¿El abuso de fármacos en pacientes con migraña crónica influye en la efectividad del tratamiento preventivo con topiramato? / Does medication abuse in patients with chronic migraine influence the effectiveness of preventive treatment with topiramate?

Introducción. Los pacientes con migraña crónica (MC) y abuso de medicación son difíciles de tratar y tienen peor calidad de vida que otros pacientes con migrañas. Objetivo. Valorar si la presencia de abuso de fármacos disminuye la efectividad del topiramato. Pacientes y métodos. Una serie de pacientes con MC fueron agrupados según presentasen criterios de abuso o no abuso de fármacos. Se les aconsejo la supresión del fármaco del cual abusaban. Se ajustó el tratamiento de sus crisis y se inició tratamiento preventivo desde el principio con topiramato. Se valoró el número días con cefalea y migrañas intensas en el mes previo y al cuarto mes de tratamiento. Resultados. Fueron seleccionados 262 pacientes con criterios de MC, y de ellos 167 (63,7%) cumplieron criterios de abuso. En ambos grupos hubo una reducción significativa del número de días con cefalea/mes y numero de crisis de migraña/mes al cuarto mes de tratamiento con topiramato. Porcentaje de reducción de días con cefalea/mes en MC sin abuso, 59,3} 36,1%; y con abuso, 48,7} 41,7% (p = 0,0574). Porcentaje de reducción de migrañas intensas/mes en MC sin abuso, 61,2%; y con abuso, 50% (p = 0,0224). Tasa de respondedores según numero de días con cefalea/mes en MC sin abuso, 69%; y con abuso, 57%. Tasa de respondedores según numero de migrañas intensas/mes en MC sin abuso, 76,8%; y en MC con abuso, 61% (p = 0,0097). Conclusiones. El topiramato fue efectivo en pacientes con MC sin y con abuso de fármacos, aunque con menor efectividad en estos últimos (AU)

Introduction: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication abuse are difficult to treat, and have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. Aim: To evaluate whether the presence of medication abuse lowers the effectiveness of topiramate. Patients and methods: A series of patients with CM were grouped according to whether they met abuse criteria or not. They were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. Treatment was adjusted to match their crises and preventive treatment with topiramate was established from the beginning. The number of days with headache and intense migraine in the previous month and at four months of treatment was evaluated. Results. In all, 262 patients with CM criteria were selected and 167 (63.7%) of them fulfilled abuse criteria. In both groups there was a significant reduction in the number of days with headache/month and number of migraine attacks/month at the fourth month of treatment with topiramate. The percentage of reduction in the number of days with headache/ month in CM without abuse was 59.3} 36.1%, and with abuse, 48.7} 41.7% (p = 0.0574). The percentage of reduction in the number of days with intense migraine/month in CM without abuse was 61.2%, and with abuse, 50% (p = 0.0224). Response rate according to the number of days with headache/month in CM without abuse was 69%, and with abuse, 57%. Response rate according to the number of intense migraines/month in CM without abuse was 76.8%, and in CM with abuse, 61% (p = 0.0097). Conclusions. Topiramate was effective in patients with CM with and without medication abuse, although effectiveness is lower in the latter case (AU)

[A comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and flunarizine in independent series of chronic migraine patients without medication abuse]. / Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y la flunaricina en series independientes de pacientes con migraña cronica sin abuso de medicacion.

INTRODUCTION: Topiramate and onabotulinumtoxin A have proven to be effective in chronic migraine with or without medication abuse according to recent criteria of the International Headache Society's Headache Classification. AIMS: To show that flunarizine is as effective as topiramate in cases of chronic migraine without medication abuse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, comparative study of two groups of patients paired by age and sex, with chronic migraine without abuse, who had been treated preventively for the first time with topiramate or flunarizine. RESULTS: Forty patients treated with flunarizine were assigned a patient of their same sex and age who was being treated with topiramate. The mean rate of reduction in intense migraines in the topiramate group was 59% and in the flunarizine group, 58.5% (p = 0.9444); the responder rate at four months of treatment did not show any significant differences either, the figures being 75% for topiramate and 70% for flunarizine (p = 0.6236). The mean reduction of other headaches in the topiramate group was 57% and in the flunarizine group, 64% (p = 0.4261); the responder rate at four months of treatment was similar in the two groups: 76%. The percentage of dropouts from treatment was higher with topiramate (19.5%) than with flunarizine (10%) (p = 0.3493). No serious side effects occurred in either of the groups. In all, 78.9% of the patients who took topiramate said they were satisfied with the drug versus 75% of those in the flunarizine group (p = 0.7903). CONCLUSIONS: Flunarizine proved to be as effective as topiramate in the treatment of chronic migraine without medication abuse.

