Naproxen 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.

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

Medication overuse headache is associated with elevated lipopolysaccharide binding protein and pro-inflammatory molecules in the bloodstream

OBJECTIVE

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a secondary headache that accompanies chronic migraine. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently used analgesics worldwide and they are known to induce leaky gut. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether NSAID induced MOH is associated with altered circulating lipopolysaccharide binding protein (LBP) levels and inflammatory molecules.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Piroxicam (10 mg/kg/day, po) for 5 weeks was used to induce MOH in female Sprague Dawley rats. Pain behavior was evaluated by periorbital withdrawal thresholds, head-face grooming, freezing, and head shake behavior. Serum samples and brain tissues were collected to measure circulating LBP, tight junction protein occludin, adherens junction protein vascular endothelial (VE)-cadherin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), IL-6 levels and brain high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) and IL-17 levels.

RESULTS

Chronic piroxicam exposure resulted in decreased periorbital mechanical withdrawal thresholds, increased head-face grooming, freezing, and head shake behavior compared to vehicle administration. Serum LBP, CGRP, IL-6, IL-17, occludin, VE-cadherin levels and brain IL-17 and HMGB1 levels were significantly higher in piroxicam group compared to controls. Serum LBP was positively correlated with occludin (r = 0.611), VE-cadherin (r = 0.588), CGRP (r = 0.706), HMGB1 (r = 0.618) and head shakes (r = 0.921), and negatively correlated with periorbital mechanical withdrawal thresholds (r = -0.740).

CONCLUSION

Elevated serum LBP, VE-cadherin and occludin levels indicating disrupted intestinal barrier function and leakage of LPS into the systemic circulation were shown in female rats with MOH. LPS induced low-grade inflammation and elevated nociceptive and/or pro-inflammatory molecules such as HMGB1, IL-6, IL-17 and CGRP may play a role in the development and maintenance of MOH. Interference with leaky gut and pro-inflammatory nociceptive molecules could also be a target for sustained management of MOH.

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.

The Safety of Celecoxib as an Acute Treatment for Migraine: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been the first-line choice for the acute treatment of migraine attacks for decades; however, the safety of a particular NSAID is related to its treatment dose, duration, and mechanism of action. Although adverse event (AE) risks differ substantially among individual migraine treatments, increased or prolonged exposure to any NSAID elevates risks and severity of AEs.

METHODS

For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of PubMed until July 2022, focusing on the history, mechanism of action, and treatment guidelines informing the safety and efficacy of celecoxib oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

RESULTS

Here we discuss the mechanisms of action of nonselective NSAIDs vs. cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, and how these mechanisms underlie the AEs associated with these treatments. We review the clinical trials that influenced the regulatory history of NSAIDs, specifically COX-2 inhibitors, the role of traditional and new formulations of NSAIDs including celecoxib oral solution, and special considerations in the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose formulations of NSAIDs, such as celecoxib oral solution, provide acute migraine analgesia with similar or fewer associated cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events than previous formulations.

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.

Comprehensive management of adults with chronic migraine: Clinical practice guidelines in Mexico

Introduction:

Migraine is a polygenic multifactorial disorder with a neuronal initiation of a cascade of neurochemical processes leading to incapacitating headaches. Headaches are generally unilateral, throbbing, 4–72 h in duration, and associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and sonophobia. Chronic migraine (CM) is the presence of a headache at least 15 days per month for ≥3 months and has a high global impact on health and economy, and therapeutic guidelines are lacking.

Methods:

Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system, we conducted a search in MEDLINE and Cochrane to investigate the current evidence and generate recommendations of clinical practice on the identification of risk factors and treatment of CM in adults.

Results:

We recommend avoiding overmedication of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); ergotamine; caffeine; opioids; barbiturates; and initiating individualized prophylactic treatment with topiramate eptinezumab, galcanezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or botulinum toxin. We highlight the necessity of managing comorbidities initially. In the acute management, we recommend NSAIDs, triptans, lasmiditan, and gepants alone or with metoclopramide if nausea or vomiting. Non-pharmacological measures include neurostimulation.

Conclusions:

We have identified the risk factors and treatments available for the management of CM based on a grading system, which facilitates selection for individualized management.

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.

Off-label drugs use in neurology outpatient department: A prospective study at a tertiary care teaching hospital

Background:

Off-label drug use refers to any use of an approved or cleared drug that is not included in that product's approved labeling or cleared indications for use. It may be in terms of indication, age group, dosage, or route of administration. Off-label drug prescriptions are common neurology practice.

Aim:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the prevalence pattern of off-label drug use in neurology.

Subjects and Methods:

A prospective, observational, cross-sectional study was carried out in the neurology outpatient department of tertiary care teaching hospital. Data of patients above 18 years were recorded after obtaining their informed consent. The National Formulary of India (NFI) and British National Formulary (BNF) guidelines were used as tools for evaluation of the prevalence of off-label drug use.

Results:

A total of 709 drugs were recorded from the prescription data of 205 patients collected in the duration of 2 months. The results reported 145 (20.45%) and 317 (44.71%) drugs as off-label as per the NFI and BNF, respectively. Prescriptions with minimum 1 off-label drug use were 78.05% – BNF and 46.83% – NFI. The indication was one of the most common causes of drugs being off-label. Out of the total 317 off-label drug uses reported, 84 were unlicensed drug use as per the BNF. There is strong and positive correlation established between the age of the patients, number of drugs prescribed, and total off-label drugs prescribed per patient in the given study. The most common off-label drug use noted was with clonazepam and amitriptyline.

