HCV Infection Alters Salivary Gland Histology and Saliva Composition.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common blood-borne chronic infection in the United States. Chronic lymphocytic sialadenitis and sicca syndrome have been reported in chronic HCV infection. Up to 55% of these patients may have xerostomia; the mechanisms of the xerostomia and salivary gland (SG) hypofunction remain controversial. The objectives of this project are to establish if xerostomia associates with SG and HCV infection and to characterize the structural changes in SG and saliva composition. Eighteen HCV-infected patients with xerostomia were evaluated for SG dysfunction; 6 of these patients (patients 1-6) were further evaluated for SG histopathological changes and changes in saliva composition. The techniques used include clinical and laboratory assessment, SG ultrasonography, histological evaluation, sialochemical and proteomics analysis, and RNA in situ hybridization. All the HCV patients had low saliva flow, chronic sialadenitis, and SG fibrosis and lacked Sjögren syndrome (SS) characteristic autoantibodies. Further evaluation