A Randomized Controlled Trial of Prochlorperazine Versus Metoclopramide for Treatment of Acute Migraine

Assessment and management of vestibular migraine within ENT

OBJECTIVE

Vestibular migraine is a newly recognised and debilitating condition. This article aims to provide an overview of what is known of vestibular migraine, delineating its diagnostic criteria and presenting some initial management strategies to aid ENT professionals in delivering optimal care when patients first present to the otolaryngology clinic.

METHOD

Although traditionally underdiagnosed, there are now clearly defined diagnostic criteria to aid accurate diagnosis of vestibular migraine.

RESULTS

A detailed history and clinical examination are the cornerstone of the diagnostic process, but supportive evidence is required from appropriate audio-vestibular tests and imaging.

CONCLUSION

This is a unique condition that commonly initially presents to ENT. This article provides a summary of diagnostic and management strategies to facilitate early diagnosis and first-line treatment that can be employed in general ENT settings, which may be particularly useful given the limited availability of specialist audio-vestibular medicine and neuro-otology services.

The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine.

BACKGROUND

Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096).

RESULTS

A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

Managing and Preventing Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Review

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and acute migraine attacks are a common reason for patients to seek care in the emergency department (ED). There have been recent advancements in the care of patients with migraine, specifically emerging evidence for nerve blocks and new pharmacological classes of medications like gepants and ditans. This article serves as a comprehensive review of migraine in the ED, including diagnosis and management of acute complications of migraine (eg, status migrainosus, migrainous infarct, persistent aura without infarction, and aura-triggered seizure) and use of evidence-based migraine-specific treatments in the ED. It highlights the role of migraine preventive medications and provides a framework for emergency physicians to prescribe them to eligible patients. Finally, it evaluates the evidence for nerve blocks in the treatment of migraine and introduces the possible role of gepants and ditans in the care of patients with migraine in the ED.

Formulation of metoclopramide HCl gastroretentive film and in vitro- in silico prediction using Gastroplus® PBPK software

The new trends in pharmaceutical studies focus on targeting drug delivery and computer software that help in the body environment simulation, such as Gastroplus® software. The interest of this study is to prepare a gastroretentive film of metoclopramide HCl (MTC) that was followed by applying the in silico approach to estimate the in vivo prepared formulations. The films were prepared from HPMC E5 and sodium alginate polymers as primary polymers with the aid of secondary polymers. The sodium alginate high proportions films showed instant and long floating duration reaching 24 h but with variable folding endurance. Moreover, sodium alginate films with their secondary polymers carbopol and HPMC E5 slowed the release of MTC. The floating and slow-release patterns assessed the gastroretentive properties of sodium alginate films and were further examined by a mucoadhesive study that guaranteed mucosal adhesion, and the film's FESEM images showed similar top morphology, but different side view structures. Last, the pharmacokinetic profile of selected films that approached the gastroretentive properties was in silico predicted depending on in vitro release study and floating duration employing the physiological-based pharmacokinetic model in Gastroplus® software. The model determines this prediction found successfully of intravenous and immediate oral release tablets (10 and 30 mg) of MTC. The simulation showed a high amount of MTC retained for long periods in the stomach to Sod.Alginate-3, Sod.Alginate-8, and Sod.Alginate-10 films (films of secondary polymers carbopol and HPMC E5) aid in reaching the optimum site of absorption jejunum 1 due to the slow MTC release.

Anatomy and Physiology of Headache

Headache disorders can produce recurrent, incapacitating pain. Migraine and cluster headache are notable for their ability to produce significant disability. The anatomy and physiology of headache disorders is fundamental to evolving treatment approaches and research priorities. Key concepts in headache mechanisms include activation and sensitization of trigeminovascular, brainstem, thalamic, and hypothalamic neurons; modulation of cortical brain regions; and activation of descending pain circuits. This review will examine the relevant anatomy of the trigeminal, brainstem, subcortical, and cortical brain regions and concepts related to the pathophysiology of migraine and cluster headache disorders.

Pain reduction and adverse effects of intravenous metoclopramide for acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Metoclopramide may be used to treat people suffering from acute migraine. However, no comprehensive investigation on this issue has been recorded. This review will provide more solid evidence for the use of metoclopramide in treating acute migraine.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of intravenous metoclopramide with other therapies in migraine attack treatment in an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of participants older than 18 years with acute migraine headaches, which included at least one arm that received intravenous (IV) metoclopramide at the ED. A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration, and Reference Citation Analysis on December 31, 2021 retrieved other drugs or placebo-controlled studies without language limitation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary endpoint was pain reduction at 60 min or closest to 1 h after treatment, as measured by the pain scale. Secondary endpoints included adverse effects or reactions resulting from metoclopramide or comparisons.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with a total of 1661 individuals were eligible for review. The risk of bias ranged from low to intermediate. IV metoclopramide administration was not associated with higher pain reduction at 1 h (Standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.33-0.28, P = 0.87). However, metoclopramide was associated with better pain reduction than placebo (SMD = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.50-1.58, P = 0.0002). In addition, side effects were not significantly different between IV metoclopramide and other drugs or placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.48-1.19, P = 0.09 and OR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.31-2.74, P = 0.54, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Metoclopramide is more effective than placebo in treating migraine in the ED. Despite the observed tendency of decreased side effects, its effectiveness compared to other regimens is poorly understood. More research on this area is needed to treat migraine in acute care settings effectively.

