Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Stewart J Tepper

Publications and source records attributed to Stewart J Tepper.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

New migraine preventive options: an update with pathophysiological considerations.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological treatment of migraine may be acute or preventive. Frequent, severe and long-lasting migraine attacks require prophylaxis. Multiple threads of research over the last 15 years have led to the concept that migraine is generated from a hyperexcitable brain. A variety of causes for hyperexcitability of the brain in migraine have been suggested. These causes include low cerebral magnesium levels, mitochondrial abnormalities, dysfunctions related to increased nitric oxide or the existence of a P/Q type calcium channelopathy. The better knowledge about migraine pathophisiology led us to discuss new treatment options. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study is to present an evidence-based review of some new drugs or some agents that even though available for a long time, are not frequently used. METHODS/RESULTS: We present a review of anticonvulsants with various mechanisms of action such as lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, tiagabine, levetiracetam and zonisamide. We also review natural products, like riboflavin and magnesium, botulinum toxin A, a specific CGRP antagonist and the anti-asthma medication montelukast, with pathophysiological discussion. CONCLUSIONS: We aimed to present an update of newer or less frequently used preventive migraine therapies, drugs that might reduce the burden and the costs of a disease that should be considered as a public health problem all around the world.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors↗

Ergotamine and dihydroergotamine: a review.

The ergot alkaloids were the first specific antimigraine therapy available. However, with the advent of the triptans, their use in the treatment of migraine has declined and their role has become less clear. This review discusses the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of the ergots. In randomized clinical trials, oral ergotamine was found to be superior to placebo, but inferior to 100 mg of oral sumatriptan. In contrast, rectal ergotamine was found to have higher efficacy (73% headache relief) than rectal sumatriptan (63% headache relief). Intranasal dihydroergotamine was found to be superior to placebo, but less effective than subcutaneous and intranasal sumatriptan. Ergotamine is still widely used in some countries for the treatment of severe migraine attacks. It is generally regarded as a safe and useful drug if prescribed for infrequent use, in the correct dose, and in the absence of contraindications; however, safer and more effective options do exist in the triptans. In patients with status migrainous and patients with frequent headache recurrence, ergotamine is still probably useful.

Dihydroergotamine↗

Headache and hemodialysis: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of headache in patients undergoing hemodialysis and to compare the prevalence of headache prior to and following the beginning of a hemodialysis program. BACKGROUND: About 70% of patients receiving hemodialysis complain of headache. Despite this, headaches have not been well studied in this group of patients. METHODS: We evaluated a series of patients with chronic renal failure who attended 3 hemodialysis services in a Brazilian town from January of 1998 to December of 1999. Patients with headache were prospectively followed and classified according to the International Headache Society criteria. The headaches were also categorized according to their temporal profile relative to hemodialysis. RESULTS: Headache was reported by 87 (70.7%) of the 123 patients studied. Prior to beginning dialysis, 48% had migraine, 19% had episodic tension-type headache, and 8% had both. Headache related to arterial hypertension was the second most frequent headache diagnosis in these patients (25.4%). Fifty patients (57.5%) experienced headache during the session of hemodialysis. Thirty-four were classified as dialysis headache, 7 were classified as migraine, 7 as episodic tension-type headache, and 2 were unclassified. Twenty-four patients (27.6%) reported dramatic improvement of their headaches after the beginning of the dialysis program. CONCLUSIONS: Headache is common in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Classification of such headaches according to the International Headache society criteria may be difficult.

Brazil↗

Assessment of migraine disability using the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: a comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is the most common type of chronic daily headache seen in headache tertiary care centers. Most patients with chronic migraine report their ability to function and feeling of well-being as severely impaired. OBJECTIVE: To measure the headache-related disability of patients with chronic migraine using the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire, comparing it with that obtained in a control group of patients with episodic migraine. METHODS: The clinical records of 703 patients with chronic daily headache treated in a headache specialty clinic were reviewed to identify 182 with chronic migraine who were evaluated using the MIDAS at their initial visit. Our control group consisted of 86 patients with episodic migraine. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients with chronic migraine, 127 (69.8%) were overusing acute-care medication. Patients were predominantly women (72.5%), with a mean age of 38.3 years. The group with episodic migraine consisted of 59 women (68.6%), with a mean age of 36.1 years. No statistically significant demographic differences were observed between the two groups. The group with chronic migraine had more total headache days over 3 months (66.7 versus 15.5, P<.001), missed more days of work or school (5.3 versus 2.3, P =.0007), had more reduced effectiveness days at work or school (11.9 versus 4.6, P =.0001), missed more days of housework (16.5 versus 3.3, P<.0001), and missed more days of family, social, or leisure activities (7.0 versus 5.5, P =.03). The group with chronic migraine was more likely to be in MIDAS grade IV (64.3% versus 43.2%, P =.001), reflecting the great likelihood of severe disability in this group. The average total MIDAS score was 34.9 in the group with chronic migraine versus 19.3 in the group with episodic migraine (P<.001). CONCLUSION: In subspecialty centers, patients with chronic migraine demonstrate remarkable impairment of their daily activities and are severely burdened by their headache syndrome, reflected by their high MIDAS scores. The chronicity and pervasiveness of migraine thus is associated with increased functional impairment as well as increase in headache frequency.

