Methotrimeprazine versus meperidine and dimenhydrinate in the treatment of severe migraine: a randomized, controlled trial

The effectiveness of parenteral agents to mitigate relapses after severe acute migraine headache presentations: A systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of parenteral agents to reduce relapse in patients with acute migraine and identify factors that predict relapse.

BACKGROUND

Following discharge from emergency settings, many patients with acute migraine will experience a relapse in pain; severe relapses may result in re-visits to emergency settings.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search, updated to 2023, was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of parenteral agents on relapse outcomes in patients with acute migraine discharged from emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. A traditional meta-analysis compared parenteral corticosteroids to placebo; a frequentist network analysis assessed direct and indirect comparisons. Results are reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identifier: CRD42018099493).

RESULTS

From 8949 citations, a total of 53 unique studies were included involving 6167 patients. Most studies had a high or unclear risk of bias. Corticosteroids significantly reduced relapses compared to placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.88; I2 = 0%). Patients receiving lidocaine (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.82), sedatives/hypnotics (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.75), ergot agents (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.75), neuroleptics (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71), opioids (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.94), or corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86) were significantly less likely to relapse. Lidocaine (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.71), combination therapy (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.74), or adding corticosteroids (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84) were more likely to reduce severe relapses. Longer duration of headache and residual pain at discharge were significantly associated with higher relapses.

DISCUSSION

Corticosteroids remain the recommended first-line option to reduce relapse outcomes. Some parenteral agents typically provided for pain relief including ergot agents, neuroleptics, or combination therapy may effectively reduce relapse; however, opioids are not recommended due to safety concerns. Additional research is needed for some lesser studied, albeit promising, agents including lidocaine and propofol. Effective pain control in emergency settings prior to discharge and duration of headache may play a role in the success of such treatments and further investigations could provide further insight regarding how and why some parenteral agents are effective in mitigating relapse events.

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.

Additive Value of Intranasal Fentanyl on Ibuprofen for Pain Management of Children With Moderate to Severe Headaches: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the rapid pain improvement provided by medications for children presenting to an emergency department (ED) with headaches.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate pain reduction provided by intranasal fentanyl (INF) compared with placebo in addition to ibuprofen.

METHODS

A single-center, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary care pediatric ED. All children aged 8-17 years presenting with a moderate to severe headache were eligible. Study participants were randomly allocated to receive INF 1.5 µg/kg (maximum dose of 100 µg) or similar placebo solution. Co-administration of oral ibuprofen 10 mg/kg (maximum dose of 600 mg) was also provided. The primary outcome was the mean pain rating reduction at 15 min.

RESULTS

Among the 62 participants, the median age was 14 years (interquartile range [IQR] 12-16 years in both groups) and the median initial visual analog scale (VAS) score was 64 (IQR 55-72 in the intervention group; IQR 50-81 in the control group). There was no difference in the mean pain score reduction at 15 min between the two groups (mean difference 2 mm; 95% CI -7 to 11 mm). Mean VAS score reductions were also similar at 30 and 60 min. Adverse events were more frequent in the INF group (risk ratio 2.8; 95% CI 1.29 to 6.22), but all events were minor and transient. No significant differences were found in other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find a benefit from INF for providing additional pain relief in children presenting to ED with headaches.

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.

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.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Emesis after Intravenous Meperidine Administration to Emergency Department Patients

Objective:

To determine the frequency of emesis after intravenous administration of meperidine, with and without concurrent intravenous antiemetics, in emergency department (ED) patients.

Design:

Record review of consecutive patients who received intravenous meperidine in the ED.

Setting:

The ED of an urban teaching hospital.

Patients:

All patients who received intravenous meperidine during a 5-month period.

Main Outcome Measures:

Documentation of emesis and therapeutic measures commonly used to treat emesis.

Results:

Meperidine was administered intravenously at 173 patient visits; at 81 visits, meperidine was administered alone, and at 92 visits, concurrent antiemetics were administered. The prevalence of emesis was similar in both treatment groups (8.6%; p = 0.79).

Conclusions:

The prevalence of emesis associated with intravenous administration of meperidine is relatively infrequent in ED patients and generally associated with abdominal signs and symptoms at presentation. The concurrent administration of an intravenous antiemetic did not decrease the frequency of meperidine-associated emesis.

Intravenous dexamethasone to prevent the recurrence of benign headache after discharge from the emergency department: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Objective:

To evaluate whether the addition of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone to standard emergency department (ED) benign headache therapy would reduce the incidence of headache recurrence at 48–72 hours.

