Standardizing emergency department-based migraine research: an analysis of commonly used clinical trial outcome measures

The 2023 protocol for update to acute treatment of adults with migraine in the emergency department: The American Headache Society evidence assessment of parenteral pharmacotherapies

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this proposed guideline is to update the prior 2016 guideline on parenteral pharmacotherapies for the management of adults with a migraine attack in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We will conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis using the 2016 guideline methodology to provide clinical recommendations. The same search strategy will be used for studies up to 2023, with a new search strategy added to capture studies of nerve blocks and sphenopalatine blocks. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform will be searched. Our inclusion criteria consist of studies involving adults with a diagnosis of migraine, utilizing medications administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously in a randomized controlled trial design. Two authors will perform the selection of studies based on title and abstract, followed by a full-text review. A third author will intervene in cases of disagreements. Data will be recorded in a standardized worksheet and subjected to verification. The risk of bias will be assessed using the American Academy of Neurology tool. When applicable, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The efficacy of medications will be evaluated, categorizing them as "highly likely," "likely", or "possibly effective" or "ineffective." Subsequently, clinical recommendations will be developed, considering the risk associated with the medications, following the American Academy of Neurology recommendation development process.

RESULTS

The goal of this updated guideline will be to provide guidance on which injectable medications, including interventional approaches (i.e., nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion), should be considered effective acute treatment for adults with migraine who present to an ED.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods outlined in this protocol will be used in the design of a future systematic review and meta-analysis-informed guideline, which will then be assessed by and submitted for endorsement by the American Headache Society.

Managing and Preventing Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Review

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and acute migraine attacks are a common reason for patients to seek care in the emergency department (ED). There have been recent advancements in the care of patients with migraine, specifically emerging evidence for nerve blocks and new pharmacological classes of medications like gepants and ditans. This article serves as a comprehensive review of migraine in the ED, including diagnosis and management of acute complications of migraine (eg, status migrainosus, migrainous infarct, persistent aura without infarction, and aura-triggered seizure) and use of evidence-based migraine-specific treatments in the ED. It highlights the role of migraine preventive medications and provides a framework for emergency physicians to prescribe them to eligible patients. Finally, it evaluates the evidence for nerve blocks in the treatment of migraine and introduces the possible role of gepants and ditans in the care of patients with migraine in the ED.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Tool for Inpatient Pediatric Status Migrainosus

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks in the inpatient settings for pediatric patients presenting with status migrainosus.

METHODS

An analysis of a retrospective cohort of patients aged 13 to 18 years, admitted for status migrainosus from 2017 to 2022, was performed. Among the 1805 patients who presented with status migrainosus, 265 required hospital admission. A total of 177 patients failed the first- and second-line intravenous therapy and were treated with either peripheral nerve block (PNB) or dihydroergotamine (DHE) intravenous infusions. The primary outcome of the study was pain score level reduction by 50%, and the secondary outcome was duration of hospital stay. Visual analog scale score was used for pain assessment.

RESULTS

Among the 177 patients, 100 patients were treated with DHE and 77 were treated with PNB. Target pain control was achieved in 59 of 100 patients receiving DHE and 38 of 77 patients receiving PNB. The average hospital stay of patients who responded to PNB was significantly lower compared with that of patients receiving DHE (3.6 days vs 4.9 days). Among the 41 patients who were refractory to DHE, 30 patients received PNB, of which 12 responded to nerve blocks. The most common side effects for PNBs were pain at injection site in 39% of patients and nausea/vomiting for DHE in 50% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PNB can be safely administered in the hospital setting to pediatric patients with status migrainosus. PNB treatment helped achieve target pain control with minimal side effects and reduced the hospital stay duration.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Clinic-Based Headache Registries, 1st edition

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

A randomized controlled trial of oxycodone/acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alone for emergency department patients with musculoskeletal pain refractory to ibuprofen

BACKGROUND

Use of oral opioids does not result in more pain relief than nonopioid alternatives when administered to patients as first-line treatment for acute musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy of oxycodone/acetaminophen to that of acetaminophen alone as second-line treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain who were administered prescription-strength ibuprofen and reported insufficient relief 1 h later.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in two urban emergency departments. Opioid-naïve patients ≥ 18 years with an acute musculoskeletal injury were administered ibuprofen 600 mg as part of the study protocol. Those who reported insufficient relief 1 h later were randomized (1:1 ratio) to oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 650 mg or acetaminophen 650 mg. The primary outcome was improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale between randomization and 2 h later. We also assessed medication-associated adverse events. A sample size calculation, built around a minimum clinically important difference of 1.3 units, determined the need for 154 patients.

