Secondary stabbing headache associated with intracranial tumors, aneurysms, and arteriovenous malformation: An alarming warning sign.

BACKGROUND: Stabbing headache (SH) is considered as a pure primary headache, but according to a few clinical observations it could also be secondary. Over the past decades, we have been observing the complaint of SH in patients with intracranial vascular and neoplastic lesions. OBJECTIVE: To describe a series of patients with intracranial lesions who experienced SH. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 34 patients with intracranial lesions associated with SH, admitted at Hospital das Clínicas, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil. RESULTS: In this series of 34 patients [29 women, 44 ± 12 years (mean ± SD)] with secondary SH, the causes were intracranial neoplasms (n = 31), cerebral aneurysms (n = 2), or arteriovenous malformation (n = 1). Pituitary tumor (n = 18), meningioma (n = 6), and vestibular schwannomas (n = 4) were the most prevalent types of intracranial neoplasms. All these lesions had intimate contact with the dura mater, including an oligodendroglioma, the only intra-axial tumor in the series. A characteristic in the secondary SH is the crescendo pattern (12/34, 35%), progressing from infrequent attacks to recurrent crises occurring several times a day. The SH lasted from 5 days to 60 months (15 ± 18 months, mean ± SD) until the correct diagnosis [16/34 (47%) of the patients ≤6 months]. The SH was triggered by the movement of the head (5/34, 15%) or Valsalva maneuver (1/34). After surgery, suppression of the SH was observed. In a few of the patients to whom dexamethasone was prescribed, the SH subsided within a few days. CONCLUSION: This study was able to identify clinical red flags associated with intracranial lesions and secondary SH, for example, recent onset of SH, exclusively unilateral (ipsilateral) at the same location, crescendo pattern, triggered by head movements, or Valsalva maneuver.

The pharmacological treatment of migraine in Brazil.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Migraine is a chronic, disabling, and recurrent illness. Despite its burden, preventive medications are often underused, while acute strategies are frequently used injudiciously. Patients may benefit from comprehensive approaches with general informative orientation and formal medication strategies. In developing countries like Brazil, the access to comprehensive tertiary headache centers or updated specialists is somewhat limited, as are the resources available out of some private specialty care clinics. In addition, centers from the public system may not deliver effective care. The aim of this review is to perform a general description of the pharmacological treatments of migraine in tertiary headache centers of Brazil. METHODS: The data of 4 public and 6 private tertiary centers under the care of 16 neurologists involved with headache assistance in different cities of Brazil were gathered. Answers to questions directed to headache specialists, and analyzing data from previous care of patients was used to estimate a description of the general pharmacological approach used in Brazilian centers. The therapeutic options adopted by general practitioners were not considered as those from other medical specialties and holistic medicine, which also treat migraine on a common basis. RESULTS: Estimated data of nearly 4800 patients from 16 neurologists acting in headache clinics from 2005 to 2013 were collected. Headache approach by specialists in Brazil is basically divided into 2 groups. The public services, which assist nonpaying patients, deliver traditional and noncomprehensive approaches as well as prescribe mostly monotherapy. Roughly 30% of their patients do not receive preventive treatments that are generally tricyclic antidepressants or ß-blockers. Private centers, which are usually where paying people attend, as well as a few public centers of excellence, use multidisciplinary approaches and combination of drugs, despite the usual allegation of scarce evidence. Nearly 90% of the patients from these centers receive the prescription of preventive treatments, which are generally tricyclic antidepressants and/or neuromodulators and/or ß-blockers. COMMENTS: There is no consensus on whether patients turning to private tertiary centers are different from those seen in public nonpaying services. However, since it is directly related to economic status and public services may render free specific medications as well as official dispensation of work, it may be argued that patients have less headache impact, and suboptimal care is delivered in these instances. As for the studied private centers as well as for the few public excellence centers, care provided is usually varied, includes a combination of drugs, and prevention is commonly used.

Wine and headache.

