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

Efficacy of ketorolac in the treatment of acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.

METHODS

We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.

Management of migraine in the emergency department: Findings from the 2010-2017 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to describe trends in the medical management of migraine in the emergency department (ED) using the 2010-2017 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) datasets.

METHODS

Using the 2010-2017 NHAMCS datasets, we analyzed visits with a discharge diagnosis of migraine. Drug prescription frequencies between years were compared with the Rao-Scott chi-squared test. Adjusted odds ratios of opioid administration from 2010 to 2017 were calculated using weighted multivariable logistic regression with sex, age, race/ethnicity, pain-score, primary expected source of payment, and year as predictor variables.

RESULTS

Our analysis captured 1846 ED visits with a diagnosis of migraine from 2010 to 2017, representing a weighted average of 1.2 million US ED visits per year. Parenteral opioids were prescribed in 49% (95% CI: 40, 58) of visits in 2010 and 28% (95% CI: 15, 45) of visits in 2017 (p = 0.03). From 2010 to 2017, there was a 10% yearly decrease in opioid prescriptions. Metoclopramide and ketorolac were prescribed more frequently in years 2015 through 2017 than in 2010. Increased opioid administration was associated with female sex, older age, white race, higher pain score, and having Medicare or private insurance as the primary expected source of payment for all years.

CONCLUSION

Opioid administration for migraine in EDs across the US declined 10% annually between 2010 and 2017, demonstrating improved adherence to migraine guidelines recommending against opioids. We identified several factors associated with opioid administration for migraine, identifying groups at higher risk for unnecessary opioids in the ED setting.

Adherence to guidelines of treatment of non-traumatic headache in the emergency department

To evaluate therapies employed in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a chief complaint of non-traumatic headache to check if guidelines are followed. A 6-month retrospective analysis of the ED records of all the patients who referred to the ED of the University Hospital of Trieste for non-traumatic headache was performed. Out of 37.335 admissions, 336 patients were selected (0.9%). Diagnosis at discharge was primary headache (25.6%), secondary headache (40.5%), and headache "not otherwise specified" (33.9%). One-hundred-ninety-three patients were treated in mono- (51.8%) or poly-therapy (48.2%), with NSAIDs (46.5%), benzodiazepines (13.4%), antiemetics (10.7%), analgesics (8.3%), opioids (1.6%), triptans (1.5%), and other drugs (17.7%). NSAIDs, particularly ketorolac, are the class of drugs most often prescribed in ED, independently of the discharge diagnosis. Metoclopramide is rarely used in monotherapy (4%), but it is the drug most frequently used in association with NSAIDs (19.3%). Only two migraineurs received triptans. Mean time spent in ED was 231 ± 130 min, which was significantly longer in patients who received treatment (272 ± 141 vs. 177 ± 122 min; p = 0.003). No drugs had any side effects. In accordance with the current guidelines, NSAIDs monotherapy or in association with antiemetics were the drugs most often prescribed in ED. Opioids were rarely used probably because of potential sedative side effects. Only very few patients received triptans. Special attention should be drawn also in ED to apply the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria, which can lead to clarify the diagnosis and receive the specific treatment.

Acute headache management in emergency department. A narrative review

Headache is a significant reason for access to Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. Though primary forms represent the vast majority, the life-threatening potential of secondary forms, such as subarachnoid hemorrage or meningitis, makes it imperative for the ED physician to rule out secondary headaches as first step, based on clinical history, careful physical (especially neurological) examination and, if appropriate, hematochemical analyses, neuroimaging or lumbar puncture. Once secondary forms are excluded, distinction among primary forms should be performed, based on the international headache classification criteria. Most frequent primary forms motivating ED observation are acute migraine attacks, particularly status migrainous, and cluster headache. Though universally accepted guidelines do not exist for headache management in an emergency setting, pharmacological parenteral treatment remains the principal approach worldwide, with NSAIDs, neuroleptic antinauseants, triptans and corticosteroids, tailored to the specific headache type. Opioids should be avoided, for their scarce effectiveness in the acute phase, while IV hydration should be limited in cases of ascertained dehydration. Referral of the patient to a Headache Center should subsequently be an integral part of the ED approach to the headache patients, being ascertained that lack of this referral involves a high rate of relapse and new accesses to the ED. More controlled studies are needed to establish specific protocols of management for the headache patient in the ED.