Efficacy of outpatient infusion therapy in pediatric patients with postconcussive headaches

PURPOSE

To determine the relative efficacy of intravenous therapy for postconcussive headaches in a pediatric population, as compared to oral therapy.

METHODS

Pediatric patients treated for postconcussive headaches at an outpatient infusion clinic from 2016 to 2018 were selected for inclusion in the study. Of the 95 patients who were treated in clinic, 53 patients were selected for a retrospective chart review. Clinic visits before and after infusions were reviewed to determine changes in headache score (HA), symptom severity score (SSS), and self-reported symptom relief. An age-matched and SSS-matched group served as a control. The control group received only oral therapy for their headaches. The infusion consisted of parenteral ketorolac, compazine, diphenhydramine, and a normal saline bolus (20 mg/kg).

RESULTS

Following infusion therapy, overall mean HA and SSS scores were both reduced (p < 0.0001). Oral therapy demonstrated a similar mean overall reduction in HA and SS scores (p < 0.0001). While both groups achieved a reduction in HA and SS scores, there was not a statistically significant difference in reduction of symptoms scores between the oral and infusion groups.

CONCLUSION

Infusion therapy is as effective at reducing HA and SSS as established oral therapies. Infusion therapy may have a shorter time to headache abortion than oral therapy based on pharmacokinetics. Further, some physicians are unwilling to allow an athlete to return to play while taking suppressive medication. Future studies may show that an infusion could allow a more rapid return to play and resolution of symptoms.

Second-line interventions for migraine in the emergency department: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Millions of patients present to US emergency departments (ED) annually for the treatment of migraine. First-line treatments, including metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan, fail to provide sufficient relief in up to one-third of treated patients. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of injectable (intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous) medications for patients in the ED who fail to improve sufficiently after treatment with first-line medication.

METHODS

We used the American Headache Society's guideline, "Management of Adults with Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Parenteral Pharmacotherapies," published in 2016, to identify first-line medications for migraine. We then conducted a PubMed search to determine whether any evidence supported the use of these medications as second-line therapy and whether any evidence existed to support the use of injectable therapies not discussed in the guideline as second-line therapy.

RESULTS

We identified only scant high-quality randomized data of second-line therapy. Therefore, we based our recommendations on medications that have reliably demonstrated efficacy as first-line treatment of migraine. These medications include injectable non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. Dihydroergotamine and valproic acid have some data supporting efficacy. More recently, greater occipital nerve blocks (GONBs) have been shown to be efficacious. With the exception of meperidine, opioids have been shown to be not efficacious. Most data published to date demonstrate no role for propofol and ketamine.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no evidence-based second-line treatments of migraine in the ED setting. For patients with migraine, who fail to improve after treatment with a first-line medication, it is reasonable to use an intravenous NSAID or intravenous acetaminophen. Alternatively, clinicians adept at performing a GONB may offer this treatment.

Acute Care and Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease involving the brain and its vasculature, typically characterized by recurrent attacks of moderate or severe throbbing headache, accompanied by sensitivity to light and sound, and associated with nausea, vomiting, and inability to move due to worsening of pain. About 30% of migraineurs have some type of aura, most often visual. Migraine attacks, if untreated or suboptimally treated, usually result in significant disability, requiring bed rest and resulting in poor quality of life. Increased frequency of attacks and overuse of acute care medication are significant risks for chronification, resulting in the transformation of episodic migraine into chronic migraine. We aim to review most acute care treatments for migraine.

METHODS

Current treatment options for migraine attacks were reviewed from the selected literature and combined with our clinical experience.

RESULTS

Current acute treatment options for migraine attacks include over-the-counter analgesics, at times combined with caffeine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, opioids, and migraine-specific medications such as triptans and ergots. In the near future, we will probably have 3 gepants (small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] receptor antagonists). The first one was just approved in the United States. A ditan acting as a stimulator of 5-HT1F receptors, was also just approved by the FDA. Stimulation of the trigeminal, vagal, occipital, and even upper arm peripheral nerves through electrical nerve stimulation devices and magnetic stimulation devices are available as alternative, nondrug treatment options. Several devices have already been FDA-allowed for treatment in the United States and/or approved elsewhere, and others will follow soon. Behavioral medicine techniques such as biofeedback training and mindfulness have been available for some time and are often helpful.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of acute care options to treat migraine are available, and others will soon be and will herein be described in further detail. Some medications have been approved by regulatory authorities in countries other than the United States, and some devices have been given a CE Mark in Europe.

Randomised trial of IV metoclopramide vs IV ketorolac in treatment of acute primary headaches

INTRODUCTION

Headache is one of the most common neurological conditions among emergency department visits (ED), although the best therapy has not been identified yet. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to compare the pain-relieving effect of metoclopramide and ketorolac in acute primary headaches patients.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised clinical trial was conducted at Golestan Hospital, Ahvaz, Iran. This research involved all adult patients with acute primary (migraine or tension-type) headaches presented to the ED. Pain intensity was assessed with 0 to 10 verbal Numeric Rating Scales (NRS). The subjects were randomised into 10 mg intravenous (IV) metoclopramide or 30 mg IV ketorolac groups. Pain score and drug adverse reactions were compared between the two groups at baseline, 15, 30, and 60 min after baseline.

