The Efficacy of Propofol vs. Subcutaneous Sumatriptan for Treatment of Acute Migraine Headaches in the Emergency Department: A Double-Blinded Clinical Trial

The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine.

BACKGROUND

Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096).

RESULTS

A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

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.

Comparison between metamizole and triptans for migraine treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of metamizole and triptans for the treatment of migraine. MethodsRandomized controlled trials including people who received metamizole or triptan by multiple routes of administration and at all doses as treatment compared to subjects who received another treatment or placebo were included in the systematic review. The primary outcomes were freedom from pain at 2 hours; pain relief at 2 hours; sustained headache response at 24 hours; sustained freedom from pain at 24 hours. The statistical analysis of all interventions of interest were based on random effect models compared through a network meta-analysis. Results 209 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. Of these, 130 had data that could be analyzed statistically. Only 3.0% provided enough information and were judged to have a low overall risk of bias for all categories evaluated; approximately 50% of the studies presented a low risk of selection bias. More than 75% of the studies presented a low risk of performance bias, and around 75% showed a low risk of detection and attrition bias. ConclusionThere is no evidence of a difference between dipyrone and any triptan for pain freedom after 2 hours of medication. Our study suggests that metamizole may be equally effective as triptans in acute migraine treatment.

Second-line interventions for migraine in the emergency department: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Millions of patients present to US emergency departments (ED) annually for the treatment of migraine. First-line treatments, including metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan, fail to provide sufficient relief in up to one-third of treated patients. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of injectable (intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous) medications for patients in the ED who fail to improve sufficiently after treatment with first-line medication.

METHODS

We used the American Headache Society's guideline, "Management of Adults with Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Parenteral Pharmacotherapies," published in 2016, to identify first-line medications for migraine. We then conducted a PubMed search to determine whether any evidence supported the use of these medications as second-line therapy and whether any evidence existed to support the use of injectable therapies not discussed in the guideline as second-line therapy.

RESULTS

We identified only scant high-quality randomized data of second-line therapy. Therefore, we based our recommendations on medications that have reliably demonstrated efficacy as first-line treatment of migraine. These medications include injectable non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. Dihydroergotamine and valproic acid have some data supporting efficacy. More recently, greater occipital nerve blocks (GONBs) have been shown to be efficacious. With the exception of meperidine, opioids have been shown to be not efficacious. Most data published to date demonstrate no role for propofol and ketamine.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no evidence-based second-line treatments of migraine in the ED setting. For patients with migraine, who fail to improve after treatment with a first-line medication, it is reasonable to use an intravenous NSAID or intravenous acetaminophen. Alternatively, clinicians adept at performing a GONB may offer this treatment.

Comparing propofol with placebo for early resolution of acute migraine in adult emergency department patients: A double-blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare propofol with placebo in adult ED patients with acute migraine. Primary outcome was headache resolution by 1 h. Secondary outcome was reduction in headache severity by two or more points on a numerical rating scale.

METHODS

Double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial comparing propofol (10 mg/mL) with placebo (20% intralipid). Adults with acute migraine without aura were included. The study drug was administered as an initial dose of 4 mL followed by up to five doses of 2 mL, delivered 5 min apart. Pain scores were taken prior to each dose and further administration was ceased when either the pain score was zero or the maximum dosage reached (140 mg of propofol or 14 mL of 20% intralipid).

RESULTS

Of 40 recruited patients, 21 received propofol and 19 placebo. Headache resolution occurred for 5 (24%, 95% CI 13-57) and 6 (32%, 95% CI 13-57) patients, respectively, difference 8% (95% CI -20 to 36). Headache severity reduction by two or more numerical rating scale points was reported by 17 (81%, 95% CI 58-95) and 7 (37%, 95% CI 16-62) patients, respectively, difference 44% (95% CI 17-71).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol was not superior to placebo for the primary outcome of early headache resolution. Superiority of propofol for the secondary outcome of headache severity reduction suggests that further research may be warranted.

Inpatient Management of Migraine

Migraine is a frequently disabling neurologic condition which can be complicated by medication overuse headache and comorbid medical disorders, including obesity, anxiety and depression. Although most migraine management takes place in outpatient clinics, inpatient treatment is indicated for migraine refractory to multiple outpatient treatments, with intractable nausea or vomiting, need for detoxification from medication overuse (such as opioids and barbiturates), and significant medical and psychiatric disease. The goals of inpatient treatment include breaking the current cycle of headache pain, reducing the frequency and/or severity of future attacks, monitored detoxification of overused medications, and reducing disability and improving quality of life.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Management of Headache in Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews treatment options for patients presenting with headache in the emergency department (ED) and for inpatients, including red flags and status migrainosus (SM).

RECENT FINDINGS

Most patients presenting with headache in the ED will have migraine, but red flags must be reviewed to rule out secondary headaches. SM refractory to home treatment is a common reason for ED presentation or inpatient admission, but high-quality treatment evidence is lacking. Common treatments include intravenous fluids, anti-dopaminergic agents with diphenhydramine, steroids, divalproex, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous dihydroergotamine, and nerve blocks. Other therapies (e.g., ketamine and lidocaine) are used with limited or inconsistent evidence. There is evidence for inpatient behavioral management therapy. This article details red flags to review in the workup of headache presentation in the ED and provides a step-wise approach to ED and inpatient management. However, more studies are needed to better optimize care.

