Flunarizine v. placebo in childhood migraine. A double-blind study

Intervening in the Premonitory Phase to Prevent Migraine: Prospects for Pharmacotherapy

Migraine is a common brain condition characterised by disabling attacks of headache with sensory sensitivities. Despite increasing understanding of migraine neurobiology and the impacts of this on therapeutic developments, there remains a need for treatment options for patients underserved by currently available therapies. The first specific drugs developed to treat migraine acutely, the serotonin-5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT1B/1D] receptor agonists (triptans), seem to require headache onset in order to have an effect, while early treatment during mild pain before headache escalation improves short-term and long-term outcomes. Some patients find treating in the early window once headache has started but not escalated difficult, and migraine can arise from sleep or in the early hours of the morning, making prompt treatment after pain onset challenging. Triptans may be deemed unsuitable for use in patients with vascular disease and in those of older age and may not be effective in a proportion of patients. Headache is also increasingly recognised as being just one of the many facets of the migraine attack, and for some patients it is not the most disabling symptom. In many patients, painless symptoms can start prior to headache onset and can reliably warn of impending headache. There is, therefore, a need to identify therapeutic targets and agents that may be used as early as possible in the course of the attack, to prevent headache onset before it starts, and to reduce both headache and non-headache related attack burden. Early small studies using domperidone, naratriptan and dihydroergotamine have suggested that this approach could be useful; these studies were methodologically less rigorous than modern day treatment studies, of small sample size, and have not since been replicated. The emergence of novel targeted migraine treatments more recently, specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (gepants), has reignited interest in this strategy, with encouraging results. This review summarises historical and emerging data in this area, supporting use of the premonitory phase as an opportunity to intervene as early as possible in migraine to prevent attack-related morbidity.

The effect of topiramate versus flunarizine on the non-headache symptoms of migraine

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of topiramate versus flunarizine on the non-headache symptoms (NHS) of migraine, and to observe the changes of dopamine (DA) and prolactin (PRL) before and after prophylactic treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-six episodic migraine patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either flunarizine or topiramate treatment. Clinical characteristics and NHS associated with migraine were investigated before and after prophylactic treatment. The DA and PRL levels were also determined before and after prophylactic treatment.

RESULTS

The NHS of migraine in the two groups were significantly better after treatment than before treatment in premonitory phase (PP), headache phase (HP), and resolution phase (RP). The NHS in the two groups had no significant difference in PP, HP, and RP before and after treatment. In the flunarizine group, the PRL content after treatment was significantly higher than that before treatment (t = -4.097, p < 0.001), but the DA content was decreased slightly compared with that before treatment (t = 1.909, p = 0.066). There was no significant difference in PRL content (t = 1.099, p = 0.280) and DA content (t = 1.556, p = 0.130) in topiramate group before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The two classical prophylactic drugs of migraine were significantly effective in treating the NHS of migraine, but there was no significant difference between the two drugs. The DA-PRL axis may be involved in the underlying mechanism of the flunarizine treatment for the NHS of migraine.

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Pediatric Migraine: An Update

This article outlines key features of diagnosis and treatment of migraine in children and adolescents. It emphasizes techniques that can be used by clinicians to optimize history taking in this population, as well as recognition of episodic conditions that may be associated with migraine and present in childhood. Acute treatment strategies include use of over-the-counter analgesics and triptan medications that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in children and adolescents. Preventive treatment approach includes lifestyle modifications, behavioral strategies, and consideration of preventive medications with the lowest side effect profiles.

Flunarizine as prophylaxis for episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Based on few clinical trials, flunarizine is considered a first-line prophylactic treatment for migraine in several guidelines. In this meta-analysis, we examined the pooled evidence for its effectiveness, tolerability, and safety. Prospective randomized controlled trials of flunarizine as a prophylaxis against migraine were identified from a systematic literature search, and risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Reduction in mean attack frequency was estimated by calculating the mean difference (MD), and a series of secondary outcomes-including adverse events (AEs)-were also analyzed. The database search yielded 879 unique records. Twenty-five studies were included in data synthesis. We scored 31/175 risk of bias items as "high," with attrition as the most frequent bias. A pooled analysis estimated that flunarizine reduces the headache frequency by 0.4 attacks per 4 weeks compared with placebo (5 trials, 249 participants: MD -0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.26). Analysis also revealed that the effectiveness of flunarizine prophylaxis is comparable with that of propranolol (7 trials, 1151 participants, MD -0.08; 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.18). Flunarizine also seems to be effective in children. The most frequent AEs were sedation and weight increase. Meta-analyses were robust and homogenous, although several of the included trials potentially suffered from high risk of bias. Unfortunately, reporting of AEs was inconsistent and limited. In conclusion, pooled analysis of data from partially outdated trials shows that 10-mg flunarizine per day is effective and well tolerated in treating episodic migraine-supporting current guideline recommendations.

Flunarizine for Headache Prophylaxis in Children With Sturge-Weber Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Children with Sturge-Weber syndrome can experience severe headache with or without transient hemiparesis. Flunarizine, a calcium antagonist, has been used for migraine. The experience with flunarizine for headache in a cohort of children at a national center for Sturge-Weber syndrome is reviewed, reporting its efficacy and adverse effect in this population.

METHODS

We collected data from health care professionals' documentation on headache (severity, frequency, duration) before and on flunarizine in 20 children with Sturge-Weber syndrome. Adverse effects reported during flunarizine treatment were collated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine the significance of pre- versus post-treatment effect.

