Prophylactic Treatment of Pediatric Migraine

Headache in Children and Adolescents

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the assessment of children and adolescents presenting with headache, provides an overview of primary headache disorders, and reviews evidence-based management of headache in this age group.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

In the last few years, new epidemiological data have shed light on less common pediatric headache disorders (eg, pediatric trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias) and psychosocial risk factors associated with primary headache disorders in children and adolescents. There has also recently been a substantial increase in interventions that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway and that treat primary headache disorders using noninvasive neuromodulation. Although these interventions have primarily been studied in adults, there is emerging evidence of their use in the pediatric population.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

Primary headache disorders are very common in youth, and the most commonly encountered headache diagnosis in neurology practice is migraine, which affects approximately 10% of children and adolescents. Diagnosing and effectively treating primary headache disorders before adulthood may have a sustained impact on the patient by improving long-term headache and mental health outcomes, thereby significantly reducing the burden of disability over time. There are several available and emerging acute and preventive interventions for youth with primary headache disorders, and treatment decisions should be made in the context of available evidence using a shared decision-making approach.

Effects and side effects of migraine prophylaxis in children

BACKGROUND

Migraine is the primary cause of headache in children. Most patients can be treated with lifestyle changes and acute attack prophylaxis. Prophylaxis should be considered when symptoms cause frequent school absenteeism, poor quality of life, recurring emergency room visits, and frequent analgesic use. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side effects of drugs used in migraine prophylaxis, chosen according to the clinical and/or demographic characteristics of the patients.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-six patients aged 6-18 years were evaluated and who were diagnosed with migraine according to The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition beta version (ICH-3β). Propranolol, topiramate, flunarizine, and cyproheptadine were given as prophylactic treatment. The Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment Score (PedMIDAS) score, severity, duration, and frequency of the headache attacks were evaluated from the medical records and pre- and post-treatment values were compared.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 14 years (range, 6-18 years) and the mean duration of headache was 29.6 ± 21.02 months. The mean PedMIDAS score was 29.9 ± 21.2 before and 14.9 ± 12.5 after treatment. Most reduction in the frequency of attacks was observed in the topiramate group. All four drugs significantly reduced the PedMIDAS score. The most common side effect was palpitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement was found in PedMIDAS scores in all drug groups. Topiramate was found to be the most effective drug in reducing the frequency of attacks. All four drugs in this study may be utilized for migraine prophylaxis in terms of effectiveness and safety.

Headache in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the approach to a child or adolescent with headache, the criteria for common diagnoses, and the evidence base for treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

The guidelines for acute and preventive treatment of migraine were updated in 2019. These guidelines summarize the available evidence and outline the questions that should be addressed in future research. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several new classes of drugs and devices to treat adult migraine in the past few years has resulted in ongoing or planned pediatric trials.

SUMMARY

Headache is a common symptom in children, and it is important to take a detailed history and perform a thorough physical examination to make the diagnosis. Nearly 1 in 10 children experience recurrent headaches due to migraine, which cause significant impairment in school performance and quality of life. The acute and preventive treatments that are currently available will help at least two-thirds of children with migraine, and several trials of new therapies offer hope for the future.

Complementary and Integrative Medicines as Prophylactic Agents for Pediatric Migraine: A Narrative Literature Review

Complementary and integrative medicines (CIMs) are increasingly used as a preventive antimigraine therapy. In this review, we aimed to summarize the evidence for the efficacy and safety of eight CIMs (riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, magnesium, melatonin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and combination therapy of feverfew, vitamin D, and ginkgolide B) in pediatric migraine prevention. The level of evidence for riboflavin was relatively high; it was investigated by many studies with five/seven studies demonstrating its efficacy. Five studies investigated the use of melatonin, with one reporting negative results. There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of coenzyme Q10, magnesium, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Combination therapy showed positive potential; however, reports on the individual antimigraine effects of the CIMs were lacking. A definitive conclusion was not reached regarding the specific integrative drugs clinicians should choose for pediatric migraines, owing to low-quality evidence and a limited number of studies. Integrative medications are becoming more common for pediatric migraine prevention as they do not produce serious side effects, and underlying research data suggest their efficacy in preventing migraine. Additional studies are warranted to confirm the role of CIMs in treating patients with migraines.

Tolerability of Palmitoylethanolamide in a Pediatric Population Suffering from Migraine: A Pilot Study

Background

Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is emerging as a new therapeutic approach in pain and inflammatory conditions, and it has been evaluated in studies on various painful diseases. The aim of this open-label study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultramicronized PEA (umPEA) in the prophylactic treatment of migraine.

Methods

The study included 70 patients with mean age of 10.3 ± 2.7 (24.5% M and 75.5% F). All patients had a diagnosis of migraine without aura (ICHD 3 criteria) and received umPEA (600 mg/day orally) for three months. We compared the attack frequency (AF) and attack intensity at baseline and after three months. Patients were asked to classify the intensity of the attack with a value ranging from 1 to 3, where 1 means mild attack, 2 moderate, and 3 severe attack.

Results

Nine patients discontinued treatment before the target time of 12 weeks. After 3 months of treatment with umPEA, the headache frequency was reduced by >50% per month in 63.9% patients. The number of monthly attacks at T₁ decreased significantly compared with the baseline assessment (from 13.9 ± 7.5 SD of T₀ to 6.5 ± 5.9 SD of T₁; p < 0.001). The mean intensity of the attacks dropped from 1.67 ± 0.6 (T₀) to 1.16 ± 0.5 (T₁) (p < 0.001), and the percentage of patients with severe attacks decreased after treatment (from 8.2% to 1.6%; p < 0.05). The monthly assumptions of drugs for the attack reduced from 9.5 ± 4.4 to 4.9 ± 2.5 (p < 0.001). Only one patient developed mild side effects (nausea and floating).

