Search

Objectives: To assess real-world effectiveness, safety, and usage of erenumab in Canadian patients with episodic and chronic migraine with prior ineffective prophylactic treatments., Background: In randomized controlled trials, erenumab demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention in patients with ≤4 prior ineffective prophylactic migraine therapies. The "Migraine prevention with AimoviG: Informative Canadian real-world study" (MAGIC) assessed real-world effectiveness of erenumab in Canadian patients with migraine., Methods: MAGIC was a prospective open-label, observational study conducted in Canadian patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) with two to six categories of prior ineffective prophylactic therapies. Participants were administered 70 mg or 140 mg erenumab monthly based on physician's assessment. Migraine attacks were self-assessed using an electronic diary and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) after the 3-month treatment period., Results: Among the 95 participants who mostly experienced two (54.7%) or three (32.6%) prior categories of ineffective prophylactic therapies and who initiated erenumab, treatment was generally safe and well tolerated; 89/95 (93.7%) participants initiated treatment with 140 mg erenumab. At week 12, 32/95 (33.7%) participants including 17/64 (26.6%) CM and 15/32 (48.4%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD while 30/86 (34.9%) participants including 19/55 (34.5%) CM and 11/31 (35.5%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD at week 24. Through patient-reported outcome questionnaires, 62/95 (65.3%) and 45/86 (52.3%) participants reported improvement of their condition at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. Physicians observed improvement in the condition of 78/95 (82.1%) and 67/86 (77.9%) participants at weeks 12 and 24, respectively., Conclusion: One-third of patients with EM and CM achieved ≥50% MMD reduction after 3 months of erenumab treatment. This study provides real-world evidence of erenumab effectiveness, safety, and usage for migraine prevention in adult Canadian patients with multiple prior ineffective prophylactic treatments., (© 2022 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: Chronic migraine is common, affecting approximately 1% of the general population, and causes significant disability., Objective: To summarize optimal involvement of primary care physicians in chronic migraine care, and to provide algorithms to assist them in the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic migraine., Methods: An analysis of diagnostic and treatment needs in chronic migraine, based on a synthesis of the medical literature and clinical experience., Results: Chronic migraine represents the more severe end of the migraine spectrum, usually arises out of previous episodic migraine, and is characterized by headache on 15 days a month or more. Importantly, the headache needs to meet migraine diagnostic criteria on only 8 days a month in order to meet chronic migraine diagnostic criteria. When acute medication overuse is present, a second diagnosis of medication overuse headache should be made. If patients meet criteria for chronic migraine, this excludes a diagnosis of chronic tension-type headache. Acute therapy of chronic migraine is similar to episodic migraine, except that medication overuse is a much greater risk in chronic migraine and must be addressed. All patients should be considered for pharmacological prophylaxis, and the behavioral aspects of therapy should be emphasized. The two prophylactic drugs with the best evidence for efficacy in chronic migraine are topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA. Given the disability caused by chronic migraine, these should both be available to patients as necessary., Conclusion: Management of chronic migraine is complex, and many patients are relatively refractory to therapy. Specialist referral will often be required and should not be unduly delayed. On the other hand, the primary care physician should be able to make the diagnosis, initiate therapy, and manage some less refractory patients without referral. The timing of referral should depend both on the expertise of the primary care physician in headache management and the patient's response to initial therapy., (© 2017 American Headache Society.)

