Mouth-dispersible aspirin in the treatment of migraine: a placebo-controlled study

Management of Pain and Headache After Traumatic Brain Injury

This article will identify common causes of pain following traumatic brain injury (TBI), discuss current treatment strategies for these complaints, and help tailor treatments for both acute and chronic settings. We will also briefly discuss primary and secondary headache disorders, followed by common secondary pain disorders that may be related to trauma.

Progress in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks: From Traditional Approaches to Eptinezumab

Migraine is the second cause of disability and of lost years of healthy life worldwide. Migraine is characterized by recurrent headache attacks and accompanying disabling symptoms lasting 4-48 h. In episodic migraine, attacks occur in less than 15 days per month and in chronic migraine, in more than 15 monthly days. Whilst successful translation of pharmacological discoveries into efficacious therapeutics has been achieved in the preventative therapy of chronic migraine, treatment of acute migraine suffers the lack of effective advancements. An effective treatment affords complete freedom from pain two hours after therapy and provides the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) associated with migraine after 2 h. However, available anti-migraine abortive treatments for acute attacks do not represent an effective and safe treatment for all the populations treated. In particular, the most used specific treatment is represented by triptans that offer 2-h sustained freedom from pain achieved in 18-50% of patients but they are contraindicated in coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease due to the vasoconstriction at the basis of their pharmacologic action. The most novel therapies, i.e., gepants and ditans, are without sufficient post-marketing data for secure use. Here, an attempt is proposed to analyse the rational basis and evidence in favour of investigating the efficacy and safety in acute migraine attacks of eptinezumab, i.e., monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) unique for intravenous infusion administration.

A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

The first manuscript in this series delineated a model of structured headache services, potentially cost-effective but requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We envisaged a need for a new outcome measure for this purpose, applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments.

CONCEPTION AND DELINEATION

A literature review confirmed the lack of any suitable established measure. We prioritised construct validity, simplicity, comprehensiveness and expression in intuitive units. We noted that pain was the key burdensome symptom of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (TTH), that pain above a certain level was disabling, that it was difficult to put economic value to pain but relatively easy to do this for time, a casualty of headache leading to lost productivity. Alleviation of pain to a non-disabling level would be expected to bring restoration of function. We therefore based the measure on time spent in the ictal state (TIS) of migraine or TTH, either as total TIS or proportion of all time. We expressed impact on health, in units of time, as TIS*DW, where DW was the disability weight for the ictal state supplied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies. If the time unit was hours, TIS*DW yielded hours lived with (or lost to) disability (HLDs), in analogy with GBD's years lived with disability (YLDs).

UTILITY ASSESSMENT

Acute treatments would reduce TIS by shortening attack duration, preventative treatments by reducing attack frequency; health-care systems such as structured headache services would have these effects by delivering these treatments. These benefits were all measurable as HLDs-averted. Population-level estimates would be derived by factoring in prevalence, but also taking treatment coverage and adherence into account. For health-care systems, additional gains from provider-training (promoting adherence to guidelines and, therefore, enhancing coverage) and consumer-education (improving adherence to care plans), increasing numbers within populations gaining the benefits of treatments, would be measurable by the same metric.

CONCLUSIONS

The new outcome measure expressed in intuitive units of time is applicable to treatments of all modalities and to system-level interventions for multiple headache types, with utility for CEA and for informing health policy.

The current state of acute treatment for migraine in adults in the United States

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder with substantial personal, social, and economic burden that affects 37 million people in the United States. Risk factors for migraine include age, sex, and genetics. The goal of acute treatment of migraine attacks is to stop the pain and associated symptoms of the migraine attack and return the patient to normal function. The acute treatment landscape for migraine has recently expanded beyond the standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, triptans, ergotamines, and combination therapies, to include neuromodulation devices, and recently approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and a serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist. Unmet acute treatment needs still exist due to lack of efficacy, unwanted side effects, or contraindication to treatment. Effective treatment of migraine requires the clinician to assess the patient, make an accurate diagnosis, and then offer appropriate therapy based on the patient's medical history, comorbidities, and preferences, as well as published clinical evidence. The objective of this narrative review is to familiarize primary care clinicians with the variety of acute treatment options available in the United States today based on clinical trial findings, meta-analyses, evidence-based guidelines, and professional society consensus statements.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Treatment of migraine attacks by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in emergency department: A randomize controlled trial

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) therapy application in the emergency department.