RESULTS

108 patients completed this trial and were equally divided into two groups (mean age of 34 ± 8.54 years; 57.4% female). Before treatment, the mean pain score was 6.9 and 6.8 in metoclopramide and ketorolac groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Metoclopramide failed to provide more improvement in pain score at 30 min (p = 0.55) and 60 min (p = 0.15) from baseline. There were no serious adverse events in this study. Only five patients required rescue medication which four of them were in ketorolac group.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to reject the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in pain outcomes between metoclopramide and ketorolac.

A randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine versus IV hydromorphone for migraine-associated symptoms: A post hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a randomized trial among emergency department patients with migraine to determine the relative impact on migraine-associated symptoms of hydromorphone, an opioid, versus prochlorperazine, an antidopaminergic antiemetic.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind study registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02389829). Patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for migraine without aura or for probable migraine without aura were eligible for participation. Participants received either hydromorphone 1 mg IV or prochlorperazine 10 mg IV plus diphenhydramine 25 mg IV and could receive a second dose of the same medication 1 h later if needed. The outcomes were sustained relief of nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were enrolled, of whom 63 received prochlorperazine and 64 received hydromorphone. Of 49 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported nausea at baseline, 34 (69.4%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 15/49 (30.6%) in the hydromorphone arm (absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 38.8%, 95% CI: 20.5%-57.0%, p < 0.001). Of 55 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported photophobia at baseline, 23 (41.8%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 13/62 (20.9%) patients treated with hydromorphone (ARR = 20.8%, 95% CI: 4.3%-37.3%, p = 0.014). Of 56 patients in the prochlorperazine arm who reported phonophobia at baseline, 25 (44.6%) reported complete resolution without relapse versus 16/59 (27.1%) in the hydromorphone arm (ARR = 17.5%, 95% CI: 0.3%-34.8%, p = 0.049). For adverse events, three patients in the prochlorperazine arm reported anxiety or restlessness, and nine patients in the hydromorphone arm reported dizziness or weakness.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine is more efficacious than hydromorphone for the treatment of migraine-associated symptoms.

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.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED).

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, incapacitating neurological condition. Although chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are known to be safe, efficacious treatments for migraine, they have never been directly compared.

DESIGN

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Adults aged 18-65 years, who presented with migraine, were eligible for recruitment. Sixty-six patients were randomized to either chlorpromazine 12.5 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg, both infused in 500 ml of sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 min. Headache severity score, nausea severity score, and the presence of photophobia and phonophobia were assessed at 0, 30, 60, and 120 min. Adverse effects and the need for rescue therapy were recorded. The primary outcome was a reduction in headache severity score from baseline at 60 min post-commencement of the study medicine infusion.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included in the analysis. There was a median reduction in headache severity score at 60 min of 3.0 (interquartile range 1.0-4.0) in the chlorpromazine arm versus 2.0 (1.0-4.0) in the prochlorperazine arm (median difference -0.5 (95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 0.9)). We saw no evidence of a difference in secondary outcomes at 30, 60, or 120 min. Side effects were reported in 16/32 (50%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 7/33 (21%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.020). Rescue therapy was required in 7/32 (22%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 12/33 (36%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.277).

CONCLUSIONS

Both chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are efficacious treatments for acute migraine in adult patients presenting to the ED. This trial found no evidence of superiority of either agent over the other. Caution should be used when prescribing these medicines in the borderline hypotensive patient; in that circumstance, prochlorperazine should be preferentially used.

I-FiBH trial: intravenous fluids in benign headaches-a randomised, single-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Many emergency physicians use an intravenous fluid bolus as part of a 'cocktail' of therapies for patients with headache, but it is unclear if this is beneficial. The objective of this study was to determine if an intravenous fluid bolus helps reduce pain or improve other outcomes in patients who present to the ED with a benign headache.

METHODS

This was a randomised, single-blinded, clinical trial performed on patients aged 10-65 years old with benign headaches who presented to a single ED in Las Vegas, Nevada, from May 2017 to February 2019. All patients received prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine, and they were randomised to also receive either 20 mL/kg up to 1000 mL of normal saline (the fluid bolus group) or 5 mL of normal saline (the control group). The primary outcome was the difference between groups in mean pain reduction 60 min after the initiation of treatment. Secondarily, we compared groups with regards to pain reduction at 30 min, nausea scores, the use of rescue medications and disposition.

RESULTS

We screened 67 patients for enrolment, and 58 consented. Of those, 35 were randomised to the fluid bolus group and 23 to the control group. The mean pain score dropped by 48.3 mm over 60 min in the fluid bolus group, compared with 48.7 mm in the control group. The between groups difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI -16.5 to 17.3) was not statistically significant (p=0.96). Additionally, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for any secondary outcome.

CONCLUSION

Though our study lacked statistical power to detect small but clinically significant differences, ED patients who received an intravenous fluid bolus for their headache had similar improvements in pain and other outcomes compared with those who did not.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03185130.

Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Acute Headache

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians addressed key issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache. A writing subcommittee conducted a systematic review of the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to answer the following clinical questions: (1) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with acute headache, are there risk-stratification strategies that reliably identify the need for emergent neuroimaging? (2) In the adult emergency department patient treated for acute primary headache, are nonopioids preferred to opioid medications? (3) In the adult emergency department patient presenting with acute headache, does a normal noncontrast head computed tomography scan performed within 6 hours of headache onset preclude the need for further diagnostic workup for subarachnoid hemorrhage? (4) In the adult emergency department patient who is still considered to be at risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage after a negative noncontrast head computed tomography, is computed tomography angiography of the head as effective as lumbar puncture to safely rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage? Evidence was graded and recommendations were made based on the strength of the available data.

Propofol for Treatment of Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Propofol has not been extensively studied as an acute migraine therapy; however, based on the limited evidence from outpatient and inpatient settings, propofol has been proposed as an option for patients who present to the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this review was to evaluate the existing literature regarding the safety and efficacy of propofol for acute migraine treatment in the ED.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical studies of propofol treatment for acute migraine in the ED was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, clinical trial registries, research registries, and key journals through May 2019. A modified Jadad scoring system was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including five case reports or series, one retrospective cohort study, and three randomized controlled trials, consisting of 290 patients, were reviewed. All studies in adults reported propofol to be an effective therapy for migraine, but the strength of these results was limited by dosing variations, small sample sizes, and limited generalizability. Pediatric studies produced mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may be an effective rescue therapy for patients presenting to the ED for acute migraine, but its place in therapy based on the limited available evidence is unknown. The safety of propofol for migraine management in the ED has not been adequately examined.

Out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with atraumatic headache

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the presentation or management of patients with headache in the out-of-hospital setting. Our primary objective is to describe the out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with benign headache. We also describe meaningful pain reduction stratified by commonly administered medications.

METHODS

This retrospective evaluation was conducted using data from a large national cohort. We included all 911 responses by paramedics for patients 18 and older with headache. We excluded patients with trauma, fever, suspected alcohol/drug use, or who received medications suggestive of an alternate condition. We presented our findings with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 5,977,612 emergency responses, 1.1% (66,235) had a provider-documented primary impression of headache or migraine and 52.5% (34,763) met inclusion criteria. An initial pain score was recorded for 73.5% (25,544) of patients, and 58.5% (14,948) of these patients had multiple pain scores documented. Of the patients with multiple pain scores documented, 53.8% (8037) of patients had an initial pain score >5. Of these, 7.1% (573) were administered any medication. Among patients receiving a single medication, Fentanyl was the most commonly administered (32.1%, 126). As a group, opioids were the most commonly administered class of drugs (38.9%, 153) and were associated with the largest proportion of clinically significant pain reduction (69.3%, 106). Dopamine antagonists were given least frequently (9.9%, 39) but had the second largest proportion of pain reduction (43.6%, 17).

CONCLUSION

Out-of-hospital pain scores were documented infrequently and less than one in five patients with initial pain scores >5 received medication. Additionally, adherence to evidence-based guidelines was infrequent.

Recent Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Episodic Migraine

In 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibodies, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab, were approved in various parts of the world, including Europe and the US, and another, eptinezumab, is pending, for the prevention of migraine. In this article, episodic migraine treatment is reviewed, although these medicines are approved and are just as effective for chronic migraine. These new medicines usher a new phase in the preventive management of migraine with migraine-specific treatments. Data from phase III trials of CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies have shown they are efficacious, with adverse effect rates comparable to placebo. The combination of clear efficacy and excellent tolerability will be welcome in an area where poor adherence to current preventives is common. Rimegepant, ubrogepant and lasmiditan are migraine-specific acute therapies yet to be approved by regulators. Phase III data for the respective CGRP receptor antagonists, the gepants, and the serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonist, the ditan, have been positive and free of cardiovascular adverse effects. These medicines are not vasoconstrictors. When approved, they could meet the acute therapy demand of patients with cardiovascular risk factors where triptans are contraindicated. Beyond this, gepants will see the most disruptive development in migraine management in generations with medicines that can have both acute and preventive effects, the latter evidenced by data from the discontinued drug telcagepant and the early-phase drug atogepant. Moreover, one can expect no risk of medication overuse syndromes with gepants since the more patients take, the less migraines they have. During the next years, as experience with monoclonal antibodies grows in clinical practice, we can expect an evolution in migraine management to take shape. Clinicians will be able to offer treatment patients want rather than trying to fit migraineurs into therapeutic boxes for their management. Despite pessimistic susurrations of a largely addlepated form, many patients, and physicians, will welcome new options, and the challenges of new treatment paradigms, with optimism.

Efficacy of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND

In this study, we will assess the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine (AM).

METHODS

We will comprehensively search Cochrane Library, PUMBED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from the inception to July 1, 2019 to identify any eligible studies. Only randomized controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. The study selection, data collection, and management will be completed by two authors independently. The risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The primary outcome includes pain intensity, as measured by visual analogue scale or others. The secondary outcomes are success rate, requirement of rescue medicine, quality of life, relapse, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will summarize the latest evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the treatment of AM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019142795.

The Efficacy and Safety of Prochlorperazine in Patients With Acute Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prochlorperazine (PCP) in patients with acute migraine headache in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were searched for randomized clinical trials that investigated the effect of PCP on headache relief. The outcomes were the number of patients without headache or with reduced headache severity, the number of adverse events, and the need for rescue analgesia.

