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

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.

Migraine

Migraine affects about 1 billion people worldwide, and up to 15% of adults in the United States have migraine attacks in any given year. Migraine is associated with substantial adverse socioeconomic and personal effects. It is the second leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide for all ages and the leading cause in women aged 15 to 49 years. Diagnostic uncertainty increases the likelihood of unnecessary investigations and suboptimal management. This article advises clinicians about diagnosing migraine, ruling out secondary headache disorders, developing acute and preventive treatment plans, and deciding when to refer the patient to a specialist.

A survey on the effect of adding aspirin to anti-migraine drugs on the severity of headache in patients with chronic migraine headaches with lateral venous sinus stenosis in MRV

Introduction

One of the probable etiologies raised in patients with chronic migraine headaches is stenosis of the lateral venous sinuses of the brain, which is detectable using magnetic resonance venography (MRV). In this study, we decided to observe the effect of adding aspirin to anti-migraine medicines on the severity of headache in patients with chronic migraine headaches with lateral venous sinus stenosis in MRV.

Methods

The study was a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Patients were included in the study in two groups including 30 people. The first group was treated with propranolol and nortriptyline, and the second group was treated with propranolol, nortriptyline, and aspirin. The severity of headache, number of headaches during one month, and duration of a headache before treatment and one, two, and three months after treatment were examined. Data were analyzed utilizing SPSS software version 19 and statistical tests like t-test, Chi-squared test, Paired t-test, and repeated measure.

Results

The results showed that the mean severity of headache in the second group was significantly lower than the first group two months after treatment (P = 0.003) and three months after treatment (P = 0.002). Additionally, the number of headaches (P = 0.001) and duration of headache (P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the second group than the first group in the first three months after treatment. No statistically significant difference was observed between the frequency distribution of nausea/vomiting in the two groups.

Conclusion

The addition of aspirin to anti-migraine medicines is effective in improving the severity of headache in patients with migraine with lateral venous sinus stenosis of the brain.

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.

Migraine and Stroke: In Search of Shared Pathways, Mechanisms, and Risk Factors

Migraines are one of the emerging causes of disabilities experienced worldwide, and strokes are the second leading cause of death globally. Migraines with aura have been reported to be associated with a higher risk of ischemic strokes, whereas hemorrhagic strokes are more closely associated with migraines without aura, possible mechanisms that link migraines to strokes. These can be categorized into vascular mechanisms such as vasospasm, endothelial and platelet dysfunction, and alteration in the vessel wall seen in migraineurs, further perpetrated by vascular risk factors such as hypertension and hyperlipidemias. Cerebral hypoperfusion that occurs in migraines can cause an electrical aberrance, leading to a phenomenon known as "spreading depression" which can contribute to strokes. In this review, we discuss bloodstream elevation in procoagulants such as antiphospholipid antibodies, homocysteine, von Willebrand factor, and prothrombin. Maintaining pregnant women who actively experience migraines with aura under close observation may be of some value in achieving better outcomes. Women who experience migraines after starting hormonal contraception are at a higher risk of experiencing strokes and stand to benefit from being switched to non-hormonal methods. In this article, we discuss the mechanisms linking migraines and strokes, briefly discuss the pathogenesis, and explore the risk factors contributing to the association therein. In addition, we examine the relationship between migraines and ischemic strokes, as well as hemorrhagic strokes, and review management considerations.

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.

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.

A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

The first manuscript in this series delineated a model of structured headache services, potentially cost-effective but requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We envisaged a need for a new outcome measure for this purpose, applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments.