Methods:

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of adult patients presenting with the chief complaint of headache was conducted in the ED of 2 academic, urban Level 1 hospitals. Headache evaluation and therapy were determined by the treating physician, and, before discharge, patients were administered either 10 mg of IV dexamethasone or placebo. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics, abortive therapy, IV fluids and degree of pain relief achieved before discharge. Patients were contacted 48–72 hours following discharge and asked whether their headache was “better,” “worse” or “remained unchanged” when compared with their symptoms at discharge. Those whose headaches were “worse” or “unchanged,” and those who reported a return of headache after being pain free at discharge were considered to be treatment failures and classified as having had a recurrence. The patient's headache at follow-up was further categorized as severe (i.e., provoking another physician visit or interfering with daily activity) or mild (i.e., requiring self-medication or no treatment).

Results:

Fifty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria and 2 were lost to follow-up, leaving 55 for analysis. At follow-up, 9.7% (3/31) of those receiving dexamethasone had headache recurrence, versus 58.3% (14/24) of those receiving placebo (p< 0.001). Four dexamethasone recipients (12.9%) had severe headaches at follow-up compared with 8 (33.3%) in the placebo group (p= 0.14).

Conclusions:

In this study, IV dexamethasone reduced headache recurrence at 48–72-hour follow-up. Given its excellent safety profile and likely benefit, IV dexamethasone should be considered for ED headache patients after standard evaluation and therapy.

Dexamethasone prevents relapse after emergency department treatment of acute migraine: a randomized clinical trial

Objective:

To determine whether the addition of intravenous dexamethasone to standard emergency department (ED) migraine therapy would decrease the incidence of severe recurrent headache 24 to 48 hours after initial treatment.

Methods:

Patients aged 19 to 65 years whose headache was severe enough to require parenteral therapy and who met International Headache Society migraine criteria were eligible for this randomized, double-blind trial. The study was conducted in the ED of 2 community hospitals, 1 of which was a tertiary referral centre. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, focal findings, fever, meningismus, allergy to the study drug, active peptic ulcer disease and diabetes mellitus. Demographic and clinical data, including headache severity, were recorded. After abortive therapy (antiemetics, intravenous nonsteroidal agents, dihydroergotamine or opioids), blinded nurses administered dexamethasone (24 mg intravenously) or placebo. Patients recorded headache severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at time T = 0, T = 30 minutes and T = 60 minutes and at discharge. They were contacted 48 to 72 hours later and asked whether they had suffered a recurrence of their headache, categorized as class A (severe, provoking another physician visit), class B (severe, interfering with daily activity but not provoking a physician visit), class C (mild, requiring self-medication but not limiting activity) or class D (mild, requiring no treatment). Results: Two of 100 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 98 in the study sample. Placebo recipients were more likely to be female; other baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median VAS pain score was 83 mm on ED arrival, 35 mm after initial treatment and 12 mm on discharge. At follow-up, 65 of 98 patients had suffered headache recurrence. In the placebo versus dexamethasone groups, respectively, the results were 11 versus 0 in class A, 11 versus 9 in class B, 7 versus 11 in class C and 4 versus 12 in class D. Regarding the primary outcome, 9 of 49 dexamethasone patients (18%) and 22 of 49 placebo patients (45%) had severe (classes A and B) recurrent headache (odds ratio 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69;p= 0 .005).

Conclusions:

Migraine recurrence is common after “successful” ED treatment. Inflammation may be a critical factor in migraine genesis. Intravenous dexamethasone decreases the incidence of severe recurrent headache after ED treatment and should be offered to patients thought to be at risk of recurrent headache.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications

OBJECTIVE

The final section of this 3-part review analyzes published reports involving the acute treatment of migraine with opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the emergency department (ED), urgent care, and headache clinic settings, as well as post-discharge medications. In the Conclusion, there is a general discussion of all the therapies presented in the 3 sections.

METHOD

Using the terms ("migraine" AND "emergency") AND ("therapy" OR "treatment"), the author searched MEDLINE for reports from ED and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Seventy-five reports were identified that compared the efficacy and safety of multiple acute migraine medications for rescue. Of the medications reviewed in Part 3, opioids, NSAIDs, and steroids all demonstrated some effectiveness. When used alone, nalbuphine and metamizole were superior to placebo. NSAIDs were inferior to the combination of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and dihydroergotamine (DHE) but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other dopamine antagonists. Steroids afford some protection against headache recurrence after the patient leaves the treatment center.

