Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 36
Filtrar
Más filtros

Medicinas Complementárias
Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
MMW Fortschr Med ; 165(19): 29, 2023 11.
Artículo en Alemán | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37919575
3.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 27(7): 682-692, 2020 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569966

RESUMEN

Comprehensive stroke care is an interdisciplinary challenge. Close collaboration of cardiologists and stroke physicians is critical to ensure optimum utilisation of short- and long-term care and preventive measures in patients with stroke. Risk factor management is an important strategy that requires cardiologic involvement for primary and secondary stroke prevention. Treatment of stroke generally is led by stroke physicians, yet cardiologists need to be integrated care providers in stroke units to address all cardiovascular aspects of acute stroke care, including arrhythmia management, blood pressure control, elevated levels of cardiac troponins, valvular disease/endocarditis, and the general management of cardiovascular comorbidities. Despite substantial progress in stroke research and clinical care has been achieved, relevant gaps in clinical evidence remain and cause uncertainties in best practice for treatment and prevention of stroke. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology together with the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke in cooperation with the European Stroke Organisation and partners from related scientific societies, regulatory authorities and industry conveyed a two-day workshop to discuss current and emerging concepts and apparent gaps in stroke care, including risk factor management, acute diagnostics, treatments and complications, and operational/logistic issues for health care systems and integrated networks. Joint initiatives of cardiologists and stroke physicians are needed in research and clinical care to target unresolved interdisciplinary problems and to promote the best possible outcomes for patients with stroke.


Asunto(s)
Cardiología/normas , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/terapia , Atención Integral de Salud/normas , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/normas , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Neurología/normas , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Consenso , Conducta Cooperativa , Humanos , Pronóstico , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/diagnóstico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología
4.
PLoS One ; 14(7): e0217472, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31269025

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Ischemic Stroke System is a novel device designed to deliver stimulation to the sphenopalatine ganglion(SPG).The SPG sends parasympathetic innervations to the anterior cerebral circulation. In rat stroke models, SPG stimulation results in increased cerebral blood flow, reduced infarct volume, protects the blood brain barrier, and improved neurological outcome. We present here the results of a prospective, multinational, single-arm, feasibility study designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and potential benefit of SPG stimulation inpatients with acute ischemic stroke(AIS). METHODS: Patients with anterior AIS, baseline NIHSS 7-20 and ability to initiate treatment within 24h from stroke onset, were implanted and treated with the SPG stimulation. Patients were followed up for 90 days. Effect was assessed by comparing the patient outcome to a matched population from the NINDS rt-PA trial placebo patients. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled (mean age 57years, mean baseline NIHSS 12 and mean treatment time from stroke onset 19h). The observed mortality rate(12.2%), serious adverse events (SAE)incidence(23.5%) and nature of SAE were within the expected range for the population. The modified intention to treat cohort consisted of 84 patients who were compared to matched patients from the NINDS placebo arm. Patients treated with SPG stimulation had an average mRS lower by 0.76 than the historical controls(CMH test p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The implantation procedure and the SPG stimulation, initiated within 24hr from stroke onset, are feasible, safe, and tolerable. The results call for a follow-up randomized trial (funded by BrainsGate; clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03733236).


Asunto(s)
Isquemia Encefálica , Circulación Cerebrovascular , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Ganglios Parasimpáticos/fisiopatología , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Velocidad del Flujo Sanguíneo , Isquemia Encefálica/fisiopatología , Isquemia Encefálica/terapia , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia
5.
CNS Drugs ; 33(6): 615, 2019 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31041688
6.
Lancet ; 394(10194): 219-229, 2019 07 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31133406