Treating status migrainosus in the emergency setting: what is the best strategy?

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder with unknown exact pathomechanism. Status migrainosus (SM) is a complication of migraine (with or without aura), representing an attack that lasts for more than 72 h. There is a paucity of data published with regard to its pathomechanism and therapeutic options.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the literature on SM from PubMed published between 1999 and January 2018. The authors specifically look at the therapeutic possibilities of SM in the emergency department in patients that have or have not already been treated with serotonergic agents. Additional discussion is given to the rare complications of migraine.

EXPERT OPINION

SM is a devastating condition; therefore, the primary goal is to prevent its development with proper acute and prophylactic migraine medication. If this treatment fails, the patient should be treated in the emergency setting. Due to the severity of the condition, parenteral pharmacotherapy is recommended. However, high-quality randomized trials are lacking. The currently available data suggest the use of intravenous fluids, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, anticonvulsive drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, and serotonergic agents for the treatment of SM. Still, there is a need for personalized and causal therapy for migraine sufferers.

A Review of Current and Emerging Approaches to Pain Management in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions.

RESULTS

While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse.

CONCLUSION

Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

Characterization of Guideline Evidence for Off-label Medication Use in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or off-label medication prescribing occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Off-label medication use creates a concern for untoward adverse effects; however, this worry may be alleviated by supportive literature.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence behind off-label medication use by determining the presence of guideline support and compare graded recommendations to an online tertiary resource, DRUGDEX.

METHODS

Off-label medication use was identified prospectively over 3 months in medical ICUs in 3 academic medical centers. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed and the national guideline clearinghouse website to determine the presence of guideline support. DRUGDEX was also searched for strength-of-evidence ratings to serve as a comparator.

RESULTS

A total of 287 off-label medication indication searches resulted in 44% (126/287) without identified evidence; 253 guidelines were identified for 56% (161/287) of indications. Of the published guidelines, 89% (226/253) supported the off-label indication. In the DRUGDEX comparison, 67% (97/144) of guideline gradings disagree with DRUGDEX, whereas 33% (47/144) of the gradings matched the online database.

CONCLUSION

Because more than half of off-label medication use has the benefit of supportive guidelines recommendations and a majority of gradings are inconsistent with DRUGDEX, clinicians should consider utilizing guidelines to inform off-label medication use in the ICU. Still, there is a considerable amount of off-label medication use in the ICU that lacks supporting evidence, and use remains concerning because it may lead to inappropriate treatment and adverse events.

Is the Generally Held View That Intravenous Dihydroergotamine Is Effective in Migraine Based on Wrong "General Consensus" of One Trial? A Critical Review of the Trial and Subsequent Quotations

BACKGROUND

The claim that parenteral dihydroergotamine (DHE) is effective in migraine is based on one randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial from 1986. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the original article. It was also found to be of interest to review quotes concerning the results in the more than 100 articles subsequently referring to the article.

METHODS

The correctness of the stated effect of intravenous DHE in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) was first critically evaluated. Then, Google Scholar was searched for references to the article and these references were classified as to whether they judged the reported RCT as positive or negative.

RESULTS

The design of the RCT, with a crossover within one migraine attack, only allows evaluation of the results for the first period and the effect of DHE and placebo were quite comparable. About 151 references were found for the article in Google scholar. Among the 95 articles with a judgment on the efficacy of intravenous DHE in the RCT, 90 stated that DHE was effective or likely effective whereas only 5 articles stated that DHE was ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a "negative" RCT, authors of subsequent articles on the efficacy of parenteral DHE overwhelmingly reported this RCT as "positive." This is probably due to the fact that the authors concluded in the abstract that DHE is effective, and to a kind of "wrong general consensus."

Platelet Activation and Platelet-Leucocyte Interaction in Patients with Migraine. Subtype Differences and Influence of Triptans

As migraine is the result of an inflammatory mechanism with serotonergic signalling, leucocyte function, platelet function and intercellular communication between those cells is likely to be connected to the final pathway of the disease. We examined P-selectin expression on platelets (platelet activation) and leucocyte-platelet aggregate formation in 72 migraine patients during their attack-free interval and controls using a flow cytometric assay. Patients suffering from migraine without aura had a significantly increased platelet activation and leucocyte-platelet aggregation compared with the control group, unlike the migraine patients with aura. Patients who had taken a triptan within 3 days prior to the investigation showed platelet activation values similar to the control group. The variations in platelet activation patterns of migraine subgroups could indicate different pathomechanisms. Even outside an attack, migraine patients, particularly those without aura, show an increased level of platelet activation which seems to be down-regulated by triptans. This mechanism may account for the triptan-induced increases in headache frequency. The involvement of proinflammatory platelet-leucocyte cross-talk suggests a possible therapeutic strategy using anti-inflammatory drugs.