Background: Cluster headache (CH), the most common trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, is an extremely debilitating primary headache disorder that is often not optimally treated. New evidence-based treatment guidelines for CH will assist clinicians with identifying and choosing among current treatment options., Objectives: In this systematic review we appraise the available evidence for the acute and prophylactic treatment of CH, and provide an update of the 2010 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) endorsed systematic review., Methods: Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for double-blind, randomized controlled trials that investigated treatments of CH in adults. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were identical to those utilized in the 2010 AAN systematic review., Results and Recommendations: For acute treatment, sumatriptan subcutaneous, zolmitriptan nasal spray, and high flow oxygen remain the treatments with a Level A recommendation. Since the 2010 review, a study of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation was added to the current guideline and has been administered a Level B recommendation for acute treatment. For prophylactic therapy, previously there were no treatments that were administered a Level A recommendation. For the current guidelines, suboccipital steroid injections have emerged as the only treatment to receive a Level A recommendation with the addition of a second Class I study. Other newly evaluated treatments since the 2010 guidelines have been given a Level B recommendation (negative study: deep brain stimulation), a Level C recommendation (positive study: warfarin; negative studies: cimetidine/chlorpheniramine, candesartan), or a Level U recommendation (frovatriptan)., Conclusions: This AHS guideline can be utilized for understanding which therapies have superiority to placebo or sham treatment in the management of CH. In clinical practice, these recommendations should be considered in concert with other variables including safety, side effects, patient preferences, clinician experience, cost, and the invasiveness of the intervention. Given the lack of Class I evidence and Level A recommendations, particularly for a number of commonly used preventive therapies, further studies are warranted to demonstrate safety and efficacy for established and emerging therapies., (© 2016 American Headache Society.)

We report a 42-year-old woman who presented with cluster headache (CH) in association with other neurological symptoms as the index event of new onset multiple sclerosis (MS). Her initial symptoms were left-sided headache with ipsilateral lacrimation and nasal congestion associated with ipsilateral facial numbness. A subsequent similar headache attack was also associated with ipsilateral arm ataxia and gait ataxia. She had many additional short headache attacks without focal neurological symptoms. Her cluster-like headache attacks have not recurred since intiation of dimethyl fumarate. Our patient illustrates that cluster-like headache attacks can occur as a first symptom of MS, in our patient in association with other neurological symptoms. A striking finding in our patient was a large demyelinating lesion in the brachium pontis ipsilateral to the headaches, although additional supratentorial demyelinating lesions were also present. Although CH associated with MS is rare, our patient and the two other reported patients with MS and CH with similar ipsilateral brachium pontis lesions suggest that the lesions in this location may have played a role in the generation of the cluster-like attacks., (© 2016 American Headache Society.)

There are many options for acute migraine attack treatment, but none is ideal for all patients. This study aims to review current medical office-based acute migraine therapy in adults and provides readers with an organized approach to this important facet of migraine treatment. A general literature review includes a review of several recent published guidelines. Acetaminophen, 4 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], naproxen sodium, and diclofenac potassium), and 7 triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) have good evidence for efficacy and form the core of acute migraine treatment. NSAID-triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non-opioid combination analgesics (acetaminophen, ASA, and caffeine), and several anti-emetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, and prochlorperazine) are additional evidence-based options. Opioid containing combination analgesics may be helpful in specific patients, but should not be used routinely. Clinical features to be considered when choosing an acute migraine medication include usual headache intensity, usual rapidity of pain intensity increase, nausea, vomiting, degree of disability, patient response to previously used medications, history of headache recurrence with previous attacks, and the presence of contraindications to specific acute medications. Available acute medications can be organized into 4 treatment strategies, including a strategy for attacks of mild to moderate severity (strategy one: acetaminophen and/or NSAIDs), a triptan strategy for patients with severe attacks and for attacks not responding to strategy one, a refractory attack strategy, and a strategy for patients with contraindications to vasoconstricting drugs. Acute treatment of migraine attacks during pregnancy, lactation, and for patients with chronic migraine is also discussed. In chronic migraine, it is particularly important that medication overuse is eliminated or avoided. Migraine treatment is complex, and treatment must be individualized and tailored to the patient's clinical features. Clinicians should make full use of available medications and formulations in an organized approach., (© 2015 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To describe the demographics, diagnoses, program duration, human resource utilization and outcomes of patients with chronic daily headache treated in an ambulatory, interdisciplinary, flexible format, treatment and rehabilitation program., Background: Research indicates that multidisciplinary care is an effective approach to manage chronic daily headache, but little is known about the resources needed for effective care., Methods: The study was a secondary data analysis within a cohort design of previously collected data. Patients completed questionnaires and outcome measures on admission and discharge. Diagnoses were extracted from patient charts by professional health records personnel. A central scheduling database provided patient-specific clinician care hours by discipline and type (direct, indirect, group) as well as overall program duration., Results: One hundred and eighteen patients were studied (mean age 41.1 ± 10.4   [x ± SD], 80% female). Sixty-two patients (52.5%) completed the program ("completers"). Migraine was the most common diagnosis. Thirty-six percent of patients had medication overuse. Average pain, mood, disability, and quality of life were significantly improved in completers (P < .001). They utilized 76 ± 45.1   (x ± SD ) total hours of care delivered over a mean of 129.7 ± 66.1 weeks., Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that ambulatory, interdisciplinary, flexible format, treatment and rehabilitation programs are effective in the treatment of chronic daily headache, and we provide data on the resources used by our program in the treatment and rehabilitation of these patients., (© 2014 American Headache Society.)

