Gabapentin for prevention of hypobaric hypoxia-induced headache: randomized double-blind clinical trial

Diagnosis and prophylaxis for high-altitude acclimatization: Adherence to molecular rationale to evade high-altitude illnesses

Lack of zero side-effect, prescription-less prophylactics and diagnostic markers of acclimatization status lead to many suffering from high altitude illnesses. Although not fully translated to the clinical setting, many strategies and interventions are being developed that are aimed at providing an objective and tangible answer regarding the acclimatization status of an individual as well as zero side-effect prophylaxis that is cost-effective and does not require medical supervision. This short review brings together the twin problems associated with high-altitude acclimatization, i.e. acclimatization status and zero side-effect, easy-to-use prophylaxis, for the reader to comprehend as cogs of the same phenomenon. We describe current research aimed at preventing all the high-altitude illnesses by considering them an assault on redox and energy homeostasis at the molecular level. This review also entails some proteins capable of diagnosing either acclimatization or high-altitude illnesses. The future strategies based on bioinformatics and systems biology is also discussed.

Interventions for preventing high altitude illness: Part 2. Less commonly-used drugs

BACKGROUND

High altitude illness (HAI) is a term used to describe a group of mainly cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to elevations above 2500 metres (˜ 8200 feet). Acute mountain sickness (AMS), high altitude cerebral oedema (HACE) and high altitude pulmonary oedema (HAPE) are reported as potential medical problems associated with high altitude ascent. In this second review, in a series of three about preventive strategies for HAI, we assessed the effectiveness of five of the less commonly used classes of pharmacological interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and adverse events of five of the less commonly used pharmacological interventions for preventing acute HAI in participants who are at risk of developing high altitude illness in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) in May 2017. We adapted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. We used a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text search terms. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews that we identified for further references to additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials conducted in any setting where one of five classes of drugs was employed to prevent acute HAI: selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(1) receptor agonists; N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist; endothelin-1 antagonist; anticonvulsant drugs; and spironolactone. We included trials involving participants who are at risk of developing high altitude illness (AMS or HACE, or HAPE, or both). We included participants with and without a history of high altitude illness. We applied no age or gender restrictions. We included trials where the relevant medication was administered before the beginning of ascent. We excluded trials using these drugs during ascent or after ascent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures employed by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (334 participants, 9 references) in this review. Twelve studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review as appropriate. We have been unable to obtain full-text versions of a further 12 studies and have designated them as 'awaiting classification'. Four studies were at a low risk of bias for randomization; two at a low risk of bias for allocation concealment. Four studies were at a low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We considered three studies at a low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. We considered most studies at a high risk of selective reporting bias.We report results for the following four main comparisons.Sumatriptan versus placebo (1 parallel study; 102 participants)Data on sumatriptan showed a reduction of the risk of AMS when compared with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, CI 95% 0.21 to 0.84; 1 study, 102 participants; low quality of evidence). The one included study did not report events of HAPE, HACE or adverse events related to administrations of sumatriptan.Magnesium citrate versus placebo (1 parallel study; 70 participants)The estimated RR for AMS, comparing magnesium citrate tablets versus placebo, was 1.09 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.13; 1 study; 70 participants; low quality of evidence). In addition, the estimated RR for loose stools was 3.25 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.99; 1 study; 70 participants; low quality of evidence). The one included study did not report events of HAPE or HACE.Spironolactone versus placebo (2 parallel studies; 205 participants)Pooled estimation of RR for AMS was not performed due to considerable heterogeneity between the included studies (I² = 72%). RR from individual studies was 0.40 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.31) and 1.44 (95% CI 0.79 to 2.01; very low quality of evidence). No events of HAPE or HACE were reported. Adverse events were not evaluated.Acetazolamide versus spironolactone (1 parallel study; 232 participants)Data on acetazolamide compared with spironolactone showed a reduction of the risk of AMS with the administration of acetazolamide (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.70; 232 participants; low quality of evidence). No events of HAPE or HACE were reported. Adverse events were not evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review is the second in a series of three providing relevant information to clinicians and other interested parties on how to prevent high altitude illness. The assessment of five of the less commonly used classes of drugs suggests that there is a scarcity of evidence related to these interventions. Clinical benefits and harms related to potential interventions such as sumatriptan are still unclear. Overall, the evidence is limited due to the low number of studies identified (for most of the comparison only one study was identified); limitations in the quality of the evidence (moderate to low); and the number of studies pending classification (24 studies awaiting classification or ongoing). We lack the large and methodologically sound studies required to establish or refute the efficacy and safety of most of the pharmacological agents evaluated in this review.