Conclusions

Our preliminary data show that umPEA administered for three month reduces pain intensity and the number of attacks per month in pediatric patients with migraine. Although the small number of patients and the lack of control group do not allow us to consider these initial results as definitely reliable, they encourage us to expand the sample.

Pharmacotherapy for Persistent Posttraumatic Headaches in Children and Adolescents: A Brief Review of the Literature

Concussion, now most often referred to as mild traumatic brain injury in recent literature, is common in pediatrics, and headache is often the most common complaint post-injury. Although most children and adolescents recover within 1-2 weeks, some develop frequent and debilitating headaches that can last for months or longer. Most clinicians would agree on the importance of managing both acute and persistent posttraumatic headaches appropriately to speed recovery, minimize disability, maximize function, and improve quality of life, but there are no well-established guidelines to instruct physicians in doing so. As this continues to be a developing field, there is much we still need to learn about concussion and the appropriate strategies to prevent and treat these injuries and their sequelae. This review is intended to help providers understand the current evidence, and sometimes the lack thereof, and ultimately to lead to improved care for children with headaches after mild traumatic brain injury.

When Too Much Is Enough: Pediatric Cyproheptadine Overdose with Confirmatory Level

Cyproheptadine is an H-1 antihistamine with anticholinergic and antiserotonergic effects. Cyproheptadine’s most common use has been in the management cold-induced urticaria. It is often used in primary care for its side effect of appetite stimulation. Recently there has been increasing interest in its use in the treatment of drug-induced serotonin syndrome. Cyproheptadine overdose is uncommonly reported in the medical literature. We report the rare case of a pediatric cyproheptadine overdose with a confirmatory cyproheptadine level.

Off-Label Prescribing for Children with Migraines in U.S. Ambulatory Care Settings

BACKGROUND

Migraines, Which Affect About 10% Of School-Age Children In The United States, Can Significantly Impair Quality Of Life. Despite Potential Disability, Many Children Do Not Receive Treatment Or Prophylaxis, Since Medications Specifically Approved For Children Are Significantly Less Than For Adults. There Is Also Controversy Surrounding The Apparent Widespread Practice Of Prescribing Off-Label Medications For Children With Migraines. However, Little Research Has Been Done To Identify Physician-Prescribing Patterns Of Migraine Medication For Children.

OBJECTIVE

To Investigate The Prevalence And Pattern Of Off-Label Prescribing For Children With Migraines.

METHODS

A Secondary Data Analysis Was Conducted Using The Pooled National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (Namcs) 2011 And 2012. Patients Aged 17 Years Or Younger With A Migraine Diagnosis Were Included. A Series Of Weighted Descriptive Analyses Were Used To Estimate The Prevalence Of Migraine Drugs Prescribed During Pediatric Office Visits. A Weighted Logistic Regression Was Constructed To Compare The Prescribing Patterns Between Off-Label And Fda-Approved Medications. Analyses Used Sas 9.4 Methodology And Incorporated Sample Weights To Adjust For The Complex Sampling Design Employed By Namcs.

RESULTS

Of The 12.9 Million Outpatient Visits With A Migraine Diagnosis That Took Place Between 2010 And 2012, 1.2 Million Were Pediatric Visits. Females Accounted For Nearly Twice The Number Of Migraine Visits Than Males (66% Vs. 34%). Children Aged 12-17 Years Accounted For The Highest Frequency Of Visits (84%), Compared With Those Aged Under 12 Years (16%). 66.7% Of These Pediatric Patients Received At Least 1 Migraine Drug. Of These, Off-Label Medications Were Prescribed 1.5 Times More Than Fda-Approved Medications For Children (60.34% Vs. 39.65%). The Results Of Logistic Regression Showed A Significant Likelihood Of Prescribing Off-Label Medications Based On Physician Specialty, Patient Race, And Reason For Visit. Neurologists (Or = 0.028, P < 0.05) And Pediatricians (Or = 0.095, P < 0.05) Were Less Likely To Prescribe Off-Label Drugs Than General And Family Practitioners. Visits For Preventive Care (Or = 5.8, P < 0.05) And Flare-Ups From Chronic Migraines (Or = 5.0, P < 0.05) Were More Likely To Result In Off-Label Drug Prescriptions Than Visits For New Migraine Incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This Study Provides Significant Real-World Evidence Of The Widespread Practice Of Prescribing Off-Label Drugs To Children With Migraines. Although Medical Literature Shows That Off-Label Prescribing May Not Be Harmful, There Is A Dearth Of Research And Practice Guidelines To Help Practitioners Uphold Safety Standards And Ensure The Prescription Of Age-Appropriate Medications To Children.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this research. Lai and Ting contributed to study concept and design and collected the data, along with the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Lai, Koh, Obi, Ho, and Ting. The manuscript was written and revised by Lai, Koh, and Ho, with assistance from Ting and Obi.

Are antihistamines effective in children? A review of the evidence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

During the last decades, much attention has been paid to off-label and unlicensed prescriptions in paediatrics. However, on-label prescribing can also cause health issues. In this paper, the case of first-generation H₁-antihistamines is investigated, notably the range of indications for which products are licensed in different European countries and the evidence base (or lack thereof) for each indication, as well as reported adverse drug reactions.

METHODS

Review of the Summary of Product Characteristics of first-generation H₁-antihistamines with a focus on paediatric use. This is plotted against the evidence available in the literature.