RESULTS

From 450 citations, 11 studies (n = 771) with 15 comparison arms met the inclusion criteria. Overall, PCP was more effective than placebo (OR = 7.23; 95% CI = 3.82-3.68), metoclopramide (OR = 2.89; 95% CI = 1.42-5.86), and other active comparators (OR = 3.70; 95% CI = 2.41-5.67) for headache relief. The odds ratio of experiencing adverse events with PCP compared with placebo was 5.79 (95% CI = 2.43-13.79). When PCP compared with other active comparators, no statistical difference was found regarding the overall number of adverse events (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 0.99-3.59). However, PCP significantly increased the odds of akathisia/dystonia (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.03-6.31). The request for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the PCP group compared with other groups (16% vs 84%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.09-27).

CONCLUSIONS

For adult patients with acute migraine, PCP could effectively abort the acute attack and reduce the request for rescue analgesia in the ED. However, compared with placebo, PCP could increase the risk of adverse events.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss pharmacological interventions in the emergency department (ED) setting for the management of acute primary headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute headache treatment in the ED has seen an expansion in terms of possible pharmacological interventions in recent years. After a thorough evaluation ruling out dangerous causes of headache, providers should take the patient's history, comorbidities, and prior therapy into consideration. Antidopaminergics have an established role in the management of acute, severe, headache with manageable side-effect profiles. However, recent studies suggest anesthetic and anti-epileptic drugs may play roles in headache treatment in the ED. Current literature also suggest steroids as a promising tool for emergency department clinicians combating the readmission of patients with recurrent headaches. Emergency medicine providers must be cognizant of these traditional and emerging therapies in order to optimize the care of headache patients.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A 'balanced analgesia' regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options - both opioid and non-opioid - to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine vs IV hydromorphone for migraine

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes among patients with migraine in the emergency department (ED) who receive IV hydromorphone vs IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2 EDs in New York City. Patients who met international criteria for migraine were eligible for participation if they had not used an opioid within the previous month. Clinicians, participants, investigators, and research personnel were blinded to treatment. Patients were randomized in blocks of 4. Participants received hydromorphone 1 mg or prochlorperazine 10 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg. Diphenhydramine was administered to prevent akathisia, a common side effect of IV prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining that level for 48 hours without the requirement of rescue medication. A planned interim analysis was conducted once 48-hour data were available for 120 patients.

RESULTS

The trial was halted by the data monitoring committee after 127 patients had been enrolled. The primary outcome was achieved in the prochlorperazine arm by 37 of 62 (60%) participants and in the hydromorphone arm by 20 of 64 (31%) participants (difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 12-45, number needed to treat 4, 95% confidence interval 2-9).

CONCLUSIONS

IV hydromorphone is substantially less effective than IV prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED and should not be used as first-line therapy.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02389829.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients in the ED with migraine, IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine is superior to IV hydromorphone.

A Comparison of Headache Treatment in the Emergency Department: Prochlorperazine Versus Ketamine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intravenous subdissociative-dose ketamine has been shown to be effective for pain management, but has not been specifically studied for headaches in the emergency department (ED). For this reason, we designed a study to compare standard treatment (prochlorperazine) with ketamine in patients with benign headaches in the ED.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with benign headaches. Patients were randomized to receive either prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine or ketamine and ondansetron. Patients' headache severity was measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. Nausea, vomiting, anxiety, and the need for rescue medications were also tracked. Patients were contacted at 24 to 48 hours posttreatment to rate their satisfaction and to determine whether they were still experiencing a headache.

RESULTS

There were a total of 54 subjects enrolled. Two patients in the ketamine group and one in the prochlorperazine group withdrew because of adverse effects of the medications. In regard to the primary outcome, at 60 minutes, the prochlorperazine group had a mean improvement in VAS pain scores of 63.5 mm compared with 43.5 mm in the ketamine group, corresponding to a between-groups difference of 20.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8 to 37.2 mm) and a P value of .026. At 45 minutes, the prochlorperazine group had a mean improvement in pain scores of 56.1 mm compared with 38.0 mm in the ketamine group, a difference of 18.1 mm (95% CI 1.0 to 35.2 mm). At 24- to 48-hour follow-up, the mean satisfaction score was 8.3 of 10 for prochlorperazine and 4.9 of 10 for ketamine, a difference of 3.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.6). There was not a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients who had a headache at follow-up or in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Prochlorperazine appears to be superior to ketamine for the treatment of benign headaches in the ED.

Randomized Trial of Adding Parenteral Acetaminophen to Prochlorperazine and Diphenhydramine to Treat Headache in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Headaches represent over three million emergency department (ED) visits per year, comprising 2.4% of all ED visits. There are many proposed methods and clinical guidelines of treating acute headache presentations. However, data on intravenous acetaminophen usage in these settings are lacking. In this study, we sought to determine the efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of “headache.”

Methods

We conducted a single site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the clinical efficacy of IV acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of “headache” or variants thereof. (See below for variants). The primary outcome measure of the efficacy of parenteral acetaminophen as an adjunct treatment for headache in addition to a standard therapy was a threshold two-point reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores on a 1–10 level at 90 minutes. Secondary outcomes measures included assessment of decreased requirement of “rescue” pain medicines, defined as any analgesic medications outside of diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine and acetaminophen, with particular interest to potential opioid-sparing effects with parenteral acetaminophen. Additional secondary outcome measure included time to disposition from arrival in the ED.

