cohen d = 1.56, 1.64 and 1.02, respectively. Large effect sizes for reducing headache intensity also were observed for a transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulator device (Cefaly) (Cohen d = 1.02), acupuncture (Cohen d = 1.09), and intravenous migraine cocktails (Cohen d = 0.91-1.34).

CONCLUSION

Targeted headache therapies to abort pediatric primary headaches as part of a novel headache clinic model may be beneficial for short-term management.

Valproic Acid in the Treatment of Migraines

Migraine headaches can be a disabling condition for patients. Fortunately, most patients can be successfully managed in the outpatient setting, however, there are a number of patients who may not respond to the abortive treatments that they have been prescribed. These patients often present to the emergency department (ED) for further assistance with the management of their condition. Migraines are the fourth most common cause of ED visits and are associated with an estimated annual cost of $17 billion in the United States. Familiarity with abortive treatments is critical for providers in the ED as are treatments, such as valproic acid, that may be considered in patients who do not respond to other treatment options. Many providers are more familiar with the role of valproic acid in the treatment of mood and seizure disorders, but its tolerability and the successes reported in the primary literature make it a reasonable consideration for patients with migraine who fail to respond to other therapies. This article briefly summarizes the therapies considered first line for abortive treatment in the setting of migraines and provides an overview of the primary literature describing the use of valproic acid in these patients.

Metoclopramide versus sumatriptan in the treatment of migraine in the emergency department: a single-center, open-label, cluster-randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Migraine is a common disease seen in the emergency department (ED). Triptans, which are recommended in therapeutic guidelines for migraine, have some contraindications and possible severe side effects. Metoclopramide, which is commonly used as an antiemetic, also seems to have pain-relieving effects for migraine. In this article, we will introduce a study in progress, which investigates whether metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously (IV) is non-inferior to sumatriptan 3 mg subcutaneously (SQ) as migraine treatment in the ED. This study is a single-center, open-label, cluster-randomized controlled trial of 80 patients with migraine attacks to investigate the non-inferiority of metoclopramide to sumatriptan. The patients will be cluster-randomized monthly into metoclopramide 10 mg IV and sumatriptan 3 mg SQ arms. The primary outcome will be change in Numerical Rating Scale score for headache at 1 h after baseline. In discussion, if our hypothesis is confirmed, metoclopramide can be considered as first-line medication for migraine attacks in ED settings.

The Role of Magnesium in Pathophysiology and Migraine Treatment

Migraine is one of the most common recurrent types of headache and is the seventh cause of disability. This neurological disorder is characterized by having pain in head and other various symptoms such as nausea, emesis, photophobia, phonophobia, and sometimes visual sensory disorders. Magnesium (Mg) is a necessary ion for human body and has a crucial role in health and life maintenance. One of the main roles of Mg is to conserve neurons electric potential. Therefore, magnesium deficiency can cause neurological complications. Migraine is usually related to low amounts of Mg in serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Deficits in magnesium have significant role in the pathogenesis of migraine. Mg has been extensively used in migraine prophylaxis and treatment. This review summarizes the role of Mg in migraine pathogenesis and the potential utilizations of Mg in the prevention and treatment of migraine with the emphasis on transdermal magnesium delivery.

Hospital Burden of Migraine in United States Adults: A 15-year National Inpatient Sample Analysis

Background

Migraine headache is associated with high costs, but changes over time of inpatient burden in the United States are unknown. Understanding longitudinal trends is necessary to determine the costs of evolving inpatient treatments that target biological factors in the generation of pain such as vasodilation and aberrant activity of trigeminal neurotransmitters. We report the migraine hospital burden trend in the United States over 15 years.

Methods

Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Hospitalization Cost and Utilization Project databases were analyzed from 1997 to 2012. Inpatient costs were reported in dollars for the cost to the institution, whereas charges reflect the amount billed. These parameters were trended and the average annual percent change was calculated to illustrate year-to-year changes.