RESULTS

This investigation shows a large variability in labelled indications and licensing ages when compared in five different European countries. Moreover, most of the indications are not based on clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of these drugs in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the licensed indications of first-generation antihistamines do not appear to be evidence based.

Outcome and Cost of Inpatient Hospitalization for Intravenous Dihydroergotamine Treatment of Refractory Pediatric Headache

BACKGROUND

To determine the cost and efficacy of admitting patients for intravenous dihydroergotamine treatment and to identify factors associated with a higher likelihood of response to treatment.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all pediatric hospitalizations from 2001 to 2010 for intravenous dihydroergotamine therapy for headache. Data were collected using the REDcap database and consisted of multiple variables, including preadmission demographics, headache duration, use of prophylactic medications, inpatient therapies including dihydroergotamine dosing, procedures, consultations, total hospital cost, and headache severity at discharge and at follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-four percent of the 145 individuals who were hospitalized were female. Mean age was 14.9 years. Headache was described as chronic or daily in almost all patients and 28 (19%) had status migrainosus. Sixty-six percent had a first-degree relative with migraine. The average length of stay was 3.7 days, and the average cost was $7569 per hospitalization. Patients received an average of eight doses of dihydroergotamine. At the time of discharge, 63% of patients reported improvement. Follow-up information was available for 68% of the cohort at a median of 42 days after discharge, and 21 of 99 patients (21%) experienced sustained relief of headache. Response to dihydroergotamine was correlated with a lower rate of comorbid diagnoses, lumbar puncture, and outpatient neuroimaging. Response also correlated to less expensive hospitalizations with an average cost of $5379 per hospitalization versus $7105 per hospitalization without positive response. Response was also correlated with a patient receiving more doses of intravenous dihydroergotamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Although intravenous dihydroergotamine is an effective abortive medication for intractable migraine, it may provide only short-term headache relief in many pediatric patients. Hospitalization is relatively costly with only modest long-term benefit, especially in patients with chronic migraine or chronic daily headache.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. XCVIII. Histamine Receptors

Histamine is a developmentally highly conserved autacoid found in most vertebrate tissues. Its physiological functions are mediated by four 7-transmembrane G protein-coupled receptors (H1R, H2R, H3R, H4R) that are all targets of pharmacological intervention. The receptors display molecular heterogeneity and constitutive activity. H1R antagonists are long known antiallergic and sedating drugs, whereas the H2R was identified in the 1970s and led to the development of H2R-antagonists that revolutionized stomach ulcer treatment. The crystal structure of ligand-bound H1R has rendered it possible to design new ligands with novel properties. The H3R is an autoreceptor and heteroreceptor providing negative feedback on histaminergic and inhibition on other neurons. A block of these actions promotes waking. The H4R occurs on immuncompetent cells and the development of anti-inflammatory drugs is anticipated.

Medication Repurposing in Pediatric Patients: Teaching Old Drugs New Tricks

OBJECTIVES

Gaps in pediatric therapeutics often result in off-label use and specifically, novel uses for existing medications, termed "drug repurposing." Drug Information (DI) queries to a Pediatric Medication Resource Center of a large metropolitan pediatric hospital in New York and inherent difficulties in retrieving evidence-based information prompted a review of current medication repurposing for pediatric patients. The objective included characterization of innovative off-label use of medications Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for 1 or more indications to treat a totally different disorder or indication in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve publications describing repurposed medications in pediatric patients. Excluded was FDA-approved indications used off-label in pediatric patients (e.g., different dose), preclinical data, adult use only, and experimental use. Evidence quality was classified using a modified American Academy of Neurology Level of Evidence. Results were analyzed using χ(2) at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Over 2000 references were retrieved and reviewed. A total of 101 medications repurposed for novel off-label uses for pediatric patients were identified: 38 for neonates, 74 for children, and 52 for adolescents. Neonates and infants were least likely to receive a medication for a repurposed use. Strong or intermediate evidence existed in 80.2% of cases. The evidence was weak in 19.8%. No significant relationship was observed between the pediatric age group and strength of the literature. Most repurposed uses pertained to generic or widely used medications. Less than 5% of medications were first marketed after 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

While not exhaustive, the present study represents the most comprehensive listing of novel uses exclusive to pediatric patients. Further research is needed to identify the frequency of repurposed uses. The valuable DI role of pharmacists in assessing repurposed uses is of expanding and increasing importance to ensure such uses are evidence-based.

The optimal management of headaches in children and adolescents

The recognition of the diagnosis of migraine in children is increasing. Early and aggressive treatment of migraine in this population with the use of over-the-counter medications has proven effective. The off-label use of many migraine-specific medications is often accepted in the absence of sufficient evidenced-based trials. Mild to severe cases of migraine should be treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with triptans used in moderate to severe headaches unresponsive to over-the-counter therapy. Rescue medication including dihydroergotamine [DHE] should be used for status migrainosus, preferably in the hospital setting. Antiemetics that have antidopaminergic properties can be helpful in patients with associated symptoms of nausea and vomiting through their action on central migraine generation. Furthermore, patients and families should be educated on nonpharmacologic management such as lifestyle modification and avoidance of triggers that can prevent episodic migraine.

Mast Cell-Mediated Mechanisms of Nociception

Mast cells are tissue-resident immune cells that release immuno-modulators, chemo-attractants, vasoactive compounds, neuropeptides and growth factors in response to allergens and pathogens constituting a first line of host defense. The neuroimmune interface of immune cells modulating synaptic responses has been of increasing interest, and mast cells have been proposed as key players in orchestrating inflammation-associated pain pathobiology due to their proximity to both vasculature and nerve fibers. Molecular underpinnings of mast cell-mediated pain can be disease-specific. Understanding such mechanisms is critical for developing disease-specific targeted therapeutics to improve analgesic outcomes. We review molecular mechanisms that may contribute to nociception in a disease-specific manner.

