Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

Efficacy and safety of different drug monotherapies for tension-type headache in adults: study protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most prevalent neurological disease, with an estimated 1.5 billion cases worldwide. Pharmacotherapy should be considered by patients with TTH who have a limited response to non-pharmacological treatment. However, recommendations for the vast array of therapeutic drugs for TTH partially overlap, with conflicting recommendations for strength in different guidelines; these may confuse the decision-making process of clinicians. Hence, the aims of this study are to analyse the available direct and indirect evidence on different drug monotherapies for TTH in adults, and to generate a treatment ranking according to their efficacy and safety outcomes by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China Biomedical Literature Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and other resources for eligible studies. Randomised controlled trials on different drug monotherapies for TTH will be included. Two review authors (RX and YW) will independently search and select the studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias. A Bayesian NMA will afterwards be conducted to pool the effect measures across all types of monotherapy drugs. The ranking probabilities of the efficacy and safety of different drug monotherapies will be estimated. Heterogeneity will be quantified using the Q statistic and the I² index. Inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence will be assessed by the node-splitting model. In addition, the overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018090554.

Pharmacological differences and clinical implications of various botulinum toxin preparations: a critical appraisal

Three different type A botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTAs) - onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA) - are currently marketed in Europe to treat several conditions. Differences between BoNTA preparations, which depend on their specific biotypes and manufacturing processes, lead to clinically relevant pharmacotherapeutic dissimilarities. All three available products are separately recognized and reviewed in American Academy of Neurology guidelines. The neurotoxin load/100U is likewise different among the different BoNTAs, with the result that the specific potency of the 150kD BoNTA neurotoxin is calculated as 137 units/ng for onabotulinumtoxinA, 154 units/ng for abobotulinumtoxinA, and 227 units/ng for incobotulinumtoxinA. It is important for clinicians to have all three BoNTAs available in order to choose the most suitable preparation for the specific indication in the single patient. Commercially available BoNTAs must be recognized as different from one another, and therefore as non-interchangeable. The essential experience of the clinician is of the utmost importance in choosing the most appropriate treatment.

Using a Genetic Risk Score Approach to Predict Headache Response to Triptans in Migraine Without Aura

A large meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies has recently identified a number of risk loci for migraine without aura (MwoA). In this study, we tested the hypothesis that a genetic risk score based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), previously reported to be associated with MwoA at genome-wide significance, may influence headache response to triptans in patients with migraine without aura. Genotyping of rs9349379, rs2078371, rs6478241, rs11172113, rs1024905, and rs6724624 was conducted with a real-time PCR allelic discrimination assay in 172 MwoA patients, of whom 36.6% were inconsistent responders to triptans. Each genetic risk score model was constructed as an unweighted score, calculated by adding the number of risk alleles for MwoA across each SNP at selected loci. The association with headache response to triptans was evaluated by logistic regression analysis adjusted for triptan, and the P values were corrected for the false discovery rate. The genetic risk score including susceptibility risk alleles at TRPM8 rs6724624 and FGF6 rs1024905 was found to be inversely associated with risk of inconsistent response to triptans (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.43-0.89; false discovery rate q value, 0.045). In addition, adding this genetic risk score to the triptan-adjusted logistic regression model significantly improved (P = .037) the discrimination accuracy, from 0.57 (95%CI, 0.50-0.65) to 0.64 (95%CI, 0.57-0.72). A modest but significant effect on risk of inconsistent response to triptans was identified for a genetic risk score model composed of 2 known risk alleles for MwoA, suggesting its potential utility in predicting headache response to triptan therapy.

Efficacy and safety of DFN-11 (sumatriptan injection, 3 mg) in adults with episodic migraine: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

In a previous randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study in rapidly escalating migraine, a 3 mg dose of subcutaneous sumatriptan (DFN-11) was associated with fewer and shorter triptan sensations than a 6 mg dose. The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of acute treatment with DFN-11 compared with placebo in episodic migraine.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-11 in the acute treatment of adults with episodic migraine (study RESTOR). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects taking DFN-11 who were pain free at 2 h postdose in the double-blind period compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included earlier postdose timepoints, assessments of pain relief and subjects' freedom from their most bothersome symptom (MBS) (among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia). Safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 392 subjects was screened, 268 (68.4%) were randomized, and 234 (87.3% of those randomized) completed the double-blind treatment period. The proportion of subjects who were pain free at 2 h postdose was significantly greater in the DFN-11 group than in the placebo group (51.0% vs 30.8%, P  =  0.0023). Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of subjects treated with DFN-11 were also pain free at 30, 60, and 90 min postdose (P  ≤  0.0195). DFN-11 was significantly superior to placebo for pain relief at 60 min, 90 min, and 2 h postdose (P ≤ 0.0179). At 2 h postdose, DFN-11 was also significantly superior to placebo for freedom from photophobia (P  =  0.0056) and phonophobia (P  =  0.0167). Overall, 33.3% (37/111) who received DFN-11 and 13.4% (16/119) who received placebo experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), the most common of which were injection site swelling (7.2% vs 0.8%) and pain (7.2% vs 5.9%). Chest discomfort was about half as common in the DFN-11 treatment group as it was in the placebo group (0.9% vs 1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study met its primary endpoint, pain freedom at 2 h postdose, with DFN-11 significantly better than placebo, and the incidence of TEAEs and triptan sensations with DFN-11 was low. The 3 mg dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 appears to be an effective alternative to a 6 mg SC dose of sumatriptan, with good safety and tolerability. ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02569853; registered 07 October 2015).