BACKGROUND: The notion of migraine attacks triggered by food and beverages has been posited for centuries. Red wine in particular has been acknowledged as a migraine trigger since antiquity when Celsus (25 B.C.-50 A.D.) described head pain after drinking wine. Since then, references to the relationship between alcohol ingestion and headache attacks are numerous. The most common initiator of these attacks among alcoholic beverages is clearly wine. The aim of this review is to present and discuss the available literature on wine and headache. METHODS: A Medline search with the terms headache, migraine, and wine was performed. Data available on books and written material about wine and medicine as well as abstracts on alcohol, wine, and headache available in the proceedings of major headache meetings in the last 30 years were reviewed. In addition, available technical literature and websites about wine, grapes, and wine making were also evaluated. RESULTS: Full papers specifically on headache and wine are scarce. General literature related to medicine and wine is available, but scientific rigor is typically lacking. The few studies on wine and headache were mostly presented as abstracts despite the common knowledge and patients' complaints about wine ingestion and headache attacks. These studies suggest that red wine, but not white and sparkling wines, do trigger headache and migraine attacks independently of dosage in less than 30% of the subjects. DISCUSSION: Wine, and specifically red wine, is a migraine trigger. Non-migraineurs may have headache attacks with wine ingestion as well. The reasons for that triggering potential are uncertain, but the presence of phenolic flavonoid radicals and the potential for interfering with the central serotonin metabolism are probably the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between wine and headache. Further controlled studies are necessary to enlighten this traditional belief.

Temporomandibular disorders and chronic daily headaches in the community and in specialty care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic daily headaches (CDHs) are often associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, large studies assessing the relationship were conducted in general, and not clinical, populations. Thus, clinical exams were not completed. Clinic-based studies with expert diagnosis are, in turn, often small and may not be representative. OBJECTIVE: To contrast the demographic and clinical symptoms of CDH and TMD in participants within the general population relative to patients seen in a headache clinic. METHODS: All inhabitants 10 years and older of a small city in Brazil were interviewed. Those with more than 15 days of headache per month were examined by a team consisting of a neurologist, a dentist, and a physical therapist. Headaches were classified as per the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders and TMD as per the Research Diagnostic Criteria. The procedure was repeated (by the same team) with CDH sufferers consecutively seen in a headache center. RESULTS: Of 1605 inhabitants interviewed, 57 (3.6%) had CDH, and 43 completed all physical assessments. For specialty care group, of 289 patients, 92 had CDH, and 85 completed all assessments. No significant differences were seen for gender and age, but education level was significantly higher among those recruited at specialty care. Muscular TMD happened in 30.2% of CDH patients from the community vs 55.3% in the headache center (difference of -25.1%, 95% confidence interval of difference=-40.8% to -9.4%). No TMD happened in 41.9% of those recruited from the population relative to 20% of those in the headache center (21.9%, 95% confidence interval=6.7-37.1%). CONCLUSION: Individuals with CDH recruited from the general population are significantly less likely to have CDH relative to those selected from the headache center. Issues of generalizability are of concern when conducting clinic-based studies on the topic.

Low-dose topiramate plus sodium divalproate for positive responders intolerant to full-dose monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neuromodulators such as topiramate (TPM) and divalproex sodium (DVS) are effective in the preventive treatment of migraine. Nonetheless, patients often discontinue their use due to side effects. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to determine whether the combination of lower doses of TPM and DVS may be useful for patients responsive to higher doses of the individual drugs but experiencing intolerable side effects. METHODS: This clinic-based study was conducted to evaluate a series of patients who experienced at least a 50% reduction in headache frequency after 6 weeks of treatment with either TPM 100 mg/day or DVS 750 mg/day, but suffered intolerable drug-related side effects. At that point, patients were switched to TPM (50 mg in the morning and 25 mg at night) plus DVS 500 mg/day (single dose) and reevaluated after 6 further weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were evaluated. Mean age was 37 years, and 84% were female. Of the 38, 17 (77.3%) initially were using TPM only, and 10 (62.5%) initially were using DVS only. After 6 weeks on combination therapy, 27 (62.9%) reported improved tolerability without any decrease in efficacy. Five patients who initially were using TPM only and six using DVS only failed to return for follow-up or were noncompliant with treatment due to persistent or worsening side effects. CONCLUSIONS: This small, open-label study suggests that the combination of TPM and DVS in doses lower than those typically used for migraine prophylaxis may be an effective option for patients who benefited from higher doses of these same medications used as monotherapy but were unable to tolerate such treatment due to side effects.