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation increased cerebral collateral blood flow, stabilised the blood-brain barrier, and reduced infarct size, in preclinical models of acute ischaemic stroke, and showed potential benefit in a pilot randomised trial in humans. The pivotal ImpACT-24B trial aimed to determine whether sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation 8-24 h after acute ischaemic stroke improved functional outcome. METHODS: ImpACT-24B is a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial done at 73 centres in 18 countries. It included patients (men aged 40-80 years and women aged 40-85 years) with anterior-circulation acute ischaemic stroke, not undergoing reperfusion therapy. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned via web-based randomisation to receive active sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (intervention group) or sham stimulation (sham-control group) 8-24 h after stroke onset. Patients, clinical care providers, and all outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between active and sham groups in the proportion of patients whose 3-month level of disability improved above expectations. This endpoint was evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (defined as all patients who received one active or sham treatment session) and the population with confirmed cortical involvement (CCI) and was analysed using the Hochberg multi-step procedure (significance in both populations if p<0·05 in both, and in one population if p<0·025 in that one). Safety endpoints at 3 months were all serious adverse events (SAEs), SAEs related to implant placement or removal, SAEs related to stimulation, neurological deterioration, and mortality. All patients who underwent an attempted sphenopalatine ganglion stimulator or sham stimulator placement procedure were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00826059. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2011, and March 7, 2018, 1078 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention or the sham-control group. 1000 patients received at least one session of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation or sham stimulation and entered the mITT population (481 [48%] received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, 519 [52%] were sham controls), among whom 520 (52%) patients had CCI on imaging. The proportion of patients in the mITT population whose 3-month disability level was better than expected was 49% (234/481) in the intervention group versus 45% (236/519) in the sham-control group (odds ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·89-1·46; p=0·31). In the CCI population, the proportion was 50% (121/244) in the intervention group versus 40% (110/276) in the sham-control group (1·48, 1·05-2·10; p=0·0258). There was an inverse U-shaped dose-response relationship between attained sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation intensity and the primary outcome in the CCI population: the proportion with favourable outcome increased from 40% to 70% at low-midrange intensity and decreased back to 40% at high intensity stimulation (p=0·0034). There were no differences in mortality or SAEs between the intervention group (n=536) and the sham-control group (n=519) in the safety population. INTERPRETATION: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is safe for patients with acute ischaemic stroke 8-24 h after onset, who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy. Although not reaching significance, the trial's results support that, among patients with imaging evidence of cortical involvement at presentation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is likely to improve functional outcome. FUNDING: BrainsGate Ltd.


Asunto(s)
Isquemia Encefálica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Ganglios Parasimpáticos/fisiopatología , Neuroestimuladores Implantables , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Isquemia Encefálica/fisiopatología , Método Doble Ciego , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Femenino , Ganglios Parasimpáticos/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Calidad de Vida , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Resultado del Tratamiento
7.
Thromb Haemost ; 119(1): 14-38, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30597497

RESUMEN

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) include dabigatran, which inhibits thrombin, and apixaban, betrixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, which inhibit factor Xa. In large clinical trials comparing the NOACs with the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban were at least as effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for treatment of venous thromboembolism, but were associated with less intracranial bleeding. In addition, the NOACs are more convenient to administer than VKAs because they can be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. Consequently, the NOACs are now replacing VKAs for these indications, and their use is increasing. Although, as a class, the NOACs have a favourable benefit-risk profile compared with VKAs, choosing among them is complicated because they have not been compared in head-to-head trials. Therefore, selection depends on the results of the individual trials, renal function, the potential for drug-drug interactions and preference for once- or twice-daily dosing. In addition, several 'special situations' were not adequately studied in the dedicated clinical trials. For these situations, knowledge of the unique pharmacological features of the various NOACs and judicious cross-trial comparison can help inform prescription choices. The purpose of this position article is therefore to help clinicians choose the right anticoagulant for the right patient at the right dose by reviewing a variety of special situations not widely studied in clinical trials.


Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Cardiopatías/complicaciones , Trombina/antagonistas & inhibidores , Vitamina K/antagonistas & inhibidores , Administración Oral , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Arginina/análogos & derivados , Arginina/uso terapéutico , Fibrilación Atrial/prevención & control , Benzamidas/uso terapéutico , Biomarcadores/metabolismo , Coagulación Sanguínea , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Dabigatrán/uso terapéutico , Esquema de Medicación , Factor Xa/uso terapéutico , Cardiopatías/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Piperazinas/uso terapéutico , Pirazoles/uso terapéutico , Piridinas/uso terapéutico , Piridonas/uso terapéutico , Proteínas Recombinantes/uso terapéutico , Riesgo , Rivaroxabán/uso terapéutico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Tiazoles/uso terapéutico , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Warfarina/uso terapéutico
8.
J Headache Pain ; 18(1): 107, 2017 Oct 24.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29067618