Gender differences in neurologic emergencies part I: a consensus summary and research agenda on cerebrovascular disease

Cerebrovascular neurologic emergencies including ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and migraine are leading causes of death and disability that are frequently diagnosed and treated in the emergency department (ED). Although sex and gender differences in neurologic emergencies are beginning to become clearer, there are many unanswered questions about how emergency physicians should incorporate sex and gender into their research initiatives, patient evaluations, and overall management plans for these conditions. After evaluating the existing gaps in the literature, a core group of ED researchers developed a draft of future research priorities. Participants in the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference neurologic emergencies working group then discussed and approved the recommended research agenda using a standardized nominal group technique. Recommendations for future research on the role of sex and gender in the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes pertinent to ED providers are described for each of three diagnoses: stroke, SAH, and migraine. Recommended future research also includes investigation of the biologic and pathophysiologic differences between men and women with neurologic emergencies as they pertain to ED diagnoses and treatments.

Evaluation and treatment of migraine in the emergency department: a review

Head pain is the fifth most common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. It is second only to focal weakness as the most common reason for neurological consultation in the ED. This manuscript reviews how patients with migraine, the most common primary headache disorder for which patients seek medical treatment, are managed in the ED. We discuss existing guidelines for head imaging in patients with migraine, recommended pharmacologic treatments, and current treatment trends. We also review studies evaluating the discharge care of migraine patients in the ED. With the goal of standardizing, streamlining, and optimizing ED-based migraine care, we offer ideas for future research to improve the evaluation, treatment, and discharge care of patients who present to an ED with acute migraine.

Use of ergotamine: do physicians in Colombia know how to prescribe it?

INTRODUCTION

Ergot derivatives are drugs with vasoconstrictor effects that are used to abort migraine attacks. This study aims to determine how ergot derivatives are prescribed by physicians in Colombia, find variables associated with inappropriate prescribing, and review potential interactions in our patients.

METHODS

We reviewed 86 411 formulas during April 2012, identifying the prescription by drug, dose, interval, duration of use, and indication. We interviewed 288 randomly selected patients in whom we also investigated concomitant use of a) antihypertensive agents b) ischaemic heart disease treatments c) antiretrovirals d) other antimigraine drugs, and e) macrolides, because of their potential for interactions.

RESULTS

We identified 801 prescriptions from patients in 27 cities with a mean age of 35.1±14.1 years; 82.5% of the prescriptions were for women, 96.5% were written by primary care physicians, and 65.4% (n=524) corresponded to migraine treatments. There were 26 different prescription types and 797 prescriptions were incorrect with regard to usage recommendations (99.5%). Inappropriate prescribing was significantly associated with the health centre providing patient care (P=.005). Of the patients who were interviewed by telephone, 266 (92.4%) took the drug according to the erroneous indication. A total of 54 patients (6.7%) were treated with antihypertensive drugs, 24 (2.9%) with macrolides, and 5 (0.6%) with another concomitant antimigraine drug.

DISCUSSION

Most patients take ergotamine improperly, apart from the fact that potential interactions may increase the risk of health problems such as ergotism and coronary events. Physicians will require assessment measures, updated information, and continuous training.

A proposed roadmap for inpatient neurology quality indicators

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

In recent years, there has been increasing pressure to measure and report quality in health care. However, there has been little focus on quality measurement in the field of neurology for conditions other than stroke and transient ischemic attack. As the number of evidence-based treatments for neurological conditions grows, so will the demand to measure the quality of care delivered. The purpose of this study was to review essential components of hospital performance measures for neurological disease and propose potential quality indicators for commonly encountered inpatient neurological diagnoses.

METHODS

We determined the most common inpatient neurological diagnoses at a major tertiary care medical center by reviewing the billing database. We then searched PubMed and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse to identify treatment guidelines for these conditions. Guideline recommendations with class I/level A evidence were evaluated as possible quality indicators.