Topiramate plus nortriptyline in the preventive treatment of migraine: a controlled study for nonresponders.

A sizeable proportion of migraineurs in need of preventive therapy do not significantly benefit from monotherapy. The objective of the study is to conduct a randomized controlled trial testing whether combination therapy of topiramate and nortriptyline is useful in patients who had less than 50% decrease in headache frequency with the use of the single agents. Patients with episodic migraine were enrolled if they had less than 50% reduction in headache frequency after 8 weeks of using topiramate (TPM) (100 mg/day) or nortriptyline (NTP) (30 mg/day). They were randomized (blinded fashion) to have placebo added to their regimen, or to receive the second medication (combination therapy). Primary endpoint was decrease in number of headache days at 6 weeks, relative to baseline, comparing both groups. Secondary endpoint was proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in headache frequency at 6 weeks relative to baseline. A total of 38 patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, while 30 continued on monotherapy (with placebo) (six drop outs in the combination group and three for each single drug group). For the primary endpoint, mean and standard deviation (SD) of reduction in headache frequency were 4.6 (1.9) for those in polytherapy, relative to 3.5 (2.3) for those in monotherapy. Differences were significant (p < 0.05]. Similarly, 78.3% of patients randomized to receive polytherapy had at least 50% headache reduction, as compared to 37% in monotherapy (p < 0.04). Finally we conclude that combination therapy (of TPM and NTP) is effective in patients with incomplete benefit using these agents in monotherapy.

Headaches due to external compression.

Headache is one of the most common types of recurrent pain in medical practice. Although nearly everyone has occasional headaches, there are well-defined headache disorders that vary in incidence and prevalence. Among the unusual headache syndromes, headache due to external compression is a poorly studied headache considered to arise as a result of continued stimulation of cutaneous nerves by the application of pressure over the scalp or forehead. The wearing of bands around the head, specifically goggles (such as those worn for swimming), tight hats, or even professional helmets have been described as causative factors. The pain is often constant and more severe at the location where the object is pressing the head. In predisposed patients (ie, those with migraine), external compression may lead to a more severe migrainous headache if the stimulus is prolonged. The mechanism responsible is the compression of trigeminal or occipital nerves branches. The headache resolves after pressure is relieved, or is prevented by avoiding the precipitating cause. Drugs are rarely used.

Barriers to satisfactory migraine outcomes. What have we learned, where do we stand?

Barriers to optimal migraine care have traditionally been divided into a number of categories: under-recognition and underconsultation by migraine sufferers; underdiagnosis and undertreatment by health care professionals; lack of follow-up and treatment optimization. These "traditional" barriers have been recognized and addressed for at least 15 years. Epidemiologic studies suggest that consultation, diagnosis, and treatment rates for migraine have improved although many migraine sufferers still do not get optimal treatment. Herein, we revisit the problem, review areas of progress, and expand the discussion of barriers to migraine care. We hypothesize that the subjective nature of pain and difficulty in communicating it contributes to clinical and societal barriers to care. We then revisit some of the traditional barriers to care, contrasting rates of recognition, diagnosis, and treatment over the past 15 years. We follow by addressing new barriers to migraine care that have emerged as a function of the knowledge gained in this process.

Migraine prevention trials and optimized acute therapy: translating lessons learned into clinical practice.