TITLE: Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y la flunaricina en series independientes de pacientes con migraña cronica sin abuso de medicacion.Introduccion. El topiramato y la onabotulinumtoxina A han mostrado ser eficaces en la migraña cronica con o sin abuso de farmacos segun los criterios recientes de la Clasificacion de Cefaleas de la Sociedad Internacional de Cefaleas. Objetivo. Demostrar que la flunaricina es tan efectiva como el topiramato en la migraña cronica sin abuso de farmacos. Pacientes y metodos. Estudio prospectivo, no aleatorizado, comparativo de dos grupos de pacientes con similar edad y sexo, con migraña cronica sin abuso, tratados preventivamente por primera vez con topiramato o flunaricina. Resultados. A 40 pacientes tratados con flunaricina se les asigno un paciente del mismo sexo y edad tratado con topiramato. La media de reduccion de las migrañas intensas en el grupo del topiramato fue del 59% y en el grupo de la flunaricina, del 58,5% (p = 0,9444); la tasa de respondedores al cuarto mes de tratamiento tampoco mostro diferencias significativas, ya que fue del 75% para el topiramato y del 70% para la flunaricina (p = 0,6236). La media de reduccion de otras cefaleas en el grupo del topiramato fue del 57%, y en el grupo de la flunaricina, del 64% (p = 0,4261); la tasa de respondedores al cuarto mes de tratamiento fue del 76%, similar en ambos grupos. El porcentaje de abandonos del tratamiento fue mayor con el topiramato (19,5%) que con la flunaricina (10%) (p = 0,3493). En ninguno de los dos grupos hubo efectos adversos graves. Un 78,9% de los pacientes que tomo topiramato presento satisfaccion con el farmaco frente al 75% del grupo de la flunaricina (p = 0,7903). Conclusion. La flunaricina mostro ser tan efectiva como el topiramato en el tratamiento de la migraña cronica sin abuso de farmacos.

Coincidencia temporal de miastenia grave y síndrome de Guillain-Barré: primer caso publicado en España / Simultaneous myasthenia gravis and Guillain-Barré syndrome: the first case reported in Spain

No disponible

Coincidencia temporal de miastenia grave y síndrome de Guillain-Barré: primer caso publicado en España / Simultaneous myasthenia gravis and Guillain-Barre syndrome: the first case reported in Spain

No disponible

Factores predisponentes al abandono del tratamiento preventivo en una serie de pacientes con migraña / Predisposing factors affecting drop-out rates in preventive treatment in a series of patients with migraine

Introducción. Más de un 30% de pacientes abandona el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña. Esta situación es poco conocida y los factores de riesgo que llevan al abandono del tratamiento tampoco están identificados. Objetivo. Valorar alguno de los factores que pueden predisponer al abandono de un tratamiento preventivo. Pacientes y métodos. Es un estudio prospectivo de pacientes con migraña que precisaron tratamiento preventivo por primera vez con uno de tres fármacos considerados de primera línea: un betabloqueante (nadolol), un neuromodulador (topiramato) o un antagonista del calcio (flunaricina). Se establecieron dos grupos según se produjese abandono o no del tratamiento. Se analizaron y compararon diferentes variables demográficas y clínicas en ambos grupos. Resultados. En un total de 800 pacientes con migraña que precisaron tratamiento preventivo por primera vez, hubo un 19,7% de abandonos. En el grupo que abandonó, las variables ‘edad’, ‘número de crisis previas al tratamiento preventivo’ y ‘efectos adversos’ mostraron diferencias significativas con las del grupo de pacientes que no suspendieron el tratamiento preventivo. Conclusiones. El fármaco utilizado como tratamiento preventivo, los efectos adversos, la edad más joven y el menor número de crisis antes de iniciar el tratamiento preventivo favorecieron su abandono. El tipo de migraña episódica o crónica, la presencia de abuso de fármacos y los fármacos utilizados para el tratamiento de las crisis no guardaron relación con la suspensión del tratamiento preventivo (AU)