RESULTS

We screened 924 patients and enrolled 393. All 393 received ibuprofen. A total of 159 (40%) patients reported inadequate relief after 1 h had elapsed. A total of 154 of these were randomized, 77 to oxycodone/acetaminophen and 77 to acetaminophen. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Among patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen, mean (±SD) improvement in 0 to 10 pain scale was 4.0 (±2.6) versus 2.9 (±2.4) in the acetaminophen arm. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference of 1.1 was 0.3 to 1.9. Among patients who received oxycodone/acetaminophen, 26 of 76 (34%) reported any medication-related adverse event versus seven of 74 (9%) participants who received acetaminophen. The 95% CI for the between-group difference of 25% was 12% to 37%).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute musculoskeletal pain refractory to oral ibuprofen, oxycodone/acetaminophen resulted in slightly greater pain relief than acetaminophen, but this was associated with more medication-related adverse events.

Comparison of greater occipital nerve and supra orbital nerve blocks methods in the treatment of acute migraine attack: A randomized double-blind controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this investigation is to compare the Greater Occipital Nerve (GON) and Supra Orbital Nerve (SON) block methods used in the treatment of migraine attacks in the ED with each other, in combination, and with a placebo.

METHODS

This study was planned as a single center, prospective, double-blind, randomized control study. The patients were divided into 4 groups: GON, SON, Combined, and Placebo. Groups were named according to the nerve areas that were blocked. Therefore1% lidocaine for nerve blockade and 0.9% NaCl for placebo effect was used. Along with the time of admission, baseline pain scale values, as well as recordings at 30 and 60 min in addition to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at the 120th min. and Likert-Type (LT) Verbal scale at the 120th min. were measured. The primary outcome of this study was a change in the VAS and LT values at the 0-120th minute after treatment RESULTS: In this study, 128 patients in 4 groups were included in the analysis. In the GON group, SON group, and Combined group, the change observed at the 120th minute scores compared to baseline VAS scores was higher than Placebo group [OR (95% CI) = -17.4 (-24.8, -9.9), 32.1 (23.8, 40.3), 49.5 (41.9, 57), respectively]. In inter-group comparison, it was found that the VAS and LT scores of the Combined group and the GON group improved at a higher rate than the SON group CONCLUSIONS: SON blockade, GON blockade, and a combination of these two blockades are effective treatment methods in acute migraine attack. Performing a GON or Combined blockade for migraine attack causes greater pain reduction than SON blockade.

Diagnosis and Management of Headaches in the Emergency Department (ED) in Adults and Children

Background

Headache accounts for a significant number of cases presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) and has a high societal cost, contributed by recurrent ED and clinic visits, and unnecessary diagnostic tests.

Objective

This review article covers the important clinical tools needed to evaluate headaches in both adults and children in the ED.

Methods

Medline/PubMed was searched using the keywords "Emergency department", "headache", "adult", "pediatric", "clinical assessment", "diagnosis" and "treatment", in the title or abstract. The search covers the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2019.

Results

The articles selected were based on their relevancy to the objective of this review article. Additional relevant publications were identified from article references lists.

Conclusion

The emergency physician plays a key role in differentiating between primary and secondary headaches. Within the limited ED resources, appropriate diagnostic testing should be used to identify the life-threatening headaches. This will ensure patients are given the appropriate evidence-based pharmacological therapy and holistic management.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED).

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, incapacitating neurological condition. Although chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are known to be safe, efficacious treatments for migraine, they have never been directly compared.

DESIGN

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Adults aged 18-65 years, who presented with migraine, were eligible for recruitment. Sixty-six patients were randomized to either chlorpromazine 12.5 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg, both infused in 500 ml of sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 min. Headache severity score, nausea severity score, and the presence of photophobia and phonophobia were assessed at 0, 30, 60, and 120 min. Adverse effects and the need for rescue therapy were recorded. The primary outcome was a reduction in headache severity score from baseline at 60 min post-commencement of the study medicine infusion.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included in the analysis. There was a median reduction in headache severity score at 60 min of 3.0 (interquartile range 1.0-4.0) in the chlorpromazine arm versus 2.0 (1.0-4.0) in the prochlorperazine arm (median difference -0.5 (95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 0.9)). We saw no evidence of a difference in secondary outcomes at 30, 60, or 120 min. Side effects were reported in 16/32 (50%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 7/33 (21%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.020). Rescue therapy was required in 7/32 (22%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 12/33 (36%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.277).