CONCEPTION AND DELINEATION

A literature review confirmed the lack of any suitable established measure. We prioritised construct validity, simplicity, comprehensiveness and expression in intuitive units. We noted that pain was the key burdensome symptom of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (TTH), that pain above a certain level was disabling, that it was difficult to put economic value to pain but relatively easy to do this for time, a casualty of headache leading to lost productivity. Alleviation of pain to a non-disabling level would be expected to bring restoration of function. We therefore based the measure on time spent in the ictal state (TIS) of migraine or TTH, either as total TIS or proportion of all time. We expressed impact on health, in units of time, as TIS*DW, where DW was the disability weight for the ictal state supplied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies. If the time unit was hours, TIS*DW yielded hours lived with (or lost to) disability (HLDs), in analogy with GBD's years lived with disability (YLDs).

UTILITY ASSESSMENT

Acute treatments would reduce TIS by shortening attack duration, preventative treatments by reducing attack frequency; health-care systems such as structured headache services would have these effects by delivering these treatments. These benefits were all measurable as HLDs-averted. Population-level estimates would be derived by factoring in prevalence, but also taking treatment coverage and adherence into account. For health-care systems, additional gains from provider-training (promoting adherence to guidelines and, therefore, enhancing coverage) and consumer-education (improving adherence to care plans), increasing numbers within populations gaining the benefits of treatments, would be measurable by the same metric.

CONCLUSIONS

The new outcome measure expressed in intuitive units of time is applicable to treatments of all modalities and to system-level interventions for multiple headache types, with utility for CEA and for informing health policy.

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 Comprehensive Review of Over-the-counter Treatment for Chronic Migraine Headaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine headaches are a neurologic disorder characterized by attacks of moderate to severe throbbing headache that are typically unilateral, exacerbated by physical activity, and associated with phonophobia, photophobia, nausea, and vomiting. In the USA, the overall age-adjusted prevalence of migraine in female and male adults is 22.3% and 10.8%, respectively.

RECENT FINDINGS

Migraine is a disabling disease that ranks as the 8th most burdensome disease in the world and the 4th most in women. The overarching hypothesis of migraine pathophysiology describes migraine as a disorder of the pain modulating system, caused by disruptions of the normal neural networks of the head. The activation of these vascular networks results in meningeal vasodilation and inflammation, which is perceived as head pain. The primary goals of acute migraine therapy are to reduce attack duration and severity. Current evidence-based therapies for acute migraine attacks include acetaminophen, four nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), seven triptans, NSAID-triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non-opioid combination analgesics, and several anti-emetics. Over-the-counter medications are an important component of migraine therapy and are considered a first-line therapy for most migraineurs. These medications, such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, have shown strong efficacy when used as first-line treatments for mild-to-moderate migraine attacks. The lower cost of over-the-counter medications compared with prescription medications also makes them a preferred therapy for some patients. In addition to their efficacy and lower cost, over-the-counter medications generally have fewer and less severe adverse effects, have more favorable routes of administration (oral vs. subcutaneous injection), and reduced abuse potential. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based update of over-the-counter pharmacologic options for chronic migraines.

Consensus of the Hellenic Headache Society on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine

More than 0.6 million people suffer from disabling migraines in Greece causing a dramatic work loss, but only a small proportion of migraineurs attend headache centres, most of them being treated by non-experts. On behalf of the Hellenic Headache Society, we report here a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of adult migraine that is based on the recent guidelines of the European Headache Federation, on the principles of Good Clinical Practice and on the Greek regulatory affairs. The purposes are three-fold: (1) to increase awareness for migraine in Greece; (2) to support Greek practitioners who are treating migraineurs; and (3) to help Greek migraineurs to get the most appropriate treatment. For mild migraine, symptomatic treatment with high dose simple analgesics is suggested, while for moderate to severe migraines triptans or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both, should be administered following an individually tailored therapeutic strategy. A rescue acute treatment option should always be advised. For episodic migraine prevention, metoprolol (50–200 mg/d), propranolol (40–240 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), topiramate (25–100 mg/d) and candesartan (16–32 mg/d) are the drugs of first choice. For chronic migraine prevention topiramate (100-200 mg/d), valproate (500–1800 mg/d), flunarizine (5–10 mg/d) and venlafaxine (150 mg/d) may be used, but the evidence is very limited. Botulinum toxin type A and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) are recommended for patients suffering from chronic migraine (with or without medication overuse) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments. Anti-CGRP mAbs are also suggested for patients suffering from high frequency episodic migraine (≥8 migraine days per month and less than 14) who failed or did not tolerate two previous treatments.