Have the IHS Guidelines for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks been followed? Laying the ground for the 4th edition

Background

The International Headache Society (IHS) has published four editions of Guidelines for acute clinical trials in migraine in the past 28 years. This continuous update process has been driven by the increasing amount of scientific data in the field of migraine and by the need to continuously improve the quality of trials.

Objectives

To illustrate: i) the results of the analysis on the adherence of published trials to the 3rd edition published in 2012, in order to identify the critical areas that needed to be addressed in the 4th edition and ii) the changes introduced in this latter edition for improving adherence and methodology robustness.

Methods

We searched and reviewed all controlled trials on acute treatment of migraine published in the period 2012–2018 and we assessed their adherence to the 3rd edition of the IHS Guidelines using a score system based on the most important recommendations. Afterwards, we compared the two editions of the Guidelines and assessed the changes between them.

Results

We included data from 24 controlled clinical trials. Most trials had a randomized double-blind controlled (RDB) design, while a minority (16.7%) were non-randomized double-blind trials. Less than half (44.6%) of the RDB trials used the recommended “pain-free at 2 hours” endpoint as the primary efficacy measure. Trial design and evaluation of results were the areas that diverged the most from the recommendations.

Conclusion

Adherence to IHS guidelines for clinical trials has been suboptimal so far. The new edition has been adapted and optimized to facilitate uptake and strengthen the quality of evidence.

Propofol for Treatment of Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Propofol has not been extensively studied as an acute migraine therapy; however, based on the limited evidence from outpatient and inpatient settings, propofol has been proposed as an option for patients who present to the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this review was to evaluate the existing literature regarding the safety and efficacy of propofol for acute migraine treatment in the ED.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical studies of propofol treatment for acute migraine in the ED was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, clinical trial registries, research registries, and key journals through May 2019. A modified Jadad scoring system was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including five case reports or series, one retrospective cohort study, and three randomized controlled trials, consisting of 290 patients, were reviewed. All studies in adults reported propofol to be an effective therapy for migraine, but the strength of these results was limited by dosing variations, small sample sizes, and limited generalizability. Pediatric studies produced mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may be an effective rescue therapy for patients presenting to the ED for acute migraine, but its place in therapy based on the limited available evidence is unknown. The safety of propofol for migraine management in the ED has not been adequately examined.

Pharmacologic Management of Acute Migraines in the Emergency Department

Migraine headaches account for approximately 1.2 million emergency department (ED) visits annually. Despite the prevalence of this condition, there is little consensus on the best pharmacotherapeutic interventions to use in the ED setting. Guidelines published by the American Headache Society and the Canadian Headache Society offer some direction to ED providers but are not widely utilized. This article reviews the best evidence behind some of the medications frequently used to treat acute migraines in the ED setting, including dopamine receptor antagonists, serotonin receptor agonists, anti-inflammatory medications, opioids, magnesium, valproate, and propofol. The evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with an acute headache, the diagnostic criteria for migraines, and implications for advanced practice are also discussed.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A ‘balanced analgesia’ regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options – both opioid and non-opioid – to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010–2015 on migraine drug treatments

Background

In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the “evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine”. They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements.

Methods

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts.

Results

We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events.

Conclusion

Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

The Effect of Propofol on Chronic Headaches in Patients Undergoing Endoscopy

Objective

This study determined acute and long-term effects of propofol administration in patients with severe headaches undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Background

Approximately 13% of the US population is affected by migraines or severe headaches. The effect of propofol on headaches more than a few days after the intervention has not been explored.

Methods

We employed a nonrandomized, prospective observational study that recruited patients with chronic headaches who received propofol from an outpatient endoscopy center for either upper or lower endoscopies. Patients completed the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) questionnaire prior to the procedure and 30 days after endoscopy. Additionally, the patients' response to propofol two days after endoscopy was assessed via phone.

Results

The age of the participants (n=31) ranged from 20 to 70 years. The mean HIT-6 composite scores were significantly lower (p < 0.05) 30 days after propofol administration when compared to baseline scores. Upon stratification, 23 patients indicated an improved condition, 7 a worsened outcome, and 1 showed no change. Furthermore, mean scores were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in three HIT-6 questions pertaining to the severity of pain, daily activity, and frequency of lying down. Finally, the mean pain score obtained was significantly lower (p < 0.05) two days after procedure.

Conclusions

The results of this suggest that propofol administration should be considered in treating chronic headaches. Double-blind studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Propofol in the treatment of refractory migraine headaches

INTRODUCTION

Refractory/intractable migraine headaches are associated with chronic pain that does not respond to standard care of treatment. Propofol(2,6-diisopropylphenol) in sub-anesthetic doses has been reported to be beneficial in such patients. The present article describes the complete drug profile of propofol in the management of these super-refractory migraine headaches.

AREAS COVERED

The article covers different preclinical and clinical studies available in the literature. Expert commentary: Propofol is useful as an off-label drug molecule in an emergency situation of refractory migraines where it has been found to reduce the pain intensity. The molecule with a narrow therapeutic index and high abuse potential is prescribed only when conventional drugs fail to deliver any relief. There are not adequate double-blind crossover studies that substantiate the effectiveness of propofol in the treatment of migraine headaches. Furthermore, long-term outcomes for the use of propofol in migraine headaches requires an extensive investigation.