Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the global population. As traditional pharmacological approaches often fall short in alleviating symptoms, the development of innovative therapies has garnered significant interest. This text aims to summarize the current pharmacological options for managing migraine and to explore the potential impact of novel therapies.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional treatments, emerging therapies, and novel compounds in clinical development, including therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic therapies, and other options. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

Several novel treatment options for migraine have become available in recent years. Emerging pharmacological therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic interventions, and other emerging treatment modalities, may prove to be valuable for the treatment of migraine. Further research, clinical trials, and substantiated evidence are necessary to validate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of these therapeutic options.

Correlation of effectiveness and tolerability assessments from a pharmacy-based observational study investigating the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen plus 100 mg caffeine for the treatment of acute headache

Introduction

Observational studies are valuable for investigating correlations between patient-reported treatment outcomes. In this study, we report a secondary analysis of a published pharmacy-based observational (patient-centered "real-world" outcomes) study on experiences reported by patients who treated their headache with an over-the-counter analgesic.

Methods

A pharmacy-based exploratory survey was conducted in German community pharmacies. Patients buying a fixed-dose analgesic combination product (400 mg ibuprofen + 100 mg caffeine; IbuCaff) to treat their headache were offered a questionnaire that contained-among others-questions about time to onset of pain relief (OPR), assessment of time to onset of pain relief (AOPR), assessment of efficacy and tolerability, and pain intensity 2 h after intake. A correlation analysis of the data was performed. Moreover, perceived treatment effects compared to other acute headache medications used in the past were collected.

Results

The correlation between OPR and AOPR was high (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.594, p < 0.0001). Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesic action within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". The other readouts were correlated as well [assessment of efficacy and % pain intensity difference (%PID) at 2 h: r = 0.487; OPR/AOPR and %PID at 2 h: r = 0.295/0.318; OPR/AOPR and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.206/0.397; OPR/AOPR and assessment of efficacy: r = 0.406/0.594; assessment of efficacy and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.608; p < 0.0001 for all correlations]. Compared to previous treatments, most patients (>89%) assessed the speed of analgesic action, efficacy, and tolerability of IbuCaff as equal to or better than for the previous treatment.

Discussion

Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesia within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". Efficacy assessments for acute headache medication appear to be highly correlated.

Non-CGRP Antagonist/Non-Triptan Options for Migraine Disease Treatment: Clinical Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the association between CGRP and migraine disease is well-known and studied, therapies can target other pathways to minimize migraine symptoms. It is important to understand the role of these medications as options for migraine treatment and the varied mechanisms by which symptoms can be addressed. In the present investigation, the role of non-CGRP antagonist/non-triptan options for migraine disease therapy is reviewed, including NSAIDs, ß-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics. Pharmacologic therapies for both acute symptoms and prophylaxis are evaluated, and their adverse effects are compared.

RECENT FINDINGS

At present, the Food and Drug Association has approved the beta-blockers propranolol and timolol and the anti-epileptic drugs topiramate and divalproex sodium for migraine prevention. Clinicians have other options for evidence-based treatment of episodic migraine attacks. Treatment decisions should consider contraindications, the effectiveness of alternatives, and potential side effects. NSAIDs are effective for the acute treatment of migraine exacerbations with caution for adverse effects such as gastrointestinal upset and renal symptoms. Beta-blockers are effective for migraine attack prophylaxis but are associated with dizziness and fatigue and are contraindicated in patients with certain co-morbidities, including asthma, congestive heart failure, and abnormal cardiac rhythms. Calcium channel blockers do not show enough evidence to be recommended as migraine attack prophylactic therapy. The anti-epileptic drugs topiramate and divalproex sodium and antidepressants venlafaxine and amitriptyline are effective for migraine exacerbation prophylaxis but have associated side effects. The decision for pharmacologic management should ultimately be made following consideration of risk vs. benefit and discussion between patient and physician.

Global Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Current Therapeutic Novelties in Migraine Therapy and their Prevention: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The current article reviews the latest information on epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, recent advancements in clinical management, current therapeutic novelties, and the prevention of migraines. In a narrative review, all studies as per developed MeSH terms published until February 2023, excluding those irrelevant, were identified through a PubMed literature search.

