The placebo effect in acute headache management: ketorolac, meperidine, and saline in the emergency department

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.

Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal ketamine versus intravenous ketorolac on acute non-traumatic headaches: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Non - traumatic headaches are one of the most common causes of referral to hospital emergency. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac on acute non-traumatic headaches.

METHODS

This randomized and double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 2019. One hundred and forty samples were randomly divided into intranasal ketamine (A) and intravenous ketorolac (B). Group (A) received ketamine intranasal (0.75 mg/kg, max 75 mg), and group B received intravenous ketorolac (30 mg). Headache severity was measured on arrival, 30, 60, and 120 min after intervention with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The side effects were recorded an hour after the intervention.

RESULT

The mean difference of pain intensity 30, 60, and 120 min after the intervention between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In the first 30 min, significant changes were observed in the VAS levels of the two groups. These changes were significantly greater in the intranasal ketamine group (p < 0.001). Side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, general discomfort, nausea, increased heart rate, and hypertension were significantly higher in the ketamine group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac both effectively reduced headaches. However, more analgesic effects of intranasal ketamine in a short time can be considered as a selective approach to reducing headaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20180108038276N3 , Registered 29 September 2019.

ETHICS COMMITTEE REFERENCE NUMBER

IR.KUMS.REC.1398.068.

The efficacy of botulinum toxin A treatment for tension-type or cervicogenic headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The pathogeneses of chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) and cervicogenic headache (CEH) are not well established. Peripheral activation or sensitization of myofascial nociceptors is suggested as a potential mechanism and injections of botulinum toxin (BONTA) have thus been used in the treatment for both headache conditions. BONTA inhibits the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction and inhibits contraction of skeletal muscles. If the pain is precipitated by increased tone in cervical muscles, local injections of BONTA could represent a prophylactic measure. However, the treatment is still controversial, and a thorough assessment of the current evidence is required. This review aims to assess the evidence of BONTA injection as a prophylactic treatment for CTTH and CEH by reviewing and examining the quality of placebo-controlled, randomized trials.

METHODS

Data sources: we searched in the following databases: PubMed (including Medline), Embase, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, Cinahl, Amed, SCOPUS and Google Scholar including other repository sources. Both MeSH and free keywords were used in conducting the systematic search in the databases. The search covered publications from the root of the databases to November 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The review included RCTs, comparing single treatment of BONTA with placebo on patients with CTTH or CEH above 18 years of age, by measuring pain severity/relief or headache frequency.

DATA EXTRACTION

The following data were extracted: year of publication, country, setting, trial design, number of participants, injection procedure, BONTA dosages, and clinical outcome measures.

STUDY APPRAISAL

To assess validity and quality, and risk of bias, the Oxford Pain Validity Scale, Modified Jadad Scale, last version of Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB 2), and the CONSORT 2010 Checklist were used. The trials were assessed, and quality scored independently by two of the reviewers. A quantitative synthesis and meta-analyses of headache frequency and intensity were performed.

RESULTS

We extracted 16 trials, 12 on prophylactic BONTA treatment for CTTH and four on CEH. Of these 12 trials (8 on CTTH and 4 on CEH) were included in the quantitative synthesis. A majority of the trials found no significant difference on the primary outcome measure when BONTA treatment was compared with placebo. Three "positive" trials, reporting significant difference in favor of BONTA treatment, but two of these were hampered by low validity and quality scores and high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear clinical evidence supporting prophylactic treatment with BONTA for CTTH or CEH.

Low-dose Ketamine Does Not Improve Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

Introduction

Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with migraine headaches. Although low-dose ketamine demonstrates analgesic efficacy for acute pain complaints in the ED, headaches have historically been excluded from these trials. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of low-dose ketamine for treatment of acute migraine in the ED.

Methods

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated adults 18 to 65 years of age with acute migraine at a single academic ED. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.2 milligrams per kilogram of intravenous (IV) ketamine or an equivalent volume of normal saline. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores, categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, side effects, and adverse events were assessed at baseline (T0) and 30 minutes post-treatment (T30). The primary outcome was between-group difference in NRS score reduction at 30 minutes.