Different classes of drugs, discovered by serendipity, have been used successfully for migraine prevention for more than 40 years. The progressive knowledge of migraine pathophysiology, brain hyperexcitability, and the specific neurotransmitter systems involved in pain perception has driven the attempts at targeting two crucial mechanisms: the restoration of nociceptive dysmodulation and the inhibition of cortical hyperexcitability. The success of modern research trials with preventive migraine agents (mainly neuromodulators) and optimized treatment of acute attacks with drug combinations aimed at low serotonergic function, neurogenic inflammation, and central sensitization has translated into better outcomes for patients and physicians. Trials combining preventive migraine agents with nonpharmacologic behavioral headache management have yielded additional benefits over either approach alone. With the clinical application of this updated information from clinical trials, migraine impact on productivity, quality of life, and suffering will certainly be diminished. We hope that these achievements will create a stable path of management to benefit our patients, without interruption, into the foreseeable future.

Lysine clonixinate versus dipyrone (metamizole) for the acute treatment of severe migraine attacks: a single-blind, randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are effective to treat migraine attacks. Lysine clonixinate (LC) and dipyrone (metamizol) have been proven effective to treat acute migraine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the intravenous formulations of LC and dipyrone in the treatment of severe migraine attacks. METHOD: Thirty patients (28 women, 2 men), aged 18 to 48 years with migraine according the International Headache Society (IHS) (2004) were studied. The patients were randomized into 2 groups when presenting to an emergency department with a severe migraine attack. The study was single-blind. Headache intensity, nausea, photophobia and side effects were evaluated at 0, 30, 60 and 90 minutes after the drug administration. Rectal indomethacin as rescue medication (RM) was available after 2 hours and its use compared between groups. RESULTS: All patients completed the study. At 30 minutes, 0% of the dipyrone group 13% of the LC group were pain free (p=0.46). At 60 and 90 minutes, 2 (13%) and 5 (33%) patients from the dipyrone group and 11 (73%) and 13 (86.7%) patients from the LC group were pain free (p<0.001). At 60 minutes, significantly more patients from the LC group were nausea-free (p<0.001). Regarding photophobia, there were no differences between groups at 60 minutes (p=0.11). The use of RM at 2 hours did not differ among groups (p=0.50). Pain in the site of the injection was reported by more patients of the LC group compared to the dipyrone group (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: LC is significantly superior to dipyrone in treating severe migraine attacks. LC promotes significantly more burning at the site of the injection.

Adherence to headache treatment and profile of previous health professional seeking among patients with chronic headache: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache is common among patients in neurology clinics. Patients may suffer important economic and social losses because of headaches, which may result in high expectations for treatment outcomes. When their treatment goals are not reached quickly, treatment may be difficult to maintain and patients may consult with numerous health professionals. This retrospective study evaluated the relationship between treatment and the profiles of previous health professionals consulted by patients in a tertiary headache center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records were reviewed of all patients from a headache center who were seen in initial consultation between January 2000 and June 2003. Data related to patient demographic characteristics (sex and age), headache diagnosis, and the profile (quality and quantity) of previous healthcare consultations exclusively related to headache, were collected. The headache diagnoses were confirmed according to the IHS criteria (1988) and to the Silberstein criteria (1994,1996). Although adherence includes taking the prescribed medicines, discontinuing overused symptomatic medications, and changing behavior, among other things, for this study, adherence was defined as when the patient returned at least 2 times within a 3- to 3.5-month period. Patients were separated into groups depending on the number of different healthcare professionals they had consulted, from none to more than 7. RESULTS: Data from 495 patients were analyzed; 357 were women and 138 were men (ages 6 to 90 years; mean, 41.1 +/- 15.05 years). The headache diagnoses included migraine without aura (43.2%), chronic (transformed) migraine (40%), cluster headache (6.5%), episodic tension-type headache (0.8%), and hemicrania continua (0.4%). The 24.2% of patients who sought care from no more than 1 health professional showed a 59.8% adherence rate; 29% of the total had consulted 7 or more health professionals and showed an adherence rate of 74.3% (P = .0004). COMMENTS: In Brazil, the belief is widespread that patients attending tertiary headache centers tend to be those who have consulted with numerous health professionals and are, therefore, refractory and/or have adherence problems. Despite the limitations imposed by the retrospective design and the fact that we excluded other important markers of real adherence, this study suggested the opposite. The patients who had seen the lowest number of health professionals presented the worse adherence profile. One of the possible reasons is that patients receive more comprehensive care in a specialized center. Further prospective studies to confirm these observations are warranted.