Adult↗

Naratriptan in the preventive treatment of refractory chronic migraine: a review of 27 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of naratriptan as preventive treatment in 27 patients with chronic migraine refractory to other commonly used preventive therapies. BACKGROUND: The treatment of chronic migraine often poses a major challenge to the clinician. Even when given expert care, patients with chronic migraine may continue to have daily or near-daily headaches. METHODS: Clinical records and headache calendars were reviewed of 27 patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: (1) aged 18 to 65 years; (2) diagnosis of chronic migraine (formerly transformed migraine), according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein et al; (3) previous failure of at least 4 preventive medications prescribed as part of a management program that included nonpharmacological measures, preventive medication, acute care medication, and detoxification from overused medication; and (4) have used daily naratriptan for no less than 2 consecutive months. The dose of naratriptan prescribed was 2.5 mg twice daily. We considered the following outcomes: (1) frequency of headache, (2) intensity of pain, (3) number of days per month with severe headache, (4) headache index (frequency times intensity), and (5) proportion of patients who reverted to an episodic pattern of pain after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of headache days 2 months (15.3 days versus 24.1 days at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (9.1 days, P<.001), and 1 year (7.3 days, P<.001) after daily treatment with naratriptan was initiated. There was also a statistically significant reduction in the number of days per month of severe pain at 1 month (5.6 days versus 12.5 days at baseline, P<.01), 2 months (5.7 days, P<.01), 6 months (2.8 days, P<.01), and 1 year (2.6 days, P<.01). Similarly, there was a statistically significant reduction in the headache index at 2 months (33 versus 56.4 at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (19.5, P<.001), and 1 year (17.2, P<.001). Of the 20 patients who continued to use naratriptan daily for at least 6 months, 13 (65%) reverted to an episodic pattern of pain (migraine). At 1 year, 11 (55%) still continued to experience episodic headache, 1 (5%) relapsed to chronic migraine, and 2 (10%) were lost to follow-up. No patients had intolerability to naratriptan during the treatment period, and no one stopped treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan may have a role in the preventive treatment of intractable chronic migraine. Prospective, controlled studies should be considered.

Adolescent↗

Safety profile of the triptans.

The triptans are 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists used as migraine and cluster-specific agents. Seven are in commercial use worldwide; in order of release these are sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, frovatriptan and eletriptan. Sumatriptan has been in clinical use since 1991, and although postmarketing studies have stimulated much debate of triptan strengths and weaknesses, their overall safety profile appears excellent. The most serious adverse events are cardiovascular, due to coronary artery narrowing as a consequence of coronary artery 5-HT(1B) receptor activity. Triptans are contraindicated in patients with vascular disease. Other events are even more rare, and include the potential for drug-drug interactions, based on metabolic elimination pathways. Serotonin syndrome has been a concern, but one large prospective study failed to document a single case, and reports are sporadic and not clearly causative.

ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B↗

The triptan formulations : how to match patients and products.

The 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists (the 'triptans') are migraine-specific agents that have revolutionised the treatment of migraine. They are usually the drugs of choice to treat a migraine attack in progress. Different triptans are available in various strengths and formulations, including oral tablets, orally disintegrating tablets, nasal sprays and subcutaneous injections. In Europe, sumatriptan is also available as a suppository. Specific differences among the triptans exist, as evidenced by different pharmacological profiles including half-life, time to peak plasma concentrations, peak plasma concentrations, area under the concentration-time curve, metabolism and drug-drug interaction profiles. How or whether these differences translate to clinical efficacy and tolerability advantages for one agent over another is not well differentiated. However, delivery systems may play an important role in onset of action. Given that the clinical distinctions among these agents are subtle, identification of the most appropriate triptan for an individual patient requires consideration of the specific characteristics of the patient and knowledge of patient preference, an accurate history of the efficacy of previous acute-care medications and individual features of the drug being considered. The selection of an acute antimigraine drug also depends upon the stratification of the patient's migraine attack by peak intensity, time to peak intensity, level of associated symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, time to associated symptoms, comorbid diseases and concomitant treatments that might cause drug-drug interactions. Individual patient response to the triptans seems to be idiosyncratic and possibly genetically determined. Therefore, a set of specific questions can be used to determine whether a currently used triptan is optimally effective, whether the dose needs to be increased or whether another triptan should be tried. The clinician has in his/her armamentarium an ever-expanding variety of triptans, available in multiple formulations and dosages, which have good safety and tolerability profiles. Continued clinical use will yield familiarity with the various triptans, and it should become possible for the interested physician to match individual patient needs with the specific characteristics of a triptan to optimise therapeutic benefit. Use of the methods outlined in this review in choosing a triptan for an individual patient is probably more likely to lead to migraine relief than making an educated guess as to which triptan is most appropriate.

Dose-Response Relationship, Drug↗

Mechanisms of action of the 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists.

Recent studies of the pathophysiology of migraine provide evidence that the headache phase is associated with multiple physiologic actions. These actions include the release of vasoactive neuropeptides by the trigeminovascular system, vasodilation of intracranial extracerebral vessels, and increased nociceptive neurotransmission within the central trigeminocervical complex. The 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists, collectively known as triptans, are a major advance in the treatment of migraine. The beneficial effects of the triptans in patients with migraine are related to their multiple mechanisms of action at sites implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine. These mechanisms are mediated by 5-HT(1B/1D) receptors and include vasoconstriction of painfully dilated cerebral blood vessels, inhibition of the release of vasoactive neuropeptides by trigeminal nerves, and inhibition of nociceptive neurotransmission. The high affinity of the triptans for 5-HT(1B/1D) receptors and their favorable pharmacologic properties contribute to the beneficial effects of these drugs, including rapid onset of action, effective relief of headache and associated symptoms, and low incidence of adverse effects.

Carbazoles↗

Ethical considerations in cluster headache research.

Cluster headache is the most painful of the primary headache disorders and elucidating pathophysiology and treatment for this disorder is crucial. There is justification for studying attacks untreated, and even for precipitating these attacks. Placebo-controlled studies should only be undertaken for regulatory purposes; otherwise, active control should be used.

Cluster Headache↗

New paradigms in the recognition and acute treatment of migraine.

It would be ideal if clinical decisions regarding acute migraine treatment could be made on the basis of three parameters: a critical appraisal of available scientific evidence, clinical experience (including knowledge of the individual patient and his/her attack characteristics), and, of course, patient preferences. Patients are likely to prefer agents that offer rapid relief, pain-free status within 2 hours, no recurrence or need for rescue medication, extended time to recurrence (if present), consistency of therapeutic effect over multiple attacks, oral administration. good tolerability, safety, and minimal drug interactions. Fortunately, a number of specific therapies now are available which place these objectives within the patient's reach. Ongoing barriers to optimal migraine care include underrecognition, underconsultation, undertreatment, restrictions imposed by insurance companies, and exaggerated concerns regarding the safety of the triptans. Overcoming these barriers is likely to prove a more important contribution to patient care than endeavoring to establish the relative merits of one triptan over another. We have described in detail a number of strategies for improving recognition and treatment of migraine. Many headache specialists now believe that recurrent episodes of disabling headache, with a stable pattern over years, should be viewed as migraine until proven otherwise. In the end, this may represent the most useful paradigm in the primary care setting, where time is of the essence. Studies to validate this approach are needed. Acute treatment intervention that is based on scientific evidence, clinical experience, and patients' needs and desires will provide better outcomes than those presently obtained. Preliminary evidence favors early intervention with oral triptans, and randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, ideally employing a crossover design, are required to confirm this. The US Consortium's evidence-based guidelines, the National Headache Foundation's standards of care, and the Canadian guidelines have applied the standards of scientific inquiry to the field of headache management and "translation" of these guidelines into practical instruments for clinicians through vehicles such as the Primary Care Network's Patient-Centered Strategies for Effective Management of Migraine should raise the general standard of care for patients with migraine. Last, but far from least, initiatives undertaken by the World Health Organization (WHO) will add credibility to the many layfolk and professionals who have struggled to present headache as a disabling disorder worthy of scientific investigation and aggressive medical management. The WHO states: "These common complaints impose a significant health burden ... Despite this, both the public and the majority of healthcare professionals tend to perceive headache as a minor or trivial complaint. As a result, the physical, emotional, social and economic burdens of headache are poorly acknowledged in comparison with those of other, less prevalent, neurologic disorders." Migraine is finally out of the closet.

Disability Evaluation↗

Intravenous dipyrone in the acute treatment of migraine without aura and migraine with aura: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Dipyrone (Metamizol) has been used in the acute treatment of migraines in Brazil. Some investigators have found it to be a highly effective medication for migraine pain and associated symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind study to assess the effect of dipyrone on the pain and symptoms associated with migraine without aura or with aura and the adverse effect profile of this medication. METHODS: For the migraine without aura group, 44 patients were assigned at random to receive 1 g intravenous dipyrone, and 30 patients received 10 mL 0.9% physiological saline. For the migraine with aura group, 30 patients received both dipyrone or placebo. We used seven parameters of analgesic evaluation and an analog scale to assess nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. RESULTS: Patients receiving dipyrone demonstrated a statistically superior improvement (P<.05 and P<.01) in pain and all associated symptoms compared with control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Dipyrone is an effective drug for the relief of acute migraine pain and associated symptoms.

Acute Disease↗

Hemicrania continua: a report of ten new cases.

Hemicrania continua (HC) is an uncommon primary headache first described as a syndrome in 1984. Being quite unusual, its clinical characterization still demands better description. The aim of this study is to present the main clinical characteristics of 10 patients with the diagnosis of HC seen in a tertiary center, critically discussing their main features. All subjects had strictly unilateral headache without side shift and absolute response to indomethacin. Seven patients (70%) presented autonomic features during pain exacerbations. Four (40%) had migrainous symptoms during the exacerbations and one presented partial relief with dihydroergotamine. One patient had pain excruciatingly severe during the exacerbations. Although the cardinal features of HC - continuous, unilateral, indomethacin responsive, remain strongly reliable, a refinement on the clinical characterization is needful and desired.

Adult↗

Chronic daily headache: identification of factors associated with induction and transformation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic daily headache (CDH) is one of the more frequently encountered headache syndromes at major tertiary care centers. The analysis of factors related to the transformation from episodic to chronic migraine (CM) and to the de novo development of new daily persistent headache (NDPH) remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify somatic factors and lifestyle factors associated with the development of CM and NDPH. METHODS: We used a randomized case-control design to study the following groups: 1) CM with analgesic overuse (ARH), n = 399; 2) CM without analgesic overuse, n = 158; and 3) NDPH, n = 69. These groups were compared with two control groups: 1) episodic migraine, n = 100; and 2) chronic posttraumatic headache (CPTH); n = 65. Associated medical conditions were assessed. We investigated the case groups for any association with somatic or behavioral factors. Data were analyzed by the two-sided Fischer's exact test, with the odds ratio being calculated considering a 95% confidence interval using the approximation of Woolf. RESULTS: When the active groups were compared with the episodic migraine group, the following associations were found: 1) ARH: hypertension and daily consumption of caffeine; 2) CM: allergies, asthma, hypothyroidism, hypertension, and daily consumption of caffeine; and 3) NDPH: allergies, asthma, hypothyroidism, and consumption of alcohol more than three times per week. The following associations were found when comparing the active groups with CPTH: 1) ARH: asthma and hypertension; 2) CM: allergies, asthma, hypothyroidism, hypertension, and daily consumption of caffeine; and 3) NDPH: allergies, asthma, hypothyroidism, and consumption of alcohol more than three times per week. CONCLUSIONS: Several strong correlations were obtained between patients with specific types of CDH and certain somatic conditions or behaviors; some have not been previously described. Transformation of previously episodic headache or development of a NDPH thus may be related to certain medical conditions and behaviors beyond the frequently incriminated precipitant analgesic overuse. As similar results were obtained when CPTH was used as a control, the correlation is more complex than simple comorbidity.

Adult↗

Burden of migraine in Brazil: estimate of cost of migraine to the public health system and an analytical study of the cost-effectiveness of a stratified model of care.

BACKGROUND: The search for rationality in health expenses in developing countries collides with the lack of effectively conducted epidemiologic studies. PURPOSE: To present an estimate of the impact and costs of migraine in the Brazilian public health system and to estimate the impact on these costs and the effectiveness of a model of stratified care in the management of migraine. METHODS: An analytical model of utilization of the Brazilian public health system was constructed. Data refer to 1999 and were obtained in accordance with the following steps: (1) Brazilian demographic characteristics; (2) characteristics of the public health system related to its 3 hierarchical levels-primary, secondary, and tertiary care, the last being subdivided into emergency department and hospital care; and (3) estimation of the number of migraine consultations at each complexity level. In Brazil, migraineurs seen in the public health system are most often discharged with an acute treatment, usually a nonspecific medication. We compared this treatment with a proposed stratified care model that uses a triptan as an acute care medication. We have made the following assumptions: (1) 15% of the patients would fall into the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) grade I category, 25% would fall into the MIDAS grade II category, 30% into the grade III category, and 30% into the MIDAS grade IV category; (2) the mean number of migraine attacks per year are: MIDAS I, 7.49; MIDAS II, 8.02; MIDAS III, 12.22; and MIDAS IV, 27.01. The annual costs of the treatment were calculated according to the following equation: AC = P x N x C + P x Cp + P x Cat x AMA, where P is the number of patients; N, the number of consultations per patient; C, the cost of consultation per level; Cp, the cost of preventive drugs; Cat, the cost of acute therapy drugs; and AMA is the number of migraine attacks per year. Results.-The public health system resources included 55 735 ambulatory units (primary and secondary) and 6453 emergency department and public hospital units, with a corresponding budget of US $2 820 899 621.26. The estimated cost of a consultation on the primary care level was US $11.53; on the secondary care level, US $22.18; in the emergency department, $34.82; and for hospitalization, US $217.93. The total estimated public health system expenses for migraine were US $140 388 469.60. The proposed model would imply a cost reduction of 6.2% (US $7 514 604.40) with an improvement in the quality of the public health system from the actual 18.2% to an estimated 84.5%. CONCLUSION: Migraine seems to pose a huge burden on the Brazilian public health system. The implementation of a stratified care model of treatment that would include specific acute migraine therapies could result in a dramatic increase in the quality of migraine care and a significant reduction in cost.

Brazil↗

Patterns of use of triptans and reasons for switching them in a tertiary care migraine population.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reasons for switching triptans within migraine patients presenting to a specialty clinic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed data of migraineurs who (1) were currently using a triptan as acute treatment medication for migraine, and (2) had previously used at least one other triptan, or a different triptan formulation. All subjects were followed for at least 1 year. For every triptan/formulation used, the reasons for discontinuation were obtained. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 386 patients, 339 of whom (87.8%) were females. Sumatriptan was first used by 349 (90.4%); zolmitriptan, by 238 (61.5%); rizatriptan, by 195 (50.5%); naratriptan, by 137 (35.4%); and almotriptan, by 31 (8.0%). Almotriptan was excluded from this analysis because of our small sample. We found significant differences among those who wanted to try another triptan to see if it would be better in those who first used sumatriptan 25 mg, compared to those first using sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .01), sumatriptan 100 mg (P < .001), sumatriptan nasal spray (NS) (P < .001), sumatriptan subcutaneous (SC) (P < .001), zolmitriptan 5 mg (P < .001), rizatriptan 10 mg (P < .001), and naratriptan (P = .001). Patients using rizatriptan, sumatriptan NS, and sumatriptan SC had significantly lower rates of reporting this answer. Subjects first using naratriptan were less likely to report recurrence than those using sumatriptan 25 mg (P = .004), sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .0005), sumatriptan 100 mg (P = .003), zolmitriptan (P = .02), and rizatriptan (P = .006). Incomplete relief was more frequently reported by those first using sumatriptan 25 mg and naratriptan. Inconsistency was a reason for switching in those initially using sumatriptan NS, sumatriptan 25 mg, and naratriptan and less frequently reported in those using zolmitriptan and sumatriptan SC. Side effects were major factors for those first using sumatriptan 100 mg, NS, and SC, and less for those using naratriptan and sumatriptan 25 mg. From those subjects that initially used sumatriptan SC and were switched to a different triptan or formulation, 19.5% returned to sumatriptan SC; for the other triptans/formulations, the percentages were: sumatriptan 25 mg, 7.8%; sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg, 42.3%; sumatriptan NS, 17.7%; zolmitriptan, 17.6%; rizatriptan, 16.5%; naratriptan, 9.4%. For those who used more than three triptans/formulations, the last triptan used was: sumatriptan, 29.5%; zolmitriptan, 31.8%; rizatriptan, 25.0%; naratriptan, 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of treatment attributes are important in determining the reasons involved in switching a triptan. To assess this attributes can provide additional information to supplement the traditional tests of efficacy provided by randomized clinical trials.