Results

We enrolled 34 subjects (ketamine=16, placebo=18). Demographics were similar between treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference in NRS score reductions between ketamine and placebo-treated groups after 30 minutes. Median NRS score reductions at 30 minutes were 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 2.25) for the ketamine group and 2.0 (IQR 0 to 3.75) for the placebo group. Between-group median difference at 30 minutes was −1.0 (IQR −2 to 1, p=0.5035). No significant differences between treatment groups occurred in categorical pain scores, functional disability scores, rescue medication request rate, and treatment satisfaction. Side Effect Rating Scale for Dissociative Anesthetics scores in the ketamine group were significantly greater for generalized discomfort at 30 minutes (p=0.008) and fatigue at 60 minutes (p=0.0216). No serious adverse events occurred in this study.

Conclusion

We found that 0.2mg/kg IV ketamine did not produce a greater reduction in NRS score compared to placebo for treatment of acute migraine in the ED. Generalized discomfort at 30 minutes was significantly greater in the ketamine group. Overall, ketamine was well tolerated by migraine-suffering subjects. To optimize low-dose ketamine as an acute migraine treatment, future studies should investigate more effective dosing and routes of administration.

Placebo response in neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Background

Understanding factors associated with high placebo responses in clinical trials increases the likelihood of detecting a meaningful treatment effect. The aim of the present study was to identify subject-level factors that contribute to placebo variability in patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods

Multiple regression analysis of patient data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (duration >4 weeks) involving individuals with SCI was performed. Patient demographics, as well as injury and pain characteristics were examined for their association with changes in pain rating from baseline to the end of the trial (i.e., placebo response). The overall effect of individual predictors was quantified with meta-analysis statistics.

Results

A total of 276 patients with SCI from six studies were included in the analysis. Based on the meta-analysis of subject-level predictors, larger placebo responses were associated with male subjects (β=0.635; standard error [SE]=0.262; p=0.016) and higher baseline pain (β=−0.146; SE=0.073; p=0.044). There were no significant effects for injury characteristics (i.e., severity, level, and time since injury) or pain characteristics (i.e., location and evoked). No significant publication bias was detected.

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis of individual patient data demonstrated the importance of sex and baseline pain intensity on changes in pain ratings in the placebo arm of SCI central neuropathic pain randomized controlled clinical trials. Overall, our findings indicate that placebo responses occur independent of injury characteristics.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Management of Status Migrainosus and Intractable Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses the treatment of status migrainosus in the emergency department and the treatment of intractable migraine in an inpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple agents of various drug classes have been tried for the treatment of acute migraine in the emergency department, but few have adequate medical evidence to support their use. Opioids, which are less effective than other medications used for the acute treatment of migraine and also carry the risk of adverse CNS side effects, habituation, and addiction, have been prescribed for migraine in the emergency department at an increasing rate over the last decade, which is a worrisome trend. Very few patients with migraine derive sustained relief from pain after emergency department treatment, and most have a high frequency of headache recurrence.

SUMMARY

Treatment of status migrainosus and intractable migraine should focus on adequate fluid hydration and combination IV therapy with multiple nonopioid medications from multiple drug classes. Dopamine receptor antagonists appear to have some of the highest medical evidence for efficacy.

A Randomized Prospective Placebo-Controlled Study of Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate vs. Metoclopramide in the Management of Acute Migraine Attacks in the Emergency Department

The objective of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was to determine the effectiveness of intravenous magnesium sulphate and intravenous metoclopramide in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in the Emergency Department when compared with placebo. Adult patients who presented to the Emergency Department with a headache that met International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for acute migraine were infused with either 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide, 2 g of intravenous magnesium sulphate or normal saline over 10 min. At 0, 15, and 30 min, patients were asked to rate their pain on a standard visual analogue scale. At 30 min, patients were asked in a standard manner about the need for rescue medication. Adverse affects were also recorded. Patients were followed up by telephone within 24 h for any recurrence after discharge. The primary endpoint of the study was the difference in pain relief between the groups at 30 min. Of the 120 patients who met IHS criteria, seven were excluded from the study due to insufficient data. The number of patients, gender, age and initial visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were comparable between groups. Each group experienced more than a 25-mm improvement in VAS score at 30 min. However, there was no significant difference detected in the mean changes in VAS scores for pain. The rescue medication requirement was higher in the placebo group. The recurrence rate in 24 h was similar between the groups. Although patients receiving placebo required rescue medication more than the others, metoclopramide and magnesium have an analgesic effect similar to placebo in migraine attacks.