Lysine clonixinate vs naproxen sodium for the acute treatment of migraine: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The process of inflammation is crucial in migraine, and several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in the treatment of migraine attacks. Despite their efficacy, the routine use of NSAIDs is limited by side effects as well as incomplete efficacy in some patients. Among the available options, lysine clonixinate (LC) and naproxen sodium (NS) have proved effective in migraine. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of oral formulations of LC and NS in the treatment of moderate or severe migraine attacks, with a double-blind, crossover design. METHODS: Seventy subjects (62 women, 8 men) between ages 18 and 71 years (mean age, 41) with migraine according to the criteria of the International Headache Society were prospectively enrolled. The patients were randomized into 2 groups and each participant treated 2 migraine attacks. Group 1 treated the first attack with LC and the second attack with NS. Group 2 treated 2 attacks in a counterbalanced order. Doses were 250 mg of LC or 550 mg of NS, which were encapsulated for equal appearance. Headache intensity, nausea, photophobia, and side effects were evaluated at baseline, 1 hour, and 2 hours after drug administration. Rescue drugs were allowed after 2 hours for those who didn't respond, and this was also compared between groups. RESULTS: Sixty patients (54 women, 6 men) completed the study. At 1 hour, 13.6% patients who used LC were pain-free compared with 11.9% who used NS (P = .78). At 2 hours, 35.6% patients who took LC and 32.2% who took NS were pain-free (P = .69). At baseline, 52.5% of the patients randomized to group 1 reported nausea, compared with 33.9% in group 2, and both drugs eliminated nausea: At both 1 hour and 2 hours, nausea diminished significantly for those taking LC, but only after 2 hours for those who took NS (P < .0001). Both drugs eliminated photophobia at 1 hour and 2 hours; however, LC was superior to NS in reducing photophobia at 2 hours (P = .027). Ten patients who took LC and 8 who took NS required rescue drugs after 2 hours. Twelve patients who used LC and 16 who took NS reported side effects. COMMENTS: Although this study did not include a placebo arm, which impairs any definitive efficacy claims, we found LC and NS to be similarly effective and well tolerated in patients presenting moderate or severe attacks of migraine.

Acute treatment of migraine. Breaking the paradigm of monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly prevalent disorder. The disability provoked by its attacks results in suffering as well as considerable economic and social losses. The objective of migraine acute treatment is to restore the patient to normal function as quickly and consistently as possible. There are numerous drugs available for this purpose and despite recent advances in the understanding of the mechanisms and different biological systems involved in migraine attacks, with the development of specific 5-HT agonists known as triptans, current options for acute migraine still stand below the ideal. DISCUSSION: Monotherapeutic approaches are the rule but up to one third of all patients discontinue their medications due to lack of efficacy, headache recurrence, cost and/or side effects. In addition, a rationale has been suggested for the development of polytherapeutic approaches, simultaneously aiming at some of the biological systems involved. This paper reviews the fundamentals for this changing approach as well as the evidence of its better efficacy. CONCLUSION: As a conclusion, most of the patients with a past history of not responding (no pain-free at 2 hours and/or no sustained pain-free at 24 hours) in at least 5 previous attacks should undergo a combination therapy suiting to their individual profile, which must include analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents plus a triptan or a gastro kinetic drug. The three-drug regimen may also be considered. In addition, changing the right moment to take it and the choice for formulations other than oral has also to be determined individually and clearly posted to the patient.