RESULTS

We found 94 guidelines for 14 inpatient neurological conditions other than stroke and transient ischemic attack. Of these, 36 guidelines contained at least 1 recommendation with class I evidence. Based on these, potential quality indicators for intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, pneumococcal meningitis, coma following cardiac arrest, encephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, multiple sclerosis, and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several inpatient neurological conditions with treatments or diagnostic test routines supported by high levels of evidence that could be used in the future as quality indicators.

Results of a 2-year retrospective cohort study of newly prescribed triptan users in European nationwide practice databases

Objective: This study was conducted to characterize prescription refill patterns for triptans among European patients with new prescriptions of triptans.

Background: Persistency with prescriptions of triptan monotherapy for migraine headache among newly prescribed users in European primary-care practices has not been well described.

Methods: Using electronic medical databases in the UK ( N = 3618), France ( N = 2051) and Germany ( N = 954), we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis to identify refill patterns over 2 years among migraineurs receiving new prescriptions of triptan monotherapy in 2006.

Results: Of all patients, >33% of migraineurs with new triptan prescriptions received ≥1 refill of their index triptan prescriptions (UK, 44.3%; France, 34.2%; Germany, 37.7%). More than 50% never received index-triptan refill prescriptions (UK, 55.7%; France, 65.8%; Germany, 63.3%). Small proportions of patients (<7.0%) switched to alternative triptans, and even fewer switched to different prescription-medication classes (UK and Germany, 2.3%; France, 4.0%). More than 48% of patients received no further prescriptions for migraine after index prescriptions (UK, 48.5%; France, 54.9%; Germany, 54.7%). After the second year, >83.0% of patients in each country had no further prescriptions for migraine medications, <14.0% remained persistent with index prescriptions, <4.0% switched to other triptans, and <3.0% switched to alternative medication classes.

Conclusions: In migraine patients who received new prescriptions of triptan monotherapy from their primary-care physicians, poor triptan prescription refill frequency was observed in Europe. Although consistent with potential clinical challenges in migraine management, our findings should be interpreted with caution given certain inherent limitations associated with the database study design. Further research is warranted to confirm our findings and to identify reasons for, or predictors of, triptan discontinuation.

Management of primary headaches in adult Emergency Departments: a literature review, the Parma ED experience and a therapy flow chart proposal

Adults seeking treatment at hospitals' Emergency Departments (EDs) because of headache represent a major health-care issue. To date, there are no special guidelines for management of primary headache in adults seen at EDs and therapeutic approaches are often inconsistent. This review describes the therapeutic strategies that are most frequently used to treat primary headache in adult ED patients and their in situ efficacy, based on literature data, the type of medications studied in randomized clinical trials for the management of adult ED patients, and the recommendations found in the guidelines for symptomatic treatment of migraine. We also report on the experience of the Parma University Hospital ED in the year 2007 for the management of adult patients diagnosed with primary headache. Finally, we propose an algorithm for primary headache management in ED patients, which is based on the literature data and clinical experience, and is suitable for application in Italy.

Migraine: a question and answer review

Internists commonly treat migraine, which affects more than 29 million Americans yearly. This article reviews epidemiology, pathophysiology, comorbidity, clinical features, diagnostic testing, acute and preventive treatment, and women's issues. Physicians and migraineurs would like to see more effective and more tolerable medications.

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.

Treating migraine in the emergency department

Corticosteroids do not relieve acute pain but do reduce recurrence

Emergency Department Management of Acute Migraine in Children in Canada: A Practice Variation Study

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of children with migraine are limited given the paucity of randomized controlled trials, especially in the emergency department (ED). Our objectives were to: (1) characterize the treatment of children with migraine in the ED; (2) determine whether treatment varies in pediatric versus mixed (pediatric and adult) EDs.