METHODS

Overall, migraine affects more than a billion people annually and is one of the most common neurological illnesses. A wide range of comorbidities is associated with migraines, including stress and sleep disturbances. To lower the worldwide burden of migraine, comprehensive efforts are required to develop and enhance migraine treatment, which is supported by informed healthcare policy. Numerous migraine therapies have been successful, but not all patients benefit from them.

RESULTS

CGRP pathway-targeted therapy demonstrates the importance of translating mechanistic understanding into effective treatment. In this review, we discuss clinical features, diagnosis, and recently approved drugs, as well as a number of potential therapeutic targets, including pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), adenosine, opioid receptors, potassium channels, transient receptor potential ion channels (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC).

CONCLUSION

In addition to providing more treatment options for improved clinical care, a better understanding of these mechanisms facilitates the discovery of novel therapeutic targets.

Impact of the Neck and/or Shoulder Pain on Self-reported Headache Treatment Responses – Results From a Pharmacy-Based Patient Survey

Neck and/or shoulder pain (NSP) frequently occurs together with headache. Therefore, we explored how patients with and without concomitant NSP differ in their baseline characteristics and in perceived treatment responses to an analgesic. An anonymous survey was performed among 895 patients with headache (735 self-reported tension-type headache [TTH]) who used an analgesic fixed-dose combination containing 400 mg ibuprofen and 100 mg caffeine as a non-prescription treatment. NSP was abundant among patients in our survey (60%) and was associated with >1 additional day of headache per month. Patients with NSP reported predominantly sedentary work more frequently than those without (40 vs. 29%); they also reported physical tension/poor posture as a perceived trigger factor more frequently (70 vs. 16%). The reported pain reduction was comparable in those with and without concomitant NSP regardless of whether assessed as mean pain rating (from about 6 to 1.5 on a 10-point rating scale), patients experiencing a ≥50% in pain reduction (89.6 vs. 88.8%) or becoming pain-free within 2 h (57 vs. 64%). However, recurrence of pain and use of another dose within the same day were more frequent with than without NSP. We conclude that concomitant NSP is frequent in patients with headache but does not substantially alter responses to a non-prescription medication.

Post-traumatic Headache: Pharmacologic Management and Targeting CGRP Signaling

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Post-traumatic headache is a common sequela of injury to the head and/or neck. Here, we review the current approach to pharmacologic management of post-traumatic headache and explore the therapeutic promise of targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide signaling to address unmet treatment needs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The scarcity of data from controlled trials has left clinicians to rely on mainly expert opinion for the pharmacologic management of post-traumatic headache. The current view is that a phenotype-guided approach should be used, in which patients are treated according to the primary headache phenotype that their clinical features resemble the most (e.g. migraine, tension-type headache). Moreover, incremental advances are being made in the field that aim to identify possible cellular and molecular drivers of headache persistence. Calcitonin gene-related peptide has emerged as a key drug target which, in turn, has prompted novel insights on the potential importance of early initiation of pharmacologic treatment following the onset of post-traumatic headache. This, in turn, might prevent subsequent persistence and chronification of headache.

Progress in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks: From Traditional Approaches to Eptinezumab

Migraine is the second cause of disability and of lost years of healthy life worldwide. Migraine is characterized by recurrent headache attacks and accompanying disabling symptoms lasting 4–48 h. In episodic migraine, attacks occur in less than 15 days per month and in chronic migraine, in more than 15 monthly days. Whilst successful translation of pharmacological discoveries into efficacious therapeutics has been achieved in the preventative therapy of chronic migraine, treatment of acute migraine suffers the lack of effective advancements. An effective treatment affords complete freedom from pain two hours after therapy and provides the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) associated with migraine after 2 h. However, available anti-migraine abortive treatments for acute attacks do not represent an effective and safe treatment for all the populations treated. In particular, the most used specific treatment is represented by triptans that offer 2-h sustained freedom from pain achieved in 18–50% of patients but they are contraindicated in coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease due to the vasoconstriction at the basis of their pharmacologic action. The most novel therapies, i.e., gepants and ditans, are without sufficient post-marketing data for secure use. Here, an attempt is proposed to analyse the rational basis and evidence in favour of investigating the efficacy and safety in acute migraine attacks of eptinezumab, i.e., monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) unique for intravenous infusion administration.