Drug Use and Misuse in the Mountains: A UIAA MedCom Consensus Guide for Medical Professionals

Donegani, Enrico, Peter Paal, Thomas Küpper, Urs Hefti, Buddha Basnyat, Anna Carceller, Pierre Bouzat, Rianne van der Spek, and David Hillebrandt. Drug use and misuse in the mountains: a UIAA MedCom consensus guide for medical professionals. High Alt Med Biol. 17:157-184, 2016.-Aims: The aim of this review is to inform mountaineers about drugs commonly used in mountains. For many years, drugs have been used to enhance performance in mountaineering. It is the UIAA (International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation-Union International des Associations d'Alpinisme) Medcom's duty to protect mountaineers from possible harm caused by uninformed drug use. The UIAA Medcom assessed relevant articles in scientific literature and peer-reviewed studies, trials, observational studies, and case series to provide information for physicians on drugs commonly used in the mountain environment. Recommendations were graded according to criteria set by the American College of Chest Physicians.

RESULTS

Prophylactic, therapeutic, and recreational uses of drugs relevant to mountaineering are presented with an assessment of their risks and benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

If using drugs not regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), individuals have to determine their own personal standards for enjoyment, challenge, acceptable risk, and ethics. No system of drug testing could ever, or should ever, be policed for recreational climbers. Sponsored climbers or those who climb for status need to carefully consider both the medical and ethical implications if using drugs to aid performance. In some countries (e.g., Switzerland and Germany), administrative systems for mountaineering or medication control dictate a specific stance, but for most recreational mountaineers, any rules would be unenforceable and have to be a personal decision, but should take into account the current best evidence for risk, benefit, and sporting ethics.

Gabapentin in Headache Disorders: What Is the Evidence?

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin (GBP), originally an antiepileptic drug, is more commonly used in the treatment of pain, including headache disorders. Off-label GBP is used in headache disorders with some success, some failure, and much debate. Due to this ambiguity, a clinical evidence literature review was performed investigating GBP's efficacy in headache disorders.

METHODS

Bibliographic reference searches for GBP use in headache disorders were performed in PUBMED and OVID Medline search engines from January 1, 1983 to August 31, 2014. Based on abstracts read by two reviewers, references were excluded if: GBP was not a study compound or headache symptoms were not studied. The resulting references were then read, reviewed, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six articles pertinent to GBP use in headache disorders were retained. Eight headache clinical trials were quality of evidence Class 2 or higher based on American Academy of Neurology criteria. Seven of the eight clinical trials showed statistically significant clinical benefit from GBP in various headache syndromes (though modest affects at times). One study, Mathew et al., had concerns about intention-treat analysis breaches and primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite the conflicting evidence surrounding select studies, a significant amount of evidence shows that GBP has benefit for a majority of primary headache syndromes, including chronic daily headaches. GBP has some efficacy in migraine headache, but not sufficient evidence to suggest primary therapy. When primary headache treatments fail, a GBP trial may be considered in the individual patient.

Hypoxia-related altitude illnesses

BACKGROUND

Millions of tourists and climbers visit high altitudes annually. Many unsuspecting and otherwise healthy individuals may get sick when sojourning to these high regions. Acute mountain sickness represents the most common illness, which is usually benign but can rapidly progress to the more severe and potentially fatal forms of high-altitude cerebral edema and high-altitude pulmonary edema.

METHODS

Data were identified by searches of Medline (1965 to May 2012) and references from relevant articles and books. Studies, reviews, and books specifically pertaining to the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of high-altitude illnesses in travelers were selected.

RESULTS

This review provides information on geographical aspects, physiology/pathophysiology, clinical features, risk factors, and the prevalence of high-altitude illnesses and also state-of-the art recommendations for prevention and treatment of such illnesses.

CONCLUSION

Given an increasing number of recreational activities at high and extreme altitudes, the general practitioner and specialist are in higher demand for medical recommendations regarding the prevention and treatment of altitude illness. Despite an ongoing scientific discussion and controversies about the pathophysiological causes of altitude illness, treatment and prevention recommendations are clearer with increased experience over the last two decades.

Is gabapentin an effective treatment choice for hemicrania continua?

The objective of this study is to examine the efficacy of gabapentin for the treatment of hemicrania continua (HC) in cases where patients had difficulty tolerating indomethacin due to adverse effects. A retrospective chart review of nine patients with HC between October 2006 and February 2008. Inclusion criteria included men and women age 18 or above presenting to the headache center with a headache that meets International Headache Society criteria for HC including a response to indomethacin, but were not able to continue on indomethacin secondary to adverse effects. Four patients report being pain free, three patients report a 50-80% reduction of pain, one patient reports a 10% reduction of pain, and one patient reports no change in pain. Seven out of nine patients demonstrated at least a 50% reduction of pain on gabapentin, four patients becoming completely pain free.