Recommendations for the management of migraine in paediatric patients

Visual-spatial training efficacy in children affected by migraine without aura: a multicenter study

Routinely in the clinical practice, children affected by migraine without aura (MwA) tend to exhibit severe and persistent difficulties within cognitive processes such as attention, memory, and visual-motor integration (VMI) skills. The aim of this study was to assess the visual-spatial and visual-motor abilities among a sample of children with MwA and the effects of a specific computerized training. The study population was composed of 84 patients affected by MwA (39 girls and 45 boys; mean age: 8.91±2.46 years), and they were randomly divided into two groups (group A and group B) comparable for age (P=0.581), gender (P=0.826), socioeconomic status (SES), migraine frequency (P=0.415), and intensity (P=0.323). At baseline (T0), the two groups were comparable for movement assessment battery for children (M-ABC) and VMI performances. After 6 months of treatment (T1), group A showed lower scores in the dexterity item of M-ABC test (P<0.001) and higher scores in M-ABC global performance centile (P<0.001) and total (P<0.001), visual (P=0.017), and motor (P<0.001) tasks of VMI test than group B. Moreover, at T1, group A showed higher scores in total (P<0.001) and motor (P<0.001) tasks of VMI test and in M-ABC global performance centile (P<0.001) and lower scores in the dexterity item of M-ABC test (P<0.001) than at T0. Group B showed, at T1, performances comparable to T0 for all evaluations. As reported by recent studies about alteration MwA among children in motor abilities, our study confirmed these difficulties and the efficacy of a specific software training, suggesting a new rehabilitative proposal in childhood.

Comparison of Levetiracetam and sodium Valproate in migraine prophylaxis: A randomized placebo-controlled study

Background:

Migraine is a chronic and disabling disorder. Treatment of migraine often comprises of symptomatic (abortive) and preventive (prophylactic) treatment. The current drugs used in migraine prophylaxis include antidepressant drugs (Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Tricyclic antidepressants), and anti-epileptic drugs (valproate, gabapentin, etc).

Objective:

The objective of our study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in adult migraine prophylaxis, compared to valproate and placebo.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study. A total of 85 patients were randomized to receive levetiracetam 500 mg/d (n = 27), valproate 500 mg/d (n = 32) or placebo (n = 26). The patients were evaluated for treatment efficacy after 6 months. Efficacy was assessed as a more than 50% decrease in headache frequency.

Results:

In levetiracetam group, 17 (63.0%) patients experienced a more than 50% decrease in headache frequency, while this efficacy number was 21 (65.6%) for valproate group and 4 (15.4%) for placebo group. The difference was not statistically significant between levetiracetam and valproate, while it was significant when comparing either levetiracetam or valproate to placebo.

Conclusion:

Compared to placebo, levetiracetam offers improvement in headache frequency in patients with migraine. The efficacy of levetiracetam in migraine prophylaxis is comparable to currently used drugs such as valproate.

Preventive drugs in childhood and adolescent migraine

While headaches in children are quite common, the study and characterization of headache disorders in the pediatric age group has historically been limited. In the absence of controlled studies on prophylactic treatment of the primary headache disorders in this age group, the diagnosis of childhood migraine rests on criteria similar to those in adults. Data from adult studies are often extrapolated and applied to children as well. Although it appears that many preventive agents are safe in children, none are currently FDA-approved for this age group. As a result, despite experiencing significant disability, the vast majority of children who present to their physician with migraine headache do not receive prophylactic therapy. Furthermore, controlled clinical trials investigating the use of both abortive and preventive medications in children have suffered from high placebo response rates. The shorter duration of headaches and other characteristic features seen in children are such that designing randomized controlled trials in this age group is more problematic and limiting. As such, treatment practices vary widely, even among specialists, due to the absence of evidence-based guidelines from clinical trials.