Cluster headache pain is very intense, usually increases in intensity very rapidly from onset, and attacks are often frequent. These clinical features result in significant therapeutic challenges. The most effective pharmacological treatment options for acute cluster attack include subcutaneous sumatriptan, 100% oxygen, and intranasal zolmitriptan. Subcutaneous or intramuscular dihydroergotamine and intranasal sumatriptan are additional options. Transitional therapy is applicable mainly for patients with high-frequency (>2 attacks per day) episodic cluster headache, and options include short courses of high-dose oral corticosteroids, dihydroergotamine, and occipital nerve blocks with local anesthetic and steroids. Prophylactic therapy is important both for episodic and chronic cluster headache, and the main options are verapamil and lithium. Verapamil is drug of first choice but may cause cardiac arrhythmias, and periodic electrocardiograms (EKGs) during dose escalation are important. Many other drugs are also in current use, but there is an insufficient evidence base to recommend them., (© 2013 American Headache Society.)

Objective: Our objective was to characterize patterns of preventive medication use in persons with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM)., Background: Several classes of medications are used both on- and off-label for the prevention of migraine, including β-blockers (eg, propranolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (eg, amitriptyline), anti-epileptic drugs (eg, topiramate, valproic acid), and neurotoxins (eg, onabotulinumtoxinA)., Methods: Preventive medication use and reasons for discontinuation were collected in an international, Web-based, cross-sectional survey of adults with migraine during 2010. Descriptive analyses were conducted on demographics and headache-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, stratified by use of preventive medication, and EM or CM. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess predictors of preventive medication use., Results: One thousand one hundred and sixty-five respondents completed the survey. Only 28.3% of EM and 44.8% of CM respondents were currently using preventive medication; any use of prophylaxis (prior or current) was reported by 43.4% of those with EM and 65.9% with CM. The mean number of prophylactic medications ever used was 2.92 for EM and 3.94 for CM. Antidepressants were used most frequently (EM 60.9%; CM 54.7%), followed by β-blockers (EM 35.4%; CM 36.8%) and anti-epileptics (EM 28.6%; CM 36.3%). Odds of preventive medication use were higher among CM than EM, adjusting for age, gender, race, years of daily headache, and country (odds ratio 2.72; 95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.57). Greater headache-related disability and older age were also associated with greater odds of ever having used prophylaxis, regardless of headache frequency., Conclusions: Less than half the persons with EM and CM were currently using preventive medication for migraine, with treatment rates being higher for CM, as expected. Those with CM tried more medications than those with EM, possibly reflecting higher levels of treatment need., (© 2013 American Headache Society.)

