Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Headache Pain ; 25(1): 27, 2024 Mar 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38433202

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders. METHODS: We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium. RESULTS: A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.


Asunto(s)
Trastornos de Cefalalgia , Trastornos Migrañosos , Femenino , Humanos , Carga Global de Enfermedades , Cefalea/diagnóstico , Cefalea/terapia , Trastornos de Cefalalgia/diagnóstico , Trastornos de Cefalalgia/terapia , Envejecimiento
2.
Handb Clin Neurol ; 199: 3-16, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38307653

RESUMEN

The acute treatment of migraine attacks should provide rapid, effective, and long-lasting symptom relief, causing minimal adverse effects. For this purpose, there are several specific and nonspecific acute treatments. In this chapter, we focus on molecules not specifically designed for migraines, including anti-inflammatory not specific analgesics, such as acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (or COX-2 inhibitors); antinausea medications like metoclopramide or prochlorperazine, which can alleviate sickness and vomiting associated with migraines, and may also have a direct painkiller effect; combinations of simple analgesics or association of a painkiller with caffeine. This stimulant can help enhance the pain-relieving effects of some headache medications and provide its own analgesic effect; physical approaches: applying cold packs or heating pads on the forehead or neck, can help relieve migraine pain; other classes with limited to no evidence to support their use, such as intravenous corticosteroids or antiepileptic drugs as sodium valproate. Finally, we will briefly mention opioids, barbiturates, or medical cannabis, bearing in mind that their use is not recommended by current guidelines.


Asunto(s)
Antieméticos , Trastornos Migrañosos , Humanos , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/efectos adversos , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Antiinflamatorios/uso terapéutico , Dolor/tratamiento farmacológico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico
3.
Toxins (Basel) ; 15(6)2023 05 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37368665

RESUMEN

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BonT-A) reduces migraine frequency in a considerable portion of patients with migraine. So far, predictive characteristics of response are lacking. Here, we applied machine learning (ML) algorithms to identify clinical characteristics able to predict treatment response. We collected demographic and clinical data of patients with chronic migraine (CM) or high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) treated with BoNT-A at our clinic in the last 5 years. Patients received BoNT-A according to the PREEMPT (Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy) paradigm and were classified according to the monthly migraine days reduction in the 12 weeks after the fourth BoNT-A cycle, as compared to baseline. Data were used as input features to run ML algorithms. Of the 212 patients enrolled, 35 qualified as excellent responders to BoNT-A administration and 38 as nonresponders. None of the anamnestic characteristics were able to discriminate responders from nonresponders in the CM group. Nevertheless, a pattern of four features (age at onset of migraine, opioid use, anxiety subscore at the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS-a) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score correctly predicted response in HFEM. Our findings suggest that routine anamnestic features acquired in real-life settings cannot accurately predict BoNT-A response in migraine and call for a more complex modality of patient profiling.


Asunto(s)
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A , Trastornos Migrañosos , Humanos , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Trastornos Migrañosos/diagnóstico , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Migrañosos/prevención & control
4.
CNS Drugs ; 37(5): 453-465, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37212943

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) is a relatively safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine. The local mode of action of BoNTA favors the combination of oral treatments with systemic action. However, little is known about the possible interactions with other preventive treatments. The objective of the study was to describe the use of oral preventive treatments in patients with chronic migraine treated with BoNTA in routine clinical care and discuss the tolerability and efficacy according to the presence or absence of concomitant oral treatments. METHODS: In this multicenter, observational, retrospective, cohort study, we collected data from patients with chronic migraine receiving prophylactic treatment with BoNTA. Patients were eligible if aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with chronic migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition criteria, and treated with BoNTA according to the PREEMPT paradigm. We documented the proportion of patients with at least one concomitant treatment prescribed specifically for migraine (CT+M) and their side effects during four BoNTA treatment cycles. Additionally, we collected monthly headache days and monthly acute medication days from the patients' headache diaries. Patients with CT+M were compared to those without concomitant treatment (CT-) using a nonparametric approach. RESULTS: Our cohort included 181 patients taking BoNTA, of whom 77 (42.5%) received a CT+M. The most frequently prescribed concomitant treatments were antidepressants and antihypertensive drugs. Side effects in the CT+M group occurred in 14 patients (18.2%). Only in three of them (3.9%), the side effects had a significant interference with the patient's functioning (all in topiramate 200-mg/day users). Both CT+M and CT- groups had a significant reduction in monthly headache days of respectively - 6 (95% confidence interval - 9, - 3; p < 0.001; w = 0.200) during cycle 4 compared with baseline versus - 9 (95% confidence interval - 13, -6; p < 0.001; w = 0.469). However, the reduction in monthly headache days was significantly smaller in patients with CT+M after the fourth treatment cycle compared with patients with CT- (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of oral concomitant preventive treatment is common in patients with chronic migraine receiving BoNTA. We did not identify any unexpected safety or tolerability issues in patients receiving BoNTA and a CT+M. However, patients with a CT+M experienced a smaller reduction in monthly headache days when compared with those with CT-, which might be associated with a higher resistance to treatment in that subgroup of patients.


Asunto(s)
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Trastornos Migrañosos , Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Método Doble Ciego , Trastornos Migrañosos/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Migrañosos/prevención & control , Resultado del Tratamiento , Cefalea/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Crónica
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...