RESUMEN

Caffeinated headache medications, either alone or in combination with other treatments, are widely used by patients with headache. Clinicians should be familiar with their use as well as the chemistry, pharmacology, dietary and medical sources, clinical benefits, and potential safety issues of caffeine. In this review, we consider the role of caffeine in the over-the-counter treatment of headache. The MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched by combining "caffeine" with the terms "headache," "migraine," and "tension-type." Studies that were not placebo-controlled or that involved medications available only with a prescription, as well as those not assessing patients with migraine and/or tension-type headache (TTH), were excluded. Compared with analgesic medication alone, combinations of caffeine with analgesic medications, including acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and ibuprofen, showed significantly improved efficacy in the treatment of patients with TTH or migraine, with favorable tolerability in the vast majority of patients. The most common adverse events were nervousness (6.5%), nausea (4.3%), abdominal pain/discomfort (4.1%), and dizziness (3.2%). This review provides evidence for the role of caffeine as an analgesic adjuvant in the acute treatment of primary headache with over-the-counter drugs, caffeine doses of 130 mg enhance the efficacy of analgesics in TTH and doses of ≥100 mg enhance benefits in migraine. Additional studies are needed to assess the relationship between caffeine dosing and clinical benefits in patients with TTH and migraine.


Asunto(s)
Cafeína/administración & dosificación , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central/administración & dosificación , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Cefalea de Tipo Tensional/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Abdominal/inducido químicamente , Acetaminofén/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Aspirina/administración & dosificación , Cafeína/efectos adversos , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central/efectos adversos , Cefalea/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Ibuprofeno/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
9.
J Headache Pain ; 17: 43, 2016.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27102120

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial; longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D™ data from PREVA; benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of €7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and €7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone. CONCLUSIONS: In all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01701245 , 03OCT2012.


Asunto(s)
Cefalalgia Histamínica/terapia , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Estimulación del Nervio Vago/economía , Cefalalgia Histamínica/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Modelos Económicos , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de Vida , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Resultado del Tratamiento
10.
Lancet Neurol ; 14(10): 1010-22, 2015 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26376968

RESUMEN

The management of patients with migraine is often unsatisfactory because available acute and preventive therapies are either ineffective or poorly tolerated. The acute treatment of migraine attacks has been limited to the use of analgesics, combinations of analgesics with caffeine, ergotamines, and the triptans. Successful new approaches for the treatment of acute migraine target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT1F) receptors. Other approaches targeting the transient receptor potential vanilloid (TRPV1) receptor, glutamate, GABAA receptors, or a combination of 5-HT1B/1D receptors and neuronal nitric oxide synthesis have been investigated but have not been successful in clinical trials thus far. In migraine prevention, the most promising new approaches are humanised antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Non-invasive and invasive neuromodulation approaches also show promise as both acute and preventive therapies, although further studies are needed to define appropriate candidates for these therapies and optimum protocols for their use.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Benzamidas/uso terapéutico , Benzopiranos/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas del Receptor Peptídico Relacionado con el Gen de la Calcitonina , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Migrañosos/prevención & control , Neurotransmisores/uso terapéutico , Óxido Nítrico Sintasa de Tipo I/antagonistas & inhibidores , Canales Catiónicos TRPV/antagonistas & inhibidores , Estimulación Eléctrica Transcutánea del Nervio/métodos , Humanos
11.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 15(4): 344-50, 2015 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26407383

RESUMEN

Migraine is a common neurological disorder, characterised by severe headaches. Epidemiological studies in the USA and Europe have identified a subgroup of migraine patients with chronic migraine. Chronic migraine is defined as ≥15 headache days per month for ≥3 months, in which ≥8 days of the month meet criteria for migraine with or without aura, or respond to treatment specifically for migraine. Chronic migraine is associated with a higher burden of disease, more severe psychiatric comorbidity, greater use of healthcare resources, and higher overall costs than episodic migraine (<15 headache days per month). There is a strong need to improve diagnosis and therapeutic treatment of chronic migraine. Primary care physicians, as well as hospital-based physicians, are integral to the identification and treatment of these patients. The latest epidemiological data, as well as treatment options for chronic migraine patients, are reviewed here.