Background: Using standard quality of life and disability measures may not accurately capture these constructs in specific health populations such as headache patients. Modifying the wording of standard measures such as the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) should be considered in order to make them more applicable to specific patient populations., Objective: To investigate the possibility that headache patients may not consider their headaches when responding to SF-36 questions pertaining to health, physical health, pain, and bodily pain., Methods: The wording of several SF-36 questions were adapted for a headache population by making specific reference to "headaches" when asking people to rate the impact of health issues on their life. The results of the modified "Headache" SF-36 were compared with a similar population of transformed migraine patients who had completed the "Standard" SF-36., Results: Significant differences were found between scores for the "Standard" SF-36 group and the "Headache" SF-36 group across all SF-36 variables except for "General Health.", Conclusions: Misinterpretation of the concepts of "health,""physical health,""pain," and "bodily pain," although commonly used by the SF-36 in many populations, could influence responses on this measure, as respondents may not relate their head/headaches to these constructs. To ensure that accurate data are obtained in relation to the quality of life of headache patients, consideration should be given to using a form of the SF-36 that has been modified to allow appropriate interpretation of the questions completed by headache patients., (© 2012 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To examine whether major depressive episodes (MDEs) are associated with an increased risk of migraine in the general population and to examine whether migraine is associated with an increase risk of MDE., Background: Population-based cross-sectional studies have consistently reported an association between migraine and depression. However, longitudinal studies about this potentially bidirectional association are inconsistent., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used 12 years of follow-up data from the Canadian National Population Health Survey (15,254 respondents, age >12). Stratified analysis, logistic regression, and proportional hazard modeling were used to quantify the effect of migraine on subsequent MDE status and vice versa., Results: After adjusting for sex, age, and other chronic health conditions, respondents with migraine were 60% more likely (HR 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.9) to develop MDE compared with those without migraine. Similarly adjusting for sex and age, respondents with MDE were 40% more likely (HR 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.9) to develop migraine compared with those without MDE. However, the latter association disappeared after adjustment for stress and childhood trauma., Conclusions: The current study provides substantial evidence that migraine is associated with the later development of MDEs, but does not provide strong causal evidence of an association in the other direction. Environmental factors such as childhood trauma and stress may shape the expression of this bidirectional relationship; however, the precise underlying mechanisms are not yet known., (© 2011 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To evaluate and compare healthcare resource use and related costs in chronic migraine and episodic migraine in the USA and Canada., Background: Migraine is a common neurological disorder that produces substantial disability for sufferers around the world. Several studies have quantified overall costs associated with migraine in general, with recent estimates ranging from $581 to $7089 per year. Although prior studies have characterized the clinical and humanistic burden of chronic migraine relative to episodic migraine, to the best of our knowledge only 1 previous study has compared chronic migraine and episodic migraine healthcare costs. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the direct medical costs of chronic migraine and episodic migraine using medical resource use data collected as part of the International Burden of Migraine Study., Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected from respondents in 10 countries via a Web-based survey. Respondents were classified as chronic migraine (≥15 headache days/month) or episodic migraine (<15 headache days/month). Data collection included socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and medical resource use for headache (clinician and emergency department visits and hospitalizations over the preceding 3 months and medications over the preceding 4 weeks). Unit cost data were collected outside of the Web-based survey using publicly available sources and then applied to resource use profiles. Cost estimates are presented in 2010 US and Canadian dollars., Results: In this manuscript, the analysis included data from respondents with migraine in the USA (N=1204) and Canada (N=681). The most common medical services utilized by all respondents included headache-specific medication, healthcare provider visits, emergency department visits, and diagnostic testing. In the USA, approximately one-quarter (26.2%) of chronic migraine participants vs 13.9% of episodic migraine participants reported visiting a primary care physician in the preceding 3 months (P<.001). In Canada, one-half (48.2%) of chronic migraine participants had a primary care physician visit, compared with 12.3% of episodic migraine subjects (P< .0001). Total mean headache-related costs for participants with chronic migraine in the USA were $1036 (±$1334) over 3 months compared to $383 (±807, P< .001) for persons with episodic migraine. In Canada, total mean headache-related costs among chronic migraine subjects were $471 (±1022) compared to $172 (±920, P< .001) for episodic migraine subjects., Conclusions: Chronic migraine was associated with higher medical resource use and total costs compared to episodic migraine. Therapies that reduce headache frequency could become important approaches for containing or reducing headache-related medical costs., (© 2011 American Headache Society.)