Rizatriptan versus rizatriptan plus rofecoxib versus rizatriptan plus tolfenamic acid in the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Rizatriptan is an effective and fast acting drug for the acute treatment of migraine. Some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) have also demonstrated efficacy in treating migraine attacks. There is evidence that the combination of a triptan and a NSAID decreases migraine recurrence in clinical practice. The primary aim of this randomized open label study was to assess the recurrence rates in migraine sufferers acutely treated with rizatriptan (RI) alone vs. rizatriptan plus a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor (rofecoxib, RO) vs. rizatriptan plus a traditional NSAID (tolfenamic acid, TO). We were also interested in comparing the efficacy rates within these three groups. METHODS: We assessed 45 patients from a headache clinic in Rio de Janeiro (35 women and 10 men, ages 18 to 65 years, mean 37 years). Patients with IHS migraine were randomized to one out of 3 groups, where they had to treat 6 consecutive moderate or severe attacks in counterbalanced order. In group 1, patients treated the first two attacks with 10 mg RI, the third and fourth attacks with RI + 50 mg RO and the last attacks with RI + 200 mg of TA. In group 2, we began with RI + TA, followed by RI, and RI + RO. Group 3 treated in the following order: RI + RO, RI + TA, RI alone. The presence of headache, nausea and photophobia at 1, 2 and 4 hours, as well as recurrence and side effects were compared. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients finished the study, treating 184 attacks. The pain-free rates at 1 hour were: RI: 15.5%; RI + RO: 22.6%; RI + TA: 20.3%(NS). Pain-free rates at 2 h were: RI: 37.9%; RI + RO: 62.9%, and RI + TA: 40.6% (p = 0.008 for RI vs. RI + RO; p = 0.007 for RI + RO vs. RI + TA, NS for RI vs RI + TA). At 4 h, pain-free rates were: RI: 69%; RI + RO: 82.3%; RI + TA: 78.1% (NS for all comparisons). The combination of RI + RO was superior to RI and to RI + TA in regard of the absence of nausea and photophobia at 4 hours. Recurrence (after being pain-free at 2 h) was observed in 50% of patients treated with RI, in 15,4% of those treated with RI + RO, and in 7,7% of those treated with RI + TA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations of this study, the combination of RI and RO revealed a higher response rate at 2 hours. Recurrence was also clearly decreased with both combinations in relation to the use of RI alone. Controlled studies are necessary to provide additional evidence.

Overuse of symptomatic medications among chronic (transformed) migraine patients: profile of drug consumption.

Chronic daily headache and chronic (transformed) migraine (TM) patients represent more than one third of the subjects seen in specialized headache centers. Most of these patients may overuse symptomatic medications (SM) taken on a daily basis to relieve headache and associated symptoms. The conversion to the daily or near-daily pattern of headache presentation is thought to be related to the medication overuse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the profile of SM consumption among transformed migraine patients attending a tertiary center. One hundred thirty three consecutive patients (22 men and 111 women, ages 17 to 80) with TM and overuse of SM according to the proposed criteria of Silberstein et al (1994, 1996) were prospectively studied. None of the patients were under treatment for other conditions. Among them, 73 (54.9%) were using one category of SM, while 55 (41.3%) and 5 (3.8%) patients were taking simultaneously two and three categories of SM respectively. The categories of overused symptomatic medications varied from simple analgesics to narcotics, triptans and combinations of ergot derivatives and caffeine and of analgesics and caffeine. The average intake per patient per day was of 3 to 4 tablets and mostly of the patients overused simple analgesics (isolated or in combination with other substances) (75.2%), caffeine containing drugs (71.4%), drugs containing ergotamine derivatives (26.1%), triptans (alone or combined) (15.5%), drugs with narcotics or ansiolitics (13%) and anti-inflammatory drugs (3.7%). The mechanisms by which the overuse of symptomatic medications may play a role in this transformation are uncertain but despite of the necessity of controlled trials to demonstrate the real role of such compounds in the development of transformed migraine, this study emphasizes the necessity for more rigorous prescribing guidelines for patients with frequent headaches.

Primary headache diagnosis among chronic daily headache patients.