Nutraceutical preparations in childhood migraine prophylaxis: effects on headache outcomes including disability and behaviour

Migraine is common in children, but few specific drugs are available. We performed an open-label comparison of effects of two nutraceutical preparations (ginkgolide B vs. Griffonia simplicifolia extract) on outcomes in 374 school-age children (mean 10.7 years) with migraine without aura. Half of them received ginkgolide B; and half, Griffonia simplicifolia. Both preparations were given orally twice a day for 6 months. Patients kept a headache diary. Outcomes at the beginning and end of treatment were compared. Both preparations reduced all outcome measures after 6 months of treatment. However, reductions in headache frequency, duration and intensity, PedMIDAS score and behavioural reactions to headache were significantly greater in the ginkgolide B group. Both nutraceutical treatments appear promising in paediatric migraine without aura, particularly because of their lack of side effects. However, the ginkgolide B preparation was significantly more effective in the medium-term (6 months).

Prevalence and burden of chronic migraine in adolescents: results of the chronic daily headache in adolescents study (C-dAS)

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of chronic migraine (CM) among adolescents and to describe the epidemiologic profile, headache characteristics, disability, and healthcare utilization of adolescents with CM in the USA.

BACKGROUND

Chronic daily headache (CDH) and CM occur in children and adolescents, but are poorly understood in these populations because their presentation is different from that in adults. It may be difficult to assign a definitive diagnosis to young people suffering from CDH because symptoms may fail to meet the criteria for one of the CDH subtypes.

METHODS

A large sample of households with at least one resident aged 12 to 19 years was selected in balance with the US Census. Data were collected in 3 phases: (1) mailed questionnaire; (2) telephone interview; and (3) 30-day interactive voice response system diary. CM prevalence was estimated by adapting the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for CM to include pediatric migraine diagnostic criteria. The population was stratified for medication overuse. Medication overuse was defined as 15 or more days per month of acute medication use. Included in the study were measures of headache characteristics, headache impact (Headache Impact Test), disability (Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment), and healthcare and medication use. Data are reported on subjects 12 to 17 years of age only.

RESULTS

The US adolescent (12-17 years) prevalence rate for CM was 0.79% (0.00-1.70) excluding those with medication overuse and 1.75% (0.62-2.89) when adolescents with medication overuse were included. The majority of adolescents with CM had Headache Impact Test scores greater than or equal to 60, indicating severe headache impact, and mean Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment scores greater than 17, indicating severe headache and disability. The majority of adolescents with CM (approximately 60%) had not visited a healthcare provider in the previous year and less than one in 5 reported taking medications to prevent headaches during the last month.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that CM occurs less frequently in adolescents than adults, but like adults, adolescents are severely burdened by the disorder. Data support an unmet medical need; however, the development of optimal criteria for diagnosing adolescents with CM is critical to fully understanding how medical needs can be met within this complex population.

Migraine treatment in developmental age: guidelines update

There is a serious lack of controlled studies on the pharmacological treatment of primary migraine in the developmental age; there is, consequently, an urgent need for new, evidence-based approaches to this long-neglected field of research. Moreover, previous studies have stated that the placebo response is greater in pediatric patients than in adults and that a reduction in the attack frequency in the absence of any pharmacological treatment is observed more frequently in pediatric migraine patients than in adults. Besides these preliminary considerations, the shorter duration of migraine attacks and other characteristic semeiological features of the clinical picture in children are such that the design of randomized controlled trial (RCT) is more problematic in the developmental age than in the adult. Bearing in mind all these weak points, the aim of this review was to summarize and update recent guidelines for the treatment of primary migraine in children and adolescents. The most recent guidelines are those published by the Italian Society for the study of Headache, the French Society for the study of Migraine and Headache, and the American Academy of Neurology. We have incorporated into these guidelines the results from the few, recent RCTs, clinical controlled trials, open-label studies, meta-analyses and reviews that have been published since 2004; owing to the lack of strong evidence in this field of research, we have sometimes even mentioned pilot non-controlled studies, case series and expert opinions. Lastly, evidence was classified and the recommendations were categorized according to different levels.