Chuanxiong Formulae for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: Migraine is a complex, prevalent and disabling neurological disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of headache without ideal treatment. We aim to assess the current available evidence of herbal Chuanxiong (Ligusticum chuanxiong Hort. root) formulae for the treatment of migraine according to the high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: English and Chinese electronic databases were searched from their inceptions until March 2017. The methodological quality of included study was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. RCTs with Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) score ≥4 were included in the analyses. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot analysis and Egger's test. Results: Nineteen RCTs with 1832 participants were identified. The studies investigated the Chuanxiong formulae vs. placebo (n = 5), Chuanxiong formulae vs. conventional pharmacotherapy (CP) (n = 13 with 15 comparisons), and Chuanxiong formulae plus CP vs. CP (n = 1). Meta-analysis indicated that Chuanxiong formulae could reduce frequency, duration, days and pain severity of migraine and improve the total clinical efficacy rate (P < 0.05). Adverse event monitoring was reported in 16 out of 19 studies and occurrence rate of adverse event was low. Conclusion: The findings of present study indicated that Chuanxiong formulae exerted the symptom reliefs of for migraine.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (two to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days per month or more). Aspirin is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache (TTH) in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database from inception to September 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral aspirin for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. For various outcomes (predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS)), we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT), one additional harmful outcome (NNH), or to prevent one event (NNTp) for oral aspirin compared to placebo or an active intervention.We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies enrolling adults with frequent episodic TTH; 1812 participants took medication, of which 767 were included in comparisons of aspirin 1000 mg with placebo, and 405 in comparisons of aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg with placebo. Not all of these participants provided data for outcomes of interest in this review. Four studies specified using IHS diagnostic criteria; one predated commonly recognised criteria, but described comparable characteristics and excluded migraine. All participants treated headaches of at least moderate pain intensity.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.There were no data for aspirin at any dose for the IHS preferred outcome of being pain free at two hours, or for being pain free at any other time, and only one study provided data equivalent to having no or mild pain at two hours (very low quality evidence). Use of rescue medication was lower with aspirin 1000 mg than with placebo (2 studies, 397 participants); 14% of participants used rescue medication with aspirin 1000 mg compared with 31% with placebo (NNTp 6.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1 to 12) (low quality evidence). Two studies (397 participants) reported a Patient Global Evaluation at the end of the study; we combined the top two categories for both studies to determine the number of participants who were 'satisfied' with treatment. Aspirin 1000 mg produced more satisfied participants (55%) than did placebo (37%) (NNT 5.7, 95% CI 3.7 to 12) (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between aspirin 1000 mg and placebo (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), or aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg and placebo (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.0) (low quality evidence). Studies reported no serious adverse events.The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing aspirin doses between 500 mg and 1000 mg with placebo was low or very low. Evidence was downgraded because of the small number of studies and events, and because the most important measures of efficacy were not reported.There were insufficient data to compare aspirin with any active comparator (paracetamol alone, paracetamol plus codeine, peppermint oil, or metamizole) at any of the doses tested.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of aspirin between 500 mg and 1000 mg provided some benefit in terms of less frequent use of rescue medication and more participants satisfied with treatment compared with placebo in adults with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. There was no difference between a single dose of aspirin and placebo for the number of people experiencing adverse events. The amount and quality of the evidence was very limited and should be interpreted with caution.