This review was developed as part of a debate, and takes the "pro" stance that abnormalities of structures in the neck can be a significant source of headache. The argument for this is developed from a review of the medical literature, and is made in 5 steps. It is clear that the cervical region contains many pain-sensitive structures, and that these are prone to injury. The anatomical and physiological mechanisms are in place to allow referral of pain to the head including frontal head regions and even the orbit in patients with pain originating from many of these neck structures. Clinical studies have shown that pain from cervical spine structures can in fact be referred to the head. Finally, clinical treatment trials involving patients with proven painful disorders of upper cervical zygapophysial joints have shown significant headache relief with treatment directed at cervical pain generators. In conclusion, painful disorders of the neck can give rise to headache, and the challenge is to identify these patients and treat them successfully.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the headache impact test (HIT-6) and the migraine disability assessment scale (MIDAS) as clinical measures of headache-related disability., Background: The degree of headache-related disability is an important factor in treatment planning. Many quality of life and headache disability measures exist but it is unclear which of the available disability measures is the most helpful in planning and measuring headache management., Methods: We compared HIT-6 and MIDAS scores from 798 patients from the Canadian Headache Outpatient Registry and Database (CHORD). Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between the HIT-6 and MIDAS total scores, headache frequency and intensity, and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores., Results: A positive correlation was found between HIT-6 and MIDAS scores (r = 0.52). The BDI-II scores correlated equally with the HIT-6 and the MIDAS (r = 0.42). There was a non-monotonic relationship between headache frequency and the MIDAS, and a non-linear monotonic relationship between headache frequency and the HIT-6 (r = 0.24). The correlation was higher between the intensity and the HIT-6 scores (r = 0.46), than MIDAS (r = 0.26) scores. Seventy-nine percent of patients fell into the most severe HIT-6 disability category, compared with the 57% of patients that fell into the most severe MIDAS disability category. Significantly more patients were placed in a more severe category with the HIT-6 than with the MIDAS (McNemar chi-square = 191 on 6 d.f., P < .0001)., Conclusions: The HIT-6 and MIDAS appear to measure headache-related disability in a similar fashion. However, some important differences may exist. Headache intensity appears to influence HIT-6 score more than the MIDAS, whereas the MIDAS was influenced more by headache frequency. Using the HIT-6 and MIDAS together may give a more accurate assessment of a patient's headache-related disability.

There are several ways in which stress may interact with migraine in those predisposed to migraine attacks. These interactions may result from biochemical changes related to the physiological stress response, as, for example, the release of corticotrophin releasing hormone, or from changes induced by the psychological response to stressors. Stress is the factor listed most often by migraine sufferers as a trigger for their attacks, but in addition there is evidence that stress can help initiate migraine in those predisposed to the disorder, and may also contribute to migraine chronification. Migraine attacks themselves can act as a stressor, thereby potentially leading to a vicious circle of increasing migraine frequency. Since the important factor in the stress-migraine interaction is likely the individual's responses to stressors, rather than the stressors themselves, the acquisition of effective stress management skills has the potential to reduce the impact of stressors on those with migraine.

As elsewhere in the world, migraine and other headache disorders have always produced very significant disability amongst Canadians. Over the last 50 years, progress has been made by health professionals to improve the care received by patients with headache, and to reduce the headache-related burden carried by patients and their families. Milestones in this progress have included programs for better education for the public, for neurologists, and for other physicians about migraine. Highlights in the Canadian battle against migraine and other headaches include those listed below.

Background: There is growing evidence that central sensitization plays a role in migraine pathogenesis, and that cutaneous allodynia is its clinical correlate. In headache research, allodynia has largely been studied in episodic migraine. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether cutaneous allodynia occurs in transformed migraine, using individuals without headaches as controls., Methods: Fifteen patients with a diagnosis of transformed migraine and 15 control subjects with no history of headaches were included. All subjects were females between 18 and 50. Similar to the methods of Burstein et al, Von Frey hairs (VFH) were sequentially applied to territories supplied by divisions of the trigeminal nerve, cervical paraspinal muscles, trapezius muscles, ventral forearm, and lower leg to determine a pain threshold. As a milder stimulus, a cotton swab was stroked in the same locations. Each trial was repeated 3 times on 2 occasions. Group comparisons were made using the Student's t-test., Results: Mean pain thresholds were lower among migraine patients than control subjects across all test areas. The thresholds were statistically significantly lower in migraine patients than in control subjects for the 1st division of the trigeminal nerve (34.0 g versus 115.8 g, P= .035) and for the 2nd division (23.5 g versus 97.6 g, P= .039). Six patients found a cotton swab-stroke painful, compared to zero control subjects. Using a quantitative definition of allodynia, 75% of patients had allodynia to mechanical stimuli., Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate allodynia in transformed migraine patients using a headache-free control population and supports the hypothesis that central sensitization plays a role in the evolution of transformed migraine.