CONCLUSIONS

Both chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are efficacious treatments for acute migraine in adult patients presenting to the ED. This trial found no evidence of superiority of either agent over the other. Caution should be used when prescribing these medicines in the borderline hypotensive patient; in that circumstance, prochlorperazine should be preferentially used.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Migraine Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

OBJECTIVE

To identify meaningful migraine outcome measures among key stakeholders to inform value-based contracts for migraine medications.

BACKGROUND

Value-based contracts linking medication payments to predefined performance metrics aim to promote value through aligned incentives and shared risk between manufacturers and payers. The emergence of new and expensive pharmaceuticals for migraine presents an opportunity for value-based contract development. However, uncertainty remains around which outcomes are most meaningful to all migraine stakeholders.

METHODS

This study utilized a Delphi survey to incorporate views from 82 stakeholders, including patients (n = 21), providers (n = 23), payers (n = 10), employers (n = 18), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 10). A list of 15 migraine-related outcomes was created from a literature review and subject matter expert consultation. Stakeholders reported on the value of these outcomes through a 5-point Likert scale and selection of their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. All participants except patients and employers also used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome measure. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful).

RESULTS

After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for importance of 9 outcomes on the Likert scale. "Decrease in migraine frequency" reached 100% agreement (82/82), followed by "increased ability to resume normal activities" (96%, 79/82). When asked to choose the 3 most meaningful outcomes, stakeholders selected "decrease in migraine frequency" (88%, 72/82) followed by "decrease in migraine severity" (80%, 66/82). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" (95%, 40/42) and "decrease in migraine frequency" (90%, 38/42). There were statistically significant differences between non-patient and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [20% (12/61) vs 0% (0/21), P = .031]; and employer and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in work days missed" [44% (8/18) vs 5% (1/21), P = .006] and "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [22% (4/18) vs 0% (0/21), P = .037] as most meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The measures "decrease in migraine frequency" followed by "decrease in migraine severity" were identified as top priority migraine outcome measures.

A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Emergency Department-Based Study of Greater Occipital Nerve Block With Bupivacaine vs Intravenous Metoclopramide for Treatment of Migraine

BACKGROUND

Greater occipital nerve blocks (GONB) are used increasingly to treat acute migraine.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether GONB was as effective as intravenous metoclopramide for migraine.

METHODS

This was a double-dummy, double-blind, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study conducted in 2 emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine of moderate or severe intensity were randomized to receive bilateral GONB with each side administered 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% or metoclopramide 10 mg IV, the putative standard of care. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a 0-10 scale between time 0 and 1 hour later. To reject the null hypothesis that metoclopramide would be more efficacious in relieving pain, we required that the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in pain improvement between those randomized to GONB vs those randomized to metoclopramide be >-1.3, a validated minimum clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included sustained headache relief, defined as achieving and maintaining for 48 hours a headache level of mild or none without the use of additional analgesic medication, and the use of rescue medication in the ED.

RESULTS

Over a 2.5-year study period, 1358 patients were screened for participation and 99 were randomized, 51 to GONB and 48 to metoclopramide. All of these patients were included in the primary analysis. Patients who received the GONB reported mean improvement of 5.0 (95% CI: 4.1, 5.8) while those who received metoclopramide reported a larger mean improvement of 6.1 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.9). The 95% CI for the between group difference of -1.1 was -2.3, 0.1. Sustained headache relief was reported by 11/51 (22%) GONB and 18/47 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: -1, 35%). Of the 51 GONB patients, 17 (33%) required rescue medication in the ED vs 8/48 (17%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: 0, 33%). An adverse event was reported by 16/51 (31%) GONB patients and 18/48 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for (rounded) difference of 6%: -13, 25%).

CONCLUSION

GONB with bupivacaine was not as efficacious as IV metoclopramide for the first-line treatment of migraine in the ED.

Intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Intranasal lidocaine has been shown to be effective in treating patients with acute migraines; however, its efficacy is still controversial. In this study, we intend to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator for the treatment of migraines.

Method

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched from their inceptions to November 2018. Randomized controlled studies investigating the efficacy of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized data using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were success rate, the need for rescue medicine, and relapse occurrences. We registered the study at PROSPERO with an ID of CRD42018116226.

Results

Six studies (n = 613) were eligible for the meta-analysis. Overall, the results revealed that the study population who was administered intranasal lidocaine had a lower pain intensity at 5 min (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.19) and 15 min (SMD = -0.72; 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.19), had a higher success rate (RR = 3.55; 95% CI: 1.89 to 6.64) and a less frequent need for rescue medicine (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.72) than the control group. These beneficial effects were not observed when an antiemetic was administered. Furthermore, intranasal lidocaine use had no significant influence on the relapse rate (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.51–1.56), regardless of the use of antiemetics. Using lidocaine caused local irritation in up to 49.4% of the patients in one report but did not cause major adverse events.

Conclusion

Intranasal lidocaine can be considered a useful option for patients with an acute migraine. It yields a high success rate, a low pain intensity, an infrequent need for rescue medicine, and tolerable adverse events. The administration of antiemetics is an important confounding factor.

Intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine: A protocol for the systematic review of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Intranasal lidocaine has been shown to be effective in treating patients with acute migraines; however, its efficacy is still controversial. The aim of our study is to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

We will use PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases to search for articles from their inceptions to November 2018. We will only include randomized controlled studies. Data were independently will be extracted by 2 reviewers. Data analysis and synthesis will be analyzed by the Revman 5.3 software. We will conduct the study in accordance with the guideline of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols.

RESULTS

This review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine. The primary outcome is pain intensity measured by visual analogue, numerical rating scale, or verbal rating scale. Secondary outcomes are success rate, requirement of rescue medicine, relapse, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review will summarize the latest evidence of intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine. The results will provide implications for clinical practice and further research.Prospero registration number: CRD42018116226.

A Randomized Trial of a Long-Acting Depot Corticosteroid Versus Dexamethasone to Prevent Headache Recurrence Among Patients With Acute Migraine Who Are Discharged From an Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Migraine patients continue to report headache during the days and weeks after emergency department (ED) discharge. Dexamethasone is an evidence-based treatment of acute migraine that decreases the frequency of moderate or severe headache within 72 hours of ED discharge. We hypothesize that intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate, a long-acting steroid that remains biologically active for 14 days, will decrease the number of days with headache during the week after ED discharge by at least 1 day compared with intramuscular dexamethasone.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded clinical trial comparing intravenous metoclopramide at 10 mg+intramuscular dexamethasone at 10 mg with intravenous metoclopramide at 10 mg+intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate at a dose of 160 mg for patients presenting to 2 different EDs with moderate or severe migraine. Outcomes were assessed by telephone with a standardized instrument. The primary outcome was number of days with headache during the week after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes were complete freedom from headache, without the necessity of additional headache medication for the entire week after ED discharge, and medication preference, as determined by asking the patient whether he or she would want to receive the same medication again.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients received dexamethasone and 111 received methylprednisolone acetate. We obtained primary outcome data from 101 dexamethasone patients and 106 methylprednisolone acetate patients. Dexamethasone patients reported 3.0 headache days and methylprednisolone acetate 3.3 headache days (95% confidence interval for rounded mean difference of 0.4 days: -0.4 to 1.1). Of 107 dexamethasone patients with analyzable data, 10 (9%) reported complete freedom from headache at 1 week versus 6 of 110 (5%) methylprednisolone acetate patients (95% confidence interval for difference of 4%: -3% to 11%). In the dexamethasone group, 76 of 101 (75%) patients would want the same medication again versus 75 of 106 (71%) of methylprednisolone acetate patients (95% confidence interval for difference of 4%: -8% to 17%). Other than injection site reactions, which were more common in the methylprednisolone acetate group, there were no substantial differences in frequency of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Methylprednisolone acetate does not decrease the frequency of post-ED discharge headache days compared with dexamethasone. Most migraine patients are likely to continue to experience headache during the week after ED discharge.