RESULTS

Flunarizine was used for headache alone (13) or mixed migrainous episodes and vascular events (7). The median duration of treatment was 145 days (range 43 to 1864 days). Flunarizine reduced headache severity (z = -3.354, P = 0.001), monthly frequency (z = -2.585, P = 0.01), and duration (z = -2.549, P = 0.01). Flunarizine was discontinued owing to intolerable adverse effects in a minority (2). Sedation and weight gain were the most common side effects. There were no reports of behavior change or extrapyramidal features.

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective management for headaches in patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome has not been established. This retrospective observational study found benefit of flunarizine prophylaxis on headache severity, frequency, and duration in children with Sturge-Weber syndrome without severe side effects. Flunarizine is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom, but these data support its off-license specialist use for headache prophylaxis in Sturge-Weber syndrome.

Flunarizine in migraine-related headache prevention: results from 200 patients treated in the UK

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

For over 20 years, as a group we have been using flunarizine in primary headache disorders. Flunarizine is widely used in Europe, but not licensed in the UK. In September 2014, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published supportive guidelines for flunarizine use in migraine, based on randomized controlled evidence that it is as effective as propranolol and topiramate in adults.

METHODS

We reviewed a cohort of adult patients (n = 200) treated with flunarizine from our practice. The clinical information of these patients, i.e. diagnosis, dose, efficacy, side effects and duration of treatment, was collected.

RESULTS

The most common indication for flunarizine use was chronic migraine, followed by migraine with aura, sporadic hemiplegic migraine, familial hemiplegic migraine and new daily persistent headache with migrainous features. Flunarizine was generally effective, with only 24% (n = 47) of patients reporting no clinical effect. The most common dose used was 10 mg per day. Duration of treatment information was available for 39% (n = 78) of patients. Of these patients, 64% (n = 50) continued treatment for more than 1 year. Doses up to 15 mg were generally well tolerated, with only 10.5% (n = 21) of patients stopping treatment due to adverse effects. The most common adverse events were tiredness, mood change and weight gain.

CONCLUSION

The data provide supportive evidence from tertiary headache practice in the UK for the use of flunarizine in migraine. The data encourages development of future guidance regarding flunarizine use in headache centres in countries where its use is not routine.

Prophylactic Treatment of Migraine in Children. Part 2. A Systematic Review of Pharmacological Trials∗

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological prophylactic treatments of migraine in children. Databases were searched from inception to June 2004 and references were checked. We selected controlled trials on the effects of pharmacological prophylactic treatments in children with migraine. We assessed trial quality using the Delphi list and extracted data. Analyses were carried out according to type of intervention. A total of 20 trials were included. Headache improvement was significantly higher for flunarizine compared with placebo (relative risk 4.00, 95% confidence interval 1.60, 9.97). There is conflicting evidence for the use of propranolol. Nimodipine, clonidine, L-5HTP, trazodone and papaverine showed no effect when compared with placebo. All medications were well tolerated and adverse events showed no significant differences. Flunarizine may be effective as prophylactic treatment for migraine in children. Because of the small number of studies and the methodological shortcomings, conclusions regarding effectiveness have to be drawn with caution.

Treatment of pediatric migraine

OPINION STATEMENT

The diagnosis of migraine in the pediatric population is increasing as providers are becoming more familiar with recognizing the condition. Over-the-counter and migraine-specific treatment, once considered off-label, have proven to be effective, especially if given at the early onset of head pain. Mild to severe cases of migraine should be treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with triptans used alone or in combination in moderate to severe headaches unresponsive to over-the-counter therapy. Rescue medication including dihydroergotamine (DHE), a potent vasoconstrictor should be used for intractable migraines and is preferred in the hospital setting. Anti-emetics that have anti-dopaminergic properties can be helpful in patients with associated symptoms of nausea and vomiting along with headache, especially when used in combination therapy. Preventative treatment should be initiated early in patients with frequent headaches to improve headache outcomes and quality of life. Patients and families should be educated on non-pharmacologic management, such as lifestyle modification and avoidance of triggers, that can prevent progression and worsening of migraine.

The Paediatric migraine disability assessment score is a useful tool for evaluating prophylactic migraine treatment

AIM

There is a need for an objective assessment scoring system to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic drugs in paediatric migraine, and the aim of this study was to evaluate the Paediatric Migraine Disability Assessment Score (PedMIDAS).

METHODS

We recruited 88 children aged between 6 and 17 years of age with migraine. The 53 children in the treatment group were divided into three groups according to the prophylactic drug they received topiramate, flunarizine and propranolol and assessed using PedMIDAS before the start of treatment and 3 and 6 months after treatment. The 35 patients in the control group did not receive prophylactic treatment and were assessed with PedMIDAS on three occasions, 3 months apart.

RESULTS

Topiramate, propranolol and flunarizine treatments significantly decreased PedMIDASs and were shown to be effective in improving the patients' quality of life. Topiramate and propranolol were more effective than flunarizine. The number of days on analgesic treatment significantly decreased in the patients who had received topiramate and propranolol treatments (p < 0.05), but remained unchanged in the flunarizine prophylaxis group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PedMIDAS scoring system is useful in evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic therapy in paediatric migraine. Topiramate and propranolol lowered the PedMIDASs better than flunarizine.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing migraine headaches in children

The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and split the review into two separate reviews on young children (< 12 years) and adolescents (12‐17 years). If you are interested, please contact the Managing Editor of PaPaS (contact details provided under 'Contact Person').

At July 2014, this review has been withdrawn. This review is out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version is available in the ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library, and may still be useful to readers.

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

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.

