Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Roger K Cady

Publications and source records attributed to Roger K Cady.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

An otolaryngology, neurology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment of sinus headache.

While "sinus" headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, many medical specialists consider it to be an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. Unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments are often the result of the inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to characterize conditions leading to headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, they have done so from different perspectives and in isolation from the other specialty groups. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee recently convened to discuss the role of sinus disease and the nose in the etiology of headache and to review recent epidemiologic studies suggesting that sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. Clinical trial data are presented which clearly indicate that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines. This committee reviewed scientific evidence available from multiple disciplines and concludes that considerable research and clinical study are needed to further understand and explain the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, there was a consensus from this group that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients complaining of sinus headache that may indeed be due to the nose.

Diagnosis, Differential↗
PubMed2006

Duplicate publication.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Validation of the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire: measuring satisfaction with acute migraine treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire (PPMQ-R), which measures satisfaction with migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: The original version of the PPMQ was developed prior to the introduction of newer migraine treatments, which may have attributes that influence treatment satisfaction. METHODS: Literature review, patient focus groups, and one-on-one patient interviews guided revisions to the original PPMQ. The revised questionnaire was tested in 200 migraine patients visiting neurologists and primary care clinics. At baseline, all subjects completed the PPMQ-R, a migraine-specific quality-of-life measure, and a migraine experience questionnaire; and 125 subjects completed assessments 24 hours after each migraine attack and within 30 days post-baseline. Factor analysis was performed to inform the development of a scoring algorithm, and reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the PPMQ-R were evaluated. RESULTS: Factor analyses confirmed that the revised questionnaire has five domains measuring satisfaction with efficacy, functionality, ease of use, medication cost, and bothersomeness of medication side effects. A total score can be created by taking the average of efficacy, functionality, and ease of use scores. The PPMQ-R scale scores and Total score demonstrated internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.80 to 0.98) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.79 to 0.91). Except for the Cost domain, the PPMQ-R scores discriminated among migraine pain severity levels (all P < .05) and levels of impairment in ability to work and perform usual activities (all P < .05). Except for the Ease of Use and Cost domains, mean PPMQ-R scores were significantly higher among patients with no change in treatment and whose pain improved between two consecutive migraine attacks (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: The PPMQ-R is a reliable and valid measure of patient satisfaction with acute migraine treatment in women with frequent migraine attacks.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

Salivary levels of CGRP and VIP in rhinosinusitis and migraine patients.

BACKGROUND: Secretion of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) from trigeminal nerves and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) from parasympathetic nerves is involved in the pathophysiology of migraine and rhinosinusitis. Analysis of these neuropeptides in human saliva samples can be used as markers of trigeminal and parasympathetic nerve activity in patients between and during attacks as well as in response to specific treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare the amount of trigeminal sensory and parasympathetic nerve activation by measuring CGRP and VIP levels in the saliva of subjects experiencing noninfectious allergic rhinosinusitis, migraine with sinus symptoms, and no symptoms. METHODS: Subjects were enrolled in three groups. Group A: subjects without a history of migraine, "sinus" headache, or allergic rhinosinusitis within the previous 6 months. Group B: subjects with chronic recurrent noninfectious rhinosinusitis and no history of migraine or "sinus" headache. Group C: subjects with self-described "sinus" headaches whose symptoms met International Headache Society diagnostic criteria (1.1 or 1.2) for migraine. The total amount of CGRP and VIP present in saliva collected under normal, pathological, and therapeutic conditions was determined by radioimmunoassay. Neuropeptide levels were normalized to total volume and amount of protein, and levels were correlated to onset and change in clinical symptoms. RESULTS: Total volume, total protein, and CGRP and VIP levels did not significantly change in saliva collected on consecutive days in the clinic and at the subject's home, respectively. No appreciable change in baseline salivary levels of CGRP and VIP was detected in control subjects. However, baseline salivary levels of CGRP and VIP were significantly elevated between attacks in allergic rhinosinusitis and migraine subjects compared to control values. For rhinosinusitis subjects, the amount of CGRP and VIP during attacks returned to baseline values following treatment with pseudoephedrine and relief of symptoms. Similarly, CGRP and VIP levels during a migraine headache were significantly reduced within 2 hours after sumatriptan treatment and reported symptom relief. CONCLUSION: Correlation of CGRP and VIP saliva levels observed in our study supports physiologically coordinated regulation of trigeminal and parasympathetic nerve activation in allergic rhinosinusitis and migraine patients between and during attacks as well as following treatment. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that analysis of human saliva neuropeptides may provide a semiquantitative index of pathological and therapeutic states and, therefore, function as a clinical model for studying neuronal mechanisms involved in migraine and rhinosinusitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Gelstat Migraine (sublingually administered feverfew and ginger compound) for acute treatment of migraine when administered during the mild pain phase.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of migraine headaches is often delayed due to assessing the potential severity of an evolving headache or anticipating unwanted consequences from prescription medication. Studies have demonstrated improved pain-free response when prescription treatments are taken during the mild headache phase of a migraine. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an OTC product, GelStat Migraine, when taken in the early, mild pain phase of migraine. MATERIAL/METHODS: An open-label study enrolling 30 subjects, male and female, with a one-year history of migraine meeting IHS diagnostic criteria with or without aura, 2-8 migraines per month and < or = 15 headache days per month. Inclusion required having migraines that consistently started at mild and worsened to moderate or severe, if untreated, in at least 75% of attacks. Subjects also had to be able to distinguish migraine from non-migraine headaches and reliably identify migraine early in the course of an attack. One headache was treated in the mild pain phase with GelStat Migraine, a combination of feverfew and ginger. RESULTS: 29 evaluable subjects completed the study, all treating at mild pain. Two hours after treatment, 48% were pain-free with 34% reporting a headache of only mild severity. 29% reported a recurrence within 24 hours. Side effects were minimal and not serious. 59% of subjects were satisfied with Gelstat Migraine therapy and 41% preferred GelStat Migraine or felt it was equal to their pre-study medication. CONCLUSIONS: GelStat Migraine is effective as a first line abortive treatment for migraine when initiated early during the mild headache phase.

Administration, Sublingual↗
PubMed2005

Optimizing the diagnosis and treatment of migraine.

PURPOSE: To describe and discuss short headache questionnaires, which can simplify and improve the diagnosis of migraine. DATA SOURCES: Review of the worldwide scientific literature on short diagnostic questionnaires for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: A new three-question Headache Screen addressing disability due to recurring headaches, headache duration, and changes in headache characteristics and/or pattern over the previous 6 months displayed high sensitivity when used to survey >3000 migraineurs, correctly identifying 77% of migraineurs diagnosed by International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, clinical impression, or the presence of recurring, disabling headaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The underdiagnosis and undertreatment of migraine are problems that may be attributed to many causes involving both patients and medical providers. These include stringent diagnostic criteria established by the IHS, which fail to easily classify many common migraine presentations, the lack of clear outcome measures of successful management of migraine, and failure to recognize the iatrogenic role of prescription and nonprescription medications as an etiologic factor in chronic daily headache. The recent development of reliable, clinically useful, short headache questionnaires that are focused on headache impact facilitates the understanding and diagnosis of migraine for both patients and healthcare professionals. As a diagnostic tool, the Headache Screen has the potential to expand appropriate medication use, leading to improved functional status and quality of life for migraineurs.

Female↗
PubMed2005

Sinus headache: a neurology, otolaryngology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment.

Sinus headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, although many medical specialists consider it an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. The inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache can lead to unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to define conditions that lead to headaches of rhinogenic origin but have done so from different perspectives and in isolation of each other. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee convened to discuss the role of sinus disease as a cause of headache and to review recent epidemiological studies that suggest sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. This committee reviewed available scientific evidence from multiple disciplines and concluded that considerable research and clinical study are required to further understand and delineate the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, this group agreed that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients with sinus headaches.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Sinus headache: a clinical conundrum.

The concept of sinus disease as a common cause of headache is deeply ingrained in the American public, but there is little evidence to support the sinuses as a common cause of disabling headache. On the other hand, a body of evidence supports the concept that migraine can present with facial pain and nasal symptoms such as congestion and rhinorrhea. In clinical studies nearly 90% of participants with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed sinus headache met criteria for IHS migraine-type headache and responded to triptan interventions in a manner similar to that witnessed in migraine. Consequently it is likely that most individuals seeking medical attention for sinus headache are, in fact, experiencing migraine. Nasal pathologic conditions, however, can also cause sinus headache. In general. other symptoms in addition to headache are also present, but there is clear symptom overlap among migraine, rhinosinusitis, and other nasal passage/sinus pathologic conditions, and further research is needed.

Headache↗
PubMed2004

Simple and efficient recognition of migraine with 3-question headache screen.

OBJECTIVE: To correlate the results of a new 3-question headache screen to 3 established methods of diagnosing migraine: the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria, physician's clinical impression, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. BACKGROUND: A simple tool to recognize patients who experience migraine may facilitate diagnosis of this debilitating and frequently undiagnosed condition. METHODS: Primary care physicians and neurologists in the United States enrolled 3014 adults with a diagnosis of migraine based on one of the following: International Headache Society criteria, an investigator's clinical impression, or presence of recurring disabling headaches. Each patient completed a 3-question headache screen: (1) Do you have recurrent headaches that interfere with work, family, or social functions? (2) Do your headaches last at least 4 hours? (3) Have you had new or different headaches in the past 6 months? A diagnosis of migraine was suggested by a yes answer to questions 1 and 2 and a no answer to question 3. RESULTS: The 3-question headache screen identified migraine in 77% of the study population; including 78% of the patients enrolled based on International Headache Society criteria, 74% based on clinical impression, and 68% because of recurring disabling headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Positive 3-question headache screen results agreed well with migraine diagnoses based on International Headache Society criteria, clinical impressions, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. These findings support use of the 3-question headache screen to recognize migraine.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Understanding the patient with migraine: the evolution from episodic headache to chronic neurologic disease. A proposed classification of patients with headache.

Traditionally, episodic primary headache disorders are characterized by a return of preheadache (normal) neurologic function between episodes of headache. In contrast, patients with chronic headache often do not return to normal neurologic function between headache attacks. This article proposes that the evolution from episodic migraine to chronic headache may parallel the neurologic disruption observed during the progression of an acute migraine attack and that changes in baseline neurologic function between episodes of headache may be a more sensitive indicator of headache transformation than headache frequency alone. Early recognition of nonheadache changes in nervous system function may offer a more sensitive and specific approach to migraine prevention.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Sinus headache or migraine? Considerations in making a differential diagnosis.

Sinus headache is commonly diagnosed, and patients with headache often cite sinus pain and pressure as a cause of their headaches. A high frequency of diagnosis of sinus headache, which specialists consider to be relatively rare, among patients meeting International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria for migraine raises the possibility that migraine and perhaps other headache types are sometimes mistaken for sinus headache. This article considers clinical, epidemiologic, and pathophysiologic relationships between sinus headache and migraine and discusses the implications for clinical management of headache. Both historic and new data show that nasal symptoms frequently accompany migraine, although these symptoms are not part of the IHS diagnostic criteria for migraine. Parasympathetic activation, as well as the hypothesized mechanism of neurogenic or immunogenic switching (i.e., crossover interactions of neurogenic and immunogenic inflammation), may account for both the frequent occurrence of nasal symptoms in migraine and the possibility that sinus inflammation can sometimes act as a migraine trigger. Considered in aggregate, the data show that the occurrence of nasal symptoms associated with a headache should neither trigger a diagnosis of sinus disease nor exclude a diagnosis of migraine. It should, in fact, prompt diagnostic consideration of both conditions.

Diagnosis, Differential↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Costs and outcomes of early versus delayed migraine treatment with sumatriptan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact on costs and outcomes of early migraine treatment with sumatriptan while pain is mild versus sumatriptan treatment of moderate to severe pain. BACKGROUND: Migraines result in substantial pain, impairment, and costs. Recent clinical studies have shown that early treatment with sumatriptan when migraine pain is mild is more effective than sumatriptan treatment when pain is moderate to severe. DESIGN/METHODS: We developed a decision analytical model to assess the costs and outcomes per treated migraine attack, comparing early treatment while pain is mild versus delayed treatment when pain may become moderate/severe using 50 and 100 mg of sumatriptan. Parameters for the model were derived from published literature and analysis of migraine patient diary data. For each patient group the model determined the duration of mild and moderate/severe migraine pain, the proportion of patients pain free at 4 hours after initial therapy with no recurrence, medical care costs, and work loss costs (from migraine-related absenteeism and decreased productivity) during a 24-hour period. Total costs were calculated as the sum of medical care costs plus work loss costs. RESULTS: Early treatment with sumatriptan when migraine pain is mild resulted in substantially decreased total costs per treated attack as compared with treatment when pain is moderate/severe. Early treatment also resulted in decreased time with headache pain, an increased proportion of patients pain free at 4 hours without recurrence, and decreased physician and emergency department visits. Treatment with 100 mg sumatriptan resulted in better outcomes than did treatment with 50 mg sumatriptan, but outcomes with either dose for early treatment of mild pain were superior to those for either dose in delayed treatment when pain may be moderate/severe. CONCLUSIONS: Model-based results indicate that on a treated attack basis, early treatment of migraine with sumatriptan while pain is mild leads to decreased costs and improved outcomes compared to delayed sumatriptan treatment.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