Randomized study of IV prochlorperazine plus diphenhydramine vs IV hydromorphone for migraine

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes among patients with migraine in the emergency department (ED) who receive IV hydromorphone vs IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2 EDs in New York City. Patients who met international criteria for migraine were eligible for participation if they had not used an opioid within the previous month. Clinicians, participants, investigators, and research personnel were blinded to treatment. Patients were randomized in blocks of 4. Participants received hydromorphone 1 mg or prochlorperazine 10 mg + diphenhydramine 25 mg. Diphenhydramine was administered to prevent akathisia, a common side effect of IV prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining that level for 48 hours without the requirement of rescue medication. A planned interim analysis was conducted once 48-hour data were available for 120 patients.

RESULTS

The trial was halted by the data monitoring committee after 127 patients had been enrolled. The primary outcome was achieved in the prochlorperazine arm by 37 of 62 (60%) participants and in the hydromorphone arm by 20 of 64 (31%) participants (difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 12-45, number needed to treat 4, 95% confidence interval 2-9).

CONCLUSIONS

IV hydromorphone is substantially less effective than IV prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED and should not be used as first-line therapy.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02389829.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients in the ED with migraine, IV prochlorperazine + diphenhydramine is superior to IV hydromorphone.

Management of Adults With Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Parenteral Pharmacotherapies

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based treatment recommendations for adults with acute migraine who require treatment with injectable medication in an emergency department (ED). We addressed two clinically relevant questions: (1) Which injectable medications should be considered first-line treatment for adults who present to an ED with acute migraine? (2) Do parenteral corticosteroids prevent recurrence of migraine in adults discharged from an ED?

METHODS

The American Headache Society convened an expert panel of authors who defined a search strategy and then performed a search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical trial registries from inception through 2015. Identified articles were rated using the American Academy of Neurology's risk of bias tool. For each medication, the expert panel determined likelihood of efficacy. Recommendations were created accounting for efficacy, adverse events, availability of alternate therapies, and principles of medication action.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

The search identified 68 unique randomized controlled trials utilizing 28 injectable medications. Of these, 19 were rated class 1 (low risk of bias), 21 were rated class 2 (higher risk of bias), and 28 were rated class 3 (highest risk of bias). Metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan each had multiple class 1 studies supporting acute efficacy, as did dexamethasone for prevention of headache recurrence. All other medications had lower levels of evidence.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Intravenous metoclopramide and prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan should be offered to eligible adults who present to an ED with acute migraine (Should offer-Level B). Dexamethasone should be offered to these patients to prevent recurrence of headache (Should offer-Level B). Because of lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy and concern about sub-acute or long-term sequelae, injectable morphine and hydromorphone are best avoided as first-line therapy (May avoid-Level C).

Diphenhydramine as Adjuvant Therapy for Acute Migraine: An Emergency Department-Based Randomized Clinical Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

More than 1 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually seeking care for acute migraine. Parenteral antihistamines have long been used in combination with antidopaminergics such as metoclopramide to treat acute migraine in the ED. High-quality data supporting this practice do not exist. We determine whether administration of diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously results in greater rates of sustained headache relief than placebo+metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 active treatments for acute migraine in an ED. Eligible patients were adults younger than 65 years presenting with an acute moderate or severe headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 migraine criteria. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of allergic symptoms. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief, defined as achieving a headache level of mild or none within 2 hours of medication administration and maintaining this level of relief without use of any additional headache medication for 48 hours. Secondary efficacy outcomes included mean improvement on a 0 to 10 verbal scale between baseline and 1 hour, the frequency with which subjects indicated they would want the same medication the next time they present to the ED with migraine, and the ED throughput time. Sample size calculation using a 2-sided α of .05, a β of .20, and a 15% difference between study arms determined the need for 374 patients. An interim analysis was conducted when data were available for 200 subjects.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty patients were approached for participation. Two hundred eight eligible patients consented to participate and were randomized. At the planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study be halted for futility. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fourteen percent (29/208) of the sample reported allergic symptoms. Of patients randomized to diphenhydramine, 40% (40/100) reported sustained relief at 48 hours, as did 37% (38/103) of patients randomized to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 3%: -10% to 16%). One hour after medication administration, patients randomized to diphenhydramine improved by a mean of 5.1 on the 0 to 10 scale versus 4.8 for those randomized to placebo (95% CI for difference of 0.3: -0.6 to 1.1). Eighty-five percent (84/99) of the patients in the diphenhydramine arm reported they would want the same medication combination during a subsequent ED visit, as did 76% (77/102) of those who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 9%: -2% to 20%). Median ED length of stay was 122 minutes (interquartile range 84 to 180 minutes) in the diphenhydramine group and 139 minutes (interquartile range 90 to 235 minutes) in the placebo arm. Rates of adverse effects, including akathisia, were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous diphenhydramine, when administered as adjuvant therapy with metoclopramide, does not improve migraine outcomes.