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 opioids most frequently studied - meperidine, tramadol, and nalbuphine - were superior to placebo in relieving migraine pain, although meperidine combined with promethazine was not. Opioid side effects included dizziness, sedation, and nausea. With ketorolac being the most frequently studied drug in the class, NSAIDs were generally well tolerated, and they may provide benefit even when given late in the migraine attack. The rate of headache recurrence within 24-72 hours after discharge from the ED can be greater than 50%. Corticosteroids can be useful in reducing headache recurrence after discharge. As discussed in Parts 1, 2, and 3, there are effective medications for provider-administered "rescue" in all the classes discussed. Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and their effectiveness is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in migraine pain relief. Although there are fewer studies involving sumatriptan and DHE, relatively "migraine-specific" medications, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. Lack of comparisons with placebo and the frequent use of combinations of medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one another. When used alone, prochlorperazine, promethazine, metoclopramide, nalbuphine, and metamizole were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also are more likely to produce side effects that are difficult for a patient to tolerate (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine, and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and NSAIDs. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and DHE but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. Sumatriptan was inferior or equivalent to the neuroleptics and equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were considered. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was equivalent to that observed with droperidol or prochlorperazine.

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.

Standardizing emergency department-based migraine research: an analysis of commonly used clinical trial outcome measures

OBJECTIVES

Although many high-quality migraine clinical trials have been performed in the emergency department (ED) setting, almost as many different primary outcome measures have been used, making data aggregation and meta-analysis difficult. The authors assessed commonly used migraine trial outcomes in two ways. First, the authors examined the association of each commonly used outcome versus the following patient-centered variable: the research subject's wish, when asked 24 hours after investigational medication administration, to receive the same medication the next time they presented to an ED with migraine ("would take again"). This variable was chosen as the criterion standard because it provides a simple, dichotomous, clinically sensible outcome, which allows migraineurs to factor important intangibles of efficacy and adverse effects of treatment into an overall assessment of care. The second part of the analysis assessed how sensitive to true efficacy each outcome measure was by calculating sample size requirements based on results observed in previously conducted clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data previously collected in four ED-based migraine randomized trials performed between 2003 and 2007. In each of these trials, subjects were asked 24 hours after administration of an investigational medication whether or not they would want to receive the same medication the next time they came to the ED with a migraine. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for sex and medication received, were calculated as measures of association between the most commonly used outcome measures and "would take again." The sensitivity of each outcome measure to treatment efficacy was determined by calculating the sample size that would be required to detect a statistically significant result using estimates of that outcome obtained in two clinical trials.

RESULTS

Data from 378 subjects were used for this analysis. Adjusted ORs for association of "would take again" and other commonly used primary headache outcomes are as follows: achieving a pain-free state by 2 hours, OR = 3.1 (95% CI = 1.8 to 5.4); sustained pain-free status, OR = 4.5 (95% CI = 1.9 to 11.0); and no need for rescue medication, OR = 3.7 (95% CI = 2.1 to 6.6). An improvement on a standardized 11-point pain scale of > or =33% had an adjusted OR = 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2 to 12.4). The best performing alternate outcome, > or =33% improvement, correctly classified 288 subjects and misclassified 77 subjects when compared to "would take again." At least 33% improvement and pain-free by 2 hours required the smallest sample sizes, while sustained pain-free and "would take again" required many more subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

"Would take again" was associated with all migraine outcome measures we examined. No individual outcome was more closely associated with "would take again" than any other. Even the best-performing alternate outcome misclassified more than 20% of subjects. However, sample sizes based on "would take again" tended to be larger than other outcome measures. On the basis of these findings and this outcome measure's inherent patient-centered focus, "would take again," included as a secondary outcome in all ED migraine trials, is proposed.

Diagnosis and management of the primary headache disorders in the emergency department setting

Headache continues to be a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) use, accounting for 2% of all visits. Most of these headaches prove to be benign but painful exacerbations of chronic headache disorders, such as migraine, tension-type, and cluster. The goal of ED management is to provide rapid and quick relief of benign headache, without causing undue side effects, and to recognize headaches with malignant course. Although these headaches have distinct epidemiologies and clinical phenotypes, there is overlapping response to therapy; nonsteroidals, triptans, dihydroergotamine, and the antiemetic dopamine antagonists may play a therapeutic role for each of these acute headaches. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria and management strategies for the primary headache disorders.

The relative efficacy of meperidine for the treatment of acute migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Despite guidelines recommending against opioids as first-line treatment for acute migraine, meperidine is the agent used most commonly in North American emergency departments. Clinical trials performed to date have been small and have not arrived at consistent conclusions about the efficacy of meperidine. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative efficacy and adverse effect profile of opioids compared with nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