Results

For the acetaminophen group the initial mean pain score was 8.67, for the placebo group 8.61. At 90 minutes pain score was 2.23 for the acetaminophen group and 3.99 for placebo (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.8%–16%]. Of 45 patients in each group, we observed at least a threshold two-point decrease in pain score 36/45 (80%) with acetaminophen vs. 25/45 (55%) with placebo (p <0.01) 95% CI [5%–41%], number needed to treat (NNT) = 4). Secondary outcome measure did not demonstrate a difference in length of stay (161 minutes for acetaminophen arm and 159 minutes for placebo). However, 17/45 (38%) of patients who received IV acetaminophen required rescue analgesia, opposed to 24/45 (53%) of patients in the placebo group (p=0.13) 95% CI [−5%–34%].

Conclusion

IV acetaminophen when used with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine to treat acute headaches in the ED resulted in statistically significant pain reduction compared with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine alone as measured by both threshold of lowering VAS pain score by at least two points (NNT = 4) and overall decline in VAS pain score. Further study is required to validate these results.

Metoclopramide inhibits trigeminovascular activation:evidence for effective acute attack treatment in migraine

BACKGROUND/AIM

Metoclopramide is an effective and commonly used medication in acute migraine treatment but an experimental evidence base is lacking. We aimed to investigate the antimigraine effect of metoclopramide in a migraine model and whether the analgesic effect of metoclopramide was likely to be D₂ receptor-mediated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cortical spreading depression (CSD) was used to model migraine in adult male Wistar rats. Five CSDs were induced by pinprick. Metoclopramide (two different doses), raclopride, or 0.9% saline were administered 30 min before CSD induction. Two hours after the experiments, brain tissues were examined for c-fos activation.

RESULTS

In metoclopramide groups brain stem c-fos expression was significantly lower than in the CSD side of the saline group (P = 0.002). In the raclopride group, ipsilateral brain stem c-fos expression was also lower than in the saline group (P = 0.002). No difference in c-fos expression in the ipsilateral trigeminal nucleus caudalis between the raclopride and metoclopramide groups was observed (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Metoclopramide is shown to suppress trigeminovascular activation for the first time, providing an experimental basis for its role in migraine. The analgesic effect of metoclopramide is likely to be mediated by D₂ receptors since raclopride, a selective D₂ receptor antagonist, suppresses trigeminovascular activation similarly.

Epidemiology of intravenous fluid use for headache treatment: Findings from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

BACKGROUND

Headache is one of the most common reasons for patients to seek care in emergency departments. While the administration of intravenous fluids is frequently recommended for emergency department patients with migraine, the epidemiology of the use of this intervention is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the epidemiology of intravenous fluid use in emergency department patients with headache.

METHODS

This retrospective study utilized the 2011 US National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey, a multi-stage weighted survey providing nationally representative estimates of ED visits. Patients with chief complaints of non-traumatic headache or migraine headache were included. We determined the frequency of intravenous fluid administration among patients presenting with headache, and among specific subgroups including those with migraine headache.

RESULTS

There were 1251 sample cases representing 5,981,000 visits for a chief complaint of headache. Intravenous fluids were administered at 40% (95% CI 35-44%) of these visits. Among the 222 migraine cases, 47% (95% CI 39-56%) received fluids. Fluids were commonly administered regardless of pain severity, and fluid administration was not significantly associated with pain severity among patients diagnosed with migraine (p=0.39). After adjusting for patient characteristics, ED visit duration remained greater for patients receiving fluids than for those who did not among both patients with a headache complaint and among those with a diagnosis of migraine headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of efficacy data, patients treated in United States EDs for headache frequently receive IV fluids. Studies are needed to determine the efficacy of this basic treatment intervention.

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.

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

More than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief than placebo+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 active treatments for acute migraine in an ED. Eligible patients were adults younger than 65 years presenting with an acute moderate or severe headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of allergic symptoms. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining this level of relief without use of any additional headache medication for 48 hours. Secondary efficacy outcomes included mean improvement on a 0 to 10 verbal scale between baseline and 1 hour, the frequency with which subjects indicated they would want the same medication the next time they present to the ED with migraine, and the ED throughput time. Sample size calculation using a 2-sided α of .05, a β of .20, and a 15% difference between study arms determined the need for 374 patients. An interim analysis was conducted when data were available for 200 subjects.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty patients were approached for participation. Two hundred eight eligible patients consented to participate and were randomized. At the planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study be halted for futility. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fourteen percent (29/208) of the sample reported allergic symptoms. Of patients randomized to diphenhydramine, 40% (40/100) reported sustained relief at 48 hours, as did 37% (38/103) of patients randomized to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3%: -10% to 16%). One hour after medication administration, patients randomized to diphenhydramine improved by a mean of 5.1 on the 0 to 10 scale versus 4.8 for those randomized to placebo (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.6 to 1.1). Eighty-five percent (84/99) of the patients in the diphenhydramine arm reported they would want the same medication combination during a subsequent ED visit, as did 76% (77/102) of those who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 9%: -2% to 20%). Median ED length of stay was 122 minutes (interquartile range 84 to 180 minutes) in the diphenhydramine group and 139 minutes (interquartile range 90 to 235 minutes) in the placebo arm. Rates of adverse effects, including akathisia, were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous diphenhydramine, when administered as adjuvant therapy with metoclopramide, does not improve migraine outcomes.