Migraine and tension type headache in adolescents at grammar school in Germany - burden of disease and health care utilization

Background

Tension-type headache and migraine are among the most prevalent chronic disorders in children/adolescents. Data on health care utilization for headache in this age group, however, are sparse.

Methods

In 1399 grammar school students (aged 12–19 years) with headache in the last six months in Germany a) the burden of disease for headache (mean intensity, mean frequency in the last three months and PedMIDAS means), b) medical care utilization defined by proportion of students consulting a physician in the last 12 months and/or taking analgetic drugs in the last three months by headache types (migraine and tension-type headache) and by burden of disease were assessed.

Results

Primary headache substantially impaired daily living activities in adolescents which was mainly related to migraine. Medical care utilization and drug use, however, was low (consulting a physician: 12.0 %, 95 %-CI = [10.3-13.8]; taking analgetic drugs: 29.9 %, 95 %-CI = [27.5-32.4]) - even among students with severe headache (physician consultation: <35 %; taking analgetic drugs: <63 %). Two thirds of students with any headache and 40 % of those with migraine had neither seen a physician nor used analgetic drugs because of their headache in the preceding 12 months.

Conclusions

Adolescents with headache might too rarely seek professional help for treatment of headache. Health promotion in adolescents should increase awareness for evidence-based treatment options for headache.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-015-0534-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prophylaxis of migraine in children and adolescents

While it has been established that headaches in the pediatric age group are relatively common, the characterization of headache disorders and their treatment in this group has historically been limited. Due to the paucity of controlled studies on prophylaxis of the primary headache disorders in children, the diagnosis of migraine often rests on criteria similar to those used in adults. Data from adult studies are often extrapolated and applied to the pediatric patient. Although it appears that many prophylactic agents are safe, well tolerated and efficacious in children, currently only topiramate is FDA-approved for use in patients 12 years and over. As a result, despite often experiencing significant disability, many children who present to their physician with migraines do not receive preventive therapy. One-third of adolescents meet the criteria for warranting prophylactic therapy, yet few are offered a preventative medication. Moreover, controlled clinical trials investigating the use of both abortive and prophylactic medications in children have suffered from high placebo response rates. A diverse group of medications are used to prevent migraine attacks, including antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihistamines and antihypertensive agents, yet there still remains a serious lack of controlled studies on the pharmacological treatment of pediatric migraine.

Part II--Management of pediatric post-traumatic headaches

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic headache is one of the most common symptoms occurring after mild traumatic brain injury in children.

METHODS

This is an expert opinion-based two-part review on pediatric post-traumatic headaches. In part II, we focus on the medical management of post-traumatic headaches. There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of therapies specifically for pediatric post-traumatic headaches. Thus, the algorithm we propose has been extrapolated from the primary headache literature and small noncontrolled trials of post-traumatic headache.

RESULTS

Most post-traumatic headaches are migraine or tension type, and standard medications for these headache types are used. A multifaceted approach is needed to address all the possible causes of headache and any comorbid conditions that may delay recovery or alter treatment choices. For acute treatment, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories can be used. If the headaches have migrainous features and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories are not effective, triptans may be beneficial. Opioids are not indicated. Medication overuse should be avoided. For preventive treatments, some reports indicate that amitriptyline, gabapentin, or topiramate may be beneficial. Amitriptyline is a good choice because it can be used to treat both migraine and tension-type headaches. Nerve blocks, nutraceuticals (e.g. melatonin), and behavioral therapies may also be useful, and lifestyle factors, especially adequate sleep hygiene and strategies to cope with anxiety, should be emphasized.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved treatment of acute post-traumatic headache may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic headaches, which can be especially problematic to effectively manage and can be functionally debilitating.

Preventive drugs in childhood and adolescent migraine

While headaches in children are quite common, the study and characterization of headache disorders in the pediatric age group has historically been limited. In the absence of controlled studies on prophylactic treatment of the primary headache disorders in this age group, the diagnosis of childhood migraine rests on criteria similar to those in adults. Data from adult studies are often extrapolated and applied to children as well. Although it appears that many preventive agents are safe in children, none are currently FDA-approved for this age group. As a result, despite experiencing significant disability, the vast majority of children who present to their physician with migraine headache do not receive prophylactic therapy. Furthermore, controlled clinical trials investigating the use of both abortive and preventive medications in children have suffered from high placebo response rates. The shorter duration of headaches and other characteristic features seen in children are such that designing randomized controlled trials in this age group is more problematic and limiting. As such, treatment practices vary widely, even among specialists, due to the absence of evidence-based guidelines from clinical trials.

Pediatric migraine and episodic syndromes that may be associated with migraine

Importance

Migraine is a common disorder and a frequent cause of medical consultation in children. Many childhood episodic syndromes have been described as common precursors of migraine.

Objective

To review current knowledge on migraine and childhood episodic syndromes, and to discuss future directions for research and clinical practice.