We searched multiple sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS, emergency and headache medicine conference proceedings) for randomized controlled trials comparing parenteral opioid and nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine headache. Our primary outcome was relief of headache. If this was unavailable, we accepted rescue medication use or we transformed visual analog scale change scores by using an established procedure. We grouped studies by comparator: a regimen containing dihydroergotamine, antiemetic alone, or ketorolac. For each study, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) of headache relief and then assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity for the group of studies. We then pooled the ORs of headache relief with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 899 citations, 19 clinical trials were identified, of which 11 were appropriate and had available data. Four trials involving 254 patients compared meperidine to dihydroergotamine, 4 trials involving 248 patients compared meperidine to an antiemetic, and 3 trials involving 123 patients compared meperidine to ketorolac. Meperidine was less effective than dihydroergotamine at providing headache relief (OR=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.97) and trended toward less efficacy than the antiemetics (OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11); however, the efficacy of meperidine was similar to that of ketorolac (OR=1.75; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.61). Compared to dihydroergotamine, meperidine caused more sedation (OR=3.52; 95% CI 0.87 to 14.19) and dizziness (OR=8.67; 95% CI 2.66 to 28.23). Compared to the antiemetics, meperidine caused less akathisia (OR=0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57). Meperidine and ketorolac use resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR=1.27; 95% CI 0.31 to 5.15) and sedation (OR=1.70; 95% CI 0.23 to 12.72).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider alternatives to meperidine when treating acute migraine with injectable agents.

Haloperidol in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. haloperidol in treatment of acute migraine headache in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study design.

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptics are mainly used as antiemetics in acute migraine. In a previous open trial haloperidol was effective in relieving migraine pain.

DESIGN

Patients were randomized into 2 groups receiving intravenously either 5 mg haloperidol in 500 mL of normal saline or 500 mL of normal saline alone. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) before and 1 to 3 hours after the infusion. If the patient felt no relief in pain intensity 1 to 3 hours after the infusion and had received placebo, he/she then received haloperidol infusion as an open trial. The open trial also included 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled trial. About 1 month after the infusion the patients were contacted by telephone and interviewed about the side effects of the treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled into the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Before the infusion the VAS values were 7.7 in the haloperidol and 7.2 in the placebo group. After the infusion the VAS values were 2.2 in the haloperidol and 6.3 in the placebo group (P < .0001). Significant pain relief was achieved in 80% of the patients treated with haloperidol, whereas only 3 patients (15%) responded to placebo (P < .0001). Seventeen patients treated with placebo without response together with 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled study participated in the open trial. In this group VAS declined from 6.7 to 2.4 and 79% of these patients felt significant pain relief. The most common side effects caused by haloperidol were sedation and akathisia, the latter being more troublesome. These effects were very common in patients participating in the double-blind (80%) and open (88%) trials. Sixteen percent of the patients considered the side effects intolerable and would not like the migraine attacks to be treated with haloperidol in the future. Three patients (7%) returned to the emergency ward because of a relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that i.v. haloperidol is very effective in relieving migraine-associated pain. Because the majority of the patients had taken other medication without response, haloperidol appears to be an effective rescue medication even when other types of treatment have failed. Relapses are rare, but side effects are common, limiting the use of haloperidol in some patients.

Prospective, randomised, double blind, controlled comparison of metoclopramide and pethidine in the emergency treatment of acute primary vascular and tension type headache episodes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare analgesic effects of metoclopramide (MTP), pethidine (PET), and combination of metoclopramide-pethidine (M-PET) in the treatment of adult patients with acute primary vascular and tension type headache admitted in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

All consecutive adult patients admitted into a university hospital ED in six months with acute vascular and tension type headache were recruited. The patients whose complaints had lasted no longer than seven days were randomised to four groups and thereby received 10 mg MTP intravenously plus placebo intramuscularly (MTP), 10 mg MTP intravenously plus 50 mg PET intramuscularly (M-PET), 50 mg PET intramuscularly plus placebo intravenously (PET); and intramuscular and intravenous placebo (PLC) in a blinded fashion. The patients were asked to report the degree of pain at 0, 15, 30, and 45 minutes on visual analogue scale (VAS) and demographic data and any side effects encountered were recorded. Rescue medication was used if required by the patient because of poor pain relief.

RESULTS

Data regarding 336 patients meeting inclusion criteria were analysed. Mean VAS values recorded at 45 minutes were significantly higher in PLC group than in others (p = 0.000). When the PLC group was excluded, VAS scores in MTP and M-PET groups were significantly lower than in PET group (p = 0.038). Though unimportant, the incidence of side effects recorded in PET group was found to be significantly higher than in the other groups (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that MTP produces more effective analgesia than PET in both vascular and tension type headache in patients with acute primary headache episodes.

Do ED patients with migraine headaches meet internationally accepted criteria?