Intravenous migraine therapy in children with posttraumatic headache in the ED

BACKGROUND

More than 3.8 million children sustain traumatic brain injuries annually. Treatment of posttraumatic headache (PTH) in the emergency department (ED) is variable, and benefits are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to determine if intravenous migraine therapy reduces pain scores in children with PTH and factors associated with improved response.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of children, 8 to 21 years old, presenting to a tertiary pediatric ED with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and PTH from November 2009 to June 2013. Inclusion criteria were mTBI (defined by diagnosis codes) within 14 days of ED visit, headache, and administration of one or more intravenous medications: ketorolac, prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, and ondansetron. Primary outcome was treatment success defined by greater than or equal to 50% pain score reduction during ED visit. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used to determine predictors of treatment success: age, sex, migraine or mTBI history, time since injury, ED head computed tomographic (CT) imaging, and pretreatment with oral analgesics.

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients were included. Mean age was 13.8 years, 51% were female, 80% were white, mean time since injury was 2 days, and 114 patients had negative head CTs. Eighty-six percent of patients had treatment success with 52% experiencing complete resolution of headache. Bivariate analysis showed that patients who had a head CT were less likely to respond (80% vs 91%; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous migraine therapy reduces PTH pain scores for children presenting within 14 days after mTBI. Further prospective work is needed to determine long-term benefits of acute PTH treatment in the ED.

Critical reappraisal of intravenous metoclopramide in migraine attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Migraine is one of the most common causes of headache presentations to emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine attack need rapid pain relief rather than diagnostic modalities. Metoclopramide, a dopamine antagonist with a primary use of antiemetic, has been used commonly in ceasing migraine attack. An earlier meta-analysis favors metoclopramide over placebo but includes studies with significant methodological errors and heterogeneity. The present article aimed to review the literature to reveal studies comparing metoclopramide to either placebo or active comparators. A literature search including PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar was performed by using the evidence-based process for determining the study quality. Although the studies comparing parenteral metoclopramide to placebo in ceasing migraine headache favor metoclopramide to placebo and lower rates of rescue drug need, however, they lack high methodological quality even to perform a meta-analysis. Meanwhile, the effect of metoclopramide in ceasing migraine headache is also comparable to active comparators. It seems reasonable to use metoclopramide in migraine attacks in EDs according to the current literature. However, further studies with high methodological quality are needed to reveal whether and how much metoclopramide is superior to placebo.

Canadian Headache Society systematic review and recommendations on the treatment of migraine pain in emergency settings

BACKGROUND

There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line.

METHODS

A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.

Does pramipexole treatment improve headache in patients with concomitant migraine and restless legs syndrome?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested a strong link between migraines and restless legs syndrome (RLS). It is possible that these disorders share a dopaminergic dysfunction in the hypothalamic A11 nucleus that contributes to this association. However, there have been no clinical studies to evaluate the effect of dopaminergic treatment on migraine symptoms in patients with concomitant migraines and RLS.

METHODS

We present an illustrative patient with concomitant RLS and migraine who showed improvement in her headache frequency and RLS symptoms following immediate-release pramipexole (P-IR) treatment and provide review results from the medical records of patients who experienced both migraines and RLS in our previous cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

Ten patients (nine patients from the previously completed single-center study) received P-IR treatment were included in the study. RLS symptoms improved markedly in all of the subjects. Five out of the 10 patients (50%) reported improvement in migraine headaches. Of these five patients, four (80%) had reported morning headaches before P-IR treatment.

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate that the identification of RLS in migraine patients is clinically significant and that dopaminergic treatment may improve both migraines, particularly morning headache (80% improvement in this study), and RLS symptoms. However, further clinical studies are warranted to verify our results.

Antipsychotics for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2008. The role of antipsychotics as adjuvant analgesics is a subject of longstanding controversy. Neuroleptanalgesia (that is a state of quiescence, altered awareness, and analgesia produced by a combination of taking an opioid analgesic and an antipsychotic), an established term for the management of acute pain, was shown to negatively influence disease course and total mortality in unstable angina patients. Nevertheless, antipsychotics are used to treat chronic pain (for example chronic headache, fibromyalgia and diabetic neuropathia). With atypical antipsychotics, a new class of antipsychotics, both fewer extrapyramidal side effects and additional benefits may be available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of antipsychotics in acute or chronic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE in October 2011 and January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of an oral antipsychotic for acute or chronic pain, where subjective pain assessment was described as either the primary or a secondary outcome, were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and results were compared for differences. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. All trials were quality scored according to the methods set out in section six of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 770 participants were involved in the 11 included studies. Data from five included randomised double-blind studies showed beneficial effects of antipsychotics in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Quantitative analysis of these studies showed a significant reduction of mean pain intensity after administration of the antipsychotic compared to placebo or another active compound, weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.71 to -0.85) for the continuous data; and relative risk (RR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.73), number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) 2.6 for the dichotomous data. Nevertheless, the test for heterogeneity was significant for both the continuous data (P = 0.0007) and the dichotomous data (P = 0.04). Obviously this makes the calculated NNT less reliable and caution is warranted when interpreting these results.The most frequently reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal (that is involuntary movements, parkinsonism and akathisia) and sedating effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The recent search found five new studies which were all excluded, so the review remains the same as previously.Antipsychotics might be used as an add-on therapy in the treatment of painful conditions. Nevertheless, extrapyramidal and sedating side effects have to be considered before using antipsychotics for treating painful conditions.Results for antipsychotics in the treatment of different painful conditions are mixed and most sample sizes in the reviewed RCTs are small. Further studies on atypical antipsychotics in larger double-blind placebo-controlled studies that include standardised pain assessment and documentation are warranted.