METHODS

The patients were divided into 2 groups: a sham group, and a verum group. Patients in the verum group include those who use the device for the first time. Both groups were connected to visually indistinguishable devices. Both groups underwent therapy for a total of 20 min. Using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the patients' perceived changes in pain intensity were recorded at the 20th and 120th minutes after initiation therapy. After the 120th minute, patients' individual needs for additional treatment were assessed. Additionally, their self-reported well-being was assessed using a Likert-type verbal scale.

RESULTS

In total 151 patients that were admitted to the emergency ward were assessed, with the sham and verum group being assigned 39 patients each from this pool. For the verum group the VAS change from 0 to 120 min was -65 ± 25 and for the sham group it was -9 ± 2 (p < 0.001). Verbal scores in the 120th minute were found to be 1.2 for sham group and 4.5 in the verum group (p < 0.001). Thirty patients (76.92%) in the sham group and 1 (2%) in the verum group had additional analgesic requirement after 120 min.

CONCLUSION

TENS therapy is a fast-acting, effective therapy for the treatment of acute migraine in the emergency department.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Network meta-analysis of migraine disorder treatment by NSAIDs and triptans

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder resulting in large socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) is designed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) and triptans.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches in database PubMed and Embase. Treatment effectiveness was compared by synthesizing direct and indirect evidences using NMA. The surface under curve ranking area (SUCRA) was created to rank those interventions.

Results

Eletriptan and rizatriptan are superior to sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, almotriptan, ibuprofen and aspirin with respect to pain-relief. When analyzing 2 h-nausea-absence, rizatriptan has a better efficacy than sumatriptan, while other treatments indicate no distinctive difference compared with placebo. Furthermore, sumatriptan demonstrates a higher incidence of all-adverse-event compared with diclofenac-potassium, ibuprofen and almotriptan.

Conclusion

This study suggests that eletriptan may be the most suitable therapy for migraine from a comprehensive point of view. In the meantime ibuprofen may also be a good choice for its excellent tolerability. Multi-component medication also attracts attention and may be a promising avenue for the next generation of migraine treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0703-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies

The study aims to provide an updated assessment of the evidence for individual pharmacological therapies for acute migraine treatment. Pharmacological therapy is frequently required for acutely treating migraine attacks. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines published in 2000 summarized the available evidence relating to the efficacy of acute migraine medications. This review, conducted by the members of the Guidelines Section of the American Headache Society, is an updated assessment of evidence for the migraine acute medications. A standardized literature search was performed to identify articles related to acute migraine treatment that were published between 1998 and 2013. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines Development procedures were followed. Two authors reviewed each abstract resulting from the search and determined whether the full manuscript qualified for review. Two reviewers studied each qualifying full manuscript for its level of evidence. Level A evidence requires at least 2 Class I studies, and Level B evidence requires 1 Class I or 2 Class II studies. The specific medications - triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan [oral, nasal spray, injectable, transcutaneous patch], zolmitriptan [oral and nasal spray]) and dihydroergotamine (nasal spray, inhaler) are effective (Level A). Ergotamine and other forms of dihydroergotamine are probably effective (Level B). Effective nonspecific medications include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen), opioids (butorphanol nasal spray), sumatriptan/naproxen, and the combination of acetaminophen/aspirin/caffeine (Level A). Ketoprofen, intravenous and intramuscular ketorolac, flurbiprofen, intravenous magnesium (in migraine with aura), and the combination of isometheptene compounds, codeine/acetaminophen and tramadol/acetaminophen are probably effective (Level B). The antiemetics prochlorperazine, droperidol, chlorpromazine, and metoclopramide are probably effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence for butalbital and butalbital combinations, phenazone, intravenous tramadol, methadone, butorphanol or meperidine injections, intranasal lidocaine, and corticosteroids, including dexamethasone (Level C). Octreotide is probably not effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence to refute the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray, intravenous acetaminophen, chlorpromazine injection, and intravenous granisetron (Level C). There are many acute migraine treatments for which evidence supports efficacy. Clinicians must consider medication efficacy, potential side effects, and potential medication-related adverse events when prescribing acute medications for migraine. Although opioids, such as butorphanol, codeine/acetaminophen, and tramadol/acetaminophen, are probably effective, they are not recommended for regular use.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were found for this update. Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Evaluation of onset of pain relief from micronized aspirin in a dental pain model

A new formulation of a micronized acetylsalicylic acid swallowable tablet with an effervescent component (FR-aspirin) was evaluated in two independent studies using the dental impaction pain model. These clinical studies were performed to confirm the results of preclinical dissolution studies and human pharmacokinetic studies, which indicated an improved onset of analgesia without compromising duration of effect or safety. Study 1 evaluated a 650-mg dose of aspirin and Study 2 evaluated a 1,000-mg dose of aspirin. Both studies were double-blinded, parallel group and compared to regular aspirin (R-aspirin) and placebo. Speed of onset was measured by the double stopwatch method for time to both first perceptible relief and meaningful relief. In both studies, the FR-aspirin was significantly faster (p<0.038-0.001) than both R-aspirin and placebo for both onset measures. There were no significant differences between FR-aspirin and R-aspirin for peak or total effects and both treatments were significantly better than placebo. For first perceptible relief, FR-aspirin onset was 19.8 and 16.3 min for 650 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively, compared to 23.7 and 20.0 for R-aspirin. For meaningful relief, FR-aspirin onset was 48.9 and 49.4 min for 650 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively, compared to 119.2 and 99.2 for R-aspirin. These efficacy studies clearly demonstrate that the onset of analgesic efficacy is dramatically improved by adding an effervescent component and micronized active ingredient to the swallowable tablet aspirin formulation. The enhanced onset did not adversely impact either the peak effect or duration of effect or tolerability compared to regular aspirin.

Self-medication of migraine and tension-type headache: summary of the evidence-based recommendations of the Deutsche Migräne und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (DMKG), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN), the Österreichische Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (ÖKSG) and the Schweizerische Kopfwehgesellschaft (SKG)

The current evidence-based guideline on self-medication in migraine and tension-type headache of the German, Austrian and Swiss headache societies and the German Society of Neurology is addressed to physicians engaged in primary care as well as pharmacists and patients. The guideline is especially concerned with the description of the methodology used, the selection process of the literature used and which evidence the recommendations are based upon. The following recommendations about self-medication in migraine attacks can be made: The efficacy of the fixed-dose combination of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine and the monotherapies with ibuprofen or naratriptan or acetaminophen or phenazone are scientifically proven and recommended as first-line therapy. None of the substances used in self-medication in migraine prophylaxis can be seen as effective. Concerning the self-medication in tension-type headache, the following therapies can be recommended as first-line therapy: the fixed-dose combination of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine as well as the fixed combination of acetaminophen and caffeine as well as the monotherapies with ibuprofen or acetylsalicylic acid or diclofenac. The four scientific societies hope that this guideline will help to improve the treatment of headaches which largely is initiated by the patients themselves without any consultation with their physicians.

Are the current IHS guidelines for migraine drug trials being followed?

In 2000, the Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) published the second edition of its guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. The purpose of this publication was to improve the quality of such trials by increasing the awareness amongst investigators of the methodological issues specific to this particular illness. Until now the adherence to these guidelines has not been systematically assessed. We reviewed all published controlled trials of drugs in migraine from 2002 to 2008. Eligible trials were scored for compliance with the IHS guidelines by using grading scales based on the most essential recommendations of the guidelines. The primary efficacy measure of each trial was also recorded. A total of 145 trials of acute treatment and 52 trials of prophylactic treatment were eligible for review. Of the randomized, double-blind trials, acute trials scored an average of 4.7 out of 7 while prophylactic trials scored an average of 5.6 out of 9 for compliance. Thirty-one percent of acute trials and 72% of prophylactic trials used the recommended primary efficacy measure. Fourteen percent of the reviewed trials were either not randomized or not double-blinded. Adherence to international guidelines like these of IHS is important to ensure that only high-quality trials are performed, and to provide the consensus that is required for meta analyses. The primary efficacy measure for trials of acute treatment should be “pain free” and not “headache relief”. Open-label or non-randomized trials generally have no place in the study of migraine drugs.

Current and emerging treatment options for migraine and other primary headache disorders

Primary headache disorders are highly prevalent worldwide. The impact of primary headaches to the individual is significant and reflects physical suffering and decreased social and occupational functioning. The economic burden to society is enormous and represents direct healthcare costs and the indirect costs associated with decreased workplace productivity and work absences. The last decade has witnessed tremendous advances both in our understanding of the biology of headache and in our therapeutic armamentarium. This review outlines how these developments may be rationally implemented by highlighting individual treatment options and general treatment strategies. The state-of-the-art methods for the abortive and prophylactic treatment of tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache are reviewed.

NSAIDs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Review of Clinical and Experimental Data

Migraine is a common disabling neurological disorder with a serious socio-economical burden. By blocking cyclooxygenase nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decrease the synthesis of prostaglandins, which are involved in the pathophysiology of migraine headaches. Despite the introduction more than a decade ago of a new class of migraine-specific drugs with superior efficacy, the triptans, NSAIDs remain the most commonly used therapies for the migraine attack. This is in part due to their wide availability as over-the-counter drugs and their pharmaco-economic advantages, but also to a favorable efficacy/side effect profile at least in attacks of mild and moderate intensity. We summarize here both the experimental data showing that NSAIDs are able to influence several pathophysiological facets of the migraine headache and the clinical studies providing evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of various subclasses of NSAIDs in migraine therapy. Taken together these data indicate that there are several targets for NSAIDs in migraine pathophysiology and that on the spectrum of clinical potency acetaminophen is at the lower end while ibuprofen is among the most effective drugs. Acetaminophen and aspirin excluded, comparative trials between the other NSAIDs are missing. Since evidence-based criteria are scarce, the selection of an NSAID should take into account proof and degree of efficacy, rapid GI absorption, gastric ulcer risk and previous experience of each individual patient. If selected and prescribed wisely, NSAIDs are precious, safe and cost-efficient drugs for the treatment of migraine attacks.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Managing Migraines: Options for Acute Abortive Treatment

Introduction

Triptans, ergotamine derivatives and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are front-line agents used in the acute abortive therapy of migraines. In this article, these medications are reviewed and a treatment algorithm suggested.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature from 1990 to 2008 was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library to explore the underlying pathophysiology of migraines and comparatively assess the acute and chronic treatment options available in their management. The information obtained from all literature searches was further categorized as level 1, 2 or 3 based on pre-defined peer-reviewed criteria.

Conclusion:

This review is able to present a relatively preliminary but practical migraine treatment algorithm. Although there is no standard universal treatment strategy to manage migraine headaches in all patients, this review has been put forth to serve as a clinical guideline to assist health professionals in deciding the most appropriate treatment for migraine headaches.

Optimizing prophylactic treatment of migraine: Subtypes and patient matching

Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine have resulted in important breakthroughs in treatment. For example, understanding of the role of serotonin in the cerebrovascular circulation has led to the development of triptans for the acute relief of migraine headaches, and the identification of cortical spreading depression as an early central event associated wih migraine has brought renewed interest in antiepileptic drugs for migraine prophylaxis. However, migraine still remains inadequately treated. Indeed, it is apparent that migraine is not a single disease but rather a syndrome that can manifest itself in a variety of pathological conditions. The consequences of this may be that treatment needs to be matched to particular patients. Clinical research needs to be devoted to identifying which sort of patients benefit best from which treatments, particularly in the field of prophylaxis. We propose four patterns of precipitating factors (adrenergic, serotoninergic, menstrual, and muscular) which may be used to structure migraine prophylaxis. Finally, little is known about long-term outcome in treated migraine. It is possible that appropriate early prophylaxis may modify the long-term course of the disease and avoid late complications.

Acute migraine in the Emergency Department: extending European principles of management

The World Health Organization (WHO) placed migraine 19th among all causes of disability (12th in women) measured in years of healthy life lost to disability (YLD). The importance of headache disorders, particularly of the primary forms, is established by their distribution worldwide, their duration (the majority being life-long conditions) and their imposition of both disability and life-style restrictions among large numbers of people. For these reasons, headache disorders should represent a public-health priority. In the Emergency Department (ED), as elsewhere, migraine is often under-diagnosed-and under-treated when it is diagnosed. The result is likely to be failure of treatment. Particular attention to diagnosis is needed in ED patients with acute headache, since there is a higher probability of secondary headache due to underlying pathologies. According to European principles of management, acute migraine treatment generally is stepwise. Of the two main steps, the first relies on symptomatic medication, preferably NSAIDs with or without antiemetics. The second step uses specific therapies, usually triptans. Modifications to routine practice are appropriate in the ED. Parenteral administration of symptomatic therapies is a preferred first choice, whilst immediate resort to triptans may be appropriate, and achieve better outcomes, in patients with severe headache and diagnostic confirmation of migraine.

Efficacy and safety of 1,000mg effervescent aspirin: individual patient data meta-analysis of three trials in migraine headache and migraine accompanying symptoms

Migraine is often associated with health consequences including impaired quality of life, and the cost of treating migraine headaches places a significant financial burden on patients who suffer from migraines. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and triptans are commonly used for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Aspirin is widely accepted as a treatment option for migraine pain relief and could provide an alternative not only for treatment of moderate migraine attacks, but also for severe migraine attacks. The efficacy and safety of 1,000 mg effervescent aspirin (eASA) was evaluated in comparison to 50 mg sumatriptan and placebo in an individual patient data meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled, single- dose migraine trials. Pain-relief at 2 h, pain-free at 2 h and sustained pain-free up to 24 h were calculated. For eASA, the response rates were 51.5 % (95 % CI: 46.6-56.5 %), 27.1 % (95 % CI: 22.6-31.4 %), and 23.5 % (95 % CI: 19.3-27.7 %). For sumatriptan, the response rates were 46.6 % (95% CI: 40.0-53.2 %), 29% (95 % CI: 23.0-34.9 %), and 22.2 % (95 % CI: 16.7-27.6 %). The corresponding rates for placebo were 33.9 % (95% CI: 29.1-38.6 %), 15.1 % (95 % CI: 11.5-18.7 %), and 14.6 % (95 % CI: 11.0-18.1 %). The treatment effect of eASA and sumatriptan were significantly different from placebo (p < 0.001), but differences between eASA and sumatriptan were not significant. The remission of accompanying symptoms and the subgroup analyses of patients with moderate or severe migraine pain at baseline revealed no significant differences between eASA and sumatriptan. Safety was evaluated based on the frequency of reported adverse events, and treatment with eASA was associated with lower incidence of adverse events than was with sumatriptan. This individual patient data meta-analysis provided evidence that eASA 1,000 mg is as effective as sumatriptan 50mg for the treatment of acute migraine attacks and has a better side effect profile. This is also true for patients with moderate as well as severe headache at baseline. Patients therefore should be advised to use eASA first for migraine attacks and use a triptan in case of no response.

Aspirin in the treatment of acute migraine attacks

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin or ASA) has been used for many years as an analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory drug. In recent years, evidence for its effectiveness in migraine headache has been demonstrated in several clinical trials. The effervescent highly buffered preparation of aspirin was shown to be effective, safe and well tolerated compared with placebo or other treatment options. The effervescent aspirin preparation is at least as effective as the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide, but has fewer side effects. This review summarizes and analyzes clinical data of aspirin in the treatment of acute migraine attacks with respect to the different galenic formulations.

Aspirin is efficacious for the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of migraine sufferers rely on over-the-counter medications for the treatment of migraine. Along with other over-the-counter products, aspirin is considered by the US Headache Consortium to be an option for first-line migraine treatment. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin versus placebo for the acute treatment of a single acute attack of migraine.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy of a single, 1000-mg dose of aspirin for the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine, with or without aura. Subjects recorded all study evaluations in a diary at baseline and at .5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 24 hours after treatment. Pain was rated on a 4-point ordinal scale from no pain to severe pain. The primary efficacy end point was headache response at 2 hours. Secondary efficacy parameters included reduction of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, pain intensity difference, and headache recurrence at 24 hours.

RESULTS

Of 485 subjects enrolled, 409 took study medication and 401 treated a confirmed migraine attack (201 with aspirin and 200 with placebo). Baseline demographic and migraine characteristics were not significantly different between groups. The 2-hour headache response rate was 52% with aspirin versus 34% with placebo (P<.001). Aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo for pain reduction beginning 1 hour after dosing (P<.001) and continuing throughout the 6-hour evaluation period. Significantly (P<.05), more subjects were pain free from the 1-hour evaluation through the 6-hour evaluation. Of the aspirin-treated subjects, 20% were pain free at 2 hours versus only 6% of placebo-treated subjects. At 24 hours, the headache recurrence rate was 21.8% for aspirin (23 of 105 subjects) and 27.7% for placebo (19 of 68 subjects). Only 34% of aspirin-treated subjects needed rescue medication at 24 hours compared with 52% of placebo-treated subjects (P<.001). Aspirin was well tolerated, and adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that aspirin is safe and effective for treatment of acute migraine in appropriately selected patients.

The real dimension of analgesic activity of aspirin

Aspirin, despite being 100-years old, even in the era of evidence-based medicine, remains a valuable analgesic. Results of randomized trials have shown that it is as well effective and safe as other analgesics in relieving mild pain and can be used in the first-line therapy of migraine.

Over-the-counter drugs for acute migraine attacks: literature review and recommendations

Migraines affect 28 million people in the United States, and most of these individuals experience attack-related morbidity. Six of every 10 patients with migraine treat their headache exclusively with over-the-counter (OTC) products. Overreliance on OTC agents contributes to preventable morbidity and drug-induced headaches. To evaluate the role of OTC drugs in the management of migraine headaches, we performed a qualitative systematic literature search by using MEDLINE (January 1966-April 2002), analyzed the references of articles returned by the MEDLINE search, and reviewed other pertinent literature. In the studied populations, acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, and an aspirin-acetaminophen-caffeine combination product were shown to be more effective than placebo at reducing moderate or severe migraine pain to mild or no pain by 2 hours after administration. However, published trials of OTC agents have systematically excluded patients enduring morbidity with 50% or more of attacks and/or vomiting with 20% or more of attacks. Patients who experience disability during the predominance of their attacks are poor candidates for OTC-exclusive therapy and should seek a physician's help for migraine-specific prescription drugs. For those with migraine who encounter disability with less than 50% of attacks and/or vomiting with less than 20% of attacks, sole treatment with OTC products is a feasible option. Patients who fail to obtain acceptable relief after an adequate trial of OTC agents also should be referred to a physician. Pharmacists are well positioned to assess whether patients could benefit from OTC agents or should seek a physician's assistance.