Findings

For most children it is difficult to describe a headache and fully verbalize symptoms such as photophobia and phonophobia that must be inferred from behaviour. Classical migraine features are rare before the age of 6 years, but some migraine-related syndromes have been described. Benign paroxysmal torticollis of infancy, benign paroxysmal vertigo of childhood, cyclic vomiting syndrome and abdominal migraine are currently classified as childhood episodic syndromes, and therefore common precursors of migraine. A strong association between infantile colic and migraine has recently been reported. There are similarities between children with episodic syndromes and children with migraine, regarding social and demographic factors, precipitating and relieving factors, and accompanying gastrointestinal, neurologic, and vasomotor features. The real pathophysiological mechanisms of migraine are not fully understood. Current data obtained through molecular and functional studies provide a complex model in which vascular and neurologic events cooperate in the pathogenesis of migraine attacks. Genetic factors causing disturbances in neuronal ion channels, make a migraineur more sensitive to multiple trigger factors that activate the nociception cascade. The expanding knowledge on migraine genetics and pathophysiology may be applicable to childhood episodic syndromes. Migraine preventive strategies are particularly important in children, and could be beneficial in childhood episodic syndromes. Nonspecific analgesics like ibuprofen and acetaminophen are widely used in pediatrics to control pain and have been found to be effective also in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Triptans are the specific fist-line drugs for acute migraine treatment.

Conclusions and relevance

Migraine phenotype differs somewhat in the developing brain, and childhood episodic syndromes may arise before typical migraine headache. Diagnosing pediatric migraine may be difficult because of children’s language and cognitive abilities. The risk of underestimating migraine in pediatric age is high. An adequate diagnosis is important to maintain a good quality of life and to avoid inappropriate therapy.

Pediatric migraine: common, yet treatable

Migraine headache is a common problem among children and adolescents that is now recognized as a significant and often debilitating condition in this population. Improved recognition and management of pediatric migraine in primary care is necessary, as there is a knowledge gap in understanding the unique features of this condition and a general reluctance to treat children.

The Paediatric migraine disability assessment score is a useful tool for evaluating prophylactic migraine treatment

AIM

There is a need for an objective assessment scoring system to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic drugs in paediatric migraine, and the aim of this study was to evaluate the Paediatric Migraine Disability Assessment Score (PedMIDAS).

METHODS

We recruited 88 children aged between 6 and 17 years of age with migraine. The 53 children in the treatment group were divided into three groups according to the prophylactic drug they received topiramate, flunarizine and propranolol and assessed using PedMIDAS before the start of treatment and 3 and 6 months after treatment. The 35 patients in the control group did not receive prophylactic treatment and were assessed with PedMIDAS on three occasions, 3 months apart.

RESULTS

Topiramate, propranolol and flunarizine treatments significantly decreased PedMIDASs and were shown to be effective in improving the patients' quality of life. Topiramate and propranolol were more effective than flunarizine. The number of days on analgesic treatment significantly decreased in the patients who had received topiramate and propranolol treatments (p < 0.05), but remained unchanged in the flunarizine prophylaxis group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PedMIDAS scoring system is useful in evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic therapy in paediatric migraine. Topiramate and propranolol lowered the PedMIDASs better than flunarizine.

Pediatric headache: where have we been and where do we need to be

In this article, we hope to summarize current understanding of pediatric headache. We discuss epidemiology, genetics, classification, diagnosis, outpatient, emergency and inpatient treatment options, prevention strategies, and behavioral approaches. For each section, we end with a series of questions for future research and consideration.

Histamine in migraine and brain

BACKGROUND

Histamine has been studied in both health and disease since the initial description a century ago. With its vasodilative effect, it was suggested early on to be involved in the pathophysiology of migraine. Over the past 25 years, much has been learned about histamine as a neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. The role of this neurotransmitter system in migraine has not been previously reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

Discuss a potential role of the brain histaminergic system in migraine.

METHODS

Unstructured literature search with a no specific hypothesis-driven approach.

RESULTS

There is substantial evidence that systemically given histamine may elicit, maintain, and aggravate headache. The mechanisms for this are not known, and histamines do not penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB). However, circulating histamine may influence hypothalamic activity via the circumventricular organs that lack BBB. In the rat, prolonged activation of meningeal nociceptors induced by dural mast cell degranulation has been observed. Subcutaneous injections of N-alpha-methyl histamine, a catabolite of histamine with high affinity to the histamine H3 receptor, probably have some migraine preventive effect. A negative feedback on histamine release from mast cells in proximity to C-fiber endings has been a postulated mechanism. Most antihistamines have shown to be ineffective as acute medication for migraine. Two centrally acting potent H1 receptor antagonists (cinnarizine and cyproheptadine) have been reported to be efficacious in preventing migraine. However, the proof for this is limited, and their efficacy has been ascribed other actions than the antihistaminergic. In general, lack of specificity and side effects limit the potential use of centrally acting H1 and H2 antagonists. Brain histamine is synthesized by neurons that are restricted to the posterior basal hypothalamus, more specific to the tuberomamillary nucleus (TMN), and that project practically to the whole central nervous system. The posterior hypothalamus is a suspected locus in quo in several primary headaches. Recently, a positron emission tomography study performed in the prodromal phase of migraine attacks supported the idea of initial involvement of this area. In another recent study, the thalamic nuclei receiving trigeminal output was also shown to have direct connections with the ventral TMN. The central histaminergic system plays an important role in the complex sleep-wake cycle, promoting cortical excitability during wakening and attention, and it consolidates the wake state. The period of the day, in the evenings and during the night, when there is reduced susceptibility for migraine attacks corresponds with less central histaminergic firing. Activation of both the H3 and the H4 receptor promotes inhibitory actions on neurons. The H3 receptor causes autoinhibition of the histaminergic neurons themselves, and centrally acting H3 receptor agonist prodrugs have shown to both inhibit neurogenic inflammation in dura, to induce sleep, and to produce antinociception. There are no registered ongoing studies on H3 and H4 receptor ligands in migraine.

CONCLUSION

The role of the central histaminergic system in migraine is largely unexplored, but findings from preclinical research may be linked to several aspects of the disorder. The histaminergic system of the brain may play an important role, especially in the initial phase of an attack, and histamine H3 and H4 receptor ligands may potentially have migraine prophylactic properties. However, the basis for this is still circumstantial, and the evidence is lacking.

Pediatric migraine: new diagnostic strategies and treatment options

Migraine headaches are seen commonly by physicians caring for children and adolescents. The prevalence in the pediatric population ranges from 3.2 to 10.6%. With the advent of new inclusive diagnostic criteria, reproducibility of definitive diagnosis in children and adolescents should improve. Although advances with clinical drug trials have yielded new, approved therapies in adults, information remains inconclusive in the pediatric population. Further clinical studies are warranted to develop consensus on treatment paradigms for clinicians to utilize in children and adolescents with migraine.

Pediatric migraine: abortive management in the emergency department

Studies suggest that headache accounts for approximately 1% of pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. ED physicians must distinguish between primary headaches, such as a tension or migraine, and secondary headaches caused by systemic disease including neoplasm, infection, or intracranial hemorrhage. A recent study found that 40% of children presenting to the ED with headache were diagnosed with a primary headache, and 75% of these were migraine. Once the diagnosis of migraine has been made, the ED physician is faced with the challenge of determining appropriate abortive treatment. This review summarizes the most recent literature on pediatric migraine with an emphasis on diagnosis and abortive treatment in the ED.

Episodic migraines in children: limited evidence on preventive pharmacological treatments

The authors conducted a systematic literature review of preventive pharmacological treatments for episodic childhood migraines searching several databases through May 20, 2012. Episodic migraine prevention was examined in 24 publications of randomized controlled trials that enrolled 1578 children in 16 nonrandomized studies. Single randomized controlled trials provided low-strength evidence that propranolol would result in complete cessation of migraine attacks in 713 per 1000 children treated (95% confidence interval, 452-974); trazodone and nimodipine decreased migraine days, while topiramate, divalproex, and clonidine were no more effective than placebo in preventing migraines. Migraine prevention with multidisciplinary drug management was not sustained at 6 months. Divalproex resulted in treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects, and topiramate increased the risk of paresthesia, upper respiratory tract infection, and weight loss. Long-term preventive benefits and improvement in disability and quality of life are unknown. No studies examined quality of life or provided evidence for individualized treatment decisions.

Effective dose of topiramate in pediatric migraine prophylaxis

Objective:

Migraine is a common neurological disorder in childhood and adolescence. Topiramate is a new anticonvulsant drug, recently being used in migraine prophylaxis in adults, although it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of pediatric migraine. The present study was planned and performed to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose topiramate in pediatric migraine prophylaxis.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective study, including 60 patients with migraine headaches was performed for a period of two months. The patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups – treated by topiramate < 2 mg/kg/day and > 2 mg/kg/day. All the patients were evaluated at 0, 4, and 8 weeks of the study for the clinical response.

Results:

The patients receiving topiramate < 2 mg/kg/day (mean dose of 1.2 ± 0.7 mg/kg/day) showed a reduction in the mean (±SD) of migraine frequency from 6.2 (±2.4) to 3.0 (±1.8) episodes per month, headache intensity from 7.2 (±1.95) to 3.7 (±1.8) based on the Visual Analog Scale, and headache duration from 5.4 (±2.1) to 2.2 (±1.3) h. In the patients treated with topiramate > 2 mg/kg/day (mean dose of 2.4 ± 0.5 mg/kg/day), the mean (±SD) of monthly headache frequency reduced from 6.9 (±2.1) to 3.24 (±1.2) per month, intensity from 7.11 (±1.4) to 3.14 (±2.41), and headache duration from 5.2 (±2.4) to 1.8 (±1.2) h, at the end of follow-up (P > 0.05). The most common side effects of topiramate were paresthesias (five patients), anorexia (four patients), drowsiness (four patients).

Conclusion:

The results of this study demonstrated that low-dose of topiramate (<2 mg/kg/day) is effective, well-tolerated, safe, and suggested as an alternative prophylactic treatment for pediatric migraine.

Pharmacologic treatment of pediatric headaches: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic headache treatment in children and adolescents. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, and bibliography of retrieved articles through August 11, 2012. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials of headache treatment among children and adolescents (&lt;18 years old). INTERVENTION Any placebo-controlled trial or comparisons between 2 or more active medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Number of headaches per month. RESULTS Among 21 included trials, there were 13 placebo-controlled and 10 active comparator trials (2 also included placebo). Twenty trials focused on episodic migraines and 1 on chronic daily headaches. Drugs more effective than placebo for episodic migraines (&lt;15 headaches per month) included topiramate (difference in headaches per month, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.24) and trazodone (-0.60; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.11). Ineffective drugs included clonidine, flunarizine, pizotifen, propranolol, and valproate. A single trial of fluoxetine for chronic daily headaches found it ineffective. Patients given placebo experienced a significant (P = .03) decline in headaches, from 5.6 (95% CI, 4.52-6.77; Q = 8.14 [Cochran Q is a measure of the heterogeneity of the included studies]) to 2.9 headaches per month (95% CI, 1.66-4.08; Q = 4.72). Among the 10 active comparator trials, flunarizine was more effective than piracetam (difference in headaches per month, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.93 to -0.47) but no better than aspirin, dihydroergotamine, or propranolol. Propranolol was compared with valproate as well as behavioral treatment, and 2 studies compared different doses of topiramate; none of these trials showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS Topiramate and trazodone have limited evidence supporting efficacy for episodic migraines. Placebo was effective in reducing headaches. Other commonly used drugs have no evidence supporting their use in children and adolescents. More research is needed.

Triptan use in pediatric migraine: focus on rizatriptan

Migraines are a common complaint in children and can cause a significant burden to both the child and their families, with a substantial loss in both school and work days, as well as having negative effects on the child’s self-esteem and peer relations. It has become clear that migraine-specific medications are needed in this population of patients and their use may result in a significant improvement of the child’s headaches and quality of life. Rizatriptan benzoate (Maxalt®) is a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine/serotonin1B/1D (5-HT1B/1D ) agonist that was approved by the US FDA in 1998 for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults. Despite having been widely used in the pediatric population, rizatriptan was most recently approved in December 2011 for pediatric use in children aged 6–17 years. The advantage of rizatriptan over some other triptans is its rapid onset of action, which is thought to be beneficial in the generally shorter migraine attacks of children when compared with adults. It may also be an appealing choice for young children because it comes in an orally disintegrating form for those who may have difficulty in swallowing tablets or who have significant gastrointestinal complaints accompanying their headaches, including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

Nonpharmacologic treatment of migraine with low-dose propranolol or amitriptyline

This study evaluated the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic measures combined with low-dose propranolol or amitriptyline for treating severe pediatric migraine. Data were collected from the medical files of 118 patients (mean age, 12.54 ± 3.14 years S.D.). All were treated with nonpharmacologic measures. In addition, 93 children received propranolol (mean initial dose, 0.4 ± 0.17 mg/kg/day S.D.), and 25 received amitriptyline (mean initial dose, 0.26 ± 0.1 mg/kg/day S.D.). Twenty patients were switched from propranolol to amitriptyline during treatment. In both groups, headache frequency was reduced by >50% per month in ~80% of patients. Patients without aura responded significantly better to propranolol than patients with aura (P = 0.02). No significant difference was evident in response to pharmacologic treatment by migraine frequency or type (episodic chronic). No significant difference was evident in response to amitriptyline between patients with or without aura. The response rate was higher than previously reported for placebo. Low-dose propranolol and low-dose amitriptyline, when combined with nonpharmacologic measures, are equally effective in reducing the frequency of migraine in children. Propranolol is preferred because of its lower risk of side effects. An additive effect of nonpharmacologic measures may allow for a reduction in drug dose.

Pediatric headache: a clinical review

In this review we describe the epidemiology, classification, and approach to the diagnosis and treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in children. We review both traditional and alternative medications, and offer a glimpse into the future of pediatric headache.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine: intersection of peripheral inflammation and central modulation

Over the past two decades, a convergence of basic and clinical evidence has established the neuropeptide calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) as a key player in migraine. Although CGRP is a recognised neuromodulator of nociception, its mechanism of action in migraine remains elusive. In this review, we present evidence that led us to propose that CGRP is well poised to enhance neurotransmission in migraine by both peripheral and central mechanisms. In the periphery, it is thought that local release of CGRP from the nerve endings of meningeal nociceptors following their initial activation by cortical spreading depression is critical for the induction of vasodilation, plasma protein extravasation, neurogenic inflammation and the consequential sensitisation of meningeal nociceptors. Mechanistically, we propose that CGRP release can give rise to a positive-feedback loop involved in localised increased synthesis and release of CGRP from neurons and a CGRP-like peptide called procalcitonin from trigeminal ganglion glia. Within the brain, the wide distribution of CGRP and CGRP receptors provides numerous possible targets for CGRP to act as a neuromodulator.

The evaluation and management of paediatric headaches

The management of patients with headaches is a major component of every paediatric practice. In a nationally representative sample of Canadian adolescents, it was found that 26.6% of those 12 to 13 years of age and 31.2% of those 14 to 15 years of age reported that they experienced headaches at least once per week.The diagnosis of headaches in children and adolescents is established through a headache history in the vast majority of patients. Specific questions can identify those at most risk for headaches secondary to underlying pathology. Similarly, the examination should be tailored to identify those who require further investigation. Investigations are not routinely indicated for paediatric headache, but neuroimaging should be considered in children whose headaches do not meet the criteria for one of the primary headache syndromes and in those with an abnormal neurological examination.The optimal treatment of primary headaches should begin with nonpharmacological methods. Preventive pharmacological therapy should be considered when headaches significantly impair the patient's quality of life. Flunarizine may be valuable in paediatric headache prevention, and ibuprofen, acetaminophen and nasal sumatriptan may be effective in the acute management of headaches.

Overview of diagnosis and management of paediatric headache. Part II: therapeutic management

A thorough evaluation of headache in children and adolescents is necessary to make the correct diagnosis and initiate treatment. In part 1 of this article (Özge et al. in J Headache Pain, 2010), we reviewed the diagnosis of headache in children and adolescents. In the present part, we will discuss therapeutic management of primary headaches. An appropriate management requires an individually tailored strategy giving due consideration to both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures. Non-pharmacological treatments include relaxation training, biofeedback training, cognitive-behavioural therapy, different psychotherapeutic approaches or combinations of these treatments. The data supporting the effectiveness of these therapies are less clear-cut in children than in adults, but that is also true for the data supporting medical treatment. Management of migraine and TTH should include strategies relating to daily living activities, family relationships, school, friends and leisure time activities. In the pharmacological treatment age and gender of children, headache diagnosis, comorbidities and side effects of medication must be considered. The goal of symptomatic treatment should be a quick response with return to normal activity and without relapse. The drug should be taken as early as possible and in the appropriate dosage. Supplementary measures such as rest in a quiet, darkened room is recommended. Pharmaco-prophylaxis is only indicated if lifestyle modification and non-pharmacological prophylaxis alone are not effective. Although many prophylactic medications have been tried in paediatric migraine, there are only a few medications that have been studied in controlled trials. Multidisciplinary treatment is an effective strategy for children and adolescents with improvement of multiple outcome variants including frequency and severity of headache and school days missed because of headache. As a growing problem both children and families should be informed about medication overuse and the children's drug-taking should be checked.

Pediatric headache

Headache is a common presenting complaint in the practice of child neurology. The medical and social impact of headache is often very severe both for the affected child and for his/her family. As there exist few good clinical studies to guide practitioners in choosing appropriate medications, treatments are mostly based on extrapolation of adult study results. Personal trial-and-error experience and specialized considerations for patients also influence choice and implementation. A careful medical history, however, can enable optimal choices for abortive and prophylactic use in the context of a multi-disciplinary approach toward headache management. This article provides a pathophysiologically-based overview of a wide range of therapeutic options for children and adolescents with headache.

Amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of migraine and chronic daily headache

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used medications in migraine prophylaxis. There have been relatively few placebo-controlled studies of amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis or in treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). This report deals with a large placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline vs placebo of 20 weeks duration that included subjects with intermittent migraine (IM) as well as CDH. The study was carried out between 1976 and 1979; however, results have never been fully reported.

METHODS

Patients with a history of migraine as defined by the 1962 Ad Hoc Committee report were recruited for this study. Subjects had at least 2 headaches per month, and no limit was placed on the number of headaches per month that could be experienced. The study format included a 4-week baseline period (Period A) in which all subjects received placebo in a dose of 2 pills per day for one week, 3 pills per day for one week and then 4 pills per day for 2 weeks. Subjects with at least 2 migraine headaches in this period were then entered into Period B and randomized into either amitriptyline or placebo tracks. Medication consisted of identical tablets containing either 25 mg amitriptyline or placebo. Period B was 4 weeks in duration with dose titration identical to Period A. The dose could be reduced if necessary to reduce side effects. The minimum dose was one pill per day. Period C was a 12-week maintenance or stabilization period in which the patient continued the dose established by week 8 with visits at weeks 12, 16, and 20. Patients kept a headache calendar that was used for data collection. Headache frequency (per month), severity, and duration (hours) were the primary measurement parameters employed for data analysis.

RESULTS

For the entire group, 391 subjects were entered into Period A, 338 were randomized into Period B, 317 (81%) subjects completed the first post-randomization visit (8 weeks), 255 (65%) completed week 12, 210 (54%) completed week 16, and 186 (48%) completed week 20. Using headache frequency and evaluating parameters of (a) improvement, (b) no change, or (c) worsening relative to baseline, there was a significant improvement in headache frequency for amitriptyline over placebo at 8 weeks (P = .018) but not at 12, 16, or 20 weeks. When amitriptyline and placebo patients were compared for headache frequency at 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks to their own placebo stabilization period at 4 weeks, statistically significant improvement vs worsening was seen in headache frequency at each evaluation point for both amitriptyline and placebo groups (P ≤ .01) reaching 50% reporting a decrease in frequency in each group and approximately 10% reporting worsening by week 20. There were no significant differences in headache severity or duration between amitriptyline and placebo groups at anytime during the study. Within the study sample, there were 36 amitriptyline and 22 placebo subjects who had headaches ≥ 17 days/month that fit the current definition of CDH by the Silberstein-Lipton criteria. These were analyzed separately as a subgroup for comparison of amitriptyline vs placebo using a metric of (1) no change or worsening; (2) up to a 50% improvement; and (3) ≥ 50% improvement in headache frequency. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in number with improvement in frequency of ≥ 50% at 8 weeks (25% vs 5% [P = .031]) and at 16 weeks (46% vs 9% [P = .043]). There was a trend for amitriptyline to be superior to placebo at 12 and 20 weeks but this did not reach significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, using headache frequency as the primary metric, for the entire group, amitriptyline was superior to placebo in migraine prophylaxis at 8 weeks but, because of a robust placebo response, not at subsequent time points. For the subgroup with CDH, amitriptyline was statistically significantly superior to placebo at 8 weeks and 16 weeks with a similar but nonsignificant trend at 12 and 20 weeks. Compared with placebo amitriptyline is effective in CDH. Amitriptyline was also significantly effective in IM compared intragroup to its own baseline; however, placebo was equally effective in the same analysis. The reason for the robust placebo response in the IM group is not clear, but has been occasionally reported.

Migraine treatment in developmental age: guidelines update

There is a serious lack of controlled studies on the pharmacological treatment of primary migraine in the developmental age; there is, consequently, an urgent need for new, evidence-based approaches to this long-neglected field of research. Moreover, previous studies have stated that the placebo response is greater in pediatric patients than in adults and that a reduction in the attack frequency in the absence of any pharmacological treatment is observed more frequently in pediatric migraine patients than in adults. Besides these preliminary considerations, the shorter duration of migraine attacks and other characteristic semeiological features of the clinical picture in children are such that the design of randomized controlled trial (RCT) is more problematic in the developmental age than in the adult. Bearing in mind all these weak points, the aim of this review was to summarize and update recent guidelines for the treatment of primary migraine in children and adolescents. The most recent guidelines are those published by the Italian Society for the study of Headache, the French Society for the study of Migraine and Headache, and the American Academy of Neurology. We have incorporated into these guidelines the results from the few, recent RCTs, clinical controlled trials, open-label studies, meta-analyses and reviews that have been published since 2004; owing to the lack of strong evidence in this field of research, we have sometimes even mentioned pilot non-controlled studies, case series and expert opinions. Lastly, evidence was classified and the recommendations were categorized according to different levels.