Episodic migraines in children: limited evidence on preventive pharmacological treatments

The authors conducted a systematic literature review of preventive pharmacological treatments for episodic childhood migraines searching several databases through May 20, 2012. Episodic migraine prevention was examined in 24 publications of randomized controlled trials that enrolled 1578 children in 16 nonrandomized studies. Single randomized controlled trials provided low-strength evidence that propranolol would result in complete cessation of migraine attacks in 713 per 1000 children treated (95% confidence interval, 452-974); trazodone and nimodipine decreased migraine days, while topiramate, divalproex, and clonidine were no more effective than placebo in preventing migraines. Migraine prevention with multidisciplinary drug management was not sustained at 6 months. Divalproex resulted in treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects, and topiramate increased the risk of paresthesia, upper respiratory tract infection, and weight loss. Long-term preventive benefits and improvement in disability and quality of life are unknown. No studies examined quality of life or provided evidence for individualized treatment decisions.

Pharmacologic treatment of pediatric headaches: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic headache treatment in children and adolescents. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, and bibliography of retrieved articles through August 11, 2012. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials of headache treatment among children and adolescents (&lt;18 years old). INTERVENTION Any placebo-controlled trial or comparisons between 2 or more active medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Number of headaches per month. RESULTS Among 21 included trials, there were 13 placebo-controlled and 10 active comparator trials (2 also included placebo). Twenty trials focused on episodic migraines and 1 on chronic daily headaches. Drugs more effective than placebo for episodic migraines (&lt;15 headaches per month) included topiramate (difference in headaches per month, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.24) and trazodone (-0.60; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.11). Ineffective drugs included clonidine, flunarizine, pizotifen, propranolol, and valproate. A single trial of fluoxetine for chronic daily headaches found it ineffective. Patients given placebo experienced a significant (P = .03) decline in headaches, from 5.6 (95% CI, 4.52-6.77; Q = 8.14 [Cochran Q is a measure of the heterogeneity of the included studies]) to 2.9 headaches per month (95% CI, 1.66-4.08; Q = 4.72). Among the 10 active comparator trials, flunarizine was more effective than piracetam (difference in headaches per month, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.93 to -0.47) but no better than aspirin, dihydroergotamine, or propranolol. Propranolol was compared with valproate as well as behavioral treatment, and 2 studies compared different doses of topiramate; none of these trials showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS Topiramate and trazodone have limited evidence supporting efficacy for episodic migraines. Placebo was effective in reducing headaches. Other commonly used drugs have no evidence supporting their use in children and adolescents. More research is needed.

The treatment of migraine headaches in children and adolescents

Effective management of migraine headache in children and adolescents requires a balanced approach with an individually tailored regimen targeted to treat an acute attack at its onset, blended with bio-behavioral measures, and, in about 1/3 of patients, daily preventive medicines. The key first step is to assess the disability imposed by the recurrent headache pattern, the headache "burden." Once the burden is established decisions can be made toward selecting the most appropriate course of action. All patients will benefit from some basic bio-behavioral suggestions such as regular sleep, exercise, and eating schedule, moderation of caffeine, and identification of triggers. In addition, all patients should have a readily available analgesic to be used at the onset of a migraine attack. A subset of migraineurs will have sufficient headache burden to necessitate use of daily preventative medications. Unfortunately, there is limited controlled data to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based guideline, however, the most rigorously studied agents for acute treatment are ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and "triptan" nasal spray forms of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan; all of these have shown safety and efficacy in controlled trials. For preventive treatment, flunarizine, not available in the U.S., is the only agent that has demonstrated efficacy in placebo controlled trials, but encouraging data is emerging regarding the use of several antiepileptic agents such as topiramate, disodium valproate, and levetiracetam, as well as the antihistamine cyproheptadine and the antidepressant amitriptyline.

Comparison of flunarizine and topiramate for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraines

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate and flunarizine for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraines. A retrospective medical-record review of patients who underwent prophylaxis after receiving a diagnosis of migraine with aura and without aura was performed. Only patients who completed at least 3 months of treatment were included in the analysis. Response to treatment was assessed as the total number of headache days/month. Patients with more than 50% reduction in headache days/month were classified as responders. Responder rate, retention rate, and adverse-event rates were also calculated from all patients who started on the prophylaxis. Further analyses were performed using different patient groups with a cut-off age of 12 years. The responder rate was 80% (89/111 patients) for flunarizine and 81% (122/150 patients) for topiramate, based on a comparison among 261 patients. The retention rate was 67% for flunarizine and 63% for topiramate and the adverse-event rate was 6% for flunarizine and 10% for topiramate. The responder rate, the retention rate, and the adverse-event rate were not significantly different between flunarizine and topiramate. These findings were concordant between the preadolescent (6-12 years old) and adolescent (13-18 years old) groups. The efficacy and tolerability of topiramate were not inferior to those of flunarizine for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraines. These findings were observed in preadolescent and adolescent patients.

Efficacy and safety of cinnarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine headaches in children: an open, randomized comparative trial with propranolol

Migraine headaches are common in children. Early diagnosis and appropriate interventions are mandatory to prevent decades of suffering and diminished quality of life. There is need for data regarding the efficacy and safety of prophylactic agents in children with migraine; therefore, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of cinnarizine with that of a well-known prophylactic agent (propranolol) in the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine headache. A total of 120 patients aged between 6 and 17 years were recruited and 113 patients succeeded in completing all phases of the trial. Of them, 57 patients were given cinnarizine, and propranolol was administered in 56 patients. Reduction in headache frequency was the main response to treatment. Cinnarizine reduced the baseline headache frequency by more than 50% in 74.6% of patients and the mean headache frequency per month was reduced from 11.851 ± 0.739 (mean ± SEM) to 3.358 ± 0.739 (mean ± SEM) attacks per month (P < 0.001). In the propranolol group, more than 50% reduction of the baseline headache frequency was seen in 72.5% of patients and the mean headache frequency per month was reduced from 10.264 ± 0.830 (mean ± SEM) to 2.774 ± 0.830 (mean ± SEM) attacks per month (P < 0.001). No significant difference was seen in 50% reduction of the baseline headache frequency between treatment groups (P = 0.358). No significant adverse effects were reported. In this open study, cinnarizine appeared thus as effective as propranolol and safe for the prophylaxis of migraine in children, but this remains to be confirmed in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Prophylactic drugs and cytokine and leptin levels in children with migraine