The presenting and prescribing patterns of migraine in an Australian emergency department: A descriptive exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurological condition that frequently presents to the emergency department (ED). Many medications are available to treat migraine. This study aims to characterize the demographics of patients who present to a large metropolitan ED with migraine, and to identify the medications used in treating this condition.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective database interrogation of clinical records, used to collect quantitative data on patient demographics and medication prescriptions in the ED.

RESULTS

A total of 2 228 patients were identified as being treated for migraine over a 10-year period. The proportion of the ED population presenting with migraine steadily increased in this time. Females (71%) more commonly presented to the ED with migraine than males. The migraine population was significantly younger (M=37.05, SD=13.23) than the whole ED population (M=46.17 SD=20.50) (P<0.001). A variety of medications were used in the treatment of migraine in the ED. Simple analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, anti-emetics and intravenous (IV) fluids with phenothiazine additives were commonly used. Over 20% of patients were prescribed oral or parenteral opiates (42 of 194 initial medication prescriptions, and 64 of 292 as required medication prescriptions). Triptans were very rarely used.

CONCLUSION

Migraine is an increasingly common presentation to the ED. People presenting to the ED with migraine are more likely to be younger and female than the general ED population. Peak presentations for migraines occurred in January and February. The medications that are prescribed in the ED for migraine is varied and are not always in line with current evidence for the treatment of migraine. The excessive reliance on opiates and lack of the use of triptans denotes a significant variation from published guidelines.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions for migraine in four low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of migraine remains scarce. Our objective was to estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based migraine interventions and their contributions towards reducing current burden in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Using a standard WHO approach to cost-effectiveness analysis (CHOICE), we modelled core set intervention strategies for migraine, taking account of coverage and efficacy as well as non-adherence. The setting was primary health care including pharmacies. We modelled 26 intervention strategies implemented during 10 years. These included first-line acute and prophylactic drugs, and the expected consequences of adding consumer-education and provider-training. Total population-level costs and effectiveness (healthy life years [HLY] gained) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We executed runs of the model for the general populations of China, India, Russia and Zambia.

RESULTS

Of the strategies considered, acute treatment of attacks with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was by far the most cost-effective and generated a HLY for less than US$ 100. Adding educational actions increased annual costs by 1-2 US cents per capita of the population. Cost-effectiveness ratios then became slightly less favourable but still less than US$ 100 per HLY gained for ASA. An incremental cost of > US$ 10,000 would have to be paid per extra HLY by adding a triptan in a stepped-care treatment paradigm. For prophylaxis, amitriptyline was more cost-effective than propranolol or topiramate.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-management with simple analgesics was by far the most cost-effective strategy for migraine treatment in low- and middle-income countries and represents a highly efficient use of health resources. Consumer education and provider training are expected to accelerate progress towards desired levels of coverage and adherence, cost relatively little to implement, and can therefore be considered also economically attractive. Evidence-based interventions for migraine should have as much a claim on scarce health resources as those for other chronic, non-communicable conditions that impose a significant burden on societies.

Central effects of acetylsalicylic acid on trigeminal-nociceptive stimuli

BACKGROUND

Acetylsalicylic acid is one of the most used analgesics to treat an acute migraine attack. Next to the inhibitory effects on peripheral prostaglandin synthesis, central mechanisms of action have also been discussed.

METHODS

Using a standardized model for trigeminal-nociceptive stimulation during fMRI scanning, we investigated the effect of acetylsalicylic acid on acute pain compared to saline in 22 healthy volunteers in a double-blind within-subject design. Painful stimulation was applied using gaseous ammonia and presented in a pseudo-randomized order with several control stimuli. All participants were instructed to rate the intensity and unpleasantness of every stimulus on a VAS scale. Based on previous results, we hypothesized to find an effect of ASA on central pain processing structures like the ACC, SI and SII as well as the trigeminal nuclei and the hypothalamus.