Chronic daily headache (CDH) refers to a group of non-paroxysmal daily or near-daily headaches with peculiar characteristics that are highly prevalent in populations of neurological clinics and not uncommon among non-patient populations. Most of the patients with CDH had, as primary diagnosis, episodic migraine, which, with the time, presented a progressive frequency, pattern modification and loss of specific migraine characteristics. Other CDH patients had chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and hemicrania continua, which evolved thru the time to the daily or near-daily presentation. The objective of this study was to determine the primary headache diagnosis among a population of chronic daily headache patients attending a tertiary center for headache treatment. During a 5-year period 651 consecutive chronic daily headache patients attending a private subspecialty center were studied prospectively. The criteria adopted were those proposed by Silberstein et al (1994, revised 1996). Five hundred seventy four patients (88.1%) had episodic migraine as primary headache before turning into daily presentation, 52 (8%) had chronic tension-type headache, 14 (2.2%) had hemicrania continua and 11 patients (1.7%) had new daily persistent headache. CDH is quite frequent in patients from clinic-based studies suggesting a high degree of disability. Emphasis on education of patients suffering from frequent primary headaches with regard to measures that are able to decrease suffering and disability as well as better medical education directed to more efficient ways to handle these patients are necessary to improve outcome of such a prevalent condition.

[Topiramate in the preventive treatment of migraine: experience in a tertiary center]. / Topiramato no tratamento preventivo da migrânea: experiência em um centro terciário.

Frequent migraine attacks require prophylactic treatment. Anticonvulsants have been suggested due to the progressive knowledge that cortical hyperexcitability is involved in migraine pathophysiology. Topiramate is one of these drugs and its efficacy has been demonstrated in several studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the adherence and response to topiramate in migraineurs under treatment in a tertiary center. During a 2-year period, all of the patients receiving topiramate for migraine were evaluated after 3 months. The parameters evaluated were adherence to treatment, frequency reduction of attacks >50% and adverse events. Among 175 patients included, 134 (76.6%) returned. Among the 134 patients evaluated, 82 (61.2%) revealed frequency reduction >50% and 105 (78.4%) patients presented weight loss (average 3.4Kg). The most frequent side effects were paresthesias (39.6%); emotional disturbances (including depression, irritability and anxiety) in 17,9%; thinking impairment (12.7%); memory disturbances (12.7%) and altered taste (11.9%). Despite methodological limitations we concluded that adherence to its use and efficacy occurred in most of the patients. In addition, the side effect profile was acceptable. Further controlled studies are necessary to confirm these observations.

Intravenous lysine clonixinate for the acute treatment of severe migraine attacks: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective in the treatment of migraine. However, few commercially available NSAIDs can be administered IV. Lysine clonixinate (LC), an NSAID derived from nicotinic acid, has been proved effective in various algesic syndromes (eg, renal colic, muscular pain, nerve compression, odontalgia). The oral formulation of LC has been shown to be effective in the treatment of migraine of moderate severity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the IV formulation of LC in the treatment of severe migraine. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective study enrolled patients with severe migraine (without aura) as defined by the criteria of the International Headache Society. When patients presented to a neurology hospital with an outpatient headache unit (Instituto de Neurologia Deolindo Couto, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) with a severe migraine attack that had lasted <4 hours, they were randomized to 1 of 2 groups (IV placebo [25 mL of 0.9% saline] or IV LC [21 mL of 0.9% saline plus 4 mL of LC 200 mg]). Headache intensity and adverse effects (AEs) were assessed before (0 minute) and 30, 60, and 90 minutes after study drug administration. Rescue medication was available 2 hours after study drug administration, and its use was compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (23 women, 9 men; mean [SD] age, 32 [2] years; range, 18-58 years) entered the study. Twenty-nine patients (21 women, 8 men; mean [SD] age, 32 [2] years; range, 18-56 years) completed the study. Three patients (all in the placebo group) did not complete the study (1 patient was unable to rate the pain severity after drug administration and 2 patients refused IV drug administration). Among study completers, 17 patients received LC and 12 placebo. At 30 minutes, 1 patient (8.3%) in the placebo group and 5 patients (29.4%) in the LC group were pain free; the between-group difference was not statistically significant. At 60 and 90 minutes, respectively, 3 (25.0%) and 5 (41.7%) patients in the placebo group and 12 (70.6%) and 14 (82.4%) patients in the LC group were pain free (P = 0.021 and P = 0.028 between groups at 60 and 90 minutes, respectively). Six patients (50.0%) in the placebo group and 1 patient (5.9%) in the LC group required rescue medication at 2 hours (P = 0.010 between groups). Three patients (25.0%) in the placebo group experienced AEs, including vomiting, dizziness, and malaise (1 patient [8.3%] each); 11 patients (64.7%) in the LC group experienced 1 AE, including burning pain at the injection site (5 patients [29.4%]), heartburn (4 patients [23.5%]), and dizziness and malaise (1 patient [5.9%] each) (P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs administered by the IV route cannot be used routinely in an outpatient environment, although an attempt to improve drugs in this class is clearly justified. This study demonstrated that IV LC was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of severe migraine attacks. This finding differs from results with the oral formulation, which is effective only in migraine of moderate severity.

Adherence to migraine treatment does not depend on the number of prescribed medications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the adherence between monotherapy and politherapy in prophylactic migraine treatment. METHOD: Five hundred consecutive patients with migraine from a tertiary center were retrospectively studied as to the number of preventive medications prescribed during the first visit. Adherence, defined as returning for the next consultation after 4 to 6 weeks and following the prescribed regimens, were also evaluated and compared between patients. RESULTS: 71.8% were women, and 6% of the patients did not receive any preventive medication, 11.4% received one drug, 22.2% two drugs, 41.4% three drugs, and 19% four drugs for the prevention of migraine. The overall adherence was 79.6%. Respectively, 73.7, 71.8, 82.6 and 86.3% of those who received the prescription of one, two, three and four drugs returned, complying with the treatment. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in adherence to monotherapy or politherapy (one to four drugs) for the prophylaxis of migraine.

Adherence to migraine treatment does not depend on the number of prescribed medications / A adesão ao tratamento da migrânea não depende do número de medicações prescritas

To compare the adherence between monotherapy and politherapy in prophylactic migraine treatment. Five hundred consecutive patients with migraine from a tertiary center were retrospectively studied as to the number of preventive medications prescribed during the first visit. Adherence, defined as returning for the next consultation after 4 to 6 weeks and following the prescribed regimens, were also evaluated and compared between patients. 71.8% were women, and 6% of the patients did not receive any preventive medication, 11.4% received one drug, 22.2% two drugs, 41.4% three drugs, and 19% four drugs for the prevention of migraine. The overall adherence was 79.6%. Respectively, 73.7, 71.8, 82.6 and 86.3% of those who received the prescription of one, two, three and four drugs returned, complying with the treatment. There is no difference in adherence to monotherapy or politherapy (one to four drugs) for the prophylaxis of migraine. .

Comparar a adesão entre monoterapia e politerapia no tratamento profilático da migrânea. Foram analisados retrospec-tivamente 500 pacientes com migrânea de um centro terciário, com vistas ao número de medicações preventivas prescritas na primeira consulta e adesão ao tratamento após 4 a 6 semanas. 71,8% da amostra era composta de mulheres. Em relação ao tratamento preventivo da migrânea, 6% não receberam medicação preventiva; 11,4% receberam uma droga; 22,2% duas drogas; 41,4% três drogas e 19% quatro drogas. A adesão média foi de 79,6%. Em relação à prescrição de uma, duas, três ou quatro drogas, essa adesão foi respectiva-mente de 73,7, 71,8, 82,6 e 86,3%. Não houve diferenças na adesão à prescrição de medicações em monoterapia ou politerapia (uma a quatro drogas) para o tratamento preventivo da migrânea. .