The study objective was to evaluate levels of the cytokines tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-1beta, and interleukin-6 and of leptin, and then to determine the relationship between these levels and clinical responses in children with migraine after prophylactic therapy with one of four drugs. In all, 77 children who needed prophylactic drugs were treated with cyproheptadine, amitriptyline, propranolol, or flunarizine. Serum levels of the cytokines and leptin were measured before and 4 months after the treatment. Results were compared by drug for headache frequency, severity, and duration, the PedMIDAS score, and levels of each cytokine and of leptin. Each of the four drugs not only decreased the frequency and duration but also the severity of headache, and the PedMIDAS score. None of the drugs was found to be superior to others in terms of reduction in cytokine levels (P > 0.05). Both cyproheptadine and flunarizine (but not amitriptyline and propranolol) caused an increase in leptin levels (P < 0.05). These data suggest that cytokine levels are related to clinical responses, and might help in objective evaluation of clinical response in migraine. To our knowledge, the present study is the first trial to compare the effects of prophylactic drugs, cytokine levels, and leptin levels in children with migraine.

Placebo Efficacy in Childhood and Adolescence Migraine: An Analysis of Double-Blind and Placebo-Controlled Studies

Studies on the treatment of migraine in children and adolescents are rare and difficult to design. In particular, the high placebo response in some trials makes it difficult to prove efficacy of a verum drug. We analysed all available placebo-controlled trials on acute and on prophylactic migraine treatment in children and adolescents with respect to different placebo rates (pain free and pain relief at 2 h; rate of responders with ≥ 50% attack frequency decrease). We identified eight crossover and 11 parallel group trials on acute treatment. The placebo response rates were considerably lower in crossover trials than in parallel group trials (19.2% vs. 27.1% for pain free after 2 h and 39.4% vs. 56.9% for pain relief after 2 h). In the 10 prophylactic trials included in this analysis, only a small trend towards a lower placebo rate in crossover trials could be observed. Further significant factors associated with a lower placebo rate in childhood and adolescence trials on the acute treatment of migraine were single-centre (vs. multicentre) trials and small sample size. Age and sex were not associated with the placebo response. Our study suggests that parallel group trials on the acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents show a very low therapeutic gain due to a high placebo rate. The verum response rates, however, are very similar to those seen in adulthood trials. In conclusion, trial designs on the acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine in children and adolescents should consider the specific findings of this analysis in order to exhibit a higher probability of showing significant differences between placebo and verum drug.

Management of pediatric migraine: Current concepts and controversies

Migraine in children and adolescents is a common condition. Emerging knowledge about the pathophysiology of migraine is leading to new targeted treatments toward specific mechanisms of migraine. This review explores the evidence for different treatments for pediatric migraine including the periodic syndromes of childhood that commonly represent precursors to migraine.

[Antiepileptic drugs in pediatric migraine]

According to the criteria of the International Headache Society, migraine occurs in approximately 5 to 10% of children. As many as 30% of young patients with migraine experience such frequent and disabling attacks, or have unsatisfactory results and/or experience adverse effects with pharmacologic treatment of acute migraine attack, that daily preventive medications are required. Many studies have investigated the use of antiepileptic drugs in this indication but there is a paucity of placebo-controlled studies. So far, in the setting of migraine with and without aura, only flunarizine and topiramate have proved their efficacy in more than one placebo-controlled study. Uncontrolled studies suggest the possible efficacy of valproic acid, gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide, and magnesium in preventive therapy of childhood periodic syndromes. Most of antiepileptic drugs used in pediatric preventive therapy are well tolerated. The most common adverse events are asthenia and somnolence.

Pain therapy in children and adolescents

INTRODUCTION

In children, acute pain occurs predominantly during infectious illnesses or after surgery. Chronic pain, especially headache and abdominal pain, is becoming increasingly common among children and adolescents.

METHODS

Selective literature review, also including evidence-based guidelines and recommendations.

RESULTS

Simple self-reporting and behavioral pain scales are easy to use to assess the intensity of acute pain. To evaluate chronic pain, on the other hand, more complicated, multi-dimensional instruments are necessary (e.g., semi-structured interviews). The most commonly used analgesics are ibuprofen and paracetamol (acetaminophen). When paracetamol is used, its narrow therapeutic window should be kept in mind. Perioperative pain should be treated with balanced analgesia involving a combination of non-pharmacological treatment strategies, non-opioid drugs, opioids, and regional anesthesia. Chronic pain in children can only be treated successfully over the long term with multidisciplinary team intervention based on this biopsychosocial model.

DISCUSSION

Pain not only causes children momentary suffering but also threatens to impair their normal development. Therefore, every effort should be made to prevent pain and to treat it effectively once it arises.

Topiramate in the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Several large, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of topiramate in migraine prophylaxis in adults. However, there are limited data about the use of topiramate in migraine prophylaxis in children. We conducted this single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine in children. A total of 44 children with migraine were randomized using random number tables to receive topiramate (n = 22) or placebo (n = 22). The total duration of treatment was 4 months, including a baseline period of 1 month during which topiramate was titrated weekly in 25-mg increments to 100 mg/d in 2 divided doses or to the maximum tolerated dose. The titration was followed by a 12-week maintenance phase during which topiramate was given in 2 divided doses. The primary outcome measures were the reduction in the mean migraine frequency and severity of headache. Secondary outcome measures included the number of times analgesics were required for a month for acute attacks and functional disability. Functional disability was measured by comparing school absenteeism and Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (PedMIDAS). The decrease in mean (+/-SD) monthly migraine frequency from 16.14 (+/-9.35) at baseline to 4.27 (+/-1.95) at the end of the study in the topiramate group was significantly greater as compared with a decrease from 13.38 (+/-7.78) to 7.48 (+/-5.94) at the end of the study in the placebo group (P = .025). The difference in number of rescue medications used for topiramate and placebo was not statistically significant (P = .059). There was a statistically significant decrease in the PedMIDAS score from 50.66 (+/-32.1) to 10.42 (+/-6.39) at the end of the study in the topiramate group compared with a decrease from 42.66 (+/-27.5) to 23.7 (+/-19.1) at the end of 4 months in the placebo group (P = .003). The decrease in school absenteeism was significant with topiramate compared with placebo (P = .002). Weight loss, decreased concentration in school, sedation, and parasthesias were important side effects with topiramate. Most of these side effects were mild to moderate and were not significant enough to cause dropout from the study.

Pediatric migraine: pharmacologic agents for prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and evaluate the data regarding medication use for migraine prophylaxis in the pediatric population.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was obtained through searches in PubMed (Mid 1950s-March 2007), Iowa Drug Information Service/Web (1966-February 2007), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-February 2007), and the Cochrane Library. The terms migraine, prophylaxis, child, and children were used and cross referenced with all drug names. Reference citations from publications identified were also reviewed and included.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Only trials that evaluated migraine headaches in the pediatric population were included. Trials including adolescent and adult populations are briefly listed, but not reviewed. Trials involving non-prescription medication were also included in the evaluation. Due to the limited information, all clinical trials, retrospective reviews, and abstracts evaluated were included in this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Few controlled clinical trials regarding prophylaxis therapy are available. Currently, no medications are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prophylaxis of migraines in children. Seventeen drugs were identified and included in the review. Of the drugs with available data, topiramate, valproic acid, flunarizine, amitriptyline, and cyproheptadine have shown efficacy in decreasing migraine frequency and duration in children. However, larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the utility of these agents. Conflicting data exist for propranolol and pizotifen, and additional data are needed for gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide, naproxen, and trazodone. In clinical trials, nimodipine, clonidine, and natural supplements have shown a lack of efficacy versus placebo for prophylaxis of migraines in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate, valproic acid, and amitriptyline have the most data on their use for prophylaxis of migraines in children. Numerous agents have limited data in this population and several agents lack efficacy. Prospective, well designed, controlled clinical trials that include quality-of-life and functional outcomes are needed for guiding therapy of migraine prophylaxis for children.

Migraine in children and adolescents: a guide to drug treatment

Migraine is a common disorder in children and adolescents, with a prevalence of 5 and 10%, respectively. Some patients may have recognisable factors that trigger or aggravate migraine attacks, such as flickering or bright lights, strong smells and noise, and where possible these should be avoided. It is also wise to maintain a lifestyle where children receive regular meals and get sufficient sleep. If used, acute pharmacological treatment should be given at the onset of an attack, followed by a rest or sleep. According to recent literature, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen can be recommended for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in children and adolescents, and sumatriptan nasal spray can be recommended for adolescents. The oral formulation of sumatriptan has not shown efficacy in paediatric patients, and the subcutaneous injection, although somewhat effective, is not an ideal formulation for this patient group. There are too few data on the efficacy of the other 'triptans' to recommend their use in children and adolescents. There are less data on the use of prophylactic drugs in paediatric patients. In systematic studies, only flunarizine, which is not available in many countries, and propranolol have been found to be effective. A pilot placebo-controlled study suggests that topiramate might also be effective. Several other agents are commonly used to prevent migraine attacks in children (e.g. amitriptyline, valproic acid [sodium valproate]) despite a lack of robust research into their efficacy.

The pharmacological treatment options for pediatric migraine: an evidence-based appraisal

The treatment of children and adolescents who suffer from migraine headaches must be individually tailored, flexible, and balanced with a blend of bio-behavioral measures, agents for acute treatment and, if needed, daily preventive medicines. While controlled data is limited, there is now enough evidence available to provide a rational framework to build treatment plans appropriate for the pediatric population. Essentially, the pharmacological management of pediatric migraine divides into agents for the acute attacks and agents used daily to prevent or reduce the frequency of attacks. For the acute treatment, the most rigorously studied agents are ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and the nasal spray forms of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan, all of which have shown both safety and efficacy in controlled trials. For preventive treatment the calcium channel blocker flunarezine has the best efficacy profile in controlled trials, but is not available in the U.S. A growing body of data, mostly uncontrolled, is emerging regarding the use of several anti-epileptic agents (e.g. topiramate, disodium valproate, levateracetam), as well as the antihistamine cyproheptadine and the anti-depressant amitriptyline.

Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract

OBJECTIVE

To explore the role of a special butterbur root extract for migraine prevention in children and adolescents with severe migraines.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized and placebo-controlled trials with a total of 289 migraine patients have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of a special butterbur root extract in the reduction of migraine attacks in adults. We studied whether butterbur had the potential as an efficient and well-tolerated migraine preventive in children and adolescents.

DESIGN/METHODS

108 children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 17 were included in a multicenter prospective open-label study. Participants suffered from migraines diagnosed according to IHS classifications for at least 1 year. Patients were treated with 50 to 150 mg of the butterbur root extract depending on age for a period of 4 months. Treatment progression was recorded in migraine journals especially designed for children and adolescents.

RESULTS

77% of all patients reported a reduction in the frequency of migraine attacks of at least 50%. Attack frequency was reduced by 63%. 91% of patients felt substantially or at least slightly improved after 4 months of treatment. About 90% of each, doctors and patients, reported well-being or even improved well-being. Undesired effects (7.4%) included mostly eructation. No serious adverse events occurred and no adverse event caused a premature termination.

CONCLUSIONS

The results and low rate of adverse events in this open prospective migraine prevention study in children and adolescents are similar to the results of two multicenter placebo-controlled butterbur studies in adults. Butterbur root extract shows a potential as an effective and well-tolerated migraine prophylaxis also for children and teenagers.

The treatment of pediatric migraine

The management of pediatric migraine requires a balance of biobehavioral measures coupled with agents for acute treatment and, if needed, daily preventive medicines. A recent American Academy of Neurology practice parameter has critically reviewed the limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of medicines for the acute and preventive therapy of pediatric migraine. The first step is to establish the headache frequency and degree to which the migraines impact upon lifestyle and performance. The next step is to institute nonpharmacologic measures such as regulation of sleep (improved sleep hygiene), moderation of caffeine, regular exercise, and identification of provocative influences (eg, stress, foods, social pressures). A wide variety of therapeutic options exist for patients whose migraine headaches occur with sufficient frequency and severity to produce functional impairment. The most rigorously studied agents for the acute treatment of migraine are ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and sumatriptan nasal spray, all of which have shown safety and efficacy in controlled trials. Daily preventive drug therapies are warranted in about 20% to 30% of young migraine sufferers. The particular drug selected for the individual patient requires an appreciation of comorbidities such as affective or anxiety disorders, co-existent medical conditions such as asthma or diabetes, and acceptability of potential toxicities such as weight gain, sedation, or tremor.

Overview of pediatric headache

There is a high prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents. Headache in pediatric population is substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated. The recently revised International Headache Society criteria are a step in the right direction to improve our diagnostic accuracy. The recent increases in evidence-based data in the pediatric headache population will help to outline appropriate management strategies for acute and preventive treatment. In this article, diagnostic and treatment issues related to the pediatric headache patient will be reviewed.

Traitement de fond de la migraine de l’enfant : état des connaissances du traitement pharmacologique

Migraine, according to the criteria of the International Headache Society, occurs in about 5-10% of children. Preventive therapy includes identification of migraine precipitants, possible adjustments in lifestyle, appropriate management of acute headache, and when necessary the use of pharmacologic agents. It should be started if migraine attacks are severe or frequent. Non-pharmacologic prophylactic treatment is the modality of choice, based on relaxation or biofeedback. Despite its high incidence, only a few controlled trials have investigated the prophylactic treatment of migraine in children. Only flunarizine (5 mg/day) has been shown to be effective in two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Some evidence also exists that propranolol (60 mg/day) and pizotifen (0.5-1.5 mg/day) are effective. For all other drugs studied in migraine prophylaxis, the results remain vague (e.g. amitriptyline), or suggest inefficacy (e.g. clonidine, tryptophane). Most of the drugs used in the treatment of migraine in children are well tolerated. The most common adverse effects are drowsiness and bodyweight gain.

Prophylactic Treatment of Pediatric Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine occurs in 3% to 5% of young children and up to 18% of adolescents. Management requires a tailored regimen of pharmacological and behavioral measures that consider the headache burden and disability. Patients with frequent or disabling attacks (or both) may warrant preventive agents.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the patterns of prophylactic treatment of pediatric migraine within one pediatric neurology practice.

METHODS

All charts of patients diagnosed with headache (International Classification of Diseases [ICD] code 784.0) and migraine (codes 346.0, 346.1, and 346.2) during January 2001 July 2001 were retrospectively reviewed to identify diagnosis, demographics, medical decision making, rationale for treatment selections, and outcome assessments. Migraine was diagnosed according to the 1997 proposed pediatric migraine revisions to the International Headache Society.

RESULTS

Charts of 250 children and adolescents, aged 3.2 to 18 years (mean, 12), were reviewed. One hundred twenty-six (50%) were prescribed prophylaxis, along with intermittent analgesic agents. Mean age of those provided with daily prophylaxis was 12.4 years (range, 3.9 to 18), and the mean age of those managed with intermittent therapies was 11.5 years. Preventive agents included amitriptyline (n = 73), cyproheptadine (n = 30), propranolol (n = 8), valproic acid (n = 3), naproxen (n = 3), nimodipine (n = 3), imipramine (n = 3), and topiramate (n = 3). Amitriptyline was the most commonly prescribed agent (58%). Ten patients initially treated with other agents were changed to amitriptyline. Fifteen patients required dosing adjustments, 2 stopped treatment, and 7 changed to other agents for lack of efficacy. Mean headache frequency before treatment was 10.9 per month (range, 4 to 15). After treatment, the mean headache frequency decreased to 4.1 per month (range, 0 to 12), a decrease of 62.4% (n = 54). The overall positive response rate was 89%. Cyproheptadine was the second most commonly prescribed agent (mean age, 8.8 years). Thirty patients were initially treated, 5 later changed to cyproheptadine, 6 required dosage changes, 5 changed to other agents for lack of efficacy, and 1 stopped treatment. Mean headache frequency before treatment was 8.4 per month (range, 4 to 15) and following treatment decreased to 3.75 per month (range, 0 to 12), a decrease of 55.3%. The overall positive response rate was 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

Fifty percent of patients with migraine were prescribed daily prophylactic medicines, reflecting a referral bias. The most commonly prescribed agents were amitriptyline (preferred for the older patients) and cyproheptadine (preferred for the younger patients). The overall positive response rates were 89% for amitriptyline and 83% for cyproheptadine during a 6-month follow-up. Headache frequencies were reduced with amitriptyline by 62% and with cyproheptadine by 55%. Long-term follow-up of this population is ongoing, and prospective studies are needed.

Drugs for preventing migraine headaches in children

BACKGROUND

It has been estimated that about ten per cent of children between six and 20 years of age suffer from migraine. It is estimated that children with migraine lose one and a half weeks more schooling per year than their peers. Prophylactic drugs can be prescribed when children suffer from frequent or disabling headaches.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological agents taken on a regular basis to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks and/or reduce the intensity of such attacks in children with migraine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from 1966 through 2002. Additional strategies for identifying trials included searching the reference lists of review articles and included studies and searching books related to headache.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self- or parent-administered drug treatments in children (under 18 years of age) who had received a diagnosis of migraine were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators extracted, assessed, and coded separately all data for each study, using a form that was designed specifically for the review. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Headache frequency standardised over 28 days was used as the primary outcome measure. Headache intensity, headache duration, amount of symptomatic treatment used, and headache indices were used as secondary outcome measures. Data were extracted from both parallel-group and crossover trials. Continuous and dichotomous data were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs), respectively. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) and numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were also calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were selected. Eighteen were excluded. Eleven preventive drugs were compared with placebo in a total of 15 studies. Drug-drug comparisons were made in just six studies. For only four drugs (L-5-hydroxytryptophan [L-5HTP], flunarizine, clonidine, and propranolol) were two or more studies selected. For only six drugs (trazodone, L-5HTP, propranolol, flunarizine, papaverine, and nimodipine) were data reported for effect on frequency. For no individual drug were comparable data reported in more than one study, thus meta-analysis was not possible. Two placebo-controlled studies showed a beneficial effect on the primary outcome measure, headache frequency. They were for the drugs propranolol and flunarizine. The propranolol study reported a dichotomous outcome (proportion of children responding), and it was possible to calculate a number-needed-to-treat to produce a two-thirds reduction in headache frequency (NNT = 1.5, 95%CI 1.15 to 2.1). The flunarizine study produced a SMD of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, -2.21 to -0.82), which was statistically significant in favour of flunarizine (p < 0.001). Nimodipine, timolol, papaverine, pizotifen, trazodone, L-5HTP, clonidine, metoclopramide, and domperidone showed no efficacy in reduction of frequency of attacks. The available studies on cyproheptadine, phenobarbitone, phenytoin, amitriptyline, carbamazepine, metoprolol, and piracetam were excluded for various reasons.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Only one study each for propranolol and flunarizine were identified showing efficacy of these drugs as prophylactics of paediatric migraine. Nimodipine, timolol, papaverine, pizotifen, trazodone, L-5HTP, clonidine, metoclopramide, and domperidone showed no efficacy in reduction of frequency of attacks. Available studies on other commonly used drugs failed to meet our inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence available for the use of drug prophylaxis in paediatric migraine was poor. Studies were generally small, with no planning of sample size, so that for many drugs, despite the negative findings of this review, we do not have conclusive evidence of 'no effect'. There is a clear and urgent need for methodologically sound RCTs for the use of pings of this review, we do not have conclusive evidence of 'no effect'. There is a clear and urgent need for methodologically sound RCTs for the use of prophylactic drugs in paediatric migraine, starting with propranolol. These studies need to be adequately powered to investigate meaningful reductions in pain and suffering from a patient's perspective.

Preventive therapy in pediatric migraine

Preventive therapy for migraine headache includes identification of migraine precipitants, possible adjustments in lifestyle, appropriate management of acute headache, and, when necessary, the use of pharmacologic agents. There are no well-controlled clinical trials with sufficient patient numbers to support the use of any agent in the prevention of migraine headache in children. Data on the use of amitriptyline and divalproex sodium in open-label studies suggest that these agents may be efficacious. The mechanism of action for these agents is unknown but may be related to the 5-hydroxytyptamine-2 (5-HT2) receptor antagonism or regulation of ion channels. A review of the pertinent literature on migraine prophylaxis in children is presented. Dosing guidelines are presented based on the limited data available and clinical experience.

Flunarizine, an anti-migraine agent, impairs nitroxidergic nerve function in cerebral arteries

Flunarizine is an anti-migraine agent that blocks the Ca2+ entry across cell membrane. In order to obtain a clue of mechanisms underlying the migraine headache, modifications by flunarizine of the response to nitric oxide (NO), a cerebral vasodilator and algogenic agent, derived from perivascular nerves were evaluated. Relaxations due to nerve stimulation by electrical pulses (5 Hz) and nicotine (10(-4) M) in canine cerebral arterial strips were attenuated by treatment with flunarizine dose-dependently, whereas the responses to exogenous NO (10(-7)-10(-6) M) and nitroprusside (10(-8)-10(-6) M) were unaffected. The inhibition by the Ca2+ entry blocker of the response to electrical nerve stimulation and nicotine was obtained in a concentration (10(-6) M) that did not significantly relax the arterial strips. NO derived from perivascular nerve may be one of the factors involved in the genesis of migraine attack, which is expected to be relieved by a reduction of neural NO synthase activity associated with a decreased Ca2+ influx by flunarizine during nerve activation.

The efficacy and efficiency of a self-administered treatment for adolescent migraine

Migraine headaches are frequent in adolescents. Although many adolescents are adequately treated palliatively with analgesics, an important subgroup requires prophylactic treatment. Medical treatments for adolescents with frequent severe headaches is often problematic. Prophylactic pharmacological treatments are often shunned by adolescents and their parents because of concern over drug usage. Moreover, propranolol, the most widely used prophylactic drug with adults, is frequently not effective. Psychological interventions are effective but are costly and often not available. A randomized controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of a predominantly self-administered treatment that could be delivered in a very cost-efficient format. Eighty seven adolescents (63 females and 24 males) ranging in age from 11 to 18 years were randomly assigned to receive a self-administered treatment, the same treatment delivered by a therapist or a control treatment. Self-administered and clinic treatment were equally effective and superior to the control treatment. However, the self-administered treatment was substantially more efficient. Both active treatments were durable at 1-year follow-up.

Pharmacologic treatment of childhood migraine

This review of pharmacologic treatment of childhood migraine shows that no agent for abortive treatment has been proved effective in controlled studies and that most commonly used prophylactic agents (e.g., propranolol and cyproheptadine) lack proof of their effectiveness. Flunarizine seems to be the only agent with positive results in controlled studies. This drug, although well tolerated, is slow to act. For the treatment of an acute attack, aspirin or acetaminophen may be chosen. Two of us currently use propranolol as the first-choice prophylactic agent because of its tolerance and cost, and on the assumption of its effectiveness reported by the adult studies. For children with a history of asthma, metoprolol may be chosen because of its selective blocking of the beta 1-adrenoreceptor. One of us (W.N.M.) prefers cyproheptadine as the drug of choice. Behavioral therapy may be a good alternative to pharmacotherapy in the management of childhood migraine.

[Headache in children.]

Idiopathic headaches are probably the most common problem in schoolchildren. The prevalence increases up to 70% in 14-year-old adolescents, with migraines ranging from 10% to 20%. Tension headaches are often understandable on a psychosocial and behavioral basis; in migraine, however, a familial disposition of 60%-80% is well known. Migraine in childhood is initially more common in boys; after puberty girls predominate. At the beginning of migraine development the headache is often not hemisymptomatic in children. Attack duration is shorter than in adults and often lasts less than 4 h. Irreversible neurological deficits are extremely seldom and only occur as ophthalmoplegic attacks in infants. In general, diagnostic studies in headache patients can be restrcted to a neurological examination and electroencephalography. Acute treatment of migraine should include environmental isolation and analgesics such as acetylsalicylic acid or paracetamol; sometimes antiemetic drugs may be useful before. In refractory cases one should try ergotamine. Only a few controlled studies on the prophylaxis of migraine in children have been reported. The first substance introduced in the prophylactic regime was the beta-blocker propranolol. According to results in adults, further optimization could be expected by using thebeta (1)-specific agent metoprolol. New investigations have shown significant efficacy of the calcium antagonist flunarizine as well as low-dose acetylsalicylic acid. Dihydroergotamine drops, often used in pediatric practice, have not proved superior to placebo; the lack of side effects may, however, allow use of the substance as a first-line strategy in staged prophylaxis. In case of failure, nonpharmacological methods such as acupuncture may be tried, especially in older and cooperative children. Vasoconstriction training has been studied in some children; other biofeedback methods and behavioral strategies including relaxation and hypnosis have proved as effective. Follow-up of spontaneous migraine courses in children has shown, that 60% are still or again suffering from migraine as adults. It is presently unknown, whether pharmacological prophylaxis during several months followed by attack-free periods of months or years may influence the long-term prognosis. For tension headaches, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has produced good improvement in recent investigations in about 3/4 of cases; full remissions were possible in most cases. A combination of relaxation and behavioral therapy should be recommended where possible, especially in cases of therapeutic resistance.

Flunarizine. A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in neurological disorders

Flunarizine is a class IV calcium antagonist with a pharmacological profile which suggests its therapeutic potential in a number of neurological and cerebrovascular disorders. It is an effective prophylactic treatment for common or classic migraine in children and adults, and it appears at least as effective as a number of other agents which act by different pharmacological mechanisms, including pizotifen (pizotyline), cinnarizine, methysergide, nimodipine, metoprolol, propranolol, aspirin and cyclandelate. Flunarizine is also effective in reducing the frequency of seizures, when used as an 'add-on' treatment, in some patients with partial or generalised epilepsy resistant to maximal therapy with a combination of several conventional antiepileptic drugs. Placebo-controlled studies show that flunarizine is effective in the treatment of vertigo and associated symptoms of either peripheral or central origin, and in the treatment of cerebrovascular insufficiency where psychological symptoms, rather than vertigo, are the primary symptoms. In the treatment of vertigo, flunarizine appears at least as effective as cinnarizine and more effective than nicergoline, betahistine dichlorhydrate, pentoxifylline (oxpentifylline) and vincamine. Flunarizine therefore is useful in the prophylaxis of migraine, an effective treatment for vertigo and a worthwhile alternative as 'add-on' therapy in patients with epilepsy resistant to conventional drugs.

Pharmacologic management of pain in children and adolescents

In the management of chronic pain conditions, the combination of pharmacologic measures with physical and psychologic modalities becomes even more important. A pain clinic and pain consultation service are one model that facilitates this combined approach. Initial management of mild to moderate pain begins with nonopioid analgesics such as acetaminophen and NSAIDs. Persistent severe pain of a neuropathic character merits careful trials of antidepressants or anticonvulsants. Traditionally, use of opioids for chronic pain not due to cancer has been discouraged for adults as well as children. Recently, this view was challenged by reports by Portenoy and Foley and by Taub, who followed a group of adults with chronic pain due to a variety of conditions. They found that the majority of these patients, if managed with opioids on a regular schedule as part of an overall treatment program, could be made comfortable and were able to increase their level of functioning for several years. In general, dosage escalation and compulsive drug-seeking behaviors were not seen. Since this report was retrospective and did not involve children, caution must be applied in extrapolating these findings to children. For example, remarkably little is known about the effects of chronic opioid administration in childhood on growth and development. Certainly, this issue deserves further study before general recommendations can be made. It seems prudent to emphasize the importance of maximizing nonpharmacologic and nonopioid approaches in the management of chronic pain in children prior to embarking on long-term use of opioids.