Craniosacral therapy for migraine: protocol development for an exploratory controlled clinical trial

Background

Migraine affects approximately 20% of the population. Conventional care for migraine is suboptimal; overuse of medications for the treatment of episodic migraines is a risk factor for developing chronic daily headache. The study of non-pharmaceutical approaches for prevention of migraine headaches is therefore warranted. Craniosacral therapy (CST) is a popular non-pharmacological approach to the treatment or prevention of migraine headaches for which there is limited evidence of safety and efficacy. In this paper, we describe an ongoing feasibility study to assess the safety and efficacy of CST in the treatment of migraine, using a rigorous and innovative randomized controlled study design involving low-strength static magnets (LSSM) as an attention control intervention.

Methods

The trial is designed to test the hypothesis that, compared to those receiving usual care plus a treatment with low-strength static magnets (attention-control complementary therapy), subjects receiving usual medical care plus CST will demonstrate significant improvement in: quality-of-life as measured by the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6); reduced frequency of migraine; and a perception of clinical benefit. Criteria for inclusion are either gender, age > 11, English or Spanish speaking, meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria for migraine with or without aura, a headache frequency of 5 to 15 per month over at least two years. After an 8 week baseline phase, eligible subjects are randomized to either CST or an attention control intervention, low strength static magnets (LSSM). To evaluate possible therapist bias, videotaped encounters are analyzed to assess for any systematic group differences in interactions with subjects.

Results

169 individuals have been screened for eligibility, of which 109 were eligible for the study. Five did not qualify during the baseline phase because of inadequate headache frequency. Nineteen have withdrawn from the study after giving consent.

Conclusion

This report endorses the feasibility of undertaking a rigorous randomized clinical trial of CST for migraine using a standardized CST protocol and an innovative control protocol developed for the study. Subjects are able and willing to complete detailed headache diaries during an 8-week baseline period, with few dropouts during the study period, indicating the acceptability of both interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00665236

Emergency department treatment of primary headaches in children and adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Headaches in children and adolescents are common presenting complaints in emergency departments. There is wide variation among acute treatments. We sought to review options for acute emergency department management and the recent evidence supporting their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently accepted diagnosis of pediatric headache is based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders-II classification system, which remains incomplete with regard to pediatric patients. In general, there is a paucity of studies evaluating acute treatment for pediatric headache, especially in the emergency department setting. Most studies use previously diagnosed patients with migraines as their subjects. Recent additions to the literature are mostly reviews in nature or pertain to the evaluation of triptan use in adolescents. No articles evaluate treatment of tension-type headaches.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed on therapies targeted toward children and adolescents with headache subtypes other than migraine, including those without a previous diagnosis. While little evidence exists, most authors agree with an initial trial of ibuprofen followed by sumatriptan nasal spray for children over 12 years of age for those with persistent symptoms. Antiemetics remain an option for those with nausea and/or vomiting as a prominent feature of their illness. Other treatments such as ketorolac are still being investigated in children.

Treatment of children with migraine in the emergency department: a qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate which treatment could be effective in the emergency department (ED) for children with migraine and status migrainosus, we carried out a qualitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated treatment that could be used for those conditions.

METHODS

Databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MedLine, and EMBASE) were searched for RCTs that evaluated treatment of migraine in children (<18 years of age). Guidelines published on the subject were checked for missed references. Characteristics of the identified studies as well as primary outcome (headache relief), other recognized primary outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted. Quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Jadad score.

RESULTS

Of the 14 trials included in the review, only 1 was performed in an ED after other treatments have failed. In that situation, prochlorperazine was more effective than ketorolac in relieving pain at 1 hour. Other treatments were evaluated by neurologists on their outpatients who started the studied drugs early at the beginning of the migraine without previous treatment. In that situation, ibuprofen (n = 3) and acetaminophen (n = 1) were better than placebo for pain relief. The efficacy of intranasal sumatriptan (n = 4), oral rizatriptan (n = 3), and oral zolmitriptan (n = 2) for pain relief was unclear. Oral sumatriptan (n = 1) and oral dihydroergotamine (n = 1) were not effective.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of studies addressing the question of treatment in the ED for children experiencing migraine. Although other treatments were found effective in children with migraine, none was evaluated in the ED except prochlorperazine and ketorolac.