Placebo Response in a Patient with Chronic Migraine and Ergotic Overuse

Facilitation of nociceptive systems has been implicated in Chronic-Migraine pathogenesis. Daily consumption of medication may be a contributing factor. The patient was male, aged 76 years, with history of migraine without aura. Six years ago, he presented with a mild-moderate daily pulsating headache. He was overusing analgesics and ergotamine. After withdrawing, the patient started a non-pulsating headache, diffuse and constant. During follow up, he was refractive to several symptomatic and prophylactic treatments. When we treated him with placebo capsules, the headache responded very well. At first, pain-relief occurred for 6 h and progressively, extended. Two years later, when our patient started to use transdermal patches of fentanyl for treatment of a complex regional pain syndrome type 1, his headache did not improve. Patient has maintained prolonged response to placebo. Actually, he is pain-free for 2-3 days with 1 placebo capsule. We discuss mechanisms of chronic-migraine, drug-overuse, drug-induced headache and placebo addiction. Powerful psychological mechanisms could determine response to placebo in this patient.

Intravenous magnesium for acute benign headache in the emergency department: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background:

Magnesium deficiency may play a role in the pathogenesis of migraines and other headaches. Studies in outpatient clinics have found that magnesium administered intravenously (IV) reduces headache pain. We investigated the effectiveness of IV magnesium in patients with acute benign headache who presented to the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

This randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial compared 2 g of IV magnesium versus placebo for the treatment of patients with acute benign headache who presented to the EDs of two teaching hospitals. Pre- and post-treatment pain scores were measured on a 100-mm visual analog pain scale.

Results:

Forty-two patients were randomized, 21 in each treatment group. Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment, placebo recipients reported an 8-mm median improvement in pain, and magnesium recipients had a 3-mm improvement (p = 0.63). We found no statistically significant difference between groups for any secondary outcomes; however, the patients who received magnesium had significantly (p = 0.03) more side effects than did those in the placebo group.

Conclusions:

We found no benefit to using IV magnesium to treat patients with acute benign headache who present to the ED.

Management of pediatric migraine in a tertiary care versus community based emergency department: an observational pilot study

BACKGROUND

Because of a lack of guidelines for the management of pediatric migraine in the emergency department setting, marked variations in treatment protocols exist between institutions. We aimed to characterize differences in management strategies for pediatric migraine treatment between a community-based and a tertiary care emergency department.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed to include pediatric patients presenting with headache fulfilling the International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria in a tertiary care (site 1) and a community based (site 2) emergency department. The two sites were compared with respect to patient demographics and approach to treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients at site 1 (mean age 13.6 years, 70% female, 68% African-American) and 63 patients at site 2 (mean age 16.7 years, 71% female, 100% Caucasian) were analyzed. Opiate use (7.6% vs. 33%), imaging (6.3% vs. 20.6%), use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/serotonin agonists at discharge (72.7% vs. 22.2%), and admission rates to hospital (22% vs. 0%) were significantly different. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the main predictors of hospital admission were use of opiates and intravenous combination abortive therapy.

CONCLUSION

Low rates of intravenous combination therapy, antidopaminergic agent, and serotonin agonist use were noted across both hospital settings. Community-based physicians used opiates and obtained neuro-imaging more than those in the academic setting. Standardization of care in the emergency setting coupled with reliable acute care plans that are based on evidenced-based guidelines can allow for better control of episodic migraine and reduce emergency department visits.

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.

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.

The drug-seeking patient in the emergency room

Drug-seeking patients include recreational drug abusers, addicts whose dependence occurred through abuse or the injudicious prescription of narcotics, and pseudoaddicts who have chronic pain that has not been appropriately managed. Opioids produce euphoria in some patients, providing the motivation for abuse, which can be detrimental even with occasional use. Even in the absence of overt euphoria, opioids are highly self-reinforcing and can be problematic in a large number of patients, requiring that acute care physicians exercise caution in whom they are administered. Habitual patient files, narcotic contracts, pain management letters, and patient tracking and management programs can be used for the benefit of both drug seeking-patients and chronic pain patients. For many patients, drug-seekers and chronic pain patients alike, withholding opioids may be an important part of their long-term management. For others, long-acting opioids such as long-acting morphine or methadone are a reasonable option.

