Olanzapine in the treatment of refractory migraine and chronic daily headache

Impact of Preoperative Aripiprazole on Postoperative Analgesia in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Aripiprazole is a second-generation atypical antipsychotic with worldwide clinical approval. Nevertheless, its perioperative antinociceptive application has not been studied. As a result, the purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effects of perioperative aripiprazole on reducing postoperative pain, as well as the possible adverse effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled study enrolled 80 female patients scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy who were assigned randomly into 2 equal groups in 1:1; aripiprazole group (n = 40), patients received an aripiprazole 30 mg tablet orally 3 hours before surgery and placebo group (n = 40), patients received a placebo tablet 3 hours before surgery. The 24-hour morphine consumption postoperatively was the primary outcome, and the time to the first analgesic request, sedation scores, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean 24-hour morphine consumption was significantly lower with aripiprazole (2.5 ± 0.5 mg) than with placebo (23.7 ± 1.6 mg; mean ± SE -21.2 ± 0.3, 95% CI: -21.7 to -20.6, P < 0.001). In addition, the mean time to the first analgesic request was significantly longer with aripiprazole (212.2 ± 14.7 min) than with placebo (27.0 ± 2.0 min; mean ± SE 185.2 ± 2.3, 95% CI: 180.5 to 189.8, P < 0.001). Furthermore, the aripiprazole group reported higher sedation scores ( P < 0.001). Bradycardia and hypotension were reported more frequently among patients in the aripiprazole group ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Aripiprazole was effective in reducing pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Although self-limited, side effects should be taken into consideration when using the medication perioperatively.

Breaking the cycle: unraveling the diagnostic, pathophysiological and treatment challenges of refractory migraine

Background

Refractory migraine is a poorly described complication of migraine in which migraine has chronified and become resistant to standard treatments. The true prevalence is unknown, but medication resistance is common in headache clinic patient populations. Given the lack of response to treatment, this patient population is extremely difficult to treat with limited guidance in the literature.

Objective

To review the diagnostic, pathophysiological, and management challenges in the refractory migraine population.

Discussion

There are no accepted, or even ICHD-3 appendix, diagnostic criteria for refractory migraine though several proposed criteria exist. Current proposed criteria often have low bars for refractoriness while also not meeting the needs of pediatrics, lower socioeconomic status, and developing nations. Pathophysiology is unknown but can be hypothesized as a persistent "on" state as a progression from chronic migraine with increasing central sensitization, but there may be heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology. No guidelines exist for treatment of refractory migraine; once all guideline-based treatments are tried, treatment consists of n-of-1 treatment trials paired with non-pharmacologic management.

Conclusion

Refractory migraine is poorly described diagnostically, its pathophysiology can only be guessed at by extension of chronic migraine, and treatment is more the art than science of medicine. Navigating care of this refractory population will require multidisciplinary care models and an emphasis on future research to answer these unknowns.

Eco-friendly synthesis of new olanzapine derivatives and evaluation of their anticancer potential

New derivatives of the known antipsychotic drug olanzapine have been obtained as potential compounds with anticancer activity in two metabolically different breast cancer cell lines: MCF-7 and triple negative MDA-MB-231. The compounds were obtained under phase transfer catalysis (PTC) in the presence of microwave irradiation (MW) or ultrasound (")))"), evaluating the effect of solvents such as dimethylformamide, water, or choline chloride/urea (natural deep eutectic solvent, NaDES). In the best option, the compounds were obtained within 2 minutes with a yield of 57-86% in MW. Two of the obtained compounds which have a naphthalimide moiety and a pentyl (7) or hexyl chain (8) show pronounced cytotoxicity. Interestingly, neither olanzapine nor desmethylolanzapine (DOLA), which was one of the substrates for the synthesis reaction, showed any significant activity in the study.

Refractory migraine profile in CGRP-monoclonal antibodies scenario

Objective

Refractory migraine (Ref‐M) represents a conundrum that headache experts have to face with. We aim to investigate whether a peculiar profile may characterize patients with Ref‐M according to 2020 European Headache Federation criteria. Furthermore, to substantiate a dysfunctional dopaminergic pathway involvement in these patients, we explored the effectiveness of olanzapine.

Materials & Methods

Eighty‐four patients (fitting previous Ref‐M criteria of the 2014) were treated with erenumab for six months. Differences between clinical and demographic features of responder (Ref‐M according to 2014 criteria) and not‐responder (Ref‐M according to 2020 criteria) patients to CGRP‐mAbs were investigated and their predictive values assessed. In fifteen patients with Ref‐M not responders to CGRP‐mAbs, olanzapine was administered (5 mg/die) for 3 months and frequency and pain intensity of migraine attacks were estimated.

Results

Patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs (29/84) when compared with Ref‐M responsive to CGRP‐mAbs showed higher baseline frequency of migraine attacks, medication overuse and pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores. Logistic regression analyses showed that frequency of attacks, medication overuse and PCS score represent independent negative predictors of CGRP‐mAbs response. A ≥50% reduction of headache days/month was observed after olanzapine treatment in 67% of patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs.

Conclusions

We outline that higher frequency of migraine attacks, medication overuse and pain catastrophizing characterize patients with Ref‐M not responsive to CGRP‐mAbs. In this frame, olanzapine effectiveness on frequency and pain intensity of migraine attacks supports the hypothesis that migraine refractoriness may be subtended by a prominent involvement of the dopaminergic pathway.

The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms

OPINION STATEMENT

Olanzapine has become a major drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as a prophylactic agent. In addition, a recent randomized trial has demonstrated its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer. The added benefit to olanzapine is that it also stimulates appetite. As a result, since it treats multiple symptoms associated with advanced cancer, it is likely to become the antiemetic of choice in palliative care at least in the USA. The added benefit of treating insomnia and the avoidance of benzodiazepines should place olanzapine in at the top of the list of drugs to use for patients who do complain of insomnia. There is no good evidence that it potentiates the respiratory depression of opioids unlike benzodiazepines. The evidence is weak that olanzapine in as an adjuvant analgesic. Hopefully, future trials will explore this in greater depth. The benefits of adding olanzapine to potent opioids are that it may reduce craving, drug cues, and opioid misuse. Other symptoms like anxiety and depression may be addressed by the addition of olanzapine to standard antidepressants.

An Obsessive-Compulsive Symptom-Related Headache in a Patient with Schizophrenia

Obsessive-compulsive symptoms are prevalent, manifold, and sometimes insidious in patients with schizophrenia. In this case study, we reported an intractable headache that bears a close relationship with obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a schizophrenia patient. In a series of treatments, the headache was miraculously susceptible to haloperidol treatment.

A Systematic Review of Atypical Antipsychotics in Chronic Pain Management: Olanzapine Demonstrates Potential in Central Sensitization, Fibromyalgia, and Headache/Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Many psychopharmacologic agents are used as primary or adjuncts in pain management. Atypical antipsychotics (AAs) have also been used as adjuncts in pain management regimens in a variety of manners; however, their efficacy in this capacity is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review of all studies examining AA use for pain was conducted. Three literature databases were utilized to search for word combinations of "pain" and a variety of commonly prescribed AAs ie, (olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, clozapine, paliperidone, iloperidone, lurasidone). Articles chosen for review included retrospective analyses, randomized control trials, and case series/reports. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram illustrates the study selection process.

RESULTS

Olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone are the only AAs with published studies in pain management. Among these, olanzapine and quetiapine have the most studies (11 and 6, respectively). Olanzapine shows preliminary and consistent efficacy in fibromyalgia and headache/migraine, although only 1 study was a randomized controlled trial with level I evidence of efficacy. Other AAs eg, (quetiapine) fail to demonstrate efficacy in pain syndromes and/or lack robust study designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the analgesic effects of AAs. The collective findings of multiple studies evaluating olanzapine in pain syndromes suggest a high, yet preliminary level of evidence of efficacy, warranting prospective studies in various pain syndrome contexts. Pharmacological mechanisms of AA action are elaborated, and the findings of this review are discussed. Risk and benefits of using AAs in chronic pain are described, and investigational implications and future directions are explored.

Dysfunction in Serotonergic and Noradrenergic Systems and Somatic Symptoms in Psychiatric Disorders

Somatic symptoms include a range of physical experiences, such as pain, muscle tension, body shaking, difficulty in breathing, heart palpitation, blushing, fatigue, and sweating. Somatic symptoms are common in major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety disorders, and some other psychiatric disorders. However, the etiology of somatic symptoms remains unclear. Somatic symptoms could be a response to emotional distress in patients with those psychiatric conditions. Increasing evidence supports the role of aberrant serotoninergic and noradrenergic neurotransmission in somatic symptoms. The physiological alterations underlying diminished serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) signaling may contribute to impaired signal transduction, reduced 5-HT, or NE release from terminals of presynaptic neurons, and result in alternations in function and/or number of receptors and changes in intracellular signal processing. Multiple resources of data support each of these mechanisms. Animal models have shown physiological responses, similar to somatic symptoms seen in psychiatric patients, after manipulations of 5-HT and NE neurotransmission. Human genetic studies have identified many single-nucleotide polymorphisms risk loci associated with somatic symptoms. Several neuroimaging findings support that somatic symptoms are possibly associated with a state of reduced receptor binding. This narrative literature review aimed to discuss the involvement of serotonergic and noradrenergic systems in the pathophysiology of somatic symptoms. Future research combining neuroimaging techniques and genetic analysis to further elucidate the biological mechanisms of somatic symptoms and to develop novel treatment strategies is needed.

Prevalence, characteristics and management of headache experienced by people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a cross sectional cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Headache is the most common type of pain reported by people with schizophrenia. This study aimed to establish prevalence, characteristics and management of these headaches.

METHODS

One hundred participants with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder completed a reliable and valid headache questionnaire. Two clinicians independently classified each headache as migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic or other.

RESULTS

The 12-month prevalence of headache (57%) was higher than the general population (46%) with no evidence of a relationship between psychiatric clinical characteristics and presence of headache. Prevalence of cervicogenic (5%) and migraine (18%) was comparable to the general population. Tension-type (16%) had a lower prevalence and 19% of participants experienced other headache. No one with migraine was prescribed migraine specific medication; no one with cervicogenic and tension-type received best-practice treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache is a common complaint in people with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder with most fitting recognised diagnostic criteria for which effective interventions are available. No one in this sample was receiving best-practice care for their headache.

Oral glucose tolerance test performance in olanzapine-treated schizophrenia-spectrum patients is predicted by BMI and triglycerides but not olanzapine dose or duration

OBJECTIVE

Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, is associated with glucoregulatory abnormalities, but the nature of this link is not fully elucidated. This is the first olanzapine oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) study to consider treatment dose and duration, and to compare complementary indices respectively assessing insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index) and resistance (homeostasis model assessment).

METHODS

Body mass index (BMI), body composition, plasma lipids, and oGTT were measured in olanzapine-treated nondiabetic patients with DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n = 35).

RESULTS

While only one previously undiagnosed participant met diabetes criteria based on fasting plasma glucose alone (≥126 mg/dL), seven were diagnosed with oGTT (2-hr plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL). Multiple regression analyses revealed that the Matsuda index correlated with BMI (p < 0.0001) and plasma triglycerides (p = 0.01), but not with age, olanzapine dose, olanzapine treatment duration, or plasma cholesterol. Homeostasis model assessment and fasting plasma glucose correlated with triglycerides only (p < 0.0001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that BMI and triglycerides may be implicated in olanzapine-related glucoregulatory abnormalities. The lack of correlation between glucoregulatory abnormalities and olanzapine dose or treatment duration suggests preexisting metabolic disturbances and/or disturbances arising early in the course of treatment. Clinicians prescribing antipsychotics should consider oGTT, especially in patients with obesity and/or hypertriglyceridemia.

The Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Threshold: A Framework for Understanding Pathogenesis and Predicting Successful Treatments

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is an uncommon, idiopathic disorder defined by recurrent, sudden-onset attacks of repetitive retching and vomiting that are separated by symptom-free intervals. CVS was long regarded as a disorder primarily experienced by children but is now known to present de novo in adulthood. Adult CVS has garnered more research attention over the past 20 years, and these efforts have identified some acute and prophylactic treatments for this disorder. However, CVS still lacks a unifying disease model, and this has hindered the development of new therapies. Here adult CVS is reframed as a neurogenic disorder, driven by various endophenotypic factors that shape patterns of activity within the neural circuits required for disease expression. The concept of the "CVS threshold" is put forth in parallel with exploring the remarkable similarity of adult CVS with features of chronic migraine, epilepsy, and panic disorder. Because of such shared neural mechanisms and overlapping endophenotypes, many therapies that have been developed for these other disorders could also be useful in managing CVS. This review seeks to achieve three primary aims: (1) to develop a comprehensive, explanatory framework for adult CVS pathogenesis, (2) to use this framework for identifying potentially novel therapies for CVS, and (3) to describe future research directions that are needed to move the field forward.

Migraine headache and bipolar disorder comorbidity: A systematic review of the literature and clinical implications

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Psychiatric disorders, e.g., depression, are often comorbid with, and can complicate the treatment of, patients with migraine headache. Although empirical work has increasingly focused on the association between migraine and bipolar disorder, this topic has received little attention in the pain literature. Bipolar disorder is a chronic and recurrent mood disorder characterized by cyclic occurrence of elevated (i.e., manic or hypomanic) and depressed mood states. Bipolar I disorder is diagnosed when patients present with at least one abnormally and persistently elevated manic episode; bipolar II disorder is characterized by the presence of hypomanic episodes. Bipolar disorder warrants attention as depressive phases of the disorder can prevail and are often misconstrued by the unwary clinician as unipolar depression. However, treatment for bipolar disorder is distinct from that of unipolar depression and use of antidepressants, which are often invoked in migraine prophylaxis as well as the treatment of depression, may precipitate significant mood changes among bipolar disorder patients. A systematic review of the literature addressing the co-occurrence of bipolar disorder and migraine was conducted. The treatment of dually affected patients is also discussed.

METHODS

In order to review the literature to date on migraine and bipolar disorder co-occurrence, a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL for clinic-based and epidemiological studies was conducted using terms related to migraine and bipolar disorder. Studies were selected for review if they included subjects meeting validated diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder as well as migraine headache and if a quantitative description of prevalence rates of comorbid bipolar disorder and migraine were reported. Weighted means of the prevalence rates were calculated to compare with general epidemiological prevalence trends for migraine and bipolar disorder, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Although findings were constrained by methodological limitations and several low quality studies, clinic- and epidemiological cross-sectional investigations demonstrated a high rate of comorbidity between bipolar disorder and migraine. The weighted mean prevalence rate for migraine headache among bipolar disorder patients was 30.7%; for bipolar disorder among migraineurs, the weighted mean prevalence rates were 9% and 5.9% in clinic-based and epidemiological studies, respectively. The association between bipolar disorder and migraine was most notable among women and patients with the bipolar II disorder subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

High rates of comorbidity exist between migraine and bipolar disorder, exceeding estimated prevalence rates for those conditions in the general population. Comorbidity may portend a more serious clinical course for dually afflicted individuals.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians need to structure treatment approaches to address concurrent migraine and bipolar disorder in dually afflicted individuals. Although further evidence-based investigation is warranted to inform optimal treatment approaches for both conditions concurrently, anticonvulsants (e.g., valproate, lamotrigine and topiramate); atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine or quetiapine); and calcium channel blockers (e.g., verapamil) may be considered.

Olanzapine Attenuates Mechanical Allodynia in a Rat Model of Partial Sciatic Nerve Ligation

Background

Neuropathic pain is a global clinical problem; nevertheless, nerve injury treatment methods remain limited. Olanzapine has antinociceptive and anti-nueropathic properties; however, its preventive effects have not been assessed in nerve injury models.

Methods

We prepared a partial sciatic nerve ligation (Seltzer model) or sham-operated model in male Sprague-Dawley rats under isoflurane anesthesia. In a pre-treatment study, we administered olanzapine (10 mg/kg) intraperitoneally 1 h before nerve ligation. In post-treatment and dose-dependent studies, we injected 3 different doses of olanzapine intraperitoneally 1 h after nerve ligation. Mechanical allodynia was measured before and 7 days after surgery. Immunohistochemical analysis using anti-Iba-1 antibody was used to assess the effect of olanzapine at the spinal level.

Results

In the pre-treatment study, median withdrawal thresholds of the normal saline groups were significantly lower than those of the sham-operated groups; however, those of the olanzapine (10 mg/kg) and sham-operated groups were not different. In the post-treatment and dose-dependent studies, the median withdrawal thresholds of the olanzapine (2.5 mg/kg) and normal saline groups were not different; however, those of the olanzapine (10 and 50 mg/kg) groups were significantly higher than those of the normal saline groups. Olanzapine did not have a significant effect on the density of Iba-1 staining.

Conclusions

Olanzapine attenuated mechanical allodynia dose-dependently in the Seltzer model. This anti-allodynic effect of olanzapine was observed even when injected 1 h after nerve ligation. This effect of olanzapine appeared to be unrelated to microglia activation in the ipsilateral dorsal horn of the lumbar spinal cord.

A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Duliang Soft Capsule in Patients with Chronic Daily Headache

Objective. To investigate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine Duliang soft capsule (DSC) in prophylactic treatment for patients with chronic daily headache (CDH). Methods. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study was conducted at 18 Chinese clinical centers. The participants received either DSC or placebo for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was headache-free rate (HFR) in a 4-week period between the pretreatment and posttreatment stages. The secondary efficacy measures were the decrease of headache days, the duration of headache attacks, the frequency of analgesic usage, quality of life, disability, and the headache severity (VAS scores). The accompanying symptoms and adverse events were also assessed. Results. Of 584 CDH patients assessed, 468 eligible patients were randomized. 338 patients received DSC, while 111 patients were assigned in the placebo group. Following treatment, there was a 16.56% difference in HFR favoring DSC over placebo (P < 0.01). Significant differences were also observed between DSC and placebo groups in the secondary measures. However, no statistical difference was found between the two groups in the associated symptoms. No severe adverse effects were observed in the study. Conclusions. DSC might be an effective and well-tolerated option for the prophylactic treatment of patients with CDH.

Chronic daily headache

Chronic daily headache (CDH) is a challenging condition to treat. CDH is often accompanied by significant comorbidities, such as chronic fatigue, depression, anxiety, and insomnia, which further complicate treatment. Unrealistic expectations of treatment goals can lead to patient frustration, and, as a result, decrease treatment adherence. Patients often desire headache-free status, but this outcome is not realistic for many patients with CDH. By contrast, an effective treatment goal starts with establishing the correct diagnosis and creating a multimodal treatment plan to improve function and well-being. With proper comprehensive treatment, the condition improves in most patients.

Improving acute pain management in emergency medicine

Undertreatment of pain (oligoanalgesia) in the emergency department is common, and it negatively impacts patient care. Both failure of appropriate pain assessment and the potential for unsafe analgesic use contribute to the problem. As a result, achieving satisfactory analgesia while minimizing side effects remains particularly challenging for emergency physicians, both in the emergency department and after a patient is discharged. Improvements in rapid pain assessment and in evaluation of noncommunicative populations may result in a better estimation of which patients require analgesia and how much pain is present. New formulations of available treatments, such as rapidly absorbed, topical, or intranasal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations or intranasal opioids, may provide effective analgesia with an improved risk-benefit profile. Other pharmacological therapies have been shown to be effective for certain pain modalities, such as the use of antidepressants for musculoskeletal pain, γ-aminobutyric acid agonists for neuropathic and postsurgical pain, antipsychotics for headache, and topical capsaicin for neuropathic pain. Nonpharmacological methods of pain control include the use of electrical stimulation, relaxation therapies, psychosocial/manipulative therapies, and acupuncture. Tailoring of available treatment options to specific pain modalities, as well as improvements in pain assessment, treatment options, and formulations, may improve pain control in the emergency department setting and beyond.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2%; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63%). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0%).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42%; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0%).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23%).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14%; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0% to 32%), but low for NPs (0% to 1.7%).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4%) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7%) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2%) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

BACKGROUND

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform disorders unspecified, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, pain disorder, and alternative somatoform diagnoses proposed in the literature) and MUPS in adults, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list controls, attention placebo, psychological placebo, enhanced or structured care, and other psychological or physical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. We ran an additional search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a cited reference search on the Web of Science. We also searched grey literature, conference proceedings, international trial registers, and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster randomised controlled trials which involved adults primarily diagnosed with a somatoform disorder or an alternative diagnostic concept of MUPS, who were assigned to a non-pharmacological intervention compared with usual care, waiting list controls, attention or psychological placebo, enhanced care, or another psychological or physical therapy intervention, alone or in combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors, working in pairs, conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with another review author. We pooled data from studies addressing the same comparison using standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were severity of somatic symptoms and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies with 2658 randomised participants. All studies assessed the effectiveness of some form of psychological therapy. We found no studies that included physical therapy.Fourteen studies evaluated forms of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); the remainder evaluated behaviour therapies, third-wave CBT (mindfulness), psychodynamic therapies, and integrative therapy. Fifteen included studies compared the studied psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list. Five studies compared the intervention to enhanced or structured care. Only one study compared cognitive behavioural therapy with behaviour therapy.Across the 21 studies, the mean number of sessions ranged from one to 13, over a period of one day to nine months. Duration of follow-up varied between two weeks and 24 months. Participants were recruited from various healthcare settings and the open population. Duration of symptoms, reported by nine studies, was at least several years, suggesting most participants had chronic symptoms at baseline.Due to the nature of the intervention, lack of blinding of participants, therapists, and outcome assessors resulted in a high risk of bias on these items for most studies. Eleven studies (52% of studies) reported a loss to follow-up of more than 20%. For other items, most studies were at low risk of bias. Adverse events were seldom reported.For all studies comparing some form of psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list that could be included in the meta-analysis, the psychological therapy resulted in less severe symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.16; 10 studies, 1081 analysed participants). This effect was considered small to medium; heterogeneity was moderate and overall quality of the evidence was low. Compared with usual care, psychological therapies resulted in a 7% higher proportion of drop-outs during treatment (RR acceptability 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 14 studies, 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Removing one outlier study reduced the difference to 5%. Results for the subgroup of studies comparing CBT with usual care were similar to those in the whole group.Five studies (624 analysed participants) assessed symptom severity comparing some psychological therapy with enhanced care, and found no clear evidence of a difference at end of treatment (pooled SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; considerable heterogeneity; low-quality evidence). Five studies (679 participants) showed that psychological therapies were somewhat less acceptable in terms of drop-outs than enhanced care (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When all psychological therapies included this review were combined they were superior to usual care or waiting list in terms of reduction of symptom severity, but effect sizes were small. As a single treatment, only CBT has been adequately studied to allow tentative conclusions for practice to be drawn. Compared with usual care or waiting list conditions, CBT reduced somatic symptoms, with a small effect and substantial differences in effects between CBT studies. The effects were durable within and after one year of follow-up. Compared with enhanced or structured care, psychological therapies generally were not more effective for most of the outcomes. Compared with enhanced care, CBT was not more effective. The overall quality of evidence contributing to this review was rated low to moderate.The intervention groups reported no major harms. However, as most studies did not describe adverse events as an explicit outcome measure, this result has to be interpreted with caution.An important issue was that all studies in this review included participants who were willing to receive psychological treatment. In daily practice, there is also a substantial proportion of participants not willing to accept psychological treatments for somatoform disorders or MUPS. It is unclear how large this group is and how this influences the relevance of CBT in clinical practice.The number of studies investigating various treatment modalities (other than CBT) needs to be increased; this is especially relevant for studies concerning physical therapies. Future studies should include participants from a variety of age groups; they should also make efforts to blind outcome assessors and to conduct follow-up assessments until at least one year after the end of treatment.

Headache as a presenting feature in patients with serotonin syndrome: a case series

INTRODUCTION

Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a drug-induced constellation of various clinical features that result from excess central serotonergic tone. The clinical features range from barely perceptible to life-threatening conditions.

CASES

We describe four patients with acute headache (four days to three weeks) who were receiving serotonergic drugs for other indications. There was a temporal relation between the administration of the serotonergic drugs and the development of the headaches. All four patients fulfilled the Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria for SS. In parallel, two patients fulfilled the Sternbach's criteria for SS. Discontinuation of the serotonergic drugs and the administration of cyprohepatadine led to complete improvement in three to seven days in all four patients.

DISCUSSION

A review of the literature suggests that some overlaps exist in the pathophysiology between SS and headache disorders, including medication-overuse headache. The overlap is also in the management. The drugs found to be effective in SS (cyproheptadine, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, etc.) are also known to have positive effects on some headache disorders.

CONCLUSION

Physicians should consider the diagnosis of SS in patients with new onset or worsening headache after the addition of serotonergic drugs, especially in the presence of objective signs on examination suggestive of the disorder such as tremor, fever, hyperreflexia, diaphoresis or tachycardia.

Migraine and psychiatric disorders co-morbidity explained by sinus hypoxic nitric oxide theory - a new hypothesis on the Sino rhinogenic theory

Migraine is an extremely common incapacitating neurovascular disorder and has co morbidity with many psychiatric illnesses which are caused by neurotransmitter imbalance, neurodegenerative changes and genetic predisposition. The sinus hypoxic nitric oxide theory presents, diffused paranasal sinus nitric oxide in the nasal mucosa has been hypothesized as the primary molecule that initiates migraine. Existence of such pathophysiology in human beings is termed as sinus hypoxic nitric oxide phenomena. According to this new hypothesis the sinorhinogenic trigeminal nerve impulse distribution of the central nervous system, is suggested to cause central neurotransmitter track dysfunction and cortical spreading depression with neurodegeneration that may relate to co morbidity. Moreover, avoidance of the excess sinorhinogenic central neuronal influence to the brain in early child hood and early intervention in the case of genetic susceptible history with psychiatric illnesses would help to prevent the progression or aggravation of psychiatric illnesses according to this hypothesis. This article explains a new pathophysiological initiation between central effects of sinorhinogenic nitric oxide phenomena and psychiatric disorders. It also provides an etiologically important neuro vascular impulse generating pathway to cause or aggravate psychiatric disorders. Therefore patients who are clinically suspected of having migraine headache and psychiatric disorders should receive a comprehensive sinorhinological examination and evaluation based on the sinus hypoxic nitric oxide phenomena.

Allostatic load as a tool for monitoring physiological dysregulations and comorbidities in patients with severe mental illnesses

Severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are disabling, chronic conditions that are often accompanied by medical comorbidities. In this theoretical article, we review the allostatic load model representing the "wear and tear" that chronic stress exacts on the brain and body. We propose an innovative way of monitoring physical and psychiatric comorbidities by integrating the allostatic load model into clinical practice. By interpreting peripheral biomarkers differently, medical professionals can calculate a simple, count-based, allostatic load index known to predict diverse stress-related pathologies. In addition to screening for comorbidities, allostatic load indices can be used to monitor the effects of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. This framework can also be used to generate a dialogue between patient and practitioner to promote preventive and proactive approaches to health care.

Antipsychotics for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2008. The role of antipsychotics as adjuvant analgesics is a subject of longstanding controversy. Neuroleptanalgesia (that is a state of quiescence, altered awareness, and analgesia produced by a combination of taking an opioid analgesic and an antipsychotic), an established term for the management of acute pain, was shown to negatively influence disease course and total mortality in unstable angina patients. Nevertheless, antipsychotics are used to treat chronic pain (for example chronic headache, fibromyalgia and diabetic neuropathia). With atypical antipsychotics, a new class of antipsychotics, both fewer extrapyramidal side effects and additional benefits may be available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of antipsychotics in acute or chronic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE in October 2011 and January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of an oral antipsychotic for acute or chronic pain, where subjective pain assessment was described as either the primary or a secondary outcome, were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and results were compared for differences. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. All trials were quality scored according to the methods set out in section six of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 770 participants were involved in the 11 included studies. Data from five included randomised double-blind studies showed beneficial effects of antipsychotics in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Quantitative analysis of these studies showed a significant reduction of mean pain intensity after administration of the antipsychotic compared to placebo or another active compound, weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.71 to -0.85) for the continuous data; and relative risk (RR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.73), number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) 2.6 for the dichotomous data. Nevertheless, the test for heterogeneity was significant for both the continuous data (P = 0.0007) and the dichotomous data (P = 0.04). Obviously this makes the calculated NNT less reliable and caution is warranted when interpreting these results.The most frequently reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal (that is involuntary movements, parkinsonism and akathisia) and sedating effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The recent search found five new studies which were all excluded, so the review remains the same as previously.Antipsychotics might be used as an add-on therapy in the treatment of painful conditions. Nevertheless, extrapyramidal and sedating side effects have to be considered before using antipsychotics for treating painful conditions.Results for antipsychotics in the treatment of different painful conditions are mixed and most sample sizes in the reviewed RCTs are small. Further studies on atypical antipsychotics in larger double-blind placebo-controlled studies that include standardised pain assessment and documentation are warranted.

Latin American consensus on guidelines for chronic migraine treatment

Chronic migraine is a condition with significant prevalence all around the world and high socioeconomic impact, and its handling has been challenging neurologists. Developments for understanding its mechanisms and associated conditions, as well as that of new therapies, have been quick and important, a fact which has motivated the Latin American and Brazilian Headache Societies to prepare the present consensus. The treatment of chronic migraine should always be preceded by a careful diagnosis review; the detection of possible worsening factors and associated conditions; the stratification of seriousness/impossibility to treat; and monitoring establishment, with a pain diary. The present consensus deals with pharmacological and nonpharmacological forms of treatment to be used in chronic migraine.

Use of dopamine antagonists in treatment of migraine

OPINION STATEMENT

Dopamine antagonists are indicated for treatment of nausea or psychosis and have an established role in the treatment of migraine. Neuroleptics, including antipsychotics, act as antagonists at the dopamine D2 receptor type. These medications also have variable activity as antihistamines and anticholinergics, and they block alpha-adrenergic and some serotonin receptor types, but their actions on dopamine are likely the reason for their efficacy in treating nausea, psychosis, and acute migraine. Neuroleptics are first-line agents in the emergency room setting for migraine, especially for patients with nausea and vomiting. In the setting of a clear prodrome, antiemetics may prevent migraine when taken before an attack. They are also indicated in clinical situations such as patients who are pregnant or have contraindications to migraine-specific medications or NSAIDs. Recent developments suggest that dopamine is particularly important in chronic pain, and we most commonly use neuroleptic medications in the treatment of status migrainosus or medication-overuse headache. Clinicians may avoid dopamine antagonists because of unfamiliarity and a lack of large, controlled clinical trials. Their use requires special care to avoid adverse events such as sedation, akathisia or dystonic reactions, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, or movement disorders with long-term use. Some newer atypical neuroleptic agents appear promising for both acute and prophylactic migraine treatment with a lower risk of adverse events.

Effects of naltrexone on food intake and body weight gain in olanzapine-treated rats

Blockade of opioidergic neurotransmission contributes to reduction in body weight. However, how such blockade affects body weight gain (BWG) attributed to second generation antipsychotic agents (SGAs) has not yet been established. Here we examined the effects of an opioid receptor antagonist, naltrexone (NTX), on food intake and BWG associated with an SGA, olanzapine (OL). Four groups of Wistar Han IGS rats were treated for 28 days with either OL (2 mg/kg twice daily, intraperitoneal (IP)), a combination of OL (2 mg/kg twice daily, IP) + extended-release NTX (50 mg/kg, one-time, intramuscular (IM)), extended-release NTX (50 mg/kg, one-time, IM) or vehicle and their food intake and body weight were measured daily for the first nine days and every other day thereafter. Food intake and BWG that were increased by OL were decreased by the added NTX while NTX alone had no significant effects on food intake or on BWG. Plasma leptin concentrations were significantly elevated in the three groups receiving pharmacological agents, but did not differ among each other, suggesting that changes in leptin secretion and/or clearance alone would not explain the food intake and the body weight findings. Our results extend prior reports on anorexigenic effects of opioid antagonists by demonstrating that such effects may generalize to food intake increases and BWG arising in the context of OL pharmacotherapy.

Concomitant medication of psychoses in a lifetime perspective

OBJECTIVE

Patients treated with antipsychotic drugs often receive concomitant psychotropic compounds. Few studies address this issue from a lifetime perspective. Here, an analysis is presented of the prescription pattern of such concomitant medication from the first contact with psychiatry until the last written note in the case history documents, in patients with a diagnosis of psychotic illness.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive analysis of all case history data of 66 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychotic disorders.

RESULTS

Benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related anxiolytic drugs had been prescribed to 95% of the patients, other anxiolytics, sedatives or hypnotic drugs to 61%, anti-parkinsonism drugs to 86%, and antidepressants to 56% of the patients. However, lifetime doses were small and most of the time patients had no concomitant medication. The prescribed lifetime dose of anti-parkinsonism drugs was associated with that of prescribed first-generation but not second-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Most psychosis patients are sometimes treated with concomitant drugs but mainly over short periods. Lifetime concomitant add-on medication at the individual patient level is variable and complex but not extensive.

Antipsychotics for acute and chronic pain in adults

CONTEXT

The role of antipsychotics as adjuvant analgesics is a subject of long-standing controversy. Antipsychotics have been used to treat chronic pain (e.g., chronic headache, fibromyalgia, and painful diabetic neuropathy). With atypical antipsychotics, a new class of antipsychotics, with fewer extrapyramidal side effects and additional benefits, may be available.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of antipsychotics in acute or chronic pain.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of adults prescribed any dose of oral antipsychotics for acute or chronic pain, describing subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome, were included in this review.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies involving a total number of 770 participants. Data from five randomized, double-blind studies showed beneficial effects of antipsychotics in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Because of the clinical heterogeneity of painful conditions studied and significant statistical heterogeneity, the intended meta-analysis was omitted. The most frequently reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal (i.e., involuntary movements, parkinsonism, and akathisia) and sedating effects.

CONCLUSION

Because of limitations in the available evidence, further research is needed to understand whether antipsychotics are effective for acute or chronic pain or specific pain conditions.

An open pilot study assessing the benefits of quetiapine for the prevention of migraine refractory to the combination of atenolol, nortriptyline, and flunarizine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent neurological disorder. Although prevention is the core of treatment for most, some patients are refractory to standard therapies. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Quetiapine (QTP) in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine, defined as previous unresponsiveness to the combination of atenolol, nortriptyline, and flunarizine.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients (30 women and 4 men) with migraine (ICHD-II), fewer than 15 days of headache per month, and not overusing symptomatic medications were studied. All participants had failed to the combination of atenolol (60 mg/day), nortriptyline (25 mg/day), and flunarizine (3 mg/day). Failure was defined as <50% reduction in attack frequency after 10 weeks of treatment. After other medications were discontinued, QTP was initiated at a single daily dose of 25 mg, and then titrated to 75 mg. After 10 weeks, headache frequency, consumption of rescue medications, and adverse events were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients completed the study. Three patients withdrew and two were lost to follow-up. Among those who completed, 22 (75.9%; 64.7% of the intention-to-treat population) had greater than 50% headache reduction. The mean frequency of migraine days decreased from 10.2 to 6.2 per month. Use of rescue medications decreased from 2.3 to 1.2 days/week. Adverse events were reported by nine (31%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by the open design, this study provides pilot data to support the use of QTP in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine. Controlled studies are necessary to confirm these observations.

New drugs for migraine

After the triptans, a calcitonin gene-related peptide blocker (telcagepant) is the first acute medicine that has been developed primarily for treatment of acute migraine. Otherwise, the new drugs have been developed first for other purposes, like anticonvulsants, antihypertensives and antidepressants used for migraine prophylaxis. For acute attacks, a new way to administer a traditional drug like dihydroergotamine is under way, and documentation of efficacy in migraine has been gained for some commonly used painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and for some herbal extracts. Based on insights into the basic pathophysiological mechanisms of the disorder, some drugs have been developed which seem promising in early phase II studies (NOS inhibitors and 5HT1F-receptor agonists). In the future, development and enhancements of existing medicines must be accompanied by increased efforts to develop truly new migraine drugs based on knowledge of the pathophysiology if one wishes to reduce substantially the great burden migraine poses on patients and society.

Obsessive compulsive disorder and migraine: case report, diagnosis and therapeutic approach

Psychiatric disorders, notably mood and anxiety disorders, are frequently associated with migraine and chronic daily headaches. The obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is included in the spectrum of anxiety disorders and may be a comorbid condition in headache patients. However, little information has been reported in the literature about this association. This is an important issue as OCD may contribute to the development or maintenance of treatment-resistant chronic headaches. In this paper, we describe a young female patient with refractory chronic migraine and OCD. Considerations on diagnosis, management and treatment of these comorbid conditions are presented.

Antipsychotics for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

The role of antipsychotics as adjuvant analgesics is a subject of longstanding controversy. Neuroleptanalgesia (i.e. a state of quiescence, altered awareness, and analgesia produced by a combination of taking an opioid analgesic and an antipsychotic), an established term for the management of acute pain, was shown to negatively influence disease course and total mortality in unstable angina patients. Nevertheless, antipsychotics are used to treat chronic pain (e.g. chronic headache, fibromyalgia and diabetic neuropathia). With atypical antipsychotics, a new class of antipsychotics, fewer extrapyramidal side effects and additional benefits may be available.

OBJECTIVES

Assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of antipsychotics in acute or chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane Pain, Palliative & Supportive Care Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE searched in October 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral antipsychotics for acute or chronic pain, describing subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome, were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by two independent review authors, and results were compared for differences. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. All trials were quality scored according to the methods set out in section six of the Cochrane Handbook.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 770 participants were involved in the eleven included studies. Data from five included randomised double-blind studies showed beneficial effects of antipsychotics in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Quantitative analysis of these studies showed a significant reduction of mean pain intensity after administration of the antipsychotic compared to placebo or another active compound: Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.71 to -0.85) for the continuous data and Relative Risk (RR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.73), number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) 2.6 for the dichotomous data. Nevertheless, the test for heterogeneity was significant for the continuous data (P = 0.0007) and the dichotomous data (P = 0.04). The most frequently reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal (i.e. involuntary movements, parkinsonism and akathisia) and sedating effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotics might be used as an add-on therapy in the treatment of painful conditions. Nevertheless, extrapyramidal and sedating side effects have to be considered before using antipsychotics for treating painful conditions.Results for antipsychotics in the treatment of different painful conditions are mixed and most sample sizes in the reviewed RCTs are small. Further studies on atypical antipsychotics in larger double-blind placebo-controlled studies including standardised pain assessment/documentation are warranted.

Olanzapine versus droperidol for the treatment of primary headache in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if there is a difference in pain relief or frequency and severity of side effects in emergency department (ED) patients with primary headache treated with either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or IM droperidol.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial of adult ED patients undergoing treatment for suspected primary headache. Consenting patients were randomized to receive either droperidol 5 mg IM or olanzapine 10 mg IM. Prior to receiving treatment, patients were asked to complete a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) describing their pain and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) describing their pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients also completed a 100-mm VAS describing their level of nausea. Pain and nausea measurements were repeated 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Patients also completed the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Pain relief was compared both in terms of the decrease in VAS scores and in the proportion of patients who reported moderate or severe pain whose report later changed to mild or no pain.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients were enrolled; 13 were withdrawn before administration of the study medication, 8 in the droperidol group and 5 in the olanzapine group, leaving 87 patients for analysis. Forty-two patients received droperidol and 45 received olanzapine. In the droperidol group, 35/40 (87.5%) patients who had reported moderate or severe pain at baseline reported mild or no pain at 60 minutes. In the olanzapine group, 38/44 (86.4%) reported this change (p = 0.89). The mean percent change from baseline VAS pain score at 60 minutes was -37% (95% CI = -84% to 11%) for droperidol and -37% (95% CI = -64% to 10%) for olanzapine (p = 0.30). The mean percent change from baseline for the VAS nausea score was -59% (95% CI = -70% to -47%) for droperidol and -64% (95% CI = -77% to -51%) for olanzapine (p = 0.83). There was no difference in any report of akathisia by the BAS between the groups (p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Both olanzapine and droperidol are effective treatments for primary headaches in the ED. No significant differences were found between the medications in terms of pain relief, antiemetic effect, or akathisia. Olanzapine may be used to treat primary headache and it is an effective alternative to droperidol.

Refractory headache: historical perspective, need, and purposes for an operational definition

The study of migraine has yielded many benefits for headache patients. Little research, however, has been performed on refractory migraine (RM) headache, a term often used interchangeably with intractable migraine. This may be a consequence of a lack of a well-accepted definition. In a survey performed by the Refractory Headache Special Interest Section (RHSIS) on the American Headache Society (AHS) in 2006, 58% of the members agreed that a definition for refractory headache should be added to the International Classification of Headache Disorders-2. A PubMed search identified 21 articles that defined refractory or intractable headache/migraine. Sixteen (76%) defined the term "refractory" and 5 (24%) defined the term "intractable." Many of these definitions did not address the need for an adequate trial of a preventive medicine, disability, and medication overuse. An operational definition will allow us to better characterize the disorder, address unmet medical needs, and identify the most effective treatments. RHSIS of the AHS has proposed a definition of RM. It is our hope that this definition will spur interest in this entity and will lead to further research in the area.

Quetiapine for the prevention of migraine refractory to the combination of atenolol + nortriptyline + flunarizine: an open pilot study

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a prevalent neurological disorder. Although prevention is the mainstream treatment, some patients are refractory to standard therapies. AIM: To evaluate the use of quetiapine (QTP) in the preventive treatment of refractory migraine, defined as previous unresponsiveness to the combination atenolol + nortriptyline + flunarizine. METHOD: Thirty-four consecutive patients (30 women and 4 men) with migraine (ICHD-II) and headache attacks on less than 15 days per month not overusing symptomatic medications were studied. The main inclusion criterion was the lack of response (<50% reduction in attack frequency) after ten weeks to the combination of atenolol (60 mg/day) + nortriptyline (25 mg/day) + flunarizine (3 mg/day). The patients started on QTP as the sole treatment in a single daily dose of 25 mg, titrated to 75 mg. After ten weeks, headache frequency, consumption of rescue medications and adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients completed the study. Among completers, 22 (75.9%; 64.7% of the intention-to-treat population) presented >50% headache reduction. The mean frequency of migraine days decreased from 10.2 to 6.2 and the average consumption of rescue medications decreased from 2.3 to 1.2 days/week. Adverse events were reported by 9 (31%) patients. CONCLUSION: Although limited by the open design, this study provides a pilot data to support the use of quetiapine in preventive treatment of refractory migraine.

Relief from migraine headache with aripiprazole treatment

There have been many reports of the association between migraine headaches and psychiatric disorders as well as of the utility of dopamine antagonists in the treatment of migraine headache. There is increasing evidence to support the activation of dopaminergic systems as a primary component of migraine pathogenesis. This report documents 3 cases of female migraineurs who received the dopamine modulator aripiprazole for treatment of co-occurring psychiatric disorders and experienced a decrease in migraine frequency and severity. A hypothesis as to the mechanism of action of dopamine regulation in migraine treatment is discussed.

Current trends in migraine prophylaxis

A variety of drugs from diverse pharmacological classes are in use for migraine prevention. Traditionally, they have been discovered by serendipity. Examples include beta-adrenergic blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin receptor antagonists. The mechanisms of action of migraine preventive drugs are multiple but it is postulated that they converge on two targets: (1) inhibition of cortical excitation; (2) restoring nociceptive dysmodulation. The antiepileptic drugs (e.g., topiramate, valproate, gabapentin), calcium channel blockers such as verapamil, and inhibitors of cortical spreading depression are some examples of drugs that reduce neuronal hyperexcitability. On the other hand, modulators of the serotonergic and adrenergic systems and cholinergic enhancing drugs may restore descending nociceptive inhibition and play a role in migraine prevention. To date, Level 1 evidence and clinical experience favor the use of the antidepressant amitriptyline, the anticonvulsants divalproex and topiramate, and the beta-adrenergic blockers propranolol, timolol and metoprolol as first line migraine preventive drugs. The evidence for others (e.g., verapamil) is not as strong. Migraine preventive drugs have varying degrees of adverse effects, some of which could be limiting, and their efficacy should balanced with their risks of adverse effects, patients' expectations and desires, and compliance. It is hoped that future migraine preventive drugs target migraine mechanisms more specifically, which could well enhance the therapeutic index.

Pharmacological management of mood and anxiety disorders in headache patients

There is emerging evidence that treatment of comorbid mood and anxiety disorders can improve headache treatment outcome when implemented within a comprehensive program. Effective treatment for comorbid mood and anxiety disorders requires screening headache patients and accurately diagnosing specific psychiatric disorders when present. Specific dual-action antidepressant, anticonvulsant, and atypical antipsychotic medications can serve as dual agents that simultaneously treat both headaches and a mood or anxiety disorder. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors and most other antidepressant, anxiolytic, and mood-stabilizing medications are generally ineffective for headache prophylaxis. However, they can be safely added to a headache regimen for treatment of a comorbid psychiatric disorder. Treatment of comorbid psychiatric disorders in headache patients requires patient education about the psychiatric disorder, its treatment, possible side-effects, and expected benefits. Clinicians need to be sensitive to possible stigma that some patients fear from a psychiatric diagnosis or its treatment.

[Cenesthesia as a rare differential diagnosis of persistent idiopathic facial pain]

Cenesthesia is portrayed as a rare differential diagnosis to persistent idiopathic facial pain, including the resulting therapy with antipsychotics. In this case report a female patient developed persistent facial pain 2 years after manifestation of a depressive disorder. The symptoms appeared as a bizarre pain phenomenon closely resembling the psychotic phenomenon of cenesthesia (body hallucinations). Treatment with imipramine and doxepin or a combination of venlafaxin, carbamazepine, and tilidine N had not been successful. Based on diagnostic classification of the complaint as cenesthesia in the context of a depressive disorder, add-on therapy of the atypical antipsychotic ziprasidone was administered. This led to clear improvements in mood and pain symptoms after 4 weeks of treatment.

Food intake and reward mechanisms in patients with schizophrenia: implications for metabolic disturbances and treatment with second-generation antipsychotic agents

Obesity is highly prevalent among patients with schizophrenia and is associated with detrimental health consequences. Although excessive consumption of fast food and pharmacotherapy with such second-generation antipsychotic agents (SGAs) as clozapine and olanzapine has been implicated in the schizophrenia/obesity comorbidity, the pathophysiology of this link remains unclear. Here, we propose a mechanism based on brain reward function, a relevant etiologic factor in both schizophrenia and overeating. A comprehensive literature search on neurobiology of schizophrenia and of eating behavior was performed. The collected articles were critically reviewed and relevant data were extracted and summarized within four key areas: (1) energy homeostasis, (2) food reward and hedonics, (3) reward function in schizophrenia, and (4) metabolic effects of the SGAs. A mesolimbic hyperdopaminergic state may render motivational/incentive reward system insensitive to low salience/palatability food. This, together with poor cognitive control from hypofunctional prefrontal cortex and enhanced hedonic impact of food, owing to exaggerated opioidergic drive (clinically manifested as pain insensitivity), may underlie unhealthy eating habits in patients with schizophrenia. Treatment with SGAs purportedly improves dopamine-mediated reward aspects, but at the cost of increased appetite and worsened or at least not improved opiodergic capacity. These effects can further deteriorate eating patterns. Pathophysiological and therapeutic implications of these insights need further validation via prospective clinical trials and neuroimaging studies.

A genetic association study of dopamine metabolism-related genes and chronic headache with drug abuse

To assess the role of dopamine metabolism-related genes in the genetic liability to chronic headache with drug abuse (DA). We performed a genetic association study using four functional polymorphisms of the dopamine receptor 4 (DRD4), dopamine transporter (DAT), mono-amino-oxidase A (MAOA) and cathecol-O-methyl-transferase (COMT) genes in 103 patients with chronic daily headache associated with DA (CDHDA). Control samples were 117 individuals without headache or DA (controls) and 101 patients with episodic migraine without aura and without DA (MO). No differences were found at the COMT and MAOA genes among the three groups investigated. Allele 4 of DRD4 was significantly overrepresented in patients with MO compared with both controls and CDHDA. Allele 10 of the DAT gene was significantly underrepresented in patients with CDHDA when compared with the MO group. Genetic variability at the DRD4 gene is involved in the predisposition to episodic MO but not to DA, while liability to CDHDA may involve genetic variability at the DAT gene in comparison with episodic MO.