Asunto(s)
Costo de Enfermedad , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Trastornos Migrañosos , Enfermedad Crónica , Salud Global , Humanos , Trastornos Migrañosos/diagnóstico , Trastornos Migrañosos/epidemiología , Trastornos Migrañosos/terapia , Morbilidad/tendencias
12.
J Headache Pain ; 16: 516, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25916335

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Non-medical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments are recommended for the prevention of migraine. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo controlled, multicenter trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a proprietary nutritional supplement containing a fixed combination of magnesium, riboflavin and Q10 as prophylactic treatment for migraine. METHODS: 130 adult migraineurs (age 18 - 65 years) with ≥ three migraine attacks per month were randomized into two treatment groups: dietary supplementation or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The treatment period was 3 months following a 4 week baseline period without prophylactic treatment. Patients were assessed before randomization and at the end of the 3-month-treatment-phase for days with migraine, migraine pain, burden of disease (HIT-6) and subjective evaluation of efficacy. RESULTS: Migraine days per month declined from 6.2 days during the baseline period to 4.4 days at the end of the treatment with the supplement and from 6.2.days to 5.2 days in the placebo group (p = 0.23 compared to placebo). The intensity of migraine pain was significantly reduced in the supplement group compared to placebo (p = 0.03). The sum score of the HIT-6 questionnaire was reduced by 4.8 points from 61.9 to 57.1 compared to 2 points in the placebo-group (p = 0.01). The evaluation of efficacy by the patient was better in the supplementation group compared to placebo (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a proprietary supplement containing magnesium, riboflavin and Q10 (Migravent® in Germany, Dolovent® in USA) had an impact on migraine frequency which showed a trend towards statistical significance. Migraine symptoms and burden of disease, however, were statistically significantly reduced compared to placebo in patients with migraine attacks.


Asunto(s)
Magnesio/farmacología , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Riboflavina/farmacología , Ubiquinona/análogos & derivados , Vitaminas/farmacología , Adulto , Suplementos Dietéticos , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Femenino , Alemania , Humanos , Magnesio/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Trastornos Migrañosos/prevención & control , Riboflavina/administración & dosificación , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ubiquinona/administración & dosificación , Ubiquinona/farmacología , Vitaminas/administración & dosificación
13.
Cephalalgia ; 33(16): 1283-91, 2013 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23814173

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been shown to be effective for selected patients with intractable headache disorders. We performed a prospective critical evaluation of complications and direct treatment costs. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with chronic cluster headache (CCH, N = 24) or chronic migraine (CM, N = 3) underwent a trial phase with bilateral ONS and subsequent implantation of a permanent generator (IPG), if responsive to treatment according to predefined criteria. Procedural and long-term complications as well as direct treatment costs of neuromodulation therapy of ONS were recorded over a mean follow-up period of 20 months (range 5-47 months). RESULTS: Twenty-five of 27 patients (93%) responded to treatment. Twenty-one complications in 14 patients were identified, necessitating reoperation in 13 cases. Overall treatment costs were €761,043, including hardware-related costs of €506,019, costs for primary hospital care of €210,496, and complications related to hospitalization costs of €44,528. This results in a per case-based cost of €9445 for hospitalization and €18,741 for hardware costs, totaling €28,186. CONCLUSION: ONS for treatment of refractory CCH and CM is a cost-intensive treatment option with a significant complication rate. Nevertheless, patients with refractory primary headache disorders may experience substantial relief of pain attacks, and headache days, respectively.


Asunto(s)
Cefalalgia Histamínica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/economía , Trastornos Migrañosos/terapia , Adulto , Cefalalgia Histamínica/economía , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Electrodos Implantados/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Trastornos Migrañosos/economía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/economía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología
17.
Trials ; 13: 46, 2012 Apr 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22540391

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the most frequent headache diseases and impairs patients' quality of life. Up to now, many randomized studies reported efficacy of prophylactic therapy with medications such as beta-blockers or anti-epileptic drugs. Non-medical treatment, like aerobic endurance training, is considered to be an encouraging alternative in migraine prophylaxis. However, there is still a lack of prospective, high-quality randomized trials. We therefore designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of aerobic endurance training versus relaxation training in patients with migraine (ARMIG). METHODS: This is a single-center, open-label, prospective, randomized trial. Sixty participants with migraine are randomly allocated to either endurance training or a relaxation group. After baseline headache diary documentation over at least 4 weeks, participants in the exercise group will start moderate aerobic endurance training under a sport therapist's supervision at least 3 times a week over a 12-week period. The second group will perform Jacobson's progressive muscle relaxation training guided by a trained relaxation therapist, also at least 3 times a week over a 12-week period. Both study arms will train in groups of up to 10 participants. More frequent individual training is possible. The follow-up period will be 12 weeks after the training period. The general state of health, possible state of anxiety or depression, impairments due to the headache disorder, pain-related disabilities, the headache-specific locus of control, and the motor fitness status are measured with standardized questionnaires. DISCUSSION: The study design is adequate to generate meaningful results. The trial will be helpful in gaining important data on exercise training for non-medical migraine prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407861.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Ejercicio/métodos , Ejercicio Físico , Trastornos Migrañosos/terapia , Terapia por Relajación/métodos , Ansiedad/psicología , Depresión/psicología , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Registros Médicos , Trastornos Migrañosos/psicología , Estudios Prospectivos , Proyectos de Investigación
19.
J Headache Pain ; 12(4): 475-83, 2011 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21544647

RESUMEN

This study investigated the outcome of a 5-day headache-specific multidisciplinary treatment program (MTP) and the adherence to treatment recommendations in 295 prospectively recruited consecutive headache patients [210 migraine, 17 tension-type headache (TTH), 68 combination headache, including 56 medication-overuse headache (MOH)]. Headache frequency decreased from 13.4 (±8.8) to 8.8 (±8.0) days per month after 12-18 months. Forty-three percent of the participants fulfilled the primary outcome (reduction of headache frequency of ≥50%), which was less likely in patients with combination of migraine and TTH compared to migraine (OR = 3.136, p = 0.002) or TTH (OR = 1.029, n.s.). Increasing number of headache days per month (OR = 1.092, p ≤ 0.0001) and adherence to lifestyle modifications (OR = 1.269, p = 0.004) predicted primary outcome. 51 of 56 MOH patients were treated successfully. Thirty-five percent of the patients were adherent to pharmacological prophylaxis, 61% to relaxation therapy, and 72% to aerobic endurance sports. MTP is effective in headache treatment. Adherence to therapy was associated with better outcome.


Asunto(s)
Cefalea/rehabilitación , Clínicas de Dolor , Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Terapia por Ejercicio , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Clínicas de Dolor/organización & administración , Terapia por Relajación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven
20.
Ann Neurol ; 69(3): 533-9, 2011 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21446025

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Hypnic headache (HH) is a rare primary headache disorder characterized by strictly nocturnal headache attacks that mostly occur at the same time at night. The pathophysiology of this disease is poorly understood, but hypothalamic involvement was suspected as the hypothalamus represents the cerebral management center of sleep regulation and pain control. METHODS: Fourteen patients with HH and 14 age-matched and gender-matched healthy controls were investigated using magnetic resonance imaging-based voxel-based morphometry. RESULTS: We detected gray matter volume decrease in the posterior hypothalamus of HH patients. Additional gray matter decrease was observed in brain areas known to be associated with cerebral pain processing, including the cingulate cortex, operculum, and frontal lobe, as well as in the temporal lobe. INTERPRETATION: Our data confirm the hypothesized involvement of the posterior hypothalamus in the pathophysiology of HH and emphasize the importance of this structure for sleep regulation and pain control.


Asunto(s)
Cefaleas Primarias/patología , Hipotálamo/patología , Fibras Nerviosas Amielínicas/patología , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tamaño de los Órganos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA