The place of corticosteroids in migraine attack management: A 65-year systematic review with pooled analysis and critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Headaches recur in up to 87% of migraine patients visiting the emergency department (ED), making ED recidivism a management challenge. We aimed herein to determine the role of corticosteroids in the acute management of migraine in the ED and outpatient care. METHODS: Advanced search strategies employing PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases inclusive of a relevant gray literature search was employed for Clinical Studies and Systematic Reviews by combining the terms "migraine" and "corticosteroids" spanning all previous years since the production of synthetic corticosteroids ca. 1950 until August 30, 2014. Methods were in accordance with MOOSE guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (n = 3989, median age 37.5 years, interquartile range or IQR 35-41 years; median male:female ratio 1:4.23, IQR 1:2.1-6.14; 52% ED-based, 56% randomized-controlled) and four systematic reviews were included. International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria were applied in 64%. Nineteen studies (76%) indicated observed outcome differences favoring benefits of corticosteroids, while six (24%) studies indicated non-inferior outcomes for corticosteroids. Median absolute risk reduction was 30% (range 6%-48.2%), and 11% (6%-48.6%) for 24-, and 72-hour headache recurrence, respectively. Parenteral dexamethasone was the most commonly (56%) administered steroid, at a median single dose of 10 mg (range 4-24 mg). All meta-analyses revealed efficacy of adjuvant corticosteroids to various abortive medications-indicating generalizability. Adverse effects were tolerable. Higher disability, status migrainosus, incomplete pain relief, and previous history of headache recurrence predicted outcome favorability. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature review suggests that with corticosteroid treatment, recurrent headaches become milder than pretreated headaches and later respond to nonsteroidal therapy. Single-dose intravenous dexamethasone is a reasonable option for managing resistant, severe, or prolonged migraine attacks.

What is the evidence for the use of corticosteroids in migraine?

Corticosteroids are widely prescribed for the management of migraine attacks. The earliest clinical studies examining the efficacy of corticosteroid monotherapy for managing migraine attacks date back to 1952. Since then, 26 heterogeneous clinical studies and four meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the efficacy of corticosteroids in either aborting acute migraine attacks, prolonged migraine attacks or recurrent headaches. Most of these (86 %) studies employed different comparator arms with corticosteroids monotherapy administration while some studies (14 %) evaluated adjunctive corticosteroid therapy. The majority of these clinical studies revealed the superior efficacy of corticosteroids as mono- or adjunctive-therapy both for recurrent and acute migraine attacks, while the remaining showed non-inferior efficacy. Different forms of oral and parenteral corticosteroids in either single-dose or short-tapering schedules are prescribed; there are clinical studies supporting the efficacy of both methods. Corticosteroids can be administered safely up to six times annually. Corticosteroids are also useful in managing patients who frequent emergency departments with "medication-seeking behavior." Migraine patients with refractory headaches, history of recurrent headaches, severe baseline disability, and status migrainosus were found to have the most beneficial response from corticosteroid therapy.

Chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: clarifying the current International Headache Society classification criteria.

Despite the recent advances in the understanding and classification of the chronic daily headaches, considerable controversy still exists regarding the classification of individual headaches, including chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH). The original criteria, published in 2004, were difficult to apply to most patients with these disorders and were subsequently revised, resulting in broader clinical applicability. Nonetheless, they remain a topic of debate, and the revisions to the criteria have further added to the confusion. Even some prominent headache specialists are unsure which criteria to use. We aimed to explain the nature of the controversies surrounding the entities of CM and MOH. A clinical case will be used to illustrate some of the problems faced by clinicians in diagnosing patients with chronic daily headache.

New daily persistent headache in the paediatric population.

We conducted a clinic-based study focusing on the clinical features of new-onset chronic daily headaches (CDH) in children and adolescents. The clinical records and headache diaries of 306 children and adolescents were reviewed, to identify 187 with CDH. Relevant information was transferred to a standardized form that included operational criteria for the diagnoses of the headaches. Since we were interested in describing the clinical features of these headaches, we followed the criteria A and B of the 2nd edn of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) and refer to them as new daily persistent headaches (NDPH) regardless of the presence of migraine features (therefore, this is a modified version of the ICHD-2 criteria). From the 56 adolescents with NDPH, most (91.8%) did not overuse medications. Nearly half (48.1%) reported they could recall the month when their headaches started. NDPH was more common than chronic tension-type headache in both adolescents overusing and not overusing medication. Individuals with NDPH had headaches fulfilling criteria for migraine on an average of 18.5 days per month. On most days, they had migraine-associated symptoms (one of nausea, photophobia or phonophobia)). NDPH is common in children and adolescents with CDH. Most subjects do not overuse medication. Migraine features are common.