Introduction. The drop-out rate among patients receiving preventive treatment for migraine is higher than 30%. This situation is not very widely known and the risk factors that lead patients to drop out from treatment have yet to be identified. Aim. To evaluate some of the factors that can predispose patients to drop out of preventive treatment. Patients and methods. We conducted a prospective study of patients suffering from migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time with one of what are considered the top three first-choice drugs, i.e. a beta-blocker (nadolol a neuromodulator (topiramate) or a calcium antagonist (flunarizine). Two groups were established according to whether patients dropped out of treatment or not. Different demographic and clinical variables were analysed and compared in the two groups. esults. Of 800 patients with migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time, the drop-out rate was 19.7%. In the drop-out group, the variables ‘age’, ‘number of seizures’, ‘number of seizures prior to preventive treatment’ and ‘side effects’ showed significant differences with those from the group of patients who did not drop out of preventive treatment. Conclusions. The drug used as preventive treatment, the side effects, a younger age and a lower number of seizures before starting the preventive treatment favoured higher drop-out rates. Whether the migraine was episodic or chronic, the presence of medication abuse and the drugs used to treat the seizures were not related with dropping out of preventive treatmen (AU)

[Predisposing factors affecting drop-out rates in preventive treatment in a series of patients with migraine]. / Factores predisponentes al abandono del tratamiento preventivo en una serie de pacientes con migraña.

INTRODUCTION: The drop-out rate among patients receiving preventive treatment for migraine is higher than 30%. This situation is not very widely known and the risk factors that lead patients to drop out from treatment have yet to be identified. AIM: To evaluate some of the factors that can predispose patients to drop out of preventive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of patients suffering from migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time with one of what are considered the top three first-choice drugs, i.e. a beta-blocker (nadolol), a neuromodulator (topiramate) or a calcium antagonist (flunarizine). Two groups were established according to whether patients dropped out of treatment or not. Different demographic and clinical variables were analysed and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Of 800 patients with migraine who required preventive treatment for the first time, the drop-out rate was 19.7%. In the drop-out group, the variables 'age', 'number of seizures', 'number of seizures prior to preventive treatment' and 'side effects' showed significant differences with those from the group of patients who did not drop out of preventive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The drug used as preventive treatment, the side effects, a younger age and a lower number of seizures before starting the preventive treatment favoured higher drop-out rates. Whether the migraine was episodic or chronic, the presence of medication abuse and the drugs used to treat the seizures were not related with dropping out of preventive treatment.

[Comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and nadolol in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in independent series of patients]. / Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y del nadolol en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña episodica en series independientes de pacientes.

INTRODUCTION: Topiramate and nadolol with levels A and C of scientific evidence, respectively, would be indicated as preventive treatments of migraine. To date only one study of satisfaction has been carried out to compare the two pharmaceuticals. AIM: To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a database of 700 patients with migraine, those with episodic migraine and who had followed a course of preventive treatment, for the first time, with topiramate or nadolol were selected for the study. The effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of crises at four months of preventive treatment and responder rates) were analysed. RESULTS: Altogether 208 patients with were included for treatment: 140 with topiramate (77.8% females; mean age, 37.9) and 68 with nadolol (69% females; mean age, 36.9). The mean number of crises in the month prior to treatment was: topiramate group, 6.3 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 5.3 +/- 2.0 (p = 0.0066). At four months after starting treatment: topiramate group, 2.69 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 2.6 +/- 2.2 (NS). The percentage of reduction in the number of migraines was 56.6% with topiramate and 51.6% with nadolol (NS). The responder rate (reduction in the frequency of crises by at least 50%) was 71.3% with topiramate versus 69% with nadolol (NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in crises by at least 75%) was 53.3% with topiramate versus 32.2% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Adverse side effects were reported by 54% of patients treated with topiramate versus 30.8% of those treated with nadolol (p = 0.0015). The rate of satisfaction was 61% for the topiramate group and 71% for the group with nadolol (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Both topiramate and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Topiramate was found to be more effective than nadolol, although it was used in patients with a higher frequency of crises, and was not tolerated so well.

Estudio comparativo de la efectividad del topiramato y del nadolol en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña episódica en series independientes de pacientes / Comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and nadolol in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in independent series of patients

Introducción. El topiramato con nivel A y el nadolol con nivel C de evidencia científica estarían indicados como tratamientos preventivos de la migraña. Sólo existe un estudio de satisfacción que compare ambos fármacos. Objetivo. Comparar los parámetros de efectividad en grupos independientes de pacientes tratados preventivamente con uno de los fármacos del estudio. Pacientes y métodos. De una base de datos de 700 pacientes con migraña, se seleccionaron aquéllos con migraña episódica y que habían llevado tratamiento preventivo, por primera vez, con topiramato o nadolol. Se analizaron las variables de efectividad (reducción del número de crisis al cuarto mes de tratamiento preventivo y tasa de respondedores). Resultados. Fueron incluidos 208 pacientes con intención de tratar; 140 con topiramato (77,8% mujeres; edad media: 37,9 años) y 68 con nadolol (69% mujeres; edad media: 36,9 años). La media de crisis en el mes previo al tratamiento fue: grupo con topiramato, 6,3 ± 2,6; grupo con nadolol, 5,3 ± 2,0 (p = 0,0066). Al cuarto mes de tratamiento: grupo con topiramato, 2,69 ± 2,6; grupo con nadolol, 2,6 ± 2,2 (NS). El porcentaje de reducción de migrañas fue del 56,6% con topiramato y del 51,6% con nadolol (NS). La tasa de respondedores (reducción en la frecuencia de crisis al menos del 50%) fue del 71,3% con topiramato y del 69% con nadolol (NS). La tasa de respuesta excelente (reducción de las crisis al menos un 75%) fue del 53,3% con topiramato y del 32,2% con nadolol (p = 0,0077). El 54% de los pacientes tratados con topiramato y el 30,8% de los pacientes tratados con nadolol presentaron efectos adversos (p = 0,0015). La tasa de satisfacción fue del 61% en el grupo de topiramato y del 71% en el grupo de nadolol (NS). Conclusión. El topiramato y el nadolol mostraron ser efectivos en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña episódica. El topiramato mostró mayor efectividad y se utilizó en pacientes con mayor frecuencia de crisis, pero se toleró peor que el nadolol (AU)

Introduction. Topiramate and nadolol with levels A and C of scientific evidence, respectively, would be indicated as preventive treatments of migraine. To date only one study of satisfaction has been carried out to compare the two pharmaceuticals. Aim. To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study. Patients and methods. From a database of 700 patients with migraine, those with episodic migraine and who had followed a course of preventive treatment, for the first time, with topiramate or nadolol were selected for the study. The effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of crises at four months of preventive treatment and responder rates) were analysed. Results. Altogether 208 patients with were included for treatment: 140 with topiramate (77.8% females; mean age, 37.9) and 68 with nadolol (69% females; mean age, 36.9). The mean number of crises in the month prior to treatment was: topiramate group, 6.3 ± 2.6; nadolol group 5.3 ± 2.0 (p = 0.0066). At four months after starting treatment: topiramate group, 2.69 ± 2.6; nadolol group 2.6 ± 2.2 (NS). The percentage of reduction in the number of migraines was 56.6% with topiramate and 51.6% with nadolol (NS). The responder rate (reduction in the frequency of crises by at least 50%) was 71.3% with topiramate versus 69% with nadolol (NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in crises by at least 75%) was 53.3% with topiramate versus 32.2% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Adverse side effects were reported by 54% of patients treated with topiramate versus 30.8% of those treated with nadolol (p = 0.0015). The rate of satisfaction was 61% for the topiramate group and 71% for the group with nadolol (NS). Conclusions. Both topiramate and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Topiramate was found to be more effective than nadolol, although it was used in patients with a higher frequency of crises, and was not tolerated so well (AU)