Conclusion:

Off-label prescriptions practice is common in the field of neurology.

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 (Tmax ) 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 (Emax ). Emax was compared with known Tmax 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 (Tmax  = 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, Emax 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.

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.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in October 2013 on 'Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults'.Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. It affects two to three times more women than men, and is most common in the age range 30 to 50 years. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) to 28 October 2015, MEDLINE (via Ovid) from 1946 to 28 October 2015, and EMBASE (via Ovid) from 1974 to 28 October 2015, and two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov). 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 sumatriptan plus naproxen 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 ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new study (43 participants), but it did not contribute any data for analysis. The review included 13 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity. Twelve studies contributed data for analyses: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. We judged only one small study to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated; it did not contribute to any analyses.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of pain-free and headache relief at two hours. The NNT for pain-free at two hours was 3.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.5) when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 (4.3 to 5.7) when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo (moderate quality evidence).Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than with sumatriptan (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review were not changed. Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone were not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.

Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache

BACKGROUND

Migraine and cluster headaches are severe and disabling. Migraine affects up to 18% of women, while cluster headaches are much less common (0.2% of the population). A number of acute and prophylactic therapies are available. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is the therapeutic administration of 100% oxygen at environmental pressures greater than one atmosphere, while normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) is oxygen administered at one atmosphere. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2008 under the title 'Normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen for migraine and cluster headache'.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment and prevention of migraine and cluster headache.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of the following databases up to 15 June 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. For the original review we searched the following databases up to May 2008: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DORCTIHM, and reference lists from relevant articles. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted researchers to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing HBOT or NBOT with one another, other active therapies, placebo (sham) interventions, or no treatment in participants with migraine or cluster headache.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 11 trials with 209 participants. Five trials (103 participants) compared HBOT versus sham therapy for acute migraine, three trials compared NBOT to sham therapy or ergotamine tartrate for cluster headache (145 participants), two trials evaluated HBOT for cluster headache (29 participants), and one trial (56 participants) compared NBOT to sham for a mixed group of headache. The risk of bias varied considerably across these trials but in general trial quality was poor to moderate. One trial may not have been truly randomised and two included studies were reported as abstracts only. Seven trials did not indicate allocation concealment or randomisation method. Notably, 10 of the 11 trials used a sham comparator therapy and masked the outcome assessor to allocation.We pooled data from three trials, which suggested that HBOT was effective in relieving migraine headaches compared to sham therapy (risk ratio (RR) 6.21, 95% CI 2.41 to 16.00; 58 participants, three trials). The quality of evidence was low, having been downgraded for small crossover studies with incomplete reporting. There was no evidence that HBOT could prevent migraine episodes, reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting, or reduce the requirement for rescue medication. There was no evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of cluster headache (RR 11.38, 95% CI 0.77 to 167.85; P = 0.08) (one trial), but this trial had low power.NBOT was effective in terminating cluster headache compared to sham in a single small study (RR 7.88, 95% CI 1.13 to 54.66), but not superior to ergotamine administration in another small trial (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.46; P = 0.16). A third trial reported a statistically significant difference in the proportion of attacks successfully treated with oxygen (117 of 150 attacks were successfully treated with NBOT (78%) versus 30 of 148 attacks treated with NBOT (20%)). The proportion of responders was consistent across these three trials, and suggested more than 75% of headaches were likely to respond to NBOT.No serious adverse events during HBOT or NBOT were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, two new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. There was some evidence that HBOT was effective for the termination of acute migraine in an unselected population, and some evidence that NBOT was similarly effective in cluster headache. Given the cost and poor availability of HBOT, more research should be done on patients unresponsive to standard therapy. NBOT is cheap, safe, and easy to apply, so will probably continue to be used despite the limited evidence in this review.

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.

Treatment of headache following triptan failure after successful triptan therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

Triptans should remain the first choice in migraine abortive treatment. They are not always effective or adequate for specific patients. Before declaring a triptan in appropriate for a given patient, the provider ought to be analytical about the rationale and especially the use of objective efficacy outcome measures and ensure that treatment is prescribed and used appropriately. Other ergot derivatives, especially dihydroergotamine, may on one hand share common contraindications of triptans but on the other hand can be quite effective where triptans failed. Non-steroids are simple, readily available, and overall safe, and evidence for their efficacy in migraine is plentiful. Opioid analgesics are blatantly overprescribed especially in non-complicated migraine patients. These should be used with great care and restraint and closely monitored. Frequent opioid usage often leads to tolerance, dependence, and medication overuse headache. Neurostimulation is gaining momentum in the armamentarium of migraine management but at the present time remains primarily focused on prophylaxis, yet abortive use is expected to grow.

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.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen (administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet) compared with placebo and other active interventions for the acute treatment of migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, together with two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) for studies to 2 August 2013. We also searched the reference list 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 sumatriptan plus naproxen 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 ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. No studies were considered to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for pain-free and headache relief responses. At two hours, the NNT for pain-free response was 3.1 when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (RR 3.65 (95% CI 3.0 to 4.5); high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo.Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than sumatriptan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone are not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.