Management of Chronic Pain in the Acute Care Setting

Chronic nonmalignant pain requires evaluation and treatment different from acute pain. The pathophysiology is different, and there is commonly some degree of psychosocial dysfunction. Opioids tend to be much less effective as analgesics for chronic pain, and may increase the sensitivity to pain when given long-term. Because they are self-reinforcing, opioids may be sought and be reported to improve chronic pain, even when they may make the condition worse over time. There are many effective alternatives to opioids for the treatment of chronic pain, but their use is complicated and may require considerable time and effort to determine which ones work. Patients, particularly those who have already been prescribed opioids, may resist these alternatives. An extensive physical and psychosocial evaluation is required in the management of chronic pain, which is difficult if not impossible to achieve in the emergency or urgent care settings. Consequently, emergency and urgent care physicians should work closely with the patient's pain management specialist or personal physician. Systems should be set up in advance to identify those patients whose frequent use of acute care services for obtaining opioids may be compromising their long-term management, putting themselves at risk for psychological and tolerance-induced adverse effects of frequent opioid use. Opioids may be used in carefully selected patients in consultation with their pain management specialist or personal physician, but care must be exercised not to initiate or exacerbate psychological or tolerance-related complications of chronic pain.

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.

Treatment of pediatric migraine headaches

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare the effectiveness of intravenous ketorolac and intravenous prochlorperazine in the treatment of pediatric migraine headaches.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial in 2 pediatric emergency departments (EDs) within children's hospitals. Children aged 5 to 18 years presenting to the ED with migraine headaches were eligible for the study. Contraindications to either medication or the inability to complete the pain score resulted in exclusion. Children were randomized to receive intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg; maximum 30 mg) or intravenous prochlorperazine (0.15 mg/kg; maximum 10 mg). All children also received a normal saline solution bolus. Successful treatment was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in the Nine Faces Pain Scale score at 60 minutes. If a less than 50% improvement occurred by 60 minutes, the child received the other medication. Forty-eight-hour follow-up telephone calls were made to each family to assess recurrence and late side effects.

RESULTS

Sixty-two children were enrolled: 33 initially received prochlorperazine, and 29 initially received ketorolac. By 60 minutes, 16 (55.2%) of 29 of those who received ketorolac and 28 (84.8%) of 33 of those who received prochlorperazine were successfully treated (difference=30%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8% to 52%). Fifty-six (93.3%) of the 60 children who completed the study were successfully treated by the study's conclusion. Approximately 30% of each group had a recurrence of some headache symptoms. Only 2 children reported side effects, both mild and self-limited.

CONCLUSION

In children, intravenous prochlorperazine is superior to intravenous ketorolac in the acute treatment of migraine headaches.

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.

A review of mechanisms of response to pain therapy: why voodoo works

A person's response to pain treatment may be due to factors other than the direct effect of analgesics. Amelioration of pain is often associated with modalities that appear to make no scientific sense. This review outlines the mechanisms of pain amelioration other than that by medication. These mechanisms help to explain why pain relief may follow the administration of allopathic modalities. Pain is modulated, enhanced, or diminished by both cerebral and peripheral mechanisms. Cerebral factors include the placebo response, psychological phenomena, and conscious cognitive activation. In addition to evoking endogenous opioids, these central mechanisms activate antinociceptive pathways beginning in the limbic forebrain and relayed in the periaqueductal gray matter to primary afferent nociceptive sites in the spinal cord dorsal horn (and medullary nucleus caudalis). Obvious peripheral factors that may diminish pain perception are those that decrease afferent stimuli. Paradoxically, stimulation of afferent neurons may also ameliorate pain by activating spinal or supraspinal inhibitory mechanisms. Finally, improvement in pain or other symptoms is often falsely attributed to a therapy when remission occurs because the underlying illness has run its normal course.

Botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX) for treatment of migraine

An open-label study and 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have provided supporting evidence of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for migraine. Observed durations of benefit were consistent with known properties of BTX-A. Findings suggest that response may vary by features of preinjection headaches, such as migraine frequency. The precise mechanism by which BTX-A provides pain relief is hypothesized to be related not only to acetylcholine inhibition but also to a blocking action on the parasympathetic nervous system. Additional studies that control factors likely to be related to response may lead to better understanding of the BTX-A effect on migraine and an optimal treatment protocol.