Nociceptive blink reflex habituation biofeedback in migraine

Reduced habituation of the nociceptive blink reflex (NBR) is considered a trait marker for genetic predisposition to migraine. In this open-label randomized controlled study, we aimed to test the efficacy of a biofeedback training based on learning of habituation of the NBR (NBR biofeedback) compared with pharmacological (topiramate) treatment and NBR biofeedback plus topiramate treatment in a cohort of migraine without aura patients eligible for prophylaxis. Thirty-three migraine patients were randomly assigned to three months of treatment with: 1) NBR biofeedback, 2) NBR biofeedback plus topiramate 50 mg (b.i.d.), or 3) topiramate 50 mg (b.i.d.). Frequency of headache and disability changes were the main study outcomes. Anxiety, depression, sleep, fatigue, quality of life, allodynia and pericranial tenderness were also evaluated. NBR biofeedback reduced the R2 area, without improving R2 habituation. However, it reduced the frequency of headache and disability, similarly to the combined treatment and topiramate alone. Reduced habituation of the NBR is a stable neurophysiological pattern, scarcely modifiable by learning procedures. Training methods able to act on stress-related responses may modulate cortical mechanisms inducing migraine onset and trigeminal activation under stressful trigger factors.

OnabotulinumtoxinA: A Review in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine

An intramuscular formulation of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; Botox®) is currently the only therapy specifically approved for the prevention of headaches in adults with chronic migraine (CM) in the EU and North America. This article provides a narrative review of relevant data on the drug in this indication from an EU perspective. OnabotA was originally approved on the basis of pooled data from two phase III studies (PREEMPT 1 and 2). In these pivotal studies, injection of up to five cycles of onabotA (155-195 U/cycle) at 12-week intervals was generally well tolerated and effective in producing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in headache symptoms, acute headache pain medication usage, headache impact and health-related quality of life in adults with CM, of whom approximately two-thirds were acute medication overusers and approximately one-third had failed to respond to ≥ 3 prior oral prophylactic therapies. More recently, the efficacy and tolerability of onabotA over a period of 1 year in the PREEMPT programme has been substantiated and extended by the results of a long-term phase IV study (COMPEL), in which patients received up to nine treatment cycles over a period of 2 years, and by findings from several real-world clinical practice studies from Europe, including the prospective multinational REPOSE and CM-PASS studies. In conclusion, the totality of evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies indicates that onabotA is an effective and generally well tolerated option for the prevention of CM that may be particularly useful for patients who have previously failed to respond to or are intolerant of commonly prescribed oral prophylactics.

Polypharmacy Among Headache Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy can appropriately treat multiple chronic conditions, but it can also increase potential harm. Polypharmacy information for primary headaches is minimal, despite drugs being the main tools to manage headaches.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the prevalence, characteristics and risk factors of polypharmacy in patients with primary headaches and examine whether these variables differ between episodic and chronic headache patients.

METHODS

We analysed polypharmacy (simultaneous use of five or more medications), medication type, comorbidity, and risk factors in 300 patients (mean age 42.81 ± 13.21 years) with primary headaches, divided into episodic and chronic, afferent to a headache centre.

RESULTS

Patients took an average of 4.37 medications. Polypharmacy was common in 40.7% of patients, and among chronic patients, it reached 58.8%. Most patients used medications (mainly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; 73.5%) to treat acute headaches, and 30.4% of episodic and 64.7% of chronic sufferers underwent prophylactic treatment (P < 0.0001), mostly using antidepressants (77.3%). Up to 76.7% of the cohort was taking other medications, primarily for acid-related disorders (21.7%). Comorbidities were present in 59.7% of the cohort. Variables significantly associated with polypharmacy were comorbidities, prophylactic treatment, and triptans (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with primary headaches, mainly young adults, are exposed to high polypharmacy, comparable to that of the elderly. Because increased numbers of drugs increase the risk of adverse reactions, the many medications concomitantly taken by primary headache sufferers should be frequently reviewed.

Optimizing the long-term management of chronic migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA in real life

INTRODUCTION

Management of chronic migraine is challenging. OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A) is the only medication licensed for prevention of chronic migraine, and has been widely adopted in clinical practice. Limited data is available on its long-term use. Areas covered: Data from controlled trials are combined with available data on the long-term use of OBT-A in real-life studies, with information obtained in a recent survey among Italian headache centers, and the clinical experience of the authors. Six areas were identified as relevant to patients with chronic migraine: 1) definition of responders to OBT-A; 2) management of responders to OBT-A; 3) optimal timing of prophylaxis with OBT-A; 4) position of OBT-A in prevention of chronic migraine; 5) management of medication overuse, and 6) patient education. Expert commentary: This review provides an update on the latest evidence regarding the long-term use of OBT-A in chronic migraine and analyzes the critical issues in the decision-making process that emerge from the analysis of the literature and routine practice. A treatment algorithm is proposed for the adoption in the daily practice.

The treatment of migraine patients within chiropractic: analysis of a nationally representative survey of 1869 chiropractors

BACKGROUND

While the clinical role of manual therapies in migraine management is unclear, the use of chiropractors for this condition is considerable. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of chiropractors who frequently manage patients with migraine.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey of chiropractors collected information on practitioner characteristics, clinical management characteristics and practice settings. A secondary analysis was conducted on 1869 respondents who reported on their migraine caseload to determine the predictors associated with the frequent management of patients with migraine.

RESULTS

A large proportion of chiropractors report having a high migraine caseload (HMC) (n = 990; 53.0%). The strongest factors predicting a chiropractor having a HMC include the frequent treatment of patients with axial neck pain (OR = 2.89; 95%CI: 1.18, 7.07), thoracic pain (referred/radicular) (OR = 2.52; 95%CI: 1.58, 3.21) and non-musculoskeletal disorders (OR = 3.06; 95%CI: 2.13, 4.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Several practice-setting and clinical management characteristics are associated with chiropractors managing a HMC. These findings raise key questions about the therapeutic approach to chiropractic migraine management that deserves further examination. There is a need for more primary research to assess the approach to headache and migraine management provided by chiropractors and to understand the prevalence, burden and comorbidities associated with migraine found within chiropractic patient populations. This information is vital in helping to inform safe, effective and coordinated care for migraine sufferers within the wider health system.

Onabotulinumtoxin A for the management of chronic migraine in current clinical practice: results of a survey of sixty-three Italian headache centers

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a complex clinical condition often undertreated. Onabotulinumtoxin A (OBT-A) was approved in Italy in 2013 for symptom relief in patients with chronic migraine who have failed, or do not tolerate, oral prophylactic treatments. However, the impact of OBT-A in clinical practice remains to be defined.

METHODS

To investigate the current management of chronic migraine with OBT-A in clinical practice, a web-based survey was conducted among clinicians working in third-level headache centers across Italy. A 26-item questionnaire was designed and developed by a group of 10 Italian headache specialists to address the following issues: treatment paradigm and OBT-A injection intervals, frequency of treatment and retreatment, definition of responders/non-responders, satisfaction with treatment potential impact of early treatment with OBT-A. Ninety-six headache centers were selected and contacted via e-mail. The online survey was anonymous and carried out using a secure website.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 of the 96 centers (66.7%) completed the questionnaire. Most centers (98.4%) had been using OBT-A for >1 year. OBT-A was administered according to the PREEMPT paradigm in most centers (88.9%). While during the first year of prophylaxis with OBT-A most clinicians (93.6%) repeated OBT-A treatment every 3 months, as recommended, in the following years interval duration was variable. Response to OBT-A was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the headache days by 58.7% of the clinicians, and as a ≥ 30% reduction by 25.4% of them. Almost 60% of the clinicians considered OBT-A as a long-lasting therapy, while for one-third of them treatment could be discontinued in patients showing a benefit for ≥6 months. According to 80% of the clinicians, early administration of OBT-A after the onset of chronic migraine was associated with better outcomes, and 47.6% felt that OBT-A should be recommended as a first-line option.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that in third-level headache centers in Italy OBT-A is used in good compliance with current recommendations. There is agreement about the definition of response as a reduction in headache days by 30% to 50%. Additional effort is required to define response to OBT-A and to establish optimal treatment duration.

Long-term Treatment Benefits and Prolonged Efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Patients Affected by Chronic Migraine and Medication Overuse Headache over 3 Years of Therapy

Background

Chronic migraine (CM) affects about the 2% of the general population and it has been recognized as one of the most-disabling conditions worldwide by the World Health Organization. CM is often associated with the overuse of abortive medication, which determines the worsening of headache itself and the development of a secondary headache called medication overuse headache. The management of these associated conditions is difficult, but a growing amount of evidence is pointing out the effectiveness and the good safety profile of OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA). Despite this, data on OnabotA effects and safety in long-term use lack. The purpose of the present article is to retrospectively assess the efficacy and safety of OnabotA in a cohort of chronic migraineurs with drug overuse from the 18th month of treatment until the third year.

Materials and methods

90 chronic migraineurs with medication overuse were enrolled between January 2013 and February 2017. All patients were treated with OnabotA according to PREEMPT dictates. Before every injection session the headache index, the analgesic consumption, the visual analog scale for pain score, the 36-items short form health survey questionnaire score, the 6-items headache impact test (HIT-6) score and the Zung self-rating anxiety and depression scale scores were collected. Adverse events were carefully registered. A simple linear regression was performed to explore the mean changes in the abovementioned parameters for a single injection session and mean comparison tests were performed using the one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey–Kramer post-hoc test.

Results

A significantly improvement for a single injection was registered for all the above-mentioned parameters. Headache index, analgesic consumption, visual analog pain scale, and 6-items HIT-6 scores were significantly lower than baseline from the 18th month of treatment onwards. The 36-items short form health survey questionnaire scores were significantly higher than baseline at every injections session from the 18th months onwards. Zung scales did not change. No serious adverse events were assessed and no adverse events-related drop-outs were seen.

Conclusion

OnabotA effectiveness and safety last until 3 years of therapy, raising the possibility of the use of this therapy even for many years in CM prevention.

Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases

BACKGROUND

Pain is a very common condition in patient undergoing rehabilitation for neurological disease; however the presence of primary headaches and other cranio-facial pains, particularly when they are actually or apparently independent from the disability for which patient is undergoing rehabilitation, is often neglected. Diagnostic and therapeutic international and national guidelines, as well as tools for the subjective measure of head pain are available and should also be applied in the neurorehabilitation setting. This calls for searching the presence of head pain, independently from the rehabilitation needs, since pain, either episodic or chronic, interferes with patient performance by affecting physical and emotional status. Pain may also interfere with sleep and therefore hamper recovery.

METHODS

In our role of task force of the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCPN), we have elaborated specific recommendations for diagnosing and treating head pains in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this narrative review, we describe the available literature that has been evaluated in order to define the recommendations and outline the needs of epidemiological studies concerning headache and other cranio-facial pain in neurorehabilitation.

Treatment of Cluster Headache: The American Headache Society Evidence-Based Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan).

CONCLUSIONS

This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies.

Pharmacokinetic Variability of Drugs Used for Prophylactic Treatment of Migraine

In this review, we evaluate the variability in the pharmacokinetics of 11 drugs with established prophylactic effects in migraine to facilitate 'personalized medicine' with these drugs. PubMed was searched for 'single-dose' and 'steady-state' pharmacokinetic studies of these 11 drugs. The maximum plasma concentration was reported in 248 single-dose and 115 steady-state pharmacokinetic studies, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was reported in 299 single-dose studies and 112 steady-state pharmacokinetic studies. For each study, the coefficient of variation was calculated for maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve, and we divided the drug variability into two categories; high variability, coefficient of variation >40%, or low or moderate variability, coefficient of variation <40%. Based on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in steady-state studies, the following drugs have high pharmacokinetic variability: propranolol in 92% (33/36), metoprolol in 85% (33/39), and amitriptyline in 60% (3/5) of studies. The following drugs have low or moderate variability: atenolol in 100% (2/2), valproate in 100% (15/15), topiramate in 88% (7/8), and naproxen and candesartan in 100% (2/2) of studies. For drugs with low or moderate pharmacokinetic variability, treatment can start without initial titration of doses, whereas titration is used to possibly enhance tolerability of topiramate and amitriptyline. The very high pharmacokinetic variability of metoprolol and propranolol can result in very high plasma concentrations in a small minority of patients, and those drugs should therefore be titrated up from a low initial dose, depending mainly on the occurrence of adverse events.

Cluster headache in Greece: an observational clinical and demographic study of 302 patients

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is considered the most excruciating primary headache syndrome; although much less prevalent than migraine, it is not rare as it affects more than 1/1000 people. While its clinical presentation is considered stereotypic, atypical features are often encountered. Internationally, cluster headache is often misdiagnosed, undertreated and mistreated.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 302 CH patients, all examined by the same headache specialist. The aim of our study was to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of CH patients in Greece and draw attention to under-management, under-treatment and mis-treatment often encountered in clinical practice; our purpose is to improve recognition and successful treatment of cluster patients by Greek neurologists and other physicians.

RESULTS

In the present cohort, clinical characteristics of CH are similar to those described in other populations. Beyond the standard clinical characteristics, features like side shifts (12.6 %), location of maximal pain intensity outside the first trigeminal branch division (10.2 %), lack of autonomic features (7 %), presence of associated features of migraine and aggravation by physical activity (10 %) were encountered. Four out of five patients had consulted a physician prior to diagnosis. The median number of physicians seen prior to diagnosis was 3 and the median time to diagnosis was 5 years, though it improved for patients with recent onset. Chronic cluster headache, side shifts, pain location in the face or the back of the head and aggravation by physical activity were found, among others, to be statistically significantly related to delayed diagnosis or more physicians seen prior to diagnosis. Even properly diagnosed patients were often undertreated or mistreated.

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster headache, in a large cohort of Greek patients, has the same phenotypic characteristics as described internationally. Uncommon clinical features do exist and physicians should be aware of those, since they may eventuate in diagnostic problems. Most CH patients in Greece remain misdiagnosed or undiagnosed for rather lengthy periods of time, but time to diagnosis has improved recently. Even after diagnosis, treatment received was suboptimal.

Monitoring of adherence to headache treatments by means of hair analysis

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of hair analysis to monitor medication adherence in headache patients undergoing chronic therapy. For this purpose, the following parameters were analyzed: the detection rate of 23 therapeutic drugs in headache patients’ hair, the degree of agreement between the self-reported drug and the drug found in hair, and whether the levels found in hair reflected the drug intake reported by the patients.

Methods

The study included 93 patients suffering from primary headaches declaring their daily intake of at least one of the following drugs during the 3 months before the hair sampling: alprazolam, amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, clonazepam, delorazepam, diazepam, duloxetine, fluoxetine, flurazepam, levomepromazine, levosulpiride, lorazepam, lormetazepam, mirtazapine, paroxetine, quetiapine, sertraline, topiramate, trazodone, triazolam, venlafaxine, and zolpidem.

A detailed pharmacological history and a sample of hair were collected for each patient. Hair samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry, using a previously developed method.

Results

All 23 drugs were detected in the examined hair samples. The agreement between the self-reported drug and the drug found in hair was excellent for most analytes (P < 0.001, Cohen’s kappa); a statistically significant relationship (P < 0.05, linear regression analysis) between dose and hair level was found for amitriptyline, citalopram, delorazepam, duloxetine, lorazepam, and venlafaxine.

Conclusions

Hair analysis proved to be a unique matrix to document chronic drug use in headache patients, and the level found for each individual drug can represent a reliable marker of adherence to pharmacological treatments.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-016-2163-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sex differences in the epidemiology, clinical features, and pathophysiology of migraine

Migraine is two to three times more prevalent in women than men, and women report a longer attack duration, increased risk of headache recurrence, greater disability, and a longer period of time required to recover. Conditions recognised to be comorbid with migraine include asthma, anxiety, depression, and other chronic pain conditions, and these comorbidities add to the amount of disability in both sexes. Migraine-specifically migraine with aura-has been identified as a risk factor for vascular disorders, particularly in women, but because of the scarcity of data, the comparative risk in men has yet to be established. There is evidence implicating the role of female sex hormones as a major factor in determining migraine risk and characteristics, which accounts for sex differences, but there is also evidence to support underlying genetic variance. Although migraine is often recognised in women, it is underdiagnosed in men, resulting in suboptimal management and less participation of men in clinical trials.

Spotlight on frovatriptan: a review of its efficacy in the treatment of migraine

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder, affecting millions of people worldwide. Current guidelines recommend triptans as first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. Frovatriptan is a second-generation triptan with a longer terminal elimination half-life in blood than other triptans (~26 hours). Three double-blind, randomized crossover preference studies have been recently conducted, assessing efficacy and safety of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and almotriptan, respectively. Frovatriptan showed favorable tolerability and sustained effect, with a significantly lower rate of relapse over 48 hours versus the other triptans. These findings were confirmed in a series of analyses of patient subsets from the three studies, including patients with menstrually related and oral contraceptive-induced migraine, hypertension, obesity, weekend migraine, as well as patients with migraine with aura. In all patient subsets analyzed, lower headache recurrence rates were observed versus the comparator triptans, indicating a more sustained pain-relieving effect on migraine symptoms. A further randomized, double-blind study demonstrated that frovatriptan given in combination with the fast-acting cyclooxygenase inhibitor dexketoprofen provided improved migraine pain-free activity at 2 hours, and gave more sustained pain-free activity at 24 hours, versus frovatriptan alone. These benefits were observed both when the combination was administered early (<1 hour after symptom onset) or late (>1 hour after onset). Different pharmacokinetic, but synergistic, properties between frovatriptan and dexketoprofen may make the combination of these agents particularly effective in migraine treatment, with rapid onset of action and sustained effect over 48 hours. These benefits, together with potential cost-effectiveness advantages versus other triptans could drive selection of the most appropriate treatment for acute migraine attacks.

The role of methysergide in migraine and cluster headache treatment worldwide - A survey in members of the International Headache Society

Background Methysergide has been as an effective treatment for migraine and cluster headache for over 50 years but has recently been investigated by the European Medicines Agency due to safety concerns. Methods To assess the need for continuing availability of methysergide, the International Headache Society performed an electronic survey among their members. Results The survey revealed that 71.3% of all respondents had ever prescribed methysergide and 79.8% would prescribe it if it were to become available. Respondents used it more in cluster headache than migraine, and reserved it for use in refractory patients. Conclusion The vast majority of headache experts in this survey regarded methysergide a unique treatment option for specific populations for which there are no alternatives, with an urgent need to continue its availability. This position was supported by the International Headache Society.

Physical therapy for headaches

Background Headache is the medical problem most commonly observed by neurologists. Non-pharmacological treatments are commonly demanded by individuals with headaches, but their evidence of effectiveness is conflicting. Aim The current review provides an updated discussion on what is supported by current scientific evidence about physical therapies for tension-type headache (TTH), migraine, and cervicogenic headache (CeH), and which gaps there still may be in our understanding of the interventions. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, PEDro, and SCOPUS were searched from their inception through March 2015. Results/Discussion Several physical therapies including spinal joint manipulation/mobilization, soft tissue interventions, therapeutic exercises and needling therapies are proposed to be effective for the management of headaches. Current evidence has shown that the effectiveness of these interventions will depend on proper clinical reasoning since not all interventions are equally effective for all headache pain conditions. For instance, evidence of physical therapy in migraine is more controversial than in TTH, since migraine pathogenesis involves activation of sub-cortical structures and the trigemino-vascular system, whereas pathogenesis of TTH is more associated with musculoskeletal disorders, e.g. muscle pain. It seems that multimodal approaches including different interventions are more effective for patients with TTH, migraine and CeH.

Effects of OnabotulintoxinA on Habituation of Laser Evoked Responses in Chronic Migraine

Onabotulintoxin A (BontA) is an efficacious preventive treatment for chronic migraine, though the specific mechanism of action is still under discussion. The study aims: (1) To evaluate pain processing modifications in chronic migraine patients (CM) under single BontA administration in pericranial muscles, by means of CO² Laser Evoked Potentials (LEPs) obtained by the stimulation of the skin over the right frontal and trapezius injection sites and hand dorsum, in a double blind placebo controlled crossover design. (2) To correlate main LEPs findings with clinical outcome after one year of BontA treatment. Twenty refractory CM patients were included in the analysis. The LEPs were recorded in basal conditions and seven days after BontA (PREEMPT protocol) and saline solution injection. The N1, N2 and P2 amplitude and latencies and N2P2 habituation index were evaluated and correlated with the percent change of headache frequency after one year of toxin treatment. After seven days of BontA treatment, a normalization of the trigeminal habituation index was observed, which was correlated with the clinical outcome after one year of BontA therapy. Patients displaying trigeminal LEPs facilitation at T0 time showed a more efficient therapeutic outcome. Neurotoxin may exert a modulating effect on trigeminal nociception, normalizing central neurotransmission.

The use of oxygen in cluster headache treatment worldwide – a survey of the International Headache Society (IHS)

Background

Oxygen is recommended for the treatment of acute cluster headache attacks. However, it is not available worldwide.

Methods

The International Headache Society performed a survey among its national member societies on the availability and the restrictions for oxygen in the treatment of cluster headache.

Results

Oxygen is reimbursed in 50% of all countries responding ( n = 22). There are additional restrictions in the reimbursement of the facial mask and with respect to age.

Conclusion

Oxygen for the treatment of cluster headache attack is not reimbursed worldwide. Headache societies should pressure national/public health authorities to reimburse oxygen for cluster headache in all countries.

Evaluation of guideline-adherent treatment in cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Several treatment guidelines exist for cluster headache. However, it is not yet known how many cluster headache patients are treated according to these guidelines.

METHODS

We enrolled 434 cluster headache patients with confirmed diagnosis referred to two tertiary pain centers. The history of treatment was registered and analyzed according to the treatment guidelines of the European Federation of Neurological Societies.

RESULTS

Regarding acute attack treatment, 62.1% of the episodic and 71.0% of the chronic cluster headache patients were treated according to the guidelines. The efficacy rate was above 92% in both groups. Regarding prophylactic treatment, 31.3% of the episodic and 50.9% of the chronic cluster headache patients were treated according to the guidelines. The efficacy rate was 92.8% for episodic and 70.9% for chronic cluster headache.

CONCLUSION

The rate of guideline-adherent treatment in cluster headache is about 70% for acute treatment and about 35% for prophylactic treatment. The efficacy of this treatment is significantly higher than the efficacy of non-guideline-adherent treatment.

Tension-type headache and sleep

This review describes empirical evidence for a bidirectional relationship between tension-type headache (TTH) and sleep. In its most severe form, chronic TTH (CTTH) affects 2-3 % of the population and can be very disabling. Sleep dysregulation triggers episodic TTH, and sleep disorders may complicate and exacerbate headache. The majority of CTTH sufferers also have insomnia, and longitudinal data suggest that insomnia is a risk factor for new-onset TTH. Similarly, observational studies suggest that sleep disturbance is a risk factor for new-onset TTH and for progression from episodic to chronic TTH (i.e., headache "chronification"). CTTH is the most common headache secondary to sleep apnea and other sleep-related breathing disorders. Psychiatric disorders are comorbid with both TTH and insomnia and may further complicate diagnosis and treatment. Developments in diagnostic classification of sleep-related headache are presented.

Medication overuse and chronic migraine: a critical review according to clinical pharmacology

INTRODUCTION

Chronic migraine is often complicated by medication-overuse headache (MOH), a headache due to excessive intake of acute medications. Chronic migraine and MOH are serious and disabling disorders. Since chronic migraine derives from the progression of originally episodic migraine, the fundamental therapeutic strategy is prevention. This narrative review describes how to try to prevent the development of MOH and how to manage it once it has appeared.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed database search (from 1988 to January 2015) and a review of published studies on chronic migraine and MOH were conducted.

EXPERT OPINION

In spite of progress in migraine treatment, the prevalence of chronic headaches and MOH has not changed in the course of time. Today, a large number of migraine patients have turned to numerous expert physicians and experienced all sorts of prophylactic treatments without decisive benefits. Their condition seems to have crystallized even more as chronic and intractable. This means that to prevent chronification and MOH, we need more effective drugs and better strategies to use them. In particular, we must detect disease biomarkers and predictive factors for drug response that allow for personalized treatment when migraine is still episodic and make analgesic overuse pointless.

Pharmacotherapy options for cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache disorder and the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia. Patients suffer from very severe unilateral headache attacks accompanied by ipsilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms. Previous studies described a high burden of disease due to its impact on social life as well as an increased suicide ideation rate. The mean time to diagnosis in western industrialized countries is estimated at 4 years.

AREAS COVERED

Many treatment options for CH exist, but due to the rarity of the disease, controlled randomized clinical studies remain difficult to perform. This review summarizes the current knowledge about the treatment of CH including internationally accepted treatment guidelines, and an additional MEDLINE search (1 February 2015).

EXPERT OPINION

International treatment recommendations and official guidelines give reassurance about specific pharmacotherapy options for CH, but only few of these are backed by sufficient scientific evidence. The limited therapeutic efficacy in some patients leads to the use of alternative, complementary, but also illicit drugs to better cope with the disease. Many single cases, case series and uncontrolled studies were performed with different substances in an attempt to find a better way to treat or prevent the excruciatingly painful attacks associated with CH. Large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials are desperately needed in order to further increase the quality of patient care for this outstanding but terrifying disease.

The Neuropharmacology of Cluster Headache and other Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are a group of primary headaches including cluster headache (CH), paroxysmal hemicrania (PH) and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT). Another form, hemicrania continua (HC), is also included this group due to its clinical and pathophysiological similarities. CH is the most common of these syndromes, the others being infrequent in the general population. The pathophysiology of the TACs has been partly elucidated by a number of recent neuroimaging studies, which implicate brain regions associated with nociception (pain matrix). In addition, the hypothalamic activation observed in the course of TAC attacks and the observed efficacy of hypothalamic neurostimulation in CH patients suggest that the hypothalamus is another key structure. Hypothalamic activation may indeed be involved in attack initiation, but it may also lead to a condition of central facilitation underlying the recurrence of pain episodes. The TACs share many pathophysiological features, but are characterised by differences in attack duration and frequency, and to some extent treatment response. Although alternative strategies for the TACs, especially CH, are now emerging (such as neurostimulation techniques), this review focuses on the available pharmacological treatments complying with the most recent guidelines. We discuss the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the currently used drugs. Due to the low frequency of most TACs, few randomised controlled trials have been conducted. The therapies of choice in CH continue to be the triptans and oxygen for acute treatment, and verapamil and lithium for prevention, but promising results have recently been obtained with novel modes of administration of the triptans and other agents, and several other treatments are currently under study. Indomethacin is extremely effective in PH and HC, while antiepileptic drugs (especially lamotrigine) appear to be increasingly useful in SUNCT. We highlight the need for appropriate studies investigating treatments for these rare, but lifelong and disabling conditions.

Use of a fixed combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine compared with acetaminophen alone in episodic tension-type headache: meta-analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies

Background

Most patients with episodic tension-type headache treat headache episodes with over-the-counter medication. Combination analgesics containing caffeine may be more effective and as well tolerated as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen (paracetamol) and caffeine in episodic tension-type headache using recently recommended endpoints.

Methods

Four randomized, controlled trials of identical design in 1,900 patients with episodic tension-type headache comparing acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine vs. acetaminophen or placebo were pooled. Analysis populations were ‘all headache episodes’ and those with ‘severe pain at baseline’. Post-hoc defined primary endpoint: headache episodes pain-free at 2 h. Secondary endpoints: headache episodes pain-free at 1 h, headache response at 2 h (mild or no pain), degree of interference with daily activities.

Results

6,861 headache episodes were treated, including 2,215 severe headache episodes. The proportion of headache episodes pain-free at 2 h was significantly higher with the triple combination (28.5%) vs. acetaminophen (21.0%) and placebo (18.0%) (p < 0.0001), and similarly for those severe at baseline (20.2% vs. 12.1% and 10.8%; p ≤ 0.0003). A similar pattern of superiority was observed for secondary endpoints. The triple combination was generally well tolerated.

Conclusions

The combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine is effective and well tolerated in episodic tension-type headache, and significantly superior to acetaminophen with regard to being pain-free at 2 h, headache response at 2 h and ability to return to daily activities, even in those with pain rated severe at baseline.

Adverse cardiovascular events associated with triptans and ergotamines for treatment of migraine: systematic review of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Apart from the underlying cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with migraine, both triptans and ergotamines can induce vasoconstriction and potentially increase the risk of serious ischemic events. Because of the low frequency of such events in eligible patients, randomized controlled trials are not exhaustive to assess the drug-related CV risk. Observational studies are, therefore, an essential source of information to clarify this matter of concern.

AIM

The aim of this study was to systematically review the available published observational studies investigating the risk of serious CV events in triptan or ergotamine users, as compared to unexposed migraineur controls.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases for cohort or case-control studies up to December 1, 2013. Studies retrieved from CDSR, DARE and HTA databases of the Cochrane Library were used for snowballing. Studies investigating the risk of any CV outcome in patients with a migraine diagnosis and exposed to triptans or ergotamines were considered for inclusion. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model for studies and outcomes judged eligible for quantitative data synthesis.

RESULTS

From a total of 3370 citations retrieved, after duplicate removal and screening, only four studies met the inclusion criteria (three nested case-control analyses and one retrospective cohort study). These studies investigated the risk of different CV outcomes associated with either the recency or the intensity of exposure to the studied drugs. As for the intensity of use, the pooled OR of serious ischemic events was 2.28 (95% CI 1.18-4.41; I (2 )= 0%) for ergotamine use (two studies), whereas for triptans (three studies) it was 0.86 (95% CI 0.52-1.43; I (2 )= 24.5%). Recent use of ergotamines was not significantly associated with any CV outcome (only one available study). Two studies investigated the risk of stroke related to recent triptan use: the first study reported an OR of 0.90 (0.64-1.26), and the second one suggested an increased risk of 2.51 (1.10-5.71). In this case, because of the high degree of heterogeneity, results were not pooled.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, few comparative observational studies have investigated the CV safety of migraine-specific drugs in clinical practice. Evidence gathered here suggests that intense consumption of ergotamines may be associated with an increased risk of serious ischemic complications. As for triptans, available studies do not suggest strong CV safety issues, although no firm conclusions can be drawn. In particular, evidence on stroke risk is conflicting. However, if an increase of the absolute stroke risk in recently exposed patients does actually exist, it must be small. Overall, residual uncontrolled confounding factors reduce the confidence in the risk estimates collected from the included studies. Further investigations are needed to better define the risk for rare but serious CV events related to triptan and ergotamine use for treatment of migraine.

A review of frovatriptan for the treatment of menstrual migraine

The objective of this review is to provide an overview of menstrual migraine (MM) and of frovatriptan and to assess clinical trial data regarding the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan for the acute and short-term prophylaxis of MM. Randomized controlled trials comparing frovatriptan with placebo or a triptan comparator for the acute or prophylactic treatment of MM were selected for review. MM affects up to 60% of women with migraine. Compared with attacks at other times of the cycle, menstrual attacks are longer, more severe, less responsive to treatment, more likely to relapse, and more disabling than attacks at other times of the cycle. No drugs are licensed for acute treatment of MM; triptans are recommended for treatment of moderate to severe attacks for menstrual and nonmenstrual attacks. Perimenstrual prophylaxis is indicated for patients with predictable MM that does not respond to symptomatic treatment alone. Treatment is unlicensed, but options include triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and hormone manipulation. Frovatriptan is distinctive from other triptans due to its long elimination half-life of 26 hours, which confers a longer duration of action. Post hoc analyses from randomized trials of MM show similar pain relief and pain-free rates for frovatriptan compared with other triptans (2 hours pain-free: relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.76) but significantly lower relapse rates (24 hours sustained pain-free: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18–0.62). Data from randomized controlled trials show a significant reduction in risk of MM in women using frovatriptan 2.5 mg once daily (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31–1.86) or twice daily (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.68–2.34) for perimenstrual prophylaxis compared with placebo. The twice daily dosing was more effective than once daily (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11–1.46). These findings support the use of frovatriptan as a first-line acute treatment for MM and for perimenstrual prophylaxis.

Results of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose study comparing the fixed combination of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid, and caffeine with ibuprofen for acute treatment of patients with severe migraine

Introduction

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose study ( n = 1555), a fixed combination of acetaminophen 500 mg, acetylsalicylic acid 500 mg, and caffeine 130 mg (AAC) was compared with ibuprofen 400 mg (IB) and placebo (PLA) for acute treatment of migraine.

Subjects and methods

An exploratory post-hoc analysis compared AAC with IB and PLA in the subset of patients with severe pain at baseline ( n = 660).

Results

At most time points, AAC and IB relieved the pain and associated symptoms of severe migraine significantly better than PLA ( p ≤ 0.05). AAC was significantly superior to IB for pain relief at 45 minutes and at one, two, three, and four hours postdose ( p < 0.04); pain intensity difference from one hour through three hours ( p < 0.05); headache response at two hours ( p = 0.04); functional disability reduced to little or none at three hours ( p = 0.013); freedom from phonophobia at three hours ( p = 0.04) and photophobia at 15 minutes postdose ( p = 0.03); and use of rescue medication ( p = 0.018). AAC patients also reported meaningful pain relief 16 minutes faster than IB patients (132 minutes vs 148 minutes, p = 0.026).

Conclusions

In patients with severe baseline migraine pain, AAC and IB are significantly more effective than PLA, and AAC provides significantly faster and more effective pain relief than IB.

Pharmacogenomics of episodic migraine: time has come for a step forward

Migraine is characterized by heterogeneous behavior in response to drugs. Many resources have been invested in attempting to unravel the genetic basis of migraine, while the role of genetics in responses to currently available drugs has received less attention. We performed a systematic literature search identifying original articles pertaining to pharmacogenomics of episodic migraine. Few primary studies on the pharmacogenomics of symptomatic and preventive medication in episodic migraine were found. The number of patients studied in the individual articles ranged from 40 up to 130. There was a strong heterogeneity among these studies. We believe that pharmacogenomics studies, if properly designed, could contribute towards optimizing the treatment and reducing the burden of migraine, in turn helping patients and optimizing resources. Our knowledge on the pharmacogenomics of migraine is growing too slowly, and concerted measures should be undertaken to speed up the process.

Frovatriptan vs. other triptans for the acute treatment of oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter studies

Oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine (OCMM) is a particularly severe form of migraine triggered by the cyclic hormone withdrawal. To review the efficacy of frovatriptan vs. other triptans, in the acute treatment of OCMM through a pooled analysis of three individual randomized Italian studies. With or without aura migraineurs were randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg (study 1), frovatriptan 2.5 mg or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (study 2), frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg (study 3). All studies had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating 1-3 episodes of migraine in 3 months with the first treatment, patients switched to the other treatment for the next 3 months. In this analysis, the subset of 35 of the 280 women of the intention-to-treat population taking combined oral contraceptives and experiencing a migraine attack during the withdrawal phase, were analyzed. The proportion of pain free and pain relief at 2 h were 25 and 51 % with frovatriptan and 28 and 48 % with comparators (p = NS). At 24 h, 71 and 83 % of frovatriptan-treated patients and 60 and 76 % of comparator-treated patients were pain free (p < 0.05 between treatments) and had pain relief (p = NS), respectively. Relapse at 24 and 48 h was significantly (p < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (17 and 21 %) than with the comparators (27 and 31 %). Our results suggest that, due to its sustained antimigraine effect, frovatriptan may be particularly suitable for the management of OCMM than other triptans.

Comparison of frovatriptan plus dexketoprofen (25 mg or 37.5 mg) with frovatriptan alone in the treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Drugs for migraine attacks include triptans and NSAIDs; their combination could provide greater symptom relief.

METHODS

A total of 314 subjects with history of migraine, with or without aura, were randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg alone (Frova), frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 25 mg (FroDex25) or frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 37.5 mg (FroDex37.5) and treated at least one migraine attack. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary end point was the proportion of pain free (PF) at two hours. Secondary end points were PF at one and four hours, pain relief (PR) at one, two, four hours, sustained PF (SPF) at 24 and 48 hours, recurrence at 48 hours, resolution of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia at two and four hours, the use of rescue medication and the judgment of the treatment.

RESULTS

The results were assessed in the full analysis set (FAS) population, which included all subjects randomized and treated for whom at least one post-dose intensity of headache was recorded. The proportions of subjects PF at two hours (primary end point) were 29% (27/93) with Frova compared with 51% (48/95 FroDex25 and 46/91 FroDex37.5) with each combination therapies ( P < 0.05). Proportions of SPF at 24 hours were 24% (22/93) for Frova, 43% (41/95) for FroDex25 ( P < 0.001) and 42% (38/91) for FroDex37.5 ( P < 0.05). SPF at 48 hours was 23% (21/93) with Frova, 36% (34/95) with FroDex25 and 33% (30/91) with FroDex37.5 ( P = NS). Recurrence was similar for Frova (22%, 6/27), FroDex25 (29%, 14/48) and FroDex37.5 (28%, 13/46) ( P = NS), meaning a lack of improvement with the combination therapy. Statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed. No statistically significant differences were reported in the occurrence of total and drug-related adverse events. FroDex25 and FroDex37.5 showed a similar efficacy both for primary and secondary end points. There did not seem to be a dose response curve for the addition of dexketoprofen.

CONCLUSION

FroDex improved initial efficacy at two hours compared to Frova whilst maintaining efficacy at 48 hours in this study. Tolerability profiles were comparable. Intrinsic pharmacokinetic properties of the two single drugs contribute to this improved efficacy profile.