French Guidelines For the Emergency Management of Headaches

Efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.

RESULTS

We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity I2 between the studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).

"Code Headache": Development of a protocol for optimizing headache management in the emergency room

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients presenting at the emergency room (ER) with headache often encounter a hostile atmosphere and experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to design a protocol for the ER with the goal of optimizing the care of patients with urgent headache to facilitate diagnosis and expedite treatment.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted via a MEDLINE search in October 2021. The "Code Headache" protocol was then developed considering the available characteristics and resources of the ER at a tertiary care center within the Spanish National Public Health system.

RESULTS

The Code Headache protocol comprises three assessments: two scales and one checklist. The assessments identify known red flags and stratify patients based on suspected primary/secondary headaches and the need for pain treatment. Initial assessments, performed by the triage nurse, aim to first exclude potentially high morbidity and mortality etiologies (HEAD1 scale) and then expedite appropriate pain management (HEAD2 scale) based on scoring criteria. HEAD1 evaluates vital signs and symptoms of secondary serious headache disorders that can most benefit from earlier identification and treatment, while HEAD2 assesses symptoms indicative of status migrainosus, pain intensity, and vital signs. Subsequently, ER physicians employ a third assessment that reviews red flags for secondary headaches (grouped under the acronym 'PEACE') to guide the selection of complementary tests and aid diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The Code Headache protocol is a much needed tool to facilitate quick clinical assessment and improve patient care in the ER. Further validation through comparison with standard clinical practice is warranted.

Severe pain management in the emergency department: patient pathway as a new factor associated with IV morphine prescription

Background

Across the world, 25-29% of the population suffer from pain. Pain is the most frequent reason for an emergency department (ED) visit. This symptom is involved in approximately 70% of all ED visits. The effective management of acute pain with adequate analgesia remains a challenge, especially for severe pain. Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols are currently indicated. These protocols are based on patient-reported scores, most often after an immediate evaluation of pain intensity at triage. However, they are not systematically prescribed. This aspect could be explained by the fact that physicians individualize opioid pain management for each patient and each care pathway to determine the best benefit-risk balance. Few data are available regarding bedside organizational factors involved in this phenomenon.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the organizational factors associated with no IV morphine prescription in a standardized context of opioid management in a tertiary-care ED.

Methods

A 3-month prospective study with a case-control design was conducted in a French university hospital ED. This study focused on factors associated with protocol avoidance despite a visual analog scale (VAS) ≥60 or a numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥6 at triage. Pain components, physician characteristics, patient epidemiologic characteristics, and care pathways were considered. Qualitative variables (percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test or the chi-squared tests. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables. The results were expressed as means with their standard deviation (SD). Factors associated with morphine avoidance were identified by logistic regression.

Results

A total of 204 patients were included in this study. A total of 46 cases (IV morphine) and 158 controls (IV morphine avoidance) were compared (3:1 ratio). Pain patterns and patient's epidemiologic characteristics were not associated with an IV morphine prescription. Regarding NRS intervals, the results suggest a practice disconnected from the patient's initial self-report. IV morphine avoidance was significantly associated with care pathways. A significant difference between the IV morphine group and the IV morphine avoidance group was observed for "self-referral" [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.11, 95% CIs: 2.32-12.18, p < 0.0001] and patients' trajectories (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.0001), suggesting IV morphine avoidance in ambulatory pathways. In addition, "junior physician grade" was associated with IV morphine avoidance (aOR: 2.35, 95% CIs: 1.09-5.25, p = 0.03), but physician gender was not.

Conclusion

This bedside case-control study highlights that IV morphine avoidance in the ED could be associated with ambulatory pathways. It confirms the decreased choice of "NRS-only" IV morphine protocols for all patients, including non-trauma patterns. Modern pain education should propose new tools for pain evaluation that integrate the heterogeneity of ED pathways.

Bedside Evaluation of Early VAS/NRS Based Protocols for Intravenous Morphine in the Emergency Department: Reasons for Poor Follow-Up and Targeted Practices

Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols based on patient-reported scores, immediately at triage, are recommended for severe pain in Emergency Departments. However, a low follow-up is observed. Scarce data are available regarding bedside organization and pain etiologies to explain this phenomenon. The objective was the real-time observation of motivations and operational barriers leading to morphine avoidance. In a single French hospital, 164 adults with severe pain at triage were included in a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of IV morphine titration; caregivers were interviewed by real-time questionnaires on “real” reasons for protocol avoidance or failure. IV morphine prevalence was 6.1%, prescription avoidance was mainly linked to “Pain reassessment” (61.0%) and/or “alternative treatment prioritization” (49.3%). To further evaluate the organizational impact on prescription decisions, a parallel assessment of “simulated” prescription conditions was simultaneously performed for 98/164 patients; there were 18 titration decisions (18.3%). Treatment prioritization was a decision driver in the same proportion, while non-eligibility for morphine was more frequently cited (40.6% p = 0.001), with higher concerns about pain etiologies. Anticipation of organizational constraints cannot be excluded. In conclusion, IV morphine prescription is rarely based on first pain scores. Triage assessment is used for screening by bedside physicians, who prefer targeted practices to automatic protocols.

Headache and migraine clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review and assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations

BACKGROUND

Globally, 3 billion people suffer from either migraine or tension-type headache disorder over their lifetime. Approximately 50% of American adults suffering from headache or migraine have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, the quality and quantity of recommendations associated with such therapies across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of these conditions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of such CAM recommendations.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched for eligible CPGs. CPGs were included if they provided any therapy recommendations. Eligible CPGs included those written for adult patients with headache and migraine; CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice for quality using the AGREE II instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections.

RESULTS

Of 486 unique search results, 21 CPGs were eligible and quality assessed; fifteen CPGs mentioned CAM, of which 13 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG assessment yielded higher scaled domain percentages than the CAM section across all domains. The results from highest to lowest were as follows (overall, CAM): clarity of presentation (66.7% vs. 50.0%), scope and purpose (63.9% vs. 61.1%), stakeholder involvement (22.2% vs. 13.9%), rigour of development (13.5% vs. 9.4%), applicability (6.3% vs. 0.0%), and editorial independence (0.0% vs. 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the eligible CPGs, the CAM sections were of lower quality compared to the overall recommendations across all domains of the AGREE II instrument. CPGs that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CAM therapies in the context of headache and migraine.

Revised guidelines of the French Headache Society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 1: Diagnosis and assessment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. The first part of these recommendations is focused on the diagnosis and assessment of migraine. First, migraine needs to be precisely diagnosed according to the currently validated criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3d version (ICHD-3). Migraine-related disability has to be assessed and we suggest to use the 6 questions of the headache impact test (HIT-6). Then, it is important to check for risk factors and comorbidities increasing the risk to develop chronic migraine, especially frequency of headaches, acute medication overuse and presence of depression. We suggest to use a migraine calendar and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). It is also necessary to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of current migraine treatments and we suggest to systematically use the self-administered Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (M-TOQ) for acute migraine treatment. Finally, a treatment strategy and a follow-up plan have to be proposed. Guidelines for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are presented in the second and third part of the recommendations.

Tranexamic acid in non-traumatic intracranial bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Non-traumatic intracranial bleeding (NTIB), comprising subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intra-cranial bleeding (ICH) is a significant public health concern. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a promising treatment with benefits yet to be fully demonstrated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of TXA on mortality in NTIB. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect databases for studies reporting mortality data following the use of TXA in NTIB for comparisons with a control group. We computed random-effect meta-analysis on estimates of risk and sensitivity analyses. We computed meta-regression to examine the putative effects of the severity of NTIB, sociodemographic data (age, sex), and publication date. Among potentially 10,008 articles, we included 15 studies representing a total of 4883 patients: 2455 receiving TXA and 2428 controls; 1110 died (23%) during the follow-up. The meta-analysis demonstrated a potential of 22% decrease in mortality for patients treated by TXA (RR = 0.78, 95%CI 0.58-0.98, p = 0.002). Meta-regression did not demonstrate any influence of the severity of NTIB, age, sex, length of treatment or date of publication. Sensitivity analyses confirmed benefits of TXA on mortality. TXA appears to be a therapeutic option to reduce non-traumatic intracranial bleeding mortality, particularly in patients with SAH.

Buccally absorbed vs intravenous prochlorperazine for treatment of migraines headaches

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of buccally absorbed prochlorperazine (BAP) to intravenous prochlorperazine (IVP) for the abortive treatment of migraine headaches.

METHODS

Randomized double-blind trial. Eighty subjects aged 18-65 presenting with migraines to the ED of a safety-net, urban hospital. Subjects were randomized to receive either 6 mg BAP plus 2.25 mL saline IV placebo or 10 mg IVP and buccally absorbed saccharine pill placebo. A 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain, nausea, and sedation. Comparisons between groups were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Eighty subjects were recruited from November 2016 to December 2017; 79 completed the study. Demographics: 60 women and 19 men with a mean age of 38 ± 12.2 years. Initial mean VAS pain scores were similar between groups (BAP: 78.5 ± 19.9 mm vs IVP: 76.9 ± 19.5 mm). The improvement in mean VAS pain scores over 60 minutes for the BAP group was not significantly different from the IVP group (-54.9 ± 29.7 mm vs -66.7 ± 23.2 mm, respectively; P = 0.08). No significant differences were found in rates of nausea or sedation. Nine subjects in the BAP group required rescue treatment compared to 1 in the IVP group. Five subjects reported symptoms consistent with akathisia in the IVP group while no adverse effects were reported in the BAP group.

CONCLUSION

Buccally absorbed prochlorperazine (BAP) is an effective, non-invasive treatment for migraine headaches when compared to intravenous prochlorperazine (IVP).

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018090554.