Moya-Moya disease in black adults.

We describe two instances of Moya-Moya disease in black adults. Little is known concerning the origin of this disease. Currently, there is no effective treatment.

Migraine prophylaxis with divalproex.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of divalproex sodium (Depakote) and placebo in the prophylaxis of migraine headache. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled investigation, having a 4-week, single-blind placebo baseline phase and a 12-week treatment phase (4-week dose adjustment, 8-week maintenance). SETTING: Eight headache/neurology clinics throughout the United States. PATIENTS: One hundred seven patients randomized to divalproex or placebo (2:1 ratio): 70 receiving divalproex and 37 receiving placebo. INTERVENTION: Divalproex and placebo dosages titrated in blinded fashion during dose adjustment period to achieve actual/sham trough valproate sodium concentrations of approximately 70 to 120 mg/L. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the treatment phase, the mean migraine headache frequency per 4 weeks was 3.5 in the divalproex group and 5.7 in the placebo group (p < or = .001), compared with 6.0 and 6.4, respectively, during the baseline phase. Forty-eight percent of divalproex-treated patients and 14% of placebo-treated patients showed a 50% or greater reduction in migraine headache frequency from the baseline phase (P < .001). Among those with migraine headaches, divalproex-treated patients reported significantly less functional restriction than placebo-treated patients and used significantly less symptomatic medication per episode. No significant treatment group differences were observed in average peak severity or duration of individual migraine headaches. Treatment was stopped in 13% of divalproex-treated patients and 5% of placebo-treated patients because of intolerance (P, not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Divalproex is an effective prophylactic drug for patients with migraine headaches and is generally well tolerated.

The diagnosis of migraine and tension-type headache, then and now.

Making an accurate headache diagnosis is important, and most medical personnel believe that they can do it properly. Until 1988, the diagnostic schema of the Ad Hoc Committee had been used, but it was found to be vague and too general. The operational criteria proposed by the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) and published in Cephalalgia in 1988 are more specific. Their strong and weak points are reviewed and compared with the older criteria. The literature is reviewed with the conclusion that although the IHS criteria are not perfect, they represent a positive step. Further study will help to refine the criteria to make them more accurate and easier to use.

Recurrent migraine: cost-effective care.

The cost of untreated or ineffectively treated migraine is staggering. A case study is presented that demonstrates the importance of developing an individually tailored home treatment program for migraine patients aimed at keeping them out of healthcare facilities on an acute basis. Treatment programs should include preventive medications if attacks occur more than twice per month, as well as appropriate abortive and symptomatic agents in the event of a severe, acute migraine attack. New agents and treatment modalities are making acute treatment more cost-effective and making it less likely that unnecessary time be spent seeking medical help at the time of an attack.

Emergency treatment of headache.

The first approach in the emergency treatment of headache is the use of abortive measures in an attempt to forestall progression of early signs and symptoms. Abortive measures include analgesics, antiemetics, and anxiolytics; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; ergots, generally preceded by administration of an antiemetic; conservative use of corticosteroids; major tranquilizers; and even narcotics (in certain extreme and selective situations). If abortive measures fail, IM or IV administration of dihydroergotamine mesylate, preceded by promethazine (IM) or metoclopramide (IM or IV) and followed by dexamethasone (IM or IV), is an effective emergency procedure. Every patient seeking care for headache from an emergency department should be instructed on how and where to obtain definitive follow-up and long-term treatment.

Optimizing the dose of zolmitriptan (Zomig, 311C90) for the acute treatment of migraine. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose range-finding study. The 017 Clinical Trial Study Group.

This study investigated the efficacy of zolmitriptan (Zomig, formerly 311C90) in acute migraine therapy. Patients with a history of migraine were randomized in a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose range-finding study of oral zolmitriptan 1, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg versus placebo for the treatment of a severe or moderate migraine headache. Patients with persistent or recurrent headache 4 to 24 hours after the initial dose, who did not take escape medication, were eligible to receive a second blinded dose of either zolmitriptan or placebo. Of 1,144 patients treated, 999 evaluable patients completed the study. The headache response rates with zolmitriptan doses > or = 2.5 mg were 44 to 51% at 1 hour, 65 to 67% at 2 hours, and 75 to 78% at 4 hours (all significantly superior to placebo). Also, zolmitriptan effectively relieved migraine-associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and reduced activity impairment. Rates of headache recurrence, headache persistence, and use of escape medication were lower with zolmitriptan doses > or = 2.5 mg than with placebo. In patients with persistent or recurrent headache, a second zolmitriptan dose effectively treated both headache and nonheadache symptoms. Zolmitriptan was well tolerated, with a lower incidence of adverse events being reported with doses < or = 2.5 mg than with those > or = 5 mg. Zolmitriptan is a well tolerated and effective acute migraine therapy providing rapid relief of migraine headache within 1 hour. A clear dose-response relationship between efficacy and tolerability suggests that 2.5 mg is the optimal initial dose for the acute treatment of a migraine attack.