A recent editorial criticized emergency medicine researchers who study the treatment of acute migraine for failing to standardize patients according to definitions provided by the International Headache Society (IHS). In fact, most emergency medicine-based studies of migraine therapies have not used IHS Criteria (IHSC) for patient inclusion and are not uniform in the definition of acute migraine. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of patients with complaint of headache who present to the emergency department with a prior diagnosis of migraine and/or emergency department discharge diagnosis of acute migraine that meet IHSC. The study was a prospective observational study performed in a community-based and consisted of consecutive patients with a chief complaint of headache who presented to any 1 of 6 study investigators. Patients recorded historical data on a standard form; Clinical data were recorded by the investigators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals and the Fisher exact test were calculated as appropriate. One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (study group): 70% were women, 43% had prior imaging studies to diagnose the etiology of the headache, and 26% had a diagnostic workup during the current emergency department visit; the probable headache etiology was found in 12 of these cases. Only 3 patients that had an ED workup that fit IHSC. Forty-nine percent of all patients had a prior diagnosis of migraines; 41 of these patients (45%) met IHSC. Forty-two percent of all patients had an emergency discharge diagnosis of acute migraine; of these, 43 (56%) met IHSC. Forty-four out of 96 (46%; 95% confidence interval = 35%-57%) patients with a prior diagnosis of migraine and/or discharge diagnosis of acute migraine met IHSC. Modification of the IHSC, by removing restrictions for headache duration and number of prior episodes, would have markedly increased the percentage of patients with a previous migraine and/or emergency discharge diagnosis of acute migraine that met other qualitative IHSC (94%). Of the patients with prior migraine diagnosis and/or emergency department diagnosis of acute migraine, men and women were equally as likely to meet IHSC (41% v 48%, P = 0.79). Less than half of patients with a prior diagnosis and/or final emergency discharge diagnosis of acute migraine met IHSC. Our findings raise concerns about the external validity of prior emergency department-based research of acute migraine therapy and the utility of the IHSC for future research. Modification of the IHSC for emergency medicine research should be considered.

Repetitive intravenous prochlorperazine treatment of patients with refractory chronic daily headache

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and long-term outcome of intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of refractory chronic daily headache.

BACKGROUND

Unlike dihydroergotamine, the treatment results of intravenous neuroleptics as first-line agents for refractory chronic daily headache have rarely been reported.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of inpatients with refractory chronic daily headache who received intravenous repetitive prochlorperazine treatment from November 1996 to March 1999. A semistructured telephone follow-up interview was done in September 1999.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients (44 men, 91 women) were recruited, including 95 (70%) with analgesic overuse. After intravenous prochlorperazine treatment, 121 (90%) achieved a 50% or greater reduction of headache intensity, including 85 (63%) who became headache-free. The mean hospital stay was 6.2 +/- 2.7 days, and mean total prochlorperazine used was 98 +/- 48 mg. Acute extrapyramidal symptoms occurred in 21 patients (16%). One hundred twenty-four patients (92%) were successfully followed up, with a mean duration of 14.3 +/- 7.5 months. Compared with pretreatment status, 93 patients (75%) considered their headache intensity decreased, and 86 patients (69%) considered their headache frequency decreased, although 40 (32%) still had a daily headache. Of the 87 patients with analgesic overuse who could be followed, 61 (70%) no longer overused analgesics. Poor response to prochlorperazine treatment (relative risk, 1.8) and presence of major depression (relative risk, 1.8) were predictors of persistent chronic daily headache at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine was effective and safe in the treatment of patients with refractory chronic daily headache with or without analgesic overuse. Compared with dihydroergotamine, prochlorperazine seemed less effective at achieving "freedom from headache" during hospitalization, but had a similar outcome at follow-up.

Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians Guidelines for the acute management of migraine headache

The aim of this article is to provide an evidence-based guideline on the management of acute migraine headaches in the Emergency Department setting. After a Medline search that covered 1965 to the present, all randomized controlled trials were reviewed. Recommendations as to the efficacy of abortive anti-migraine medications were based on the Canadian Medical Association's Guideline for Guidelines. Classes of medications that are discussed include: dopamine antagonists, serotonin agonists, opioids, local anesthetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and steroids. The recommendations are limited to discussing the efficacy of specific medications, adverse effects to be expected, as well as associated headache rates after discharge. Specific recommendations as to which medication might offer a superior treatment have not been proposed due to lack of proper comparative trials as well as lack of information on headache and quality of life after discharge from the Emergency Department.

Emergency management of migraine: is the headache really over?

OBJECTIVES

To observe headache frequency after release for acute migraine sufferers treated in an ED; to observe the impact after-release headaches and associated symptoms have on quality of life; and to document the variability in migraine management in an emergency setting.

METHODS

Prospective observational study, including 24- and 72-hour telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

Over a 4-month period, 143 patients with headaches (149 visits) were observed in the ED. Of 108 patients successfully contacted, the incidence of headache in the first 24 hours after release was 49.1%. Forty-two patients left the ED without pain; 13 of these subsequently had return of headache. Sixty-six left with some degree of pain, with 40 having headache persistence at 24 hours. The difference in 24-hour headache rate between the 2 groups is significant (p=0.008). Five patients still had headaches at 72 hours after release, but 54 of 70 contacted had taken medication for their symptoms between 24 and 72 hours after release. Forty-five percent were not back to normal function at 24 hours, while 21 of 70 were still not sleeping well at 72 hours. Finally, 8 different classes of medications were used in the ED for migraine headaches, with 20 patients receiving at least 3 types of medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment for acute migraine headache in this emergency setting was variable. Patients not obtaining complete relief in the ED had a higher rate of headache after release than did those who left with no pain. Migraine sufferers may have normal daily function affected for up to 72 hours or longer after ED treatment.

Double-blind, multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of intramuscular dihydroergotamine plus hydroxyzine versus intramuscular meperidine plus hydroxyzine for the emergency department treatment of acute migraine headache

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate intramuscular dihydroergotamine in direct comparison with opioid analgesia in the treatment of acute migraine headache.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind trial performed in the emergency departments of 11 general hospitals in the United States. One hundred seventy-one patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years who presented to the ED with acute migraine headache were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1 mg dihydroergotamine (DHE) or 1.5 mg/kg meperidine (MEP) by intramuscular injection. The anti-nauseant hydroxyzine (H) was coadministered in both treatment groups.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six patients were evaluable. Treatment groups were comparable in sample size, demographics, and baseline measurements of headache pain. Reduction of headache pain as measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale was 41+/-33 mm (53.5% reduction) for the DHE group, and 45+/-30 mm (55.7% reduction) for the MEP group at 60 minutes after treatment (difference=2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10%, 14.5%; P=.81). Reduction in the severity of nausea and improvement in functional ability were similar between treatment groups. Central nervous system adverse events were less common in the DHE group (DHE 23.5% versus MEP 37.6%, difference-14.1%: 95% CI -28%, 0%). In particular, dizziness was reported less commonly with DHE than MEP (2% versus 15%, difference=-13%: 95% CI -21%, -5%).

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, double-blind trial of a convenience sample of ED patients randomly assigned to one of two treatment regimens, DHE and MEP were comparable therapies for acute migraine. The use of DHE avoids several problems associated with opioid analgesia, including dizziness.

Pearls, pitfalls, and updates for pain management

Pain management is one of the most challenging areas we encounter as emergency physicians. However, many of us fail to adequately meet this challenge. This article discusses frequently encountered pain syndromes and pain management options.

Opioids in headache treatment. Is there a role?

There may be a population of patients subject to frequent headache and in whom optimal analgesic effect is obtained only by frequent but controlled use of opiate drugs and in whom adverse drug effects are minimal. It is emphasized again that the reality is that there are currently a large amount of opioids being prescribed for headache patients because of patients' demands. One of the major considerations for physicians prescribing such treatment is familiarity with the legal guidelines. The federal law requires physicians to register if they are to maintain or detoxify with opioids addicts defined as "any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction." A subsequent regulation, however, stated that the law was not intended to impose any limitation on prescription of narcotics for intractable pain. There are also many different state regulations covering, for example, limitations on amounts to be prescribed and reporting of patients who are habitual narcotic users. Obviously, headache patients who request liberal amounts of opioids must be screened. There has been considerable recent effort to provide guidelines regarding which patients with nonmalignant pain might be poor candidates for opioid treatment by reason of both probable treatment failure and risk of drug overuse. Many of these guidelines are not relevant to headache patients in whom pain is rarely continuous and rarely demands scheduled analgesia, as is often the case with pain of other types. There is general agreement that any previous history of any type of substance abuse is an important indicator of danger of recurrence of such behavior. Evaluation of psychological state and personality structure is of great importance. The more evidence of emotional disturbance, the greater the danger both of poor results and of drug abuse. In the chronic daily headache population, treatment failure has been found to correlate with abnormalities on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). It is possible that formal psychological testing prior to the prescription of opioid drugs will prove of value in identifying those headache patients at greatest risk for drug abuse. The importance of making opioid treatment part of a multifaceted pain program has been emphasized. Portenoy emphasizes the need for (1) careful discussion with the patient (and often family) of the potential side effects of the drugs, and (2) scrupulous monitoring of adherence to the appropriate dosage and maintenance of prescription by a single physician. The more psychological disturbance evidenced by the patient, the more the risk with failure of drug treatment and of drug abuse. Finally, the analgesic needs of the patient with frequent migraine are different from those of the patient with tension-type headache. Migraine infrequently occurs more than two or three times a week for any period and usually responds to ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, sumatriptan, or a phenothiazine. Addition of codeine or oxycodone for the occasional intractable attack may be needed. When demands in a migraine patient for opioids in amounts greater than 10 to 15 tablets per month occur, there is obvious cause for concern. The opioid agonist-antagonist butorphanol, now available in nasal inhalation form, is alleged to have low abuse potential because it tends to produce dysphoria (an unpleasant emotional state) rather than the euphoria of other opioids. It is therefore unscheduled. The drug, however, does have abuse potential, and the limits needed to be placed on its use are still uncertain. Markley recently recommended a restriction to not more than two bottles (30 treatments) per month. The population with frequent tension-type headaches presents the major problem. Large numbers of these patients use drugs--often in combination

Differential sensitivity to morphine challenge in migraine sufferers and headache-exempt subjects

The effectiveness of a therapeutic dose of morphine in relieving migraine attacks was compared with placebo. Morphine was no more effective than placebo and provoked severe side effects. When low-dose morphine was administered to normal non-headache controls and migraineurs when headache-free, physical and psychologic reactions were induced only in migraineurs. On pupillometric study, only migraineurs had defective morphine-miosis. It is suggested that the observed clinical phenomena in response to morphine can be explained by differences in expression and sensitivity of some opioid receptor subtypes in migraine.

Intravenous chlorpromazine vs intravenous metoclopramide in acute migraine headache

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of IV chlorpromazine with that of IV metoclopramide in the treatment for acute migraine headache in the ED.

METHODS

A prospective randomized double-blind trial was undertaken at two university-affiliated urban EDs with a combined annual census of more than 85,000 patients. Included in the study were patients presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of migraine headache. The subjects were randomized to receive 0.1 mg/kg/dose IV of either chlorpromazine (CPZ) or metoclopramide (MC), up to a total of three doses.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients completed the protocol; 44 received MC and 47 received CPZ. The demographics of the two groups were similar. Both drugs provided, for the majority of patients, adequate pain relief as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) completed every 15 minutes from T = 0 minutes to T = 45 minutes. The average pain relief over 45 minutes (delta VAS) for CPZ was 4.87 cm, vs 4.34 cm for MC (p = 0.35). There also was no statistically significant difference in blood pressure (BP) changes (delta BP < 2 mm Hg for both systolic and diastolic BPs, p = 0.47 and 0.33) or numbers of patients reporting adverse effects (AEs) (CPZ: 16 of 35; MC: 13 of 29, p = 0.43). There was no severe AE with either study drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoclopramide and chlorpromazine administered IV are both effective in the management of acute migraine headache. They are associated with similar minor side-effect profiles.

The pharmacology of medications used in treating headache

Migraine is a common and disabling disease of uncertain pathogenesis. Research on the trigeminovascular system, serotonin receptors, and substance P have provided clues to improving the pharmacotherapy of this disorder. Selective serotonin agonists, such as sumatriptan, dihydroergotamine, ergotamine tartrate, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), isometheptene mucate, and phenothiazines are useful to treat acute attacks. Prophylactic agents include beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, NSAIDs, antidepressants, and valproate. The addition of several new agents for the acute and prophylactic therapy of migraine has improved the outlook for this debilitating disorder.

Subcutaneous sumatriptan for treatment of acute migraine in patients admitted to the emergency department: a multicenter study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of SC sumatriptan injection versus placebo in the treatment of acute migraine in ED patients and that of open-label 100 mg sumatriptan PO tablets for recurrent migraine.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial.

SETTING

Twelve EDs in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients presenting to the ED from September 1992 through April 1993 with a diagnosis of migraine as determined by International Headache Society criteria. Patients were randomized to receive 6 mg sumatriptan SC or placebo. Patients were monitored for improvement in headache severity using a four-point scale and for time to meaningful relief using a stopwatch. The time to discharge from the ED was recorded. An open-label 100 mg sumatriptan PO tablet was given to all patients on discharge from the ED for use at home if the headache recurred within 24 hours.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled. Seventy-five percent of patients treated with sumatriptan achieved meaningful relief compared with 35% treated with placebo (P < .001). The median time to meaningful relief was 34 minutes in the group that received sumatriptan. Seventy percent of patients in the sumatriptan group versus 35% in the placebo group reported mild or no pain at discharge (P < .001). Migraine-associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were significantly reduced in the sumatriptan group (P < .005). The median time to discharge from the ED was shorter for the sumatriptan group than for the placebo group (60 versus 96 minutes, respectively; P = .001). At baseline, 15% of patients in the sumatriptan group and 19% of patients in the placebo group reported mild or no clinical disability. At the time of discharge, patients with mild or no disability increased to 75% in the sumatriptan group compared with 44% in the placebo group (P = .001). Fifty-seven of 92 patients (62%) with mild or no pain at discharge took open-label oral sumatriptan for headache recurrence, and 37 (65%) experienced meaningful relief within 2 hours. Median time to meaningful relief after oral sumatriptan was 65 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Sumatriptan (6 mg SC) is effective in treating acute migraine in the ED. Oral sumatriptan (100 mg) is effective in treating headache recurrence within 24 hours.

Intravenous versus rectal prochlorperazine in the treatment of benign vascular or tension headache: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of i.v. and PR prochlorperazine for treatment of acute benign vascular or tension headache.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

SETTING

University emergency department with 50,000 annual census.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-five adult patients enrolled on 46 visits.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received 10 mg prochlorperazine i.v. and placebo suppository or 25 mg prochlorperazine PR and placebo injection. Pain assessment was made using a 10-cm visual-analog scale; scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests (alpha of .01).

RESULTS

Mean 60-minute pain scores for i.v. and PR groups were 0.6 and 3.5, respectively (P = .0002). Two patients (8.7%) in the i.v. group and six patients (26.1%) in the PR group required rescue analgesia (P = .12).

CONCLUSION

i.v. prochlorperazine appears to provide more effective relief than PR prochlorperazine for benign vascular or tension headaches.

The neuroleptics as adjuvant analgesics

The role of neuroleptic drugs as adjuvant analgesics has been a subject of longstanding controversy. Despite frequent claims of efficacy, evidence from controlled trials supports neither claims of intrinsic analgesic properties nor the routine use of the neuroleptics as a means to reliably induce clinically useful analgesia. Methotrimeprazine is unique in that there is evidence for reliable dose-related analgesia that is comparable to opioid-mediated analgesia, although routine use is not recommended. Despite probable interaction with opioid receptors, there is insufficient evidence to support a role for the butyrophenone category of neuroleptics as adjuvant analgesics. Limited trials of the neuroleptics may be considered for pain that has been unresponsive to more conventional pharmacologic approaches, especially when associated with headache, nerve injury, or psychological distress. The neuroleptics have an important role in the symptomatic management of agitation, delirium, and nausea, particularly in patients with cancer.

Emergency department treatment of migraine, tension, and mixed-type headache

The complaint of headache is frequently encountered in the emergency department, but most patients with cephalalgia have a benign etiology for their pain. At least 90% of patients presenting with headache are diagnosed as suffering from benign vascular or muscle-tension (for example, migraine, tension, or mixed-type) headache. There is no consensus on the ideal therapeutic approach to these patients. Classically utilized narcotic therapy suffers from problems with efficacy, relapse, and potential for abuse and addiction. However, other agents have successively proved to be imperfect as well, despite the many therapeutic approaches that have been suggested in the medical literature. While no one drug has emerged as clearly superior for treatment of acute benign headache, recent investigations have clarified the role of certain therapies. This review is intended to familiarize emergency physicians with the latest information on most recommended therapeutic approaches to the patient with headache.

Therapeutic advances in migraine

Migraine is a common and debilitating disorder of uncertain pathogenesis. Recent research into the pathophysiology of migraine and serotonin receptors has revolutionized the approach to pharmacotherapy. New medications, such as sumatriptan, and new dosage forms of older medications, including dihydroergotamine, NSAIDs, and phenothiazines are available to treat acute attacks. New prophylactic approaches include the use of calcium-channel blockers, NSAIDs, fluoxetine, and valproate. The addition of several new agents for the acute and prophylactic therapy of migraine has improved the outlook for this disabling disorder.

A randomized, double-blind, comparative study of the efficacy of ketorolac tromethamine versus meperidine in the treatment of severe migraine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative efficacy of ketorolac tromethamine and meperidine hydrochloride in the emergency department treatment of severe migraine.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

SETTING

University hospital ED.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients presenting to the ED with an isolated diagnosis of common or classic migraine.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were randomized to receive a single intramuscular injection of either 30 mg ketorolac or 75 mg meperidine.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 31 patients completing the trial, 15 received ketorolac and 16 received meperidine. The demographic characteristics of both groups were comparable. At one hour, ketorolac was significantly less effective than meperidine in reducing headache pain (P = .02) and in improving clinical disability (P = .01). Ketorolac also was less effective at reducing nausea, photophobia, and the need for rescue medication (P less than .05). Sustained headache relief was experienced by 44% of the patients treated with meperidine at 12- to 24-hour follow-up, compared with 13% of the patients treated with ketorolac (P = NS). No significant side effects were observed for either group.

CONCLUSION

IM ketorolac tromethamine is less effective than meperidine in the ED treatment of severe migraine.