Management by nurses of primary headache: a pilot study

Primary headache is a very common condition and one that nurses encounter in many different care settings. Yet there is a lack of evidence as to whether advice given to sufferers is effective and what improvements may be expected in the condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate the advice given by a nurse to primary headache sufferers. The design was quasi-experimental. An experimental group (n = 19) and a control group (n = 25) of primary headache sufferers had their headache parameters of frequency, severity duration and disability (Migraine Disability Assessment) over the previous six months assessed. The experimental group then received advice in the form of health education from a nurse. Both groups kept a headache diary for six months. After six months both groups had their headache parameters assessed again. Compared to the control group, there was a significant reduction in the severity of headaches experienced by the experimental group (p = 0.006). Although there were reductions in frequency and duration of headaches experienced by the experimental group compared to the control group, these were not significant (p = 0.664 and p = 0.235, respectively). The Migraine Disability Assessment showed a trend towards reduced scores in the experimental group compared to controls which were not significant (p = 0.535). This pilot study suggests that health education can be effective in reducing the severity of headaches. However, a larger study over a longer period is needed to evaluate improvements in headache parameters.

Conducting clinical trials to establish drug efficacy in chronic pain

Design of clinical trials to establish drug efficacy in chronic pain is a complicated issue, and numerous factors must be considered in identifying an optimal study design. Investigators should begin by identifying a focused and testable research question, with the outcome variables operationalized in a way that allows appropriate quantitative analysis. The prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, doubled-blind study using validated quantitative measures is considered the optimal clinical trial design. Within this general study type, the between-subjects design has less statistical power than does the crossover design, in which the patient serves as his or her own control. However, potential problems with the drug effects from the first condition carrying over into, and confounding, the second drug condition present a noteworthy limitation that must be addressed through adequate washout periods and statistical control if crossover designs are used. Retrospective designs may be useful primarily to take advantage of samples of convenience for development of pilot data that provide the basis for conducting better-controlled prospective studies. Sample selection issues must be considered during study design, including the sample size required (based on statistical power analysis), appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, and likely availability of qualifying patients. There are numerous statistical options for analyzing data that must be selected based on whether data are parametric or nonparametric, whether within-subject (crossover) or between-subject comparisons are used, and whether baseline values of outcome measures affect the degree of change in these measures over the course of the study. Involvement of a biostatistical consultant is recommended during all phases of clinical trials.

Botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX) for treatment of migraine

An open-label study and 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have provided supporting evidence of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for migraine. Observed durations of benefit were consistent with known properties of BTX-A. Findings suggest that response may vary by features of preinjection headaches, such as migraine frequency. The precise mechanism by which BTX-A provides pain relief is hypothesized to be related not only to acetylcholine inhibition but also to a blocking action on the parasympathetic nervous system. Additional studies that control factors likely to be related to response may lead to better understanding of the BTX-A effect on migraine and an optimal treatment protocol.

Treatment of tension-type headache with botulinum toxin type A: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether injections of botulinum toxin could be of therapeutic value in the treatment of tension-type headache.

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin A is very effective at reducing muscle tenderness and pain in many diseases. Increased muscle tension may contribute to tension-type headache.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 21 patients fulfilling the International Headache Society criteria for tension-type headache. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pericranial injection of 10 x 20 mouse units botulinum toxin A) or placebo (injection of isotonic saline in the same manner).

RESULTS

After 4, 8, and 12 weeks, no significant differences between placebo and treatment could be observed (with respect to visual analog scale, frequency and duration of headache attacks, consumption of analgesics, pressure pain threshold, total tenderness score, and quality-of-life parameters).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study strongly support the hypothesis that peripheral mechanisms, such as increased muscle tenderness, only play a minor role in the pathogenesis of tension-type headache.

A prospective study of i.v. magnesium and i.v. prochlorperazine in the treatment of headaches

Previous uncontrolled, nonrandomized trials suggest that magnesium sulfate (MgSO(4)) is effective in the treatment of headache. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of MgSO(4) vs. prochlorperazine in emergency department (ED) patients with acute headache. Patients presenting to the ED with a chief complaint of headache who met study criteria were enrolled. Each patient rated pain on a visual analog scale before and 30 min after a randomized study drug infusion. Thirty-six similar patients were enrolled. There was complete or partial pain relief in 90% of the prochlorperazine group and 56% of the MgSO(4) group, a statistically significant difference. Prochlorperazine caused significantly fewer side effects, and none of the patients required additional medication during the study period. It was determined that intravenous prochlorperazine is highly effective in the treatment of headache and magnesium is moderately effective. Response to MgSO(4) was unrelated to serum Mg level.