Background: The buildup time of migraine headaches has not been well delineated in publications to date and we are aware of patients whose migraines last well over 72 hours. More concentration on these factors in the assessment of patients might lead to more appropriate therapeutic choices., Method: Prospective ascertainment of such data through a questionnaire completed by 253 informed and willing patients with IHS migraine with or without aura consulting Canadian headache specialists. Data were electronically sent to a central computer from each center, tabulated and analyzed using standard statistical parameters., Results: In 253 patients with migraine ascertained using applied IHS criteria, nausea was a feature in over 90% of cases, especially in those with aura. This inhibited the ingestion of oral medications in about a quarter of all subjects. The time to build from no pain to moderate/severe pain was shorter in subjects with auras and was less than 2 hours in 97% of those with and 86% of those without auras. However, we also identified a group of subjects with migraine (over 10% of all) in whom the build time to maximum pain is delayed for over 2 hours. Nausea was experienced by 91.7% of subjects, slightly but significantly later in those without auras. While most headaches in each group lasted from 4 to 72 hours, 24.3% of those with and 20.6% of those without aura expected to experience pain for more than 72 hours, while in untreated cases disability due to pain, nausea, or malaise usually persisted for over 3 days in 24.3% and 16.7% of those with and without aura, respectively. One-fifth of migraineurs may be in pain and/or disabled by accompanying symptoms for over 3 days in a typical migraine attack. Over half of our subjects reported that their medications worked well or excellently., Conclusions: Attacks of migraine in real-life clinical situations vary somewhat from the IHS criteria in that they are more often associated with nausea that interferes with oral therapy; can persist for over 72 hours; may have slow (>2 hours) buildup to maximum pain in 10% of cases; and may cause disability for over 3 days. Nevertheless, current therapeutic regimens (including prescribed medications) work well for a substantial majority.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of topiramate migraine prophylaxis on subject responsiveness to triptans used for acute symptomatic migraine treatment., Background: Clinical experience suggests that prophylactic migraine treatment may enhance the efficacy of symptomatic medications used to treat acute migraine attacks., Methods: This open-label, single-arm multicenter study consisted of a 6-week baseline period followed by a 16-week topiramate treatment period. Subjects meeting International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for migraine with and without aura signed consent and entered the baseline period. Those with 3 to 12 migraine periods per month during baseline received topiramate prophylactic treatment. Only patients who completed at least 12 weeks of topiramate treatment were included in the data analysis., Results: Of 55 patients screened, 40 subjects entered the topiramate treatment period and 21 subjects received at least 12 weeks of treatment. Mean final dose of topiramate was 124 mg per day (range 50 to 200 mg per day). During the baseline period, the mean percentage of attacks rendered pain-free at 2 hours for the 21 subjects was 46.9% (SD = 31.9), while during the topiramate treatment period it was 44.6% (SD = 32.2) (P= .8). On topiramate, after the first 8 weeks of dosage titration, patients experienced a mean of 3.68 migraine attacks/month, compared to 4.31 during the baseline period (P < .03). Thirteen subjects discontinued because of adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were paresthesia, fatigue, anxiety, and dizziness., Conclusion: Although topiramate prophylaxis did reduce migraine attack frequency, in this pilot study topiramate prophylactic migraine treatment did not increase the proportion of patients pain-free 2 hours after symptomatic triptan therapy.

Background: Migraine can be disabling, but it varies greatly in frequency and intensity between individuals. It is not clear which clinical features have the greatest impact on a migraineur's quality of life., Objective: To determine the influence of headache intensity and frequency on headache-related disability., Methods: Patients who were referred to a headache clinic and given a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura or transformed migraine (n = 115) were divided into different groups based on headache frequency and mean headache intensity. Headache frequency was determined from patient diaries. Headache intensity also was assessed from patient diaries and from scores on the pain severity scale of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI). Headache-related disability was assessed with the Headache Disability Inventory and by scores on the activity interference scale of the MPI. The degree of depression present was assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory, and emotional distress was measured by scores on the affective distress scale of the MPI., Results: In our patient population, higher mean headache intensity levels were associated with higher levels of headache-related disability. Our results also suggested that increased headache intensity is associated with higher levels of depression and emotional distress, although this correlation was statistically significant in only 1 of 4 comparisons. Headache frequency did not correlate with disability, depression, or emotional distress., Conclusions: For a headache referral population, headache intensity appears to be a major determinant of headache-related disability, and it also correlates, to some extent, with the degree of depression and emotional distress present. Headache frequency was not clearly related to disability or psychological factors.