Results

Overall discharges for migraine headache reached a low of 30,761 discharges in 1999, and peaked in 2012 with 54,510 discharges. Average length of stay decreased from 3.5 days in 1997 to 2.8 days in 2012. Total inpatient charges increased from $176 million in 1999 to $1.2 billion in 2012. Inpatient costs totaled $322 million in 2012, with an average daily cost of $2,111.

Conclusions

Inpatient burden rapidly increased over the analyzed period, with hospital charges increasing from $5,939 per admission and $176 million nationwide in 1997, to $21,576 per admission and $1.2 billion nationwide in 2012. This trend provides context for research examining cost-effectiveness and quality of life benefits for current treatments. The study of these parameters together with better prevention and improved outpatient treatment may help alleviate the inpatient burden of migraine.

Pharmacologic Management of Acute Migraines in the Emergency Department

Migraine headaches account for approximately 1.2 million emergency department (ED) visits annually. Despite the prevalence of this condition, there is little consensus on the best pharmacotherapeutic interventions to use in the ED setting. Guidelines published by the American Headache Society and the Canadian Headache Society offer some direction to ED providers but are not widely utilized. This article reviews the best evidence behind some of the medications frequently used to treat acute migraines in the ED setting, including dopamine receptor antagonists, serotonin receptor agonists, anti-inflammatory medications, opioids, magnesium, valproate, and propofol. The evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with an acute headache, the diagnostic criteria for migraines, and implications for advanced practice are also discussed.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss pharmacological interventions in the emergency department (ED) setting for the management of acute primary headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute headache treatment in the ED has seen an expansion in terms of possible pharmacological interventions in recent years. After a thorough evaluation ruling out dangerous causes of headache, providers should take the patient's history, comorbidities, and prior therapy into consideration. Antidopaminergics have an established role in the management of acute, severe, headache with manageable side-effect profiles. However, recent studies suggest anesthetic and anti-epileptic drugs may play roles in headache treatment in the ED. Current literature also suggest steroids as a promising tool for emergency department clinicians combating the readmission of patients with recurrent headaches. Emergency medicine providers must be cognizant of these traditional and emerging therapies in order to optimize the care of headache patients.

American Headache Society Survey About Urgent and Emergency Management of Headache Patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) visits for migraine are burdensome to patients and to the larger healthcare system and society. Thus, it is important to determine strategies used to prevent ED visits and the common communication patterns between headache specialists and the ED team.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand: (1) Whether headache specialists use headache management protocols. (2) The strategies they use to try and reduce the number of ED visits for headache. (3) Whether protocols are used in the EDs with which they are affiliated. (4) The level of satisfaction with the coordination of care between headache physicians and the ED.

METHODS

We surveyed via SurveyMonkey members of the American Headache Society Emergency Department/Refractory/Inpatient (EDRI) Section to understand their practice regarding patients who call their office to be seen urgently, and to understand their communication with their local EDs.

RESULTS

There were 96 eligible AHS members, 50 of whom responded to questionnaires either by email or in person (52%). Of these, 59% of respondents reported giving rescue treatment to their patients to manage acute attacks. Fifty-four percent reported using standard protocols for outpatients not responding to usual acute treatments. In the event of a request for urgent care, 12% of specialists reported bringing patients into the office most or all of the time, and 20% reported sending patients to the ED some or most of the time for headache management. Thirty-six percent reported prescribing a new medicine and 30% reported providing telephone counseling some/most/all of the time. Sixty percent reported that their ED has a protocol for migraine management. Overall, 38% were usually or very satisfied with the headache care in the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of headache specialists are dissatisfied with the care their patients receive in the ED. More standardized protocols for ED visits by patients with known headache disorders, and clear guidelines for communication between ED providers and treating physicians, along with better methods for follow-up following discharge from the ED, might appear to improve this issue.

Low-dose Ketamine Does Not Improve Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

Introduction

Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with migraine headaches. Although low-dose ketamine demonstrates analgesic efficacy for acute pain complaints in the ED, headaches have historically been excluded from these trials. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of low-dose ketamine for treatment of acute migraine in the ED.

Methods

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated adults 18 to 65 years of age with acute migraine at a single academic ED. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.2 milligrams per kilogram of intravenous (IV) ketamine or an equivalent volume of normal saline. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores, categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, side effects, and adverse events were assessed at baseline (T0) and 30 minutes post-treatment (T30). The primary outcome was between-group difference in NRS score reduction at 30 minutes.

Results

We enrolled 34 subjects (ketamine=16, placebo=18). Demographics were similar between treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference in NRS score reductions between ketamine and placebo-treated groups after 30 minutes. Median NRS score reductions at 30 minutes were 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 2.25) for the ketamine group and 2.0 (IQR 0 to 3.75) for the placebo group. Between-group median difference at 30 minutes was −1.0 (IQR −2 to 1, p=0.5035). No significant differences between treatment groups occurred in categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, rescue medication request rate, and treatment satisfaction. Side Effect Rating Scale for Dissociative Anesthetics scores in the ketamine group were significantly greater for generalized discomfort at 30 minutes (p=0.008) and fatigue at 60 minutes (p=0.0216). No serious adverse events occurred in this study.

Conclusion

We found that 0.2mg/kg IV ketamine did not produce a greater reduction in NRS score compared to placebo for treatment of acute migraine in the ED. Generalized discomfort at 30 minutes was significantly greater in the ketamine group. Overall, ketamine was well tolerated by migraine-suffering subjects. To optimize low-dose ketamine as an acute migraine treatment, future studies should investigate more effective dosing and routes of administration.

Migraine Treatment: Current Acute Medications and Their Potential Mechanisms of Action

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder with a significant socioeconomic burden. The management of migraine is multifaceted and is generally dichotomized into acute and preventive strategies, with several treatment modalities. The aims of acute pharmacological treatment are to rapidly restore function with minimal recurrence, with the avoidance of side effects. The choice of pharmacological treatment is individualized, and is based on the consideration of the characteristics of the migraine attack, the patient's concomitant medical problems, and treatment preferences. Notwithstanding, a good understanding of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the various drug options is essential to guide therapy. The current approach and concepts relevant to the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine will be explored in this review.

Prevalence, characteristics and management of headache experienced by people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a cross sectional cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Headache is the most common type of pain reported by people with schizophrenia. This study aimed to establish prevalence, characteristics and management of these headaches.

METHODS

One hundred participants with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder completed a reliable and valid headache questionnaire. Two clinicians independently classified each headache as migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic or other.

RESULTS

The 12-month prevalence of headache (57%) was higher than the general population (46%) with no evidence of a relationship between psychiatric clinical characteristics and presence of headache. Prevalence of cervicogenic (5%) and migraine (18%) was comparable to the general population. Tension-type (16%) had a lower prevalence and 19% of participants experienced other headache. No one with migraine was prescribed migraine specific medication; no one with cervicogenic and tension-type received best-practice treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache is a common complaint in people with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder with most fitting recognised diagnostic criteria for which effective interventions are available. No one in this sample was receiving best-practice care for their headache.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Acute Migraine Management in Children

Migraines are common, incapacitating, and often stress inducing for pediatric patients and parents alike. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 1 million Americans seek emergency care every year due to migraines, with increasing frequency among adolescents. The disease can vary in severity and character, often mimicking life-threatening conditions, requiring prompt nuanced recognition by emergency personnel and implementation of an effective treatment strategy. Development of emergency department guidelines for the management of pediatric migraines should be based on up-to-date evidence supporting safe, appropriate therapies for children.

Comparison of parenteral treatments of acute primary headache in a large academic emergency department cohort

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to compare acute primary headache patient outcomes in those initially treated with parenteral opiates or non-opiate recommended headache medications in a large academic medical emergency department (ED).

BACKGROUND

Many acute primary headache patients are not diagnosed with a specific headache type and are treated with opiates and nonspecific pain medications in the ED setting. This is inconsistent with multiple expert recommendations.

METHODS

Electronic charts were reviewed from 574 consecutive patients who visited the ED for acute primary headache (identified by chief complaint and ICD9 codes) and were treated with parenteral medications.

RESULTS

Non-opiate recommended headache medications were given first line to 52.6% and opiates to 22.8% of all participants. Patients given opiates first had significantly longer length of stays (median 5.0 vs. 3.9 hours, p < 0.001) and higher rates of return ED visits within seven days (7.6% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.033) compared with those given non-opiate recommended medications in univariate analysis. Only the association with longer length of stay remained significant in multivariable regression including possible confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial opiate use is associated with longer length of stay compared with non-opiate first-line recommended medications for acute primary headache in the ED. This association remained strong and significant even after multivariable adjustment for headache diagnosis and other possible confounders.

Real-world economic impact of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the utilization of healthcare resources is reduced after chronic migraine patients are treated for 6 months with onabotulinumtoxinA.

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA is indicated for headache prophylaxis in patients with chronic migraine, but its effect on healthcare resource use is unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed data from an open-label study of 230 chronic migraine patients refractory to ≥2 oral prophylactics who presented to a headache specialty clinic and who were treated with two cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA. Frequency and cost of migraine-related healthcare resource use, including visits to emergency departments, urgent care, or hospitalization, were compared for the 6 months before and after initial treatment. Costs were based on publicly available sources.

RESULTS

Compared with the 6 months predating initial treatment, patients had 55% fewer emergency department visits (174 vs 385), 59% fewer urgent care visits (61 vs 150), and 57% fewer hospitalizations (19 vs 45) during the 6-month treatment period (P < .01 for all). Analysis of treatment-related costs yielded an average reduction of $1219.33/patient, off-setting 49.7% of the total estimated cost for 6 months of treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we are unable to distinguish onabotulinumtoxinA's treatment effect from other potential confounding variables, our analysis showed that severely afflicted, treatment-refractory patients with chronic migraine experienced a significant cost-offset through reduced migraine-related emergency department visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations in the 6 months following treatment initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA. Future analyses will assess the longer-term effect of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment and the potential contribution of regression to the mean.

How transparent are migraine clinical trials? Repository of Registered Migraine Trials (RReMiT)

Transparency in research requires public access to unbiased information prior to trial initiation and openly available results upon study completion. The Repository of Registered Migraine Trials is a global snapshot of registered migraine clinical trials and scorecard of results availability via the peer-reviewed literature, registry databases, and gray literature. The 295 unique clinical trials identified employed 447 investigational agents, with 30% of 154 acute migraine trials and 11% of 141 migraine prophylaxis trials testing combinations of agents. The most frequently studied categories in acute migraine trials were triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, and acetaminophen. Migraine prophylaxis trials frequently studied anticonvulsants, β-blockers, complementary/alternative therapies, antidepressants, and botulinum toxin. Overall, 237 trials were eligible for a results search. Of 163 trials completed at least 12 months earlier, 57% had peer-reviewed literature results, and registries/gray literature added another 13%. Using logistic regression analysis, studies with a sample size below the median of 141 subjects were significantly less likely to have results, but the dominant factor associated with availability of results was time since study completion. In unadjusted models, trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and trials with industry primary sponsorship were significantly more likely to have results. Recently completed trials rarely have publicly available results; 2 years after completion, the peer-reviewed literature contains results for fewer than 60% of completed migraine trials. To avoid bias, evidence-based therapy algorithms should consider factors affecting results availability. As negative trials are less likely to be published, special caution should be exercised before recommending a therapy with a high proportion of missing trial results.

A review of needle-free sumatriptan injection for rapid control of migraine

The treatment of migraine was transformed in 1992 with the introduction of the first triptan-based therapy, subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan. SC sumatriptan has high efficacy and a rapid onset of action compared with other available triptans and formulations presumably because of its short Tmax, high Cmax, and avoidance of enteral absorption. Because of these characteristics, SC sumatriptan is still considered the most reliably and rapidly effective self-administered medication available for acute migraine. Even so, it is relatively little used possibly in part because of patient "needle-phobia." The needle-free sumatriptan injection system (Sumavel DosePro) was developed to address this concern. Clinical trials have shown that the needle-free system is bioequivalent to needle-based injection systems, easy to use, and capable of providing rapid and effective symptom relief for many migraine episodes. Sumavel DosePro is an effective treatment for migraine and should be part of the therapeutic armamentarium, particularly in cases where a rapid onset of action is critical or where oral administration is problematic.

Trends in opioid analgesic use for headaches in US emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

Although not recommended as first line therapy by consensus guidelines, opioid analgesics are commonly used to treat headaches. This study evaluates trends in opioid use for headaches in US emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2001 through 2010. Adult headache-related visits were identified. Medications (opioid and nonopioid) used for the treatment of headache were categorized based on medication class. Trends in ED use of the most common opioids (codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, morphine, and oxycodone) were explored. The proportion of visits for which each medication was used was tabulated, and trends were analyzed using survey-weighted logistic regression.

RESULTS

Headache visits during which any opioid was used increased between 2001 (20.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.1-23.4) and 2010 (35.0%; 95% CI, 31.8-38.4; P < .001). Prescribing of hydromorphone, morphine, and oxycodone increased, with the largest relative increase (461.1%) in hydromorphone (2001, 1.8% [95% CI, 1.2-2.6]; 2010, 10.1% [95% CI, 8.2-12.4]). Codeine use declined, and hydrocodone use remained stable. Use of opioid alternatives, including acetaminophen, butalbital, and triptans did not change over the study period, whereas use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased from 26.2% (95% CI, 23.0-29.7) to 31.4% (95% CI, 28.6-34.3). Prescribing of antiemetic agents decreased from 24.1% (95% CI, 19.6-29.2) to 23.5% (95% CI, 21.1-26.0). Intravenous fluid use increased from 20.0% (95% CI, 17.0-23.4) to 34.5% (95% CI, 31.0-38.2) of visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limited endorsement by consensus guidelines, there was increased use of opioid analgesics to treat headaches in US EDs over the past decade.

Evaluation and treatment of migraine in the emergency department: a review

Head pain is the fifth most common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. It is second only to focal weakness as the most common reason for neurological consultation in the ED. This manuscript reviews how patients with migraine, the most common primary headache disorder for which patients seek medical treatment, are managed in the ED. We discuss existing guidelines for head imaging in patients with migraine, recommended pharmacologic treatments, and current treatment trends. We also review studies evaluating the discharge care of migraine patients in the ED. With the goal of standardizing, streamlining, and optimizing ED-based migraine care, we offer ideas for future research to improve the evaluation, treatment, and discharge care of patients who present to an ED with acute migraine.

Pediatric headache: where have we been and where do we need to be

In this article, we hope to summarize current understanding of pediatric headache. We discuss epidemiology, genetics, classification, diagnosis, outpatient, emergency and inpatient treatment options, prevention strategies, and behavioral approaches. For each section, we end with a series of questions for future research and consideration.

Intra-venous chlorpromazine with fluid treatment in status migrainosus

OBJECTIVE

To present the results of the intra-venous chlorpromazine with fluid treatment in patients with status migrainosus.

METHODS

Consecutive 21 patients with status migrainosus were received intra-venous chlorpromazine (maximum 25mg) with fluid treatment and their results were documented.

RESULTS

Complete recovery of headache and nausea were seen in 20/21 and 17/21 of the patients respectively. 15/21 of patients were headache free following at 10mg chlorpromazine infusion. Most patients went on sleep after 10mg chlorpromazine infusion and when they wake already up headache free. Side effects such as tachycardia, palpitation, flushing and hypertension were seen only one of 21 patients following first dose 5mg injection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that intra-venous chlorpromazine with fluid treatment for status migrainosus seems a good option.

Intravenous magnesium as acute treatment for headaches: a pediatric case series

BACKGROUND

Acute i.v. treatment for pediatric headache varies widely.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to describe our experience with i.v. magnesium for acute treatment of pediatric headache.

METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients ages 5 to 18 years old treated with a standard dose of i.v. magnesium for headache at our institution from January 2008 to July 2010. Charts were assessed for headache diagnosis, prior medications given, side effects, tolerability, and response to treatment. Individuals were excluded if they had an underlying unstable medical condition or a secondary etiology for headache. Only first encounters were included if the patient had multiple encounters.

RESULTS

There were 34 episodes of children who received i.v. magnesium in the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Of these, 14 were excluded because the patients had complex medical conditions (n = 6), they were repeat encounters (n = 7), or known secondary etiology for the headache (n = 1). Of the 20 included charts (range 13-18 years old), 5 had migraine, 4 had tension-type headache, and 11 had status migrainosus. Thirteen were treated in the ED and seven as an inpatient with a standard i.v. dose of magnesium. Ten of thirteen adolescents receiving i.v. magnesium in the ED were admitted for further headache treatment but not for side effects, and three were discharged home. Side effects of treatment included pain (1 of 20), redness (1 of 20), burning (1 of 20), and decreased respiratory rate without change in oxygenation (1 of 20).

CONCLUSIONS

In our case series, adolescents given i.v. magnesium as an abortive therapy for headache experienced minimal side effects and further studies should evaluate for effectiveness.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between monoamine oxidase A inhibitor harmaline and 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine, and the impact of CYP2D6 status

5-Methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT or street name "5-MEO") is a newer designer drug belonging to a group of naturally occurring indolealkylamines. Our recent study has demonstrated that coadministration of monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) inhibitor harmaline (5 mg/kg) increases systemic exposure to 5-MeO-DMT (2 mg/kg) and active metabolite bufotenine. This study is aimed at delineating harmaline and 5-MeO-DMT pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions at multiple dose levels, as well as the impact of CYP2D6 that affects harmaline PK and determines 5-MeO-DMT O-demethylation to produce bufotenine. Our data revealed that inhibition of MAO-A-mediated metabolic elimination by harmaline (2, 5, and 15 mg/kg) led to a sharp increase in systemic and cerebral exposure to 5-MeO-DMT (2 and 10 mg/kg) at all dose combinations. A more pronounced effect on 5-MeO-DMT PK was associated with greater exposure to harmaline in wild-type mice than CYP2D6-humanized (Tg-CYP2D6) mice. Harmaline (5 mg/kg) also increased blood and brain bufotenine concentrations that were generally higher in Tg-CYP2D6 mice. Surprisingly, greater harmaline dose (15 mg/kg) reduced bufotenine levels. The in vivo inhibitory effect of harmaline on CYP2D6-catalyzed bufotenine formation was confirmed by in vitro study using purified CYP2D6. Given these findings, a unified PK model including the inhibition of MAO-A- and CYP2D6-catalyzed 5-MeO-DMT metabolism by harmaline was developed to describe blood harmaline, 5-MeO-DMT, and bufotenine PK profiles in both wild-type and Tg-CYP2D6 mouse models. This PK model may be further employed to predict harmaline and 5-MeO-DMT PK interactions at various doses, define the impact of CYP2D6 status, and drive harmaline-5-MeO-DMT pharmacodynamics.

Natural Products of Mineral Origin

Natural products of mineral origin (alum, bismuth, calcium, magnesium, silicates and zinc compounds) have maintained their popularity as drugs over the course of time. Some evidence still suggests potential benefit of these substances. Therefore, this paper reviews the characteristic features of the respective minerals and their salts along the course of studies on these products.

Acute treatment of migraines

Migraine is a prevalent and disabling brain disorder that costs billions of dollars annually in direct healthcare costs, and school and work absenteeism and presenteeism. The objective of acute treatment is a cost-effective, rapid restoration of functional ability, with minimal recurrence and adverse effects. The acute treatment of migraine includes specific drugs, which currently all have vasoconstrictive effects (dihydroergotamine and triptans), and nonspecific drugs that include paracetamol (acetaminophen), combination analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), dopamine antagonists, narcotics and corticosteroids. NSAIDs have both peripheral and central effects on reversing migraine, and so may represent the best alternative for patients who cannot use triptans and ergots due to vascular contraindications. Narcotics and habituating medications should be avoided in the acute treatment of migraine, as the risk for transformation to chronic daily headache is excessively high at a relatively infrequent rate of exposure.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications

OBJECTIVE

The final section of this 3-part review analyzes published reports involving the acute treatment of migraine with opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the emergency department (ED), urgent care, and headache clinic settings, as well as post-discharge medications. In the Conclusion, there is a general discussion of all the therapies presented in the 3 sections.

METHOD

Using the terms ("migraine" AND "emergency") AND ("therapy" OR "treatment"), the author searched MEDLINE for reports from ED and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Seventy-five reports were identified that compared the efficacy and safety of multiple acute migraine medications for rescue. Of the medications reviewed in Part 3, opioids, NSAIDs, and steroids all demonstrated some effectiveness. When used alone, nalbuphine and metamizole were superior to placebo. NSAIDs were inferior to the combination of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and dihydroergotamine (DHE) but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other dopamine antagonists. Steroids afford some protection against headache recurrence after the patient leaves the treatment center.

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 opioids most frequently studied - meperidine, tramadol, and nalbuphine - were superior to placebo in relieving migraine pain, although meperidine combined with promethazine was not. Opioid side effects included dizziness, sedation, and nausea. With ketorolac being the most frequently studied drug in the class, NSAIDs were generally well tolerated, and they may provide benefit even when given late in the migraine attack. The rate of headache recurrence within 24-72 hours after discharge from the ED can be greater than 50%. Corticosteroids can be useful in reducing headache recurrence after discharge. As discussed in Parts 1, 2, and 3, there are effective medications for provider-administered "rescue" in all the classes discussed. Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and their effectiveness is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in migraine pain relief. Although there are fewer studies involving sumatriptan and DHE, relatively "migraine-specific" medications, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. Lack of comparisons with placebo and the frequent use of combinations of medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one another. When used alone, prochlorperazine, promethazine, metoclopramide, nalbuphine, and metamizole were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also are more likely to produce side effects that are difficult for a patient to tolerate (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine, and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and NSAIDs. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and DHE but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. Sumatriptan was inferior or equivalent to the neuroleptics and equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were considered. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was equivalent to that observed with droperidol or prochlorperazine.

Pharmacological targeting of spreading depression in migraine

Migraine, particularly with aura, is a genetically heterogeneous disorder of ion channels, pumps or transporters associated with increased cortical excitability. Spreading depression, as one reflection of hyperexcitability, is the electrophysiological event underlying aura symptoms and a trigger for headache. Endogenous (e.g., genes and hormones) and exogenous factors (e.g., drugs) modulating migraine susceptibility have also been shown to modulate spreading depression susceptibility concordantly, suggesting that spreading depression can be a relevant therapeutic target in migraine. In support of this, several migraine prophylactic drugs used in clinical practice have been shown to suppress spreading depression susceptibility as a probable mechanism of action, despite belonging to widely different pharmacological classes. Hence, susceptibility to spreading depression can be a useful preclinical model with good positive and negative predictive value for drug screening.