Intravenous ketorolac vs intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of migraine headaches

OBJECTIVE

To compare i.v. ketorolac with i.v. prochlorperazine as the initial treatment of migraine headaches in the ED.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind comparison study was performed, using a convenience sample of 64 patients suffering from migraine headaches presenting to the ED at a tertiary care university teaching hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg of prochlorperazine i.v. or 30 mg of ketorolac i.v.. Patients scored the severity of their headaches using a 10-cm visual analog pain scale. An initial mark was made on the scale at the time of entry into the study and later another mark was made on a new unmarked pain scale 1 hour after medication administration. Changes in pain scores within each treatment group and between groups were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

Prior to treatment, the patients assigned to receive prochlorperazine had a median score of 9.2 cm (mean +/- SD pain score of 8.3 cm +/- 2.1 cm), while the patients receiving ketorolac had a median score of 9.0 (mean pain score of 8.4 cm +/- 1.7 cm). There was no significant difference between the pain scores of the participants in the 2 groups prior to treatment (p = 0.80). One hour after medication administration, the patients in the prochlorperazine group had a median score of 0.5 cm (mean 2.1 +/- 3.2 cm), while those patients receiving ketorolac had a median pain score of 3.9 (mean 4.0 +/- 3.3 cm). The decrease in pain score was significant for both groups of patients (p = 0.0001). The change in pain score for the patients in the prochlorperazine group (median 7.1) was significantly greater than the change in pain score for the patients in the ketorolac group (median 4.0; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Although both drugs were associated with a significant reduction in pain scores, benefit over a placebo agent was not tested. Furthermore, the patients who received prochlorperazine i.v. for migraine headaches had a statistically significant greater decrease in their pain scores than did those receiving ketorolac i.v.

Ketorolac. A reappraisal of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use in pain management

Ketorolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with strong analgesic activity. The analgesic efficacy of ketorolac has been extensively evaluated in the postoperative setting, in both hospital inpatients and outpatients, and in patients with various other acute pain states. After major abdominal, orthopaedic or gynaecological surgery or ambulatory laparoscopic or gynaecological procedures, ketorolac provides relief from mild to severe pain in the majority of patients and has similar analgesic efficacy to that of standard dosages of morphine and pethidine (meperidine) as well as less frequently used opioids and other NSAIDs. The analgesic effect of ketorolac may be slightly delayed but often persists for longer than that of opioids. Combined therapy with ketorolac and an opioid results in a 25 to 50% reduction in opioid requirements, and in some patients this is accompanied by a concomitant decrease in opioid-induced adverse events, more rapid return to normal gastrointestinal function and shorter stay in hospital. In children undergoing myringotomy, hernia repair, tonsillectomy, or other surgery associated with mild to moderate pain, ketorolac provides comparable analgesia to morphine, pethidine or paracetamol (acetaminophen). In the emergency department, ketorolac attenuates moderate to severe pain in patients with renal colic, migraine headache, musculoskeletal pain or sickle cell crisis and is usually as effective as frequently used opioids, such as morphine and pethidine, and other NSAIDs and analgesics. Subcutaneous administration of ketorolac reduces pain in patients with cancer and seems particularly beneficial in pain resulting from bone metastases. The acquisition cost of ketorolac is greater than that of morphine or pethidine; however, in a small number of studies, the higher cost of ketorolac was offset when treatment with ketorolac resulted in a reduced hospital stay compared with alternative opioid therapy. The tolerability profile of ketorolac parallels that of other NSAIDs; most clinically important adverse events affect the gastrointestinal tract and/or renal or haematological function. The incidence of serious or fatal adverse events reported with ketorolac has decreased since revision of dosage guidelines. Results from a large retrospective postmarketing surveillance study in more than 20,000 patients demonstrated that the overall risk of gastrointestinal or operative site bleeding related to parenteral ketorolac therapy was only slightly higher than with opioids. However, the risk increased markedly when high dosages were used for more than 5 days, especially in the elderly. Acute renal failure may occur after treatment with ketorolac but is usually reversible on drug discontinuation. In common with other NSAIDs, ketorolac has also been implicated in allergic or hypersensitivity reactions. In summary, ketorolac is a strong analgesic with a tolerability profile which resembles that of other NSAIDs. When used in accordance with current dosage guidelines, this drug provides a useful alternative, or adjuvant, to opioids in patients with moderate to severe pain.