Oxidative stress and increased formation of vasoconstricting F2-isoprostanes in patients with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome

The pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is unknown. Oxidative stress is detrimental to endothelial function and vascular reactivity. We hypothesized that the oxidative stress marker 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α, which is also a potent vasoconstrictor, might contribute to the pathogenesis of RCVS. Recruited participants included 103RCVS patients, 53 patients with primary headache with acute severe attacks, and 54 healthy controls. Subjects recruited prior to 2009 were discovery cohort, whereas those after 2009, replication cohort. Urine samples were obtained from all patients at registration and from 79 patients with RCVS again at remission stage. Urine 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α was analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Patients with RCVS received magnetic resonance angiography and transcranial color-coded sonography. In RCVS patients, the urine 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α level was higher than that in the other groups in discovery, replication, and combined cohorts (RCVS, 0.29±0.18; primary headache with acute severe attacks, 0.21±0.19; control, 0.18±0.09ng/mg creatinine; P<0.001), and it was positively correlated with the flow velocities of major intracranial arteries, especially within the first week of disease onset (middle cerebral artery, Spearman's correlation coefficient [rs]=0.580, P=0.002; anterior cerebral artery, rs=0.472, P=0.042; posterior cerebral artery, rs=0.457, P=0.022; basilar artery, rs= 0.530, P=0.002). The 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α level decreased from the ictalto remission stage in RCVS patients (0.31±0.21 vs 0.16±0.10ng/mg creatinine, P<0.001). 8-Iso-prostaglandin F2α was higher in patients with RCVS and correlated with the severity of vasoconstrictions. Further studies are required to explore its potential pathogenic role.

The evolution of a migraine attack - a review of recent evidence

A migraine attack is an extraordinarily complex brain event that takes place over hours to days. This review focuses on recent human studies that shed light on the evolution of a migraine attack. It begins with a constellation of premonitory symptoms that are associated with activation of the hypothalamus and may involve the neurotransmitter dopamine. Even in the premonitory phase, patients experience sensitivity to sensory stimuli, indicating that central sensitization is a primary phenomenon. The migraine attack progresses to a phase that in some patients includes aura, which involves changes in cortical function, blood flow, and neurovascular coupling. The aura phase overlaps with the headache phase, which is associated with further changes in blood flow and function of the brainstem, thalamus, hypothalamus, and cortex. Serotonin receptors, nitric oxide, calcitonin gene-related peptide, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and prostanoids are demonstrated specific chemical mediators of migraine based on therapeutic and triggered migraine studies. A number of migraine symptoms persist beyond resolution of headache into a postdromal phase, accompanied by persistent blood flow changes in several brain regions. Although these phases of migraine have substantial temporal, neurochemical, and anatomical overlap, each represents an important window onto the pathophysiology of migraine as well as a target for therapeutic intervention. A comprehensive approach to migraine requires an understanding of the entire range of mechanisms and resultant symptoms that occur throughout the evolution of an attack.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others

OBJECTIVES

This second portion of a 3-part series examines the relative effectiveness of headache treatment with neuroleptics, antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, valproate, and other drugs (octreotide, lidocaine, nitrous oxide, propofol, and bupivacaine) in the setting of an emergency department, urgent care center, or headache clinic.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched using the terms "migraine" AND "emergency" AND "therapy" OR "treatment." Reports were from emergency department and urgent care settings and involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinics were only included if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Prochlorperazine, promethazine, and metoclopramide, when used alone, were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also have more side effects (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meperidine was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking droperidol and prochlorperazine was equivalent to sumatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and the effectiveness of each is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in producing migraine pain relief. Dopamine antagonists, in general, appear to be equivalent for migraine pain relief to the migraine-"specific" medications sumatriptan and dihydroergotamine, although there are fewer studies involving the last two. Lack of comparisons to placebo and the frequent use of combination medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one other.

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version.

Propofol alleviates intractable migraine headache: a case report

Abstract

Several medications have been proposed as the first line drugs in the treatment of migraine attack. However, the low efficacy, potential complications of medications and the intolerance of some patients for oral route due to nausea and vomiting establish a difficult situation in some migraine patients. This report describes a dramatic pain relief with 60 mg of intravenous propofol in a patient with migraine attack refractory to treatment with metoclopramide, promethazine, dexamethasone and meperidine. Pain relief in this patient besides earlier case reports suggests that subanesthetic doses of propofol may be an alternative to other treatment modalities for acute migraine.