Oral sumatriptan in preventing headache recurrence after treatment of migraine attacks with subcutaneous sumatriptan.

Headache recurrence (HR) may occur within 24 hours in approximately 40% of migraine attacks initially treated successfully with 6 mg subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan. This may be due to the short plasma half-life of sumatriptan. We studied whether an additional dose of 100 mg oral sumatriptan 4 hours after treatment of a migraine attack with 6 mg SC sumatriptan could prevent HR. Patients (n = 667) treated up to three migraine attacks in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial. For each attack, they initially took open-label 6 mg SC sumatriptan by autoinjector. Four hours later all patients took either 100 mg oral sumatriptan or matched placebo. Patients could take an additional optional oral dose of 100 mg sumatriptan to treat HR. The primary efficacy end point was the number of successfully treated patients without HR within 24 hours after the initial SC injection for the first study attack. Two hundred twenty-five patients were not assessable for HR, mainly because of protocol violations. Of 442 assessable patients, 82/212 in the sumatriptan-treated group (39%) and 89/230 in the placebo-treated group (39%) reported HR in attack 1. Median times to recurrence were 15.6 hours after sumatriptan and 10.3 hours after placebo (p = 0.006). One hundred mg oral sumatriptan taken 4 hours after 6 mg SC sumatriptan does not prevent HR but significantly delays time to recurrence.

Rizatriptan in the treatment of migraine.

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-hydroxytriptamine1B/1D receptor agonist that was launched in 1998 for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Based on data from 6 large clinical trials in patients > or =18 years of age in whom migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria, the marketed 10-mg and 5-mg oral doses of rizatriptan are effective in relieving headache pain and associated migraine symptoms. The 10-mg dose is more effective than the 5-mg dose. At 2 hours after dosing, up to 77% of patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg had pain relief compared with 37% of those taking placebo, up to 44% were completely pain free compared with 7% of those taking placebo, and up to 77% were free of nausea compared with 58% of those taking placebo (P < 0.05 for all 3 comparisons). Both doses of rizatriptan are generally well tolerated. In placebo-controlled studies involving treatment of a single migraine attack, the most common side effects (incidence > or =2%) occurred in <10% of patients, typically were transitory (2 to 3 hours), and were mild or moderate. Rizatriptan is an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine.

Frovatriptan: pharmacological differences and clinical results.

Frovatriptan is a 5-HT(1B/1D) agonist demonstrating consistently effective headache relief at a low dose of 2.5 mg. A striking pharmacokinetic characteristic is its long half-life of 25 h. This is balanced by an average Tmax of 2-3 h, a low degree of lipophilicity and a low oral bioavailability of 24-30%. Fifty per cent of the drug is renally excreted and the rest is partially metabolized by P450 CYP 1A2. In three short-term multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trials, the 2 h headache response for 2.5 mg frovatriptan varied from 36 to 46% (placebo 21-27%). The 4 h headache responses were considerably higher--up to 65%. Thirty-five per cent of patients were consistent rapid responders. The recurrence rate was 10-25%. In addition to effective and prolonged relief of head pain, frovatriptan reduced associated migraine symptoms such as nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. There was an excellent tolerability profile with the incidence of adverse events for frovatriptan only slightly higher than placebo. The most commonly reported adverse events for both frovatriptan and placebo were dizziness, nausea, headache and fatigue.

The clinical spectrum of migraine.

The variable clinical features of migraine and some relationships of migraine with other headache disorders have been reviewed. Although these views generally are shared by most headache specialists, some respected headache investigators reject the concept of a spectrum of migraine and conclude that the continuum model is an artifact.

The cost effectiveness of stratified care in the management of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost effectivess of a stratified-care regimen for patients with migraine--in which patients are stratified by severity of illness, and then prescribed differing treatments according to level of severity--compared with a conventional stepped-care approach. DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to simulate a controlled clinical trial in which patients with migraine receiving primary medical care were randomly assigned to treatment under a stepped-care or a stratified-care regimen. A health service payer perspective was adopted and the time horizon was 1 year. Data inputs were: (i) the frequency and disability of migraine, derived from population-based studies; (ii) disability level-specific treatment response rates for over-the-counter analgesics,aspirin/metoclopramide and zolmitriptan as the representative of high-end therapy obtained from an international consensus opinion enquiry; and (iii) unit costs of healthcare obtained from UK health service sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The estimated 1-year direct healthcare costs per primary care patient with migraine were pound sterling 156.82 for stepped care and sterling pound 151.57 for stratified care. Estimates of treatment response rates were 40 and 71% for stepped and stratified care, respectively. The cost per successfully treated attack was sterling pound 23.43 for stepped care and sterling pound 12.60 for stratified care. Stratified care remained cost effective when tested in a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the cost effectiveness of stratified care to be significant at the 3% level. Conditional confidence analysis showed that the level of confidence in the cost effectiveness of stratified care varied positively with the case mix, i.e. in populations where the proportion of moderate and severely disabled patients with migraine was greater than 25%, the cost effectiveness of stratified care remained statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A stratified-care treatment strategy (including zolmitriptan as the representative of high-end therapy) is a highly cost-effective method of managing migraine in the primary care setting compared with stepped care, delivering improved clinical outcomes at no additional cost.

Cost of migraine management: a pharmacoeconomic overview.

Migraine is a chronic, sometimes debilitating, condition that tends to afflict young people who are otherwise healthy and productive. Because diagnostic criteria and effective treatment modalities have not been well taught to physicians, the condition is often undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, and mismanaged, causing unnecessary pain, hardship to the individual, disability, loss of productivity, and increased expense to the healthcare system. This paper discusses a rational approach to the behavioral and pharmacologic treatment of migraine, highlighting the relative costs of preventive and acute care therapies. Several cases are presented to illustrate how the costs of inefficiently managed migraine therapy can be decreased even by using medications that have a higher per-dose cost, as they decrease the pain and disability and actually lower the total cost of managing the patient with migraine.

Migraine pharmacotherapy with oral triptans: a rational approach to clinical management.

The recent clinical development of a number of migraine specific 5-HT1B/1D agonist triptans with enhanced lipophilicity (TELs), relative to the first drug of this class sumatriptan, and with a range of different metabolic, pharmacokinetic and receptor affinity profiles, provides the potential for critically different clinical profiles. Eletriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan and zolmitriptan display both increased stability to first pass metabolic inactivation by monoamine oxidase (MAO-A) and enhanced lipophilicity (4- to > 120-fold more than sumatriptan), leading to increased oral bioavailability (2- to 5-fold more than the 14% reported for oral sumatriptan). Central penetration and increased receptor affinity and selectivity for the neuronal (5-HT1D) receptor also combine to allow for lower total oral dosing (i.e., unit doses of 15 mg or less compared with 50-300 mg doses of sumatriptan) and reduced peripheral exposure to the coronary vasoconstrictor (5-HT1B) receptor. The notable exception being eletriptan, where an active P-glycoprotein blood-brain barrier efflux system effectively negates these benefits and requires an 80 mg oral dose. Differences in the metabolic balance between hepatic P450 (especially CYP 1A2) and MAO-A inactivation lead to potential drug interactions for all TELs with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), fluvoxamine and the quinilone antibiotics (with increased triptan levels). An important but complex MAO-A interaction between a metabolite of propranolol and rizatriptan mandates dosage reduction (to 5 mg) for rizatriptan in the presence of propranolol treatment. There is also an absolute contraindication for the concurrent administration of the MAO-A inhibitor moclobemide and rizatriptan. All the new-marketed TELs have potential clinical benefits and were well-tolerated relative to sumatriptan. Both rizatriptan (10 mg) and zolmitriptan (2.5 mg and 5 mg) demonstrate at least equivalent efficacy to sumatriptan 25, 50 and 100 mg, respectively, making them suitable first line agents for moderate or severe migraine headaches. Rizatriptan has the fastest onset of effect of the TELs. Naratriptan would appear to have lower recurrent headache rate than sumatriptan, rizatriptan or zolmitriptan. Therefore, for headaches of long duration and with a tendency to recur naratriptan may be the most appropriate treatment. Thus, knowledge of the metabolic, pharmacokinetic and clinical profiles of the TELs facilitates the selection of a triptan which allows optimisation of the clinical benefits for individual patients, minimising the risk of drug interactions and a minimally effective dose to reduce potential adverse events (AEs).

Geriatric headaches.

Headaches, although common occurrences in the elderly, can be the symptoms of a serious problem. Specific headaches found in this population need careful consideration and diagnosis. When the diagnosis is elusive, or the headache is sudden, severe, and incapacitating, a neurologist or neurosurgeon should be consulted.