RESULTS

Even though we did not find any differences in pain ratings between saline and ASA, we observed decreased BOLD signal changes in response to trigemino-nociceptive stimulation in the ACC and SII after administration of ASA compared to saline. This finding is in line with earlier imaging results investigating the effect of ASA on acute pain. Contrary to earlier findings from animal studies, we could not find an effect of ASA on the trigeminal nuclei in the brainstem or within the hypothalamic area.

CONCLUSION

Taken together our study replicates earlier findings of an attenuating effect of ASA on pain processing structures, which adds further evidence to a possibly central mechanism of action of ASA.

Pharmacoinformatics elucidation of potential drug targets against migraine to target ion channel protein KCNK18

Migraine, a complex debilitating neurological disorder is strongly associated with potassium channel subfamily K member 18 (KCNK18). Research has emphasized that high levels of KCNK18 may be responsible for improper functioning of neurotransmitters, resulting in neurological disorders like migraine. In the present study, a hybrid approach of molecular docking and virtual screening were followed by pharmacophore identification and structure modeling. Screening was performed using a two-dimensional similarity search against recommended migraine drugs, keeping in view the physicochemical properties of drugs. LigandScout tool was used for exploring pharmacophore properties and designing novel molecules. Here, we report the screening of four novel compounds that have showed maximum binding affinity against KCNK18, obtained through the ZINC database, and Drug and Drug-Like libraries. Docking studies revealed that Asp-46, Ile-324, Ile-44, Gly-118, Leu-338, Val-113, and Phe-41 are critical residues for receptor–ligand interaction. A virtual screening approach coupled with docking energies and druglikeness rules illustrated that ergotamine and PB-414901692 are potential inhibitor compounds for targeting KCNK18. We propose that selected compounds may be more potent than the previously listed drug analogs based on the binding energy values. Further analysis of these inhibitors through site-directed mutagenesis could be helpful for exploring the details of ligand-binding pockets. Overall, the findings of this study may be helpful for designing novel therapeutic targets to cure migraine.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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. Naproxen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); its efficacy in acute migraine has not been established by systematic reviews. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of naproxen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with 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) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) and reference lists, for studies to 22 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using naproxen alone or with an antiemetic 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 (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies using naproxen 275 mg, 500 mg, or 825 mg to treat attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity. Overall, 1241 participants took naproxen (275 mg to 825 mg), 229 took sumatriptan 50 mg, 173 took naratriptan 2.5 mg, and 1092 took placebo. No studies combined naproxen with an antiemetic. Studies using naproxen 275 mg provided no useable data for analysis.Naproxen (500 mg and 825 mg) was better than placebo for pain-free response and headache relief. At two hours, the NNT for pain-free response was 11 (17% response with naproxen, 8% with placebo; risk ratio 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.6), moderate quality) and for headache relief was 6.0 (45% response with naproxen, 29% with placebo; risk ratio 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8), moderate quality). The NNT for sustained pain-free response during the 24 hours post dose was 19 (12% response with naproxen, 6.7% with placebo), and for sustained headache relief during the 24 hours post dose was 8.3 (30% response with naproxen, 18% with placebo). Analysing only the lower dose of 500 mg of naproxen did not significantly change the results. Adverse events, which were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal, were more common with naproxen than with placebo when the 500 mg and 825 mg doses were considered together, but not when the 500 mg dose was analysed alone.There were insufficient data for analysis of naproxen compared with sumatriptan, and no data suitable for analysis of naproxen compared with naratriptan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 11 for pain-free response at two hours suggests that it is not a clinically useful treatment. Cochrane reviews examining other commonly used analgesics for acute migraine have reported better (lower) NNT results for the same outcome. Naproxen is not clinically useful as a stand-alone analgesic in acute migraine, as it is effective in fewer than 2 people in 10.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 10, 2010 (Rabbie 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, 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 22 April 2010 for the original review and to 14 February 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen 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 number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were found for this update. Nine included studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better than the lower dose for 2-hour headache relief. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient, with ibuprofen and placebo.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief or 24-hour headache relief.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.