Randomized controlled trial of treatment expectation and intravenous fluid in pediatric migraine

OBJECTIVE

(1) The primary objectives were (1) to assess the response to intravenous (IV) fluid in children presenting to the ED with migraine and; (2) to assess the effect of treatment expectation on the response to I.

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of evidence for the practice, many emergency department (ED) migraine treatment protocols include a bolus of IV fluid. This study assessed the overall response to IV fluid hydration and the effect of expected medication treatment on the pain response among children and adolescents with migraine in an urban ED.

METHODS

A single-blind, randomized parallel arm trial of 10 mL/kg IV 0.9% sodium chloride for children and adolescents aged 5-17 years presenting to a pediatric ED with migraine. Patients were randomized into group A (no expectation of medication in combination with IV fluid) and group B (expectation that medication may be given simultaneously). All participants were treated with standard care following the 30-minute assessment.

RESULTS

Forty-seven participants were randomized and 2 were excluded; mean age was 13.3 years and 31 (67.4%) were females. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome - change from baseline on the visual analog scale (VAS) at 30 minutes with a mean change of -12.3 mm (standard deviation [SD] 17.9) in group A and -12.7 mm (SD 13.2) in group B (P = .936). The standardized difference between the 2 means (Cohen's d effect size) was low at 0.024 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.56 to 0.61). Overall, complete headache relief was observed in only 1 participant; 16 of 45 (35.6%; 95% CI 21.8 to 51.2) had a reduction in headache of 33% or more and 8 of 45 (17.8%; 95% CI 6.1 to 29.4%) had a minimum clinical significant difference of 30 mm or more on VAS with 4 in each group. Thirteen of 39 patients with follow-up data (33.3%; 95% CI 19.1 to 50.2%) reported a moderate or severe headache at the 24-hour follow up with no difference between groups; only 3 patients returned to the ED. One participant reported a minor IV-related adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall decrease in pain with IV fluid is small and clinically insignificant. Treatment expectation did not significantly influence headache relief at 30 minutes with IV fluid hydration in children or adolescents with migraine in the ED. The average relief of headache with IV fluid alone was small; however, a clinically meaningful response was observed in 17.8%. Recurrence of headache is common in 33% after ED discharge.

Metoclopramide for acute migraine: a dose-finding randomized clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intravenous metoclopramide is effective as primary therapy for acute migraine, but the optimal dose of this medication is not yet known. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of 3 different doses of intravenous metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study conducted on patients who presented to our emergency department (ED) meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine without aura. We randomized patients to 10, 20, or 40 mg of intravenous metoclopramide. We coadministered diphenhydramine to all patients to prevent extrapyramidal adverse effects. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on an 11-point numeric rating scale at 1 hour. Secondary outcomes included sustained pain freedom at 48 hours and adverse effects.

RESULTS

In this study, 356 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics and headache features were comparable among the groups. At 1 hour, those who received 10 mg of intravenous metoclopramide improved by a mean of 4.7 numeric rating scale points (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2 to 5.2 points); those who received 20 mg improved by 4.9 points (95% CI 4.4 to 5.4 points), and those who received 40 mg improved by 5.3 points (95% CI 4.8 to 5.9 points). Rates of 48-hour sustained pain freedom in the 10-, 20-, and 40-mg groups were 16% (95% CI 10% to 24%), 20% (95% CI 14% to 28%), and 21% (95% CI 15% to 29%), respectively. The most commonly occurring adverse event was drowsiness, which impaired function in 17% (95% CI 13% to 21%) of the overall study population. Akathisia developed in 33 patients. Both drowsiness and akathisia were evenly distributed across the 3 arms of the study. One month later, no patient had developed tardive dyskinesia.

CONCLUSION

Twenty milligrams or 40 mg of metoclopramide is no better for acute migraine than 10 mg of metoclopramide.