Objectives: To investigate whether opiate overuse might cause chronic daily headache in those with migraine, we studied patients who were taking codeine (or other opiates) for control of bowel motility after colectomy for ulcerative colitis., Background: Analgesic overuse is considered by many to be one factor which can result in the transformation of migraine into a chronic daily headache pattern. Most of the evidence for this comes from patients with migraine who are taking increasing amounts of analgesia for headache. Many of these patients revert to an intermittent migraine pattern once the analgesics are stopped., Methods: Women who were 1 year postcolectomy for ulcerative colitis were identified in several colorectal surgery practices in Calgary. They were sent a questionnaire designed to determine if they had a history of migraine prior to surgery, if they currently had chronic daily headache, what medications they were taking to control bowel motility, and what medications they were taking for headache., Results: Twenty-eight patients who met our inclusion criteria returned completed questionnaires. Eight of these exceeded the recommended limits for opiate use in patients with headache. Eight patients met diagnostic criteria for migraine. Two patients had chronic daily headache starting after surgery. Both used daily opiates beginning after their surgery, and both had a history of migraine. The other six patients who used opiates daily did not have a history of migraine and did not have chronic daily headache. All patients with migraine who used daily opiates to control bowel motility following surgery developed chronic daily headache after surgery., Conclusions: Patients with migraine who use daily opiates for any reason are at high risk of developing transformed migraine with chronic daily headache. This risk appears much lower in patients without a history of migraine who use opiates for nonpain indications.

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group dose-ranging study compared the efficacy and tolerability of four doses of sumatriptan nasal spray (2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg) with a placebo, in the acute treatment of a single migraine attack. In total, 544 patients received the study medication as a single spray in one nostril, to treat a single migraine attack in the clinic. Efficacy assessments included the measurement of headache severity, clinical disability, and the presence/absence of associated symptoms. The incidence of headache recurrence was also assessed. The three highest doses of sumatriptan (5 mg 49%, 10 mg 46%, 20 mg 64%) were significantly better than the placebo (25%) at providing headache relief (moderate or severe headache improving to mild or none) 120 min after treatment (P

Our objective was to determine if Chinook weather conditions in the Calgary area increase the probability of headache attacks in migraine sufferers. Environment Canada meteorologic summaries for January through June 1992 were analyzed and times of Chinook wind onset identified. Chinook weather conditions were defined as calendar days when Chinook winds were present and the calendar day immediately preceding Chinook wind onset. The diaries of 13 migraine patients were analyzed, and times of headache onset classified according to the existing weather conditions. The probability of migraine headache onset was greater on days with Chinook weather (17.26%) than on non-Chinook days (14.65%) (P = 0.042). Older patients appeared more weather sensitive than younger patients. For patients over age 50, the probability of migraine occurrence on Chinook weather days was much greater than on non-Chinook days (P = 0.007). Chinook weather conditions increase the probability of migraine headache occurrence. Older migraine sufferers appear particularly vulnerable to this effect.

The effectiveness of dihydroergotamine administered by home subcutaneous injection by the patient or family for severe headache attacks was assessed retrospectively in 51 patients. Average follow-up was 21 weeks. Twenty-one patients had intermittent migraine attacks, 27 had transformed migraine with chronic daily headache, and 3 had chronic tension-type headache. Of the 51 patients taught home injection, 35% had an excellent overall response, 18% had a good response, 12% had a poor response but continued to use dihydroergotamine, and 35% had discontinued dihydroergotamine use. Side effects were the main reason for stopping dihydroergotamine. These included nausea or vomiting or both, limb pain or numbness or both, chest or throat tightness or both, and soreness at the injection site. Thirty-three patients (65%) continued to use dihydroergotamine at the end of the follow-up period. In patients who previously required injections from medical personnel for headache crises and in whom home injection of dihydroergotamine was effective, a dramatic reduction occurred in hospital emergency room and physician office utilization. Dihydroergotamine use by home injection can be an effective treatment for a significant proportion of patients with severe migraine including patients with transformed migraine and medication overuse.