Adolescent↗

Chronic daily headache: correlation between the 2004 and the 1988 International Headache Society diagnostic criteria.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, we compared the 1988 International Headache Society (IHS) criteria and the Silberstein-Lipton criteria (S-L) in a subspeciality clinic sample of 638 patients with chronic daily headache (CDH) assessed both clinically and with headache diaries. Both systems allowed for the classification of most patients with CDH. The 1988 IHS classification required multiple diagnoses and was more complex to apply. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to revisit the same database, now comparing the prior classification systems with the new 2004 IHS classification. In contrast with the 1st edition, the 2nd edition includes criteria for chronic migraine (CM), new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and hemicrania continua (HC). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical records and the headache diaries of 638 patients seen between 1980 and 2001 at a headache center. All patients had primary CDH according to the S-L criteria. RESULTS: Using the S-L criteria as a reference, of the 158 patients with transformed migraine (TM) without medication overuse, just 9 (5.6%) met 2004 IHS criteria for CM. Most of the subjects were classified using combinations of migraine and CTTH diagnoses, much like the 1988 IHS classification. Similarly, using the new IHS system, just 41/399 (10.2%) subjects with TM with medication overuse were classified as probable CM with probable medication overuse. Most patients with NDPH without overuse were easily classified using the 2004 criteria (95.8%). Regarding NDPH with medication overuse, the diagnostic groups were much like results for the 1st edition. All patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) and hemicrania continua (HC) according to the S-L system were easily classified using the 2004 IHS criteria. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the 2004 IHS criteria facilitate the classification of NDPH without medication overuse and HC. For subjects with TM according to the S-L system, the new IHS criteria are complex to use and require multiple diagnoses. Very few patients with TM in the S-L system could be classified with a single diagnosis in the 2004 IHS classification. In fact, CM was so rare that it would be virtually impossible to conduct clinical trials of this entity using the 2004 IHS criteria. Clinical trials of this entity should therefore be conducted using the S-L criteria. Finally, we propose that in the 3rd edition of the IHS classification, the diagnosis of NDPH be revised so as not to exclude migraine features.

Adolescent↗

Assessment of adverse events associated with triptans--methods of assessment influence the results.

BACKGROUND: A recent study conducted in triptan-naive migraine patients showed that tolerability was the second most important attribute of an acute treatment. However, the proportion of patients reporting side effects after any acute treatment may vary with regard to the method of assessment. OBJECTIVES: To contrast two methods of assessing adverse events (prompted and unprompted) in those with headache using triptans. METHODS: This study was conducted in two sites, a headache center in the United States, and a neurology office focusing on headache in Italy. We prospectively surveyed 415 adults with headache, who had been using the same triptan for at least 3 months. Participants were asked about their headache and treatment history. Subjects then completed a standardized questionnaire, assessing adverse events in two different ways. First, subjects were asked if they had any adverse events when using the triptan. After returning the first part of the questionnaire, subjects received a second form, where 49 possible adverse events were listed. We contrasted and correlated both sets of answers. RESULTS: Most patients (U.S.=74.9%, Italy=65.5%) reported no side effects in the unprompted questionnaire. However, most of them (U.S.=62.9%, Italy=54.1%) reported at least one side effect in the prompted questionnaire. Most patients that reported side effects in the unprompted questionnaire said they had just one adverse event, while most reported two or more side effects in the prompted questionnaire. Both in the unprompted and in the prompted questionnaires, most side effects were rated as mild or moderate. Interestingly, 31 (7.5%) subjects (pooling data from both sites together) graded their adverse events as severe in the prompted questionnaire, but had not self-reported them. CONCLUSIONS: (1) When assessing adverse events, the method of data collection may dramatically influence the results. (2) From those subjects who did not self-report adverse events after using a triptan, most of them will report positively if presented with a list of side effects.

Adult↗