METHODS

Children aged 5 to 17 years presenting to 4 regional emergency departments in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada during the 2003/2004 fiscal year with a diagnostic code of headache or migraine were selected. A standardized retrospective chart abstraction was performed and migraine or probable migraine cases were classified based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders II.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eighty-two cases were identified of which 48.7% (n = 186/382) met sufficient criteria for migraine. No treatment was given in 44.2% (n = 169/382). Simple oral analgesics (23.3%; n = 89/182) and dopamine antagonists (metoclopramide and prochlorperazine; 20.7%; n = 79/182) were prescribed first-line most commonly. Opiate medications (5.5%), ketorolac (4.7%), dihydroergotamine (1%) were prescribed first-line infrequently. There was a significant difference in the management choices between pediatric and mixed adult/pediatric EDs (chi(2)= 19.695; df = 5; P= .001). The pediatric ED was more likely to prescribe a dopamine antagonist (12.9 vs 6.8%; P= .044) while the mixed adult/pediatric EDs were more likely to prescribe an opiate (28.1% vs 18.4%; P= .031). Children with migraine in all EDs were significantly more likely to receive drug therapy (68.3% vs 42.9%; P < .001) or a dopamine antagonist (32.3% vs 9.7%; P < .001). Polypharmacy (31.2%; n = 119/382) and neuroimaging (29.1%; n = 111/382) were common. Outcome was poorly documented overall. No adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in practice in the management of acute headaches in children was observed between mixed population and pediatric-only emergency physicians in the same city. Most children do not receive any drug therapy. Children presenting to the pediatric ED were significantly more likely to receive a dopamine antagonist while opiates were prescribed more commonly in the mixed ED. More clinical trials are required in children to clarify areas of clinical uncertainty on which evidence-based practice guidelines can be formed.

Optimizing migraine therapy: evidence-based and patient-centered care

Migraine is a chronic, intermittently debilitating neurovascular condition that affects the physical, mental and social aspects of health-related quality of life. Primary care provider interactions with migraine sufferers are common, highlighting the need for clinicians to provide optimal therapy. A comprehensive therapy plan should encompass the whole patient, via a patient-physician partnership where goals and strategies are mutually established. Key treatments include nondrug approaches, such as education and lifestyle modifications, to reduce the occurrence of attacks, as well as acute medications to address the immediate need for relief during an attack. Routine assessment and adjustment of therapy based on data recorded by patient diaries is paramount. Clinical trials support the use of triptans and dihydroergotamine for moderate-to-severe migraine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (alone or in combination with antiemetics or caffeine) for mild-to-moderate migraine, as the treatments of choice to reduce pain and disability time in a cost-effective manner. Published evidence also endorses stratified care, where medication selection is geared towards disease severity, instead of step care, where nonspecific mediations are given to all patients. Thus, patients with significant migraine-induced debilitation, as assessed by tools, such as the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale or the Headache Impact Test, are prescribed migraine-specific agents from the onset of therapy, thereby avoiding the inherent failures of step care. For individuals experiencing a high frequency of attacks or routine debilitation, preventive medications are warranted.

The Economic and Psychosocial Impact of Migraine before and after Diagnosis and Treatment

Background:

Migraine headache is associated with significant costs. Many patients with migraine do not receive appropriate care. Correct diagnosis of migraine is often elusive, which may impact patient care.

Objective:

To determine the economic and disability burdens that patients with migraine experience before treatment and after diagnosis and treatment.

Methods:

This survey was administered to patients in a community pharmacy. Eligible patients were 18–40 years of age with diagnosed migraine who had prescriptions for an ergotamine, triptan, or combination product containing acetaminophen, isometheptene, and dichloralphenazone. Main outcome measures included pre- and postdiagnostic comparison of patient disability measures, migraine medication use, migraine-related patient costs, and physician office visit characteristics and diagnostic testing.

Results:

Forty-nine patients completed the study (mean ± SD age 38 ± 14 y, 90% female). The average age of symptom onset was 24 ± 13 years, with first presentation to physician at age 28 ± 12 and diagnosis made at age 31 ± 12 years. The mean number of physicians visited was 2.3 ± 4.7, comprising 5.3 ± 7.8 office visits before diagnosis. After diagnosis and treatment, significantly fewer patients experienced attacks lasting ≥16 hours and reported missing ≥5 days of work/month from migraine symptoms. Patients also reported significantly increased effectiveness at work when experiencing symptoms after diagnosis and treatment.

Conclusions:

This study demonstrated that migraine often eludes formal diagnosis and diagnosis is difficult for the primary care physician to make without expensive tests and/or consultation. Patient outcomes were greatly improved after a formal diagnosis followed by appropriate treatment.