Clinical and pharmacological approaches to the choice of a drug for a tension-type headache relief

The article goes to describe clinical and pharmacological approaches to choosing a drug with an optimal efficacy/safety profile, providing the necessary analgesic effect in tension-type headache. TRPV1 brain receptors are considered the main action point of the mediator. Aim. The purpose of this study is a comparative analysis of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters of ibuprofen and paracetamol as a part of fixed dose combination and as monotherapy in tension type headaches. Materials and methods. Comparative dissolution kinetics test; Comparative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters using the PubMed/MEDLINE database. Results. The median Tmax of ibuprofen as a part of a fixed-dose combination and as a monotherapy is 75 minutes. The median Tmax of paracetamol is 30 min when taken in a fixed dose combination and 40 min as a monotherapy. In patients who received the fixed dose combination, the concentration of ibuprofen in the blood plasma after 10 minutes 6.64 g/ml-1; after 20 minutes 16.81 g/ml-1, while when taken in the same dose in as a monotherapy, respectively, 0.58 and 9.00 g/ml-1. The mean plasma concentrations of paracetamol after 10 and 20 minutes in patients receiving the fixed combination were 5.43 and 14.54 g/ml-1, respectively, compared with 0.33 and 9.19 g/ml-1 for paracetamol as monotherapy. dissolution kinetics test of the Paracytolgin: after 5 minutes, 20% of paracetamol passed into the solution in a system with a pH of 1.2; in a system with a pH of 4.5 36.4%; in a system with a pH of 6.8 33.5%; after 10 minutes, respectively 68.5, 98.0 and 89.6%. After 15 minutes, almost complete dissolution was noted in all systems: 98.5, 98.8 and 100.5%, respectively. Discussion. The combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol makes it possible to enhance the analgesic effect as a result of additive action by the help of central mechanisms. The fixed dose combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol significantly increases the rate of absorption of paracetamol, which has potential therapeutic benefits in terms of a faster analgesias onset. Conclusion. The fixed dose combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol provides faster and long-term anaesthesia with a comparatively lower dosage of each analgesic.

Optimal management strategies for primary headache in the emergency department

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the factors associated with better outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients treated for primary headache.

METHODS

This was a health records review of consecutive patients over a 3-month period presenting to two tertiary EDs and discharged with a diagnosis of primary headache. The primary outcome was the need for second round medications, defined as medications received > 1 h after the initial physician-ordered medications were administered. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine treatment factors associated with need for second round medications.

RESULTS

We included 553 patients, mean age was 42.2 years and 72.9% were females. The most common diagnoses were headache not otherwise specified (48.8%) and migraine (43%). Ketorolac IV (62.2%) and metoclopramide IV (70.2%) were the most frequently administered medications. 18% of patients met the primary outcome. Dopamine antagonists (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.5]) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3-0.8]) ordered with initial medications were associated with reduced need for second round medications. Intravenous fluid boluses ≥ 500 ml (OR 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5-5.2]) and non-dopamine antagonist antiemetics (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-4.2]) were associated with increased need. Opioid use approached statistical significance for receiving second round medication (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We determined that use of dopamine antagonists and NSAIDs were associated with a reduced need for second round medications in ED primary headache patients. Conversely, non-dopamine antagonist antiemetic medications and intravenous fluids were associated with a significantly increased need for second round medications. Careful choice of initial therapy may optimize management for these patients.

Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

FINDINGS

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Diagnosis and treatment of migraine: Russian experts' recommendations

Migraine is one of the most common types of headache, which can lead to a significant decrease in quality of life. Researchers identify migraine with aura, migraine without aura, and chronic migraine that substantially reduces the ability of patients to work and is frequently concurrent with mental disorders and drug-induced headache. The complications of migraine include status migrainosus, persistent aura without infarction, migrainous infarction (stroke), and a migraine aura-induced seizure. The diagnosis of migraine is based on complaints, past medical history, objective examination data, and the diagnostic criteria as laid down in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 rd edition. Add-on trials are recommended only in the presence of red flags, such as the symptoms warning about the secondary nature of headache. Migraine treatment is aimed at reducing the frequency and intensity of attacks and the amount of analgesics taken. It includes three main approaches: behavioral therapy, seizure relief therapy, and preventive therapy. Behavioral therapy focuses on lifestyle modification. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, simple and combined analgesics, triptans, and antiemetic drugs for severe nausea or vomiting are recommended for seizure relief. Preventive therapy which includes antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, botulinum toxin type A-hemagglutinin complex and monoclonal antibodies to calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptors, is indicated for frequent or severe migraine attacks and for chronic migraine. Pharmacotherapy is recommended to be combined with non-drug methods that involves cognitive behavioral therapy; progressive muscle relaxation; mindfulness; biofeedback; post-isometric relaxation; acupuncture; therapeutic exercises; greater occipital nerve block; non-invasive high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; external stimulation of first trigeminal branch; and electrical stimulation of the occipital nerves (neurostimulation).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ibuprofen Lysinate in Comparison to Ibuprofen Acid for Acute Postoperative Dental Pain

INTRODUCTION

Ibuprofen acid is poorly soluble in the stomach, thus reaching maximum plasma levels at approximately 90 min post-dose. Ibuprofen lysinate has been developed to accelerate absorption of ibuprofen to shorten the time to analgesic efficacy. This study compared analgesic efficacy and onset of effect of a single dose of ibuprofen lysinate or ibuprofen acid in patients undergoing third molar extraction.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, parallel-group single-dose study. Adults (18-60 years) undergoing extraction of ≥ 1 third molar were randomized 2:2:1 to ibuprofen lysinate, ibuprofen acid, or placebo postoperatively. Pain relief (PAR, 5-point scale, 0 = none to 4 = complete pain relief) and pain intensity (PI, 100 mm visual analog scale) were assessed between 15 and 360 min post-dose. The primary endpoint was the weighted sum of PAR scores at 6 h (TOTPAR). Time to onset of effect, global assessment of efficacy, and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 351 patients received ibuprofen lysinate (N = 141), ibuprofen acid (N = 139), or placebo (N = 71). Both active treatments significantly reduced pain compared with placebo, from 15 min post-dose to 6 h (TOTPAR: ibuprofen lysinate: 19.57; ibuprofen acid: 19.96; placebo: 8.27). Ibuprofen lysinate was significantly more effective than placebo, but non-inferior to ibuprofen acid, at providing pain relief over 6 h. There was no significant difference between ibuprofen lysinate and ibuprofen acid for onset of analgesia. Both ibuprofen formulations were well tolerated; all adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of ibuprofen lysinate is non-inferior to ibuprofen acid in terms of analgesic efficacy, onset of action, and tolerability in patients who have recently undergone dental surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT No. 2006-006942-33. Plain language summary available for this article.

Why is the therapeutic effect of acute antimigraine drugs delayed? A review of controlled trials and hypotheses about the delay of effect

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral drug treatment of migraine attacks, efficacy is evaluated after 2 hours. The effect of oral naratriptan 2.5 mg with a maximum blood concentration (T_max ) at 2 hours increases from 2 to 4 hours in RCTs. To check whether such a delayed effect is also present for other oral antimigraine drugs, we hand-searched the literature for publications on RCTs reporting efficacy. Two triptans, 3 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), a triptan combined with an NSAID and a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist were evaluated for their therapeutic gain with determination of time to maximum effect (E_max ). E_max was compared with known T_max from pharmacokinetic studies to estimate the delay to pain-free. The delay in therapeutic gain varied from 1-2 hours for zolmitriptan 5 mg to 7 hours for naproxen 500 mg. An increase in effect from 2 to 4 hours was observed after eletriptan 40 mg, frovatriptan 2.5 mg and lasmiditan 200 mg, and after rizatriptan 10 mg (T_max  = 1 h) from 1 to 2 hours. This strongly indicates a general delay of effect in oral antimigraine drugs. A review of 5 possible effects of triptans on the trigemino-vascular system did not yield a simple explanation for the delay. In addition, E_max for triptans probably depends partly on the rise in plasma levels and not only on its maximum. The most likely explanation for the delay in effect is that a complex antimigraine system with more than 1 site of action is involved.

Minimizing Drug Adverse Events by Informing About the Nocebo Effect-An Experimental Study

Relevance: Informing patients about potential adverse events as part of the informed consent may facilitate the development of nocebo-driven drug adverse events (nocebo side effects). Objective: To investigate whether informing about the nocebo effect using a short information sheet can reduce nocebo side effects. Methods: A total of N = 44 participants with weekly headaches for at least 6 months were recruited using the cover story of a clinical trial for a headache medicine. In reality, all participants took a placebo pill and were randomized to the nocebo information group or the standard leaflet group. Participants were instructed to read the bogus medication leaflet entailing side effects information shortly before pill intake. The nocebo group additionally received an explanation about the nocebo effect as part of the leaflet. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, 2 min, and 4 days after the pill intake. We conducted general linear models with bootstrap sampling. Baseline symptoms were included as a covariate. Results: Most participants (70.5%) reported nocebo side effects at 2 min. Participants who received the nocebo information (n = 24) reported less nocebo symptoms than the control group (n = 20) (estimated difference: 3.3, BCa 95% CI [1.14; 5.15], p = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.59). Baseline symptoms, perceived sensitivity to medicine, and side effect expectations each moderated the group effect (estimated difference in slope: 0.47, BCa 95% CI [0.19; 0.73], p = 0.001, d = 0.75; 1.07 [0.27; 1.61], p = 0.006, d = 0.73; 1.57 [0.38; 2.76], p = 0.02, d = 0.58). No group differences were found at 4-day follow-up. After revealing the actual aim of the study, 86% of the participants evaluated the nocebo information to be helpful in general. Conclusions: Results provide the first evidence that informing about the nocebo effect can reduce nocebo side effects.

Which is more effective for the treatment of Acute Migraine Attack: Dexketoprofen, Ibuprofen or Metoclopramide?

Objective:

The aim of this study was head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and rate of adverse events of metoclopramide, ibuprofen and dexketoprofen for the acute treatment of migraine attack in the real-life conditions of a busy emergency department (ED).

Methods:

This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. All patients who presented to the ED with a headache fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All patients were treated by the attending emergency physicians in their daily routine. If an IV treatment in the ED was found indicated by the EP, they selected one of the options in the written departmental migraine treatment protocol.

Results:

During the study period, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median change in the pain score was significantly different among treatment options (p<0.0001). The median pain score change at the end of the 30 minutes for treatment groups were 7.5 mm (IQR: 7.0-8.0), 5.0 mm (IQR: 4.75-7.0), and 7.0 mm (IQR: 6.0-7.25), respectively (p=0.0002). All three groups were found to be significantly different from each other in the post-hoc analysis.

Conclusion:

All drugs compared in this study are effective in the relief of migraine headache. However, IV dexketoprofen seems to be faster and more effective than metoclopramide and ibuprofen.

Migraine Treatment: Current Acute Medications and Their Potential Mechanisms of Action

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder with a significant socioeconomic burden. The management of migraine is multifaceted and is generally dichotomized into acute and preventive strategies, with several treatment modalities. The aims of acute pharmacological treatment are to rapidly restore function with minimal recurrence, with the avoidance of side effects. The choice of pharmacological treatment is individualized, and is based on the consideration of the characteristics of the migraine attack, the patient's concomitant medical problems, and treatment preferences. Notwithstanding, a good understanding of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the various drug options is essential to guide therapy. The current approach and concepts relevant to the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine will be explored in this review.

Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe - evidence from the Eurolight study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is prevalent everywhere, and disabling. It is also neglected: consequently, it is under-diagnosed and undertreated. We analysed data from the Eurolight study on consultations and utilization of migraine-specific medications as indicators of adequacy of medical care in Europe.

METHODS

Eurolight was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in 10 European countries. Sampling was population-based in six (Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain) and from consecutive patients attending general practitioners (GPs) for any reason in three (Austria, France, UK). Additional samples in Netherlands and Spain, and the only sample from Ireland, were recruited by lay headache organisations. We recorded migraine prevalence and frequency, and utilization of medical services and medications (acute and preventative).

RESULTS

Among 9247 participants (mean age 43.9 ± 13.9 years, M/F ratio 1:1.4), 3466 (37.6%) were diagnosed with migraine (definite or probable). Of these, 1175 (33.8%) reported frequent migraine (> 5 days/month) and might clearly expect benefit from, and therefore had need of, preventative medication. In population-based samples, minorities of participants with migraine had seen a GP (9.5-18.0%) or specialist (3.1-15.0%), and smaller minorities received adequate treatment: triptans 3.4-11.0%, with Spain outlying at 22.4%; preventative medication (1.6-6.4% of those eligible, with Spain again outlying at 13.7%). Proportions were greater in GP-based samples (13.6-24.5% using triptans, 4.4-9.1% on preventative medication) and among those from lay organisations (46.2-68.2% and 16.0-41.7%). Participants with migraine who had consulted specialists (3.1-33.8%) were receiving the best care by these indicators; those treated by GPs (9.5-29.6%) fared less well, and those dependent on self-medication (48.0-84.2%) were, apparently, inadequately treated.

CONCLUSION

In wealthy European countries, too few people with migraine consult physicians, with proportionately too many of these seeing specialists, and migraine-specific medications are used inadequately even among those who do. These findings represent yet another call for action in Europe to improve care for people with headache. Education of both health-care providers and the public should be central to this action.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Clinical update on benefit versus risks of oral paracetamol alone or with codeine: still a good option?

BACKGROUND

After decades of worldwide use of paracetamol/acetaminophen as a popular and apparently safe prescription and over-the-counter medicine, the future role of this poorly understood analgesic has been seriously questioned by recent concerns about prenatal, cardiovascular (CV) and hepatic safety, and also about its analgesic efficacy. At the same time the usefulness of codeine in combination products has come under debate.

METHODS

Based on a PubMed database literature search on the terms efficacy, safety, paracetamol, acetaminophen, codeine and their combinations up to and including June 2016, this clinical update reviews the current evidence of the benefit and risks of oral paracetamol alone and with codeine for mild-to-moderate pain in adults, and compares the respective efficacy and safety profiles with those of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

RESULTS

Whereas there is a clear strong association of NSAID use and gastrointestinal (GI) and CV morbidity and mortality, evidence for paracetamol with and without codeine supports the recommended use even in most vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly, pregnant women, alcoholics, and compromised GI and CV patients. The controversies and widespread misconceptions about the complex hepatic metabolism and potential hepatotoxicity have been corrected by recent reviews, and paracetamol remains the first-line nonopioid analgesic in patients with liver diseases if notes of caution are applied.

CONCLUSION

Due to its safety and tolerability profile paracetamol remained a first-line treatment in many international guidelines. Alone and with codeine it is a safe and effective option in adults, whilst NSAIDs are obviously less safe as alternatives, given the risk of potentially fatal GI and CV adverse effects.

Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.

Ibuprofen for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about one person in five worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (1 to 14 headaches per month), and chronic TTH (15 headaches a month or more). Ibuprofen is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of oral ibuprofen for treatment of acute episodic TTH in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database to January 2015. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral ibuprofen for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) of oral ibuprofen compared to placebo for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, all of which enrolled adult participants with frequent episodic TTH. Nine used the IHS diagnostic criteria, but two used the older classification of the Ad Hoc Committee, and one did not describe diagnostic criteria but excluded participants with migraines. While 3094 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any form of analysis were lower than this; placebo was taken by 733, standard ibuprofen 200 mg by 127, standard ibuprofen 400 mg by 892, and fast-acting ibuprofen 400 mg by 230. Participants had moderate or severe pain at the start of treatment. Other participants were either in studies not reporting outcomes we could analyse, or were given one of several active comparators in single studies.For the IHS-preferred outcome of being pain free at 2 hours the NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg (all formulations) compared with placebo was 14 (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.4 to 47) in four studies, with no significant difference from placebo at 1 hour (moderate quality evidence). The NNT was 5.9 (4.2 to 9.5) for the global evaluation of 'very good' or 'excellent' in three studies (moderate quality evidence). No study reported the number of participants experiencing no worse than mild pain at 1 or 2 hours. The use of rescue medication was lower with ibuprofen 400 mg than with placebo, with the number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNTp) of 8.9 (5.6 to 21) in two studies (low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo; RR 1.1 (0.64 to 1.7) (high-quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen 400 mg provides an important benefit in terms of being pain free at 2 hours for a small number of people with frequent episodic tension-type headache who have an acute headache with moderate or severe initial pain. There is no information about the lesser benefit of no worse than mild pain at 2 hours.

Drug therapy in headache

All physicians will encounter patients with headaches. Primary headache disorders are common, and often disabling. This paper reviews the principles of drug therapy in headache in adults, focusing on the three commonest disorders presenting in both primary and secondary care: tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache. The clinical evidence on the basis of which choices can be made between the currently available drug therapies for acute and preventive treatment of these disorders is presented, and information given on the options available for the emergency parenteral treatment of refractory migraine attacks and cluster headache.

Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults

There are many options for acute migraine attack treatment, but none is ideal for all patients. This study aims to review current medical office-based acute migraine therapy in adults and provides readers with an organized approach to this important facet of migraine treatment. A general literature review includes a review of several recent published guidelines. Acetaminophen, 4 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], naproxen sodium, and diclofenac potassium), and 7 triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) have good evidence for efficacy and form the core of acute migraine treatment. NSAID-triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non-opioid combination analgesics (acetaminophen, ASA, and caffeine), and several anti-emetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, and prochlorperazine) are additional evidence-based options. Opioid containing combination analgesics may be helpful in specific patients, but should not be used routinely. Clinical features to be considered when choosing an acute migraine medication include usual headache intensity, usual rapidity of pain intensity increase, nausea, vomiting, degree of disability, patient response to previously used medications, history of headache recurrence with previous attacks, and the presence of contraindications to specific acute medications. Available acute medications can be organized into 4 treatment strategies, including a strategy for attacks of mild to moderate severity (strategy one: acetaminophen and/or NSAIDs), a triptan strategy for patients with severe attacks and for attacks not responding to strategy one, a refractory attack strategy, and a strategy for patients with contraindications to vasoconstricting drugs. Acute treatment of migraine attacks during pregnancy, lactation, and for patients with chronic migraine is also discussed. In chronic migraine, it is particularly important that medication overuse is eliminated or avoided. Migraine treatment is complex, and treatment must be individualized and tailored to the patient's clinical features. Clinicians should make full use of available medications and formulations in an organized approach.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Zolmitriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. These medicines work in a different way to analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with three online databases (www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and apps.who.int/trialsearch) for studies to 12 March 2014. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using zolmitriptan to treat a migraine headache episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (20,162 participants) compared zolmitriptan with placebo or an active comparator. The evidence from placebo-controlled studies was of high quality for all outcomes except 24 hour outcomes and serious adverse events where only limited data were available. The majority of included studies were at a low risk of performance, detection and attrition biases, but did not adequately describe methods of randomisation and concealment.Most of the data were for the 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses compared with placebo, for treatment of moderate to severe pain. For all efficacy outcomes, zolmitriptan surpassed placebo. For oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg versus placebo, the NNTs were 5.0, 3.2, 7.7, and 4.1 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, sustained pain-free during the 24 hours postdose, and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, respectively. Results for the oral 5 mg dose were similar to the 2.5 mg dose, while zolmitriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than 5 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours. For headache relief at one and two hours and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, but not pain-free at two hours, zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray was significantly more effective than the 5 mg oral tablet.For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with zolmitriptan than placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (1 mg to 10 mg).High quality evidence from two studies showed that oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg provided headache relief at two hours to the same proportion of people as oral sumatriptan 50 mg (66%, 67%, and 68% respectively), although not necessarily the same individuals. There was no significant difference in numbers experiencing adverse events. Single studies reported on other active treatment comparisons but are not described further because of the small amount of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zolmitriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks for some people, but is associated with increased adverse events compared to placebo. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg benefited the same proportion of people as sumatriptan 50 mg, although not necessarily the same individuals, for headache relief at two hours.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2010 (Derry 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting, which are commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010 for the original review, and to 13 February 2013 for the update. Two clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com) were also searched on both occasions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches for the update identified one additional study for inclusion. Eleven studies (2942 participants, 5109 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12 (19% response with paracetamol, 10% with placebo), 5.0 (56% response with paracetamol, 36% with placebo) and 5.2 (39% response with paracetamol, 20% with placebo) for 2-hour pain-free and 2- and 1-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain.Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data.Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more serious and/or severe adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 12 for pain-free response at two hours is inferior to at of other commonly used analgesics. Given the low cost and wide availability of paracetamol, it may be a useful first choice drug for acute migraine in those with contraindications to, or who cannot tolerate, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin. The addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; serious and/or severe adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.

Diclofenac with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in Issue 2, 2012 (Derry 2012a). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011 for the original review and 15 February 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1356 participants, 2711 attacks) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient, with diclofenac and placebo.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were found for this update. Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.