Clinical guidelines and policies: can they improve emergency department pain management?

The prevalence of pain in patients presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) has been well documented by both Cordell and Johnston. Equally well documented has been the apparent failure to adequately control that pain. In 1990 Selbst found that patients with long bone fractures received little analgesia in the ED, and Ngai, et al., showed that the under-treatment of pain continued after discharge. In a prospective study, Ducharme and Barber found that up to one third of patients presented with severe pain and were often unrelieved at discharge. Even though specific patient subgroups appear to be at greater risk, all patients are potential victims of oligoanalgesia - the under-treatment of pain. Despite an ever increasing volume of research about pain in emergency medicine, dissemination of relevant information with widespread change in practice patterns has not been witnessed. Recent studies continue to affirm that pain management in the ED is suboptimal.

Comparative aspects of triptans in treating migraine

Triptans, beginning with sumatriptan, have revolutionized the treatment of migraine. New triptans in several formulations will soon become available in the United States. Although the similarities of these 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) 1B/1D receptor agonists outweigh their differences, important differences in pharmacokinetics and clinical responses do exist. Subcutaneous sumatriptan has the most rapid onset of action and greatest efficacy but the most adverse effects. Intranasal sumatriptan also has rapid onset of action, but at 2 hours its efficacy is comparable to that of oral zolmitriptan. Of the oral triptans, rizatriptan seems to have the greatest early efficacy. Both rizatriptan and zolmitriptan are now available as rapidly dissolving wafers. Almotriptan, the newest of the triptans, has a response rate similar to that of oral sumatriptan and may produce fewer adverse effects. Naratriptan and frovatriptan, with their slow onset, high tolerability, and long half-lives, may have a role in aborting prolonged migraine attacks and in headache prevention. Eletriptan at higher doses (80 mg) has a response rate approaching that of rizatriptan but may be limited by potential side effects. The many triptans available offer the opportunity to individualize migraine treatment, depending on the patient's attack characteristics, tolerance, and preferences.

A prospective double-blind study of nasal sumatriptan versus IV ketorolac in migraine

We conducted a study to compare the efficacy in migraine headache of nasal sumatriptan and intravenous ketorolac. The study was a prospective, double-blind study done with a convenience sample of 29 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute migraine. Patients received either 20 mg of nasal sumatriptan or 30 mg of intravenous ketorolac. Patients scored the severity of their headache on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) of pain prior to medication, and again 1 hour after medication. Differences between initial and 1-hour scores were analyzed. Before treatment, no difference existed between the groups in the intensity of headache. One hour after medication, the sumatriptan group had a decrease in pain score of 22.937 mm and the ketorolac group a decrease of 71.462 mm on the VAS. The decrease in pain score with ketorolac was significantly greater than that with sumatriptan (P < 0.001). The study therefore showed that both sumatriptan and ketorolac effectively reduced the pain associated with acute migraine headache, but that intravenous ketorolac produced a greater reduction in pain than did nasal sumatriptan.

Current options for the prevention and treatment of migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common condition affecting approximately 18% of women and 6% of men in the United States. The goals of managing migraine are 2-fold: to prevent attacks from occurring and to effectively and rapidly end them when they do occur.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine.

METHODS

Information for inclusion in this review was identified through a search of MEDLINE from 1995 to the present. Search terms included migraine, acute treatment, prophylactic treatment, preventive treatment, and individual drug names.

RESULTS

Preventive measures for migraine include lifestyle changes (eg, avoiding migraine triggers and maintaining regular sleep, eating, and work habits) and drug therapy. Beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants are among the more common drug classes used for migraine prophylaxis, but preventive therapy must be individualized, taking into account efficacy, potential adverse effects, co-existing medical conditions, and drug costs. Many medications are available for the acute treatment of migraine, including over-the-counter analgesics and prescription drugs. Of the latter, the 5-hydroxytryptamine(1B/1D)-receptor agonists, or triptans, are the most recently introduced class. Each of the 4 available triptans (sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, and rizatriptan) is effective in ending a migraine attack, but comparative trials have shown differences between individual drugs in the time to pain relief and the percentage of patients who obtain pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Medications to prevent or reduce the frequency of migraine tend to be less specific and effective than medications for the acute treatment of migraine. As a class, triptans are generally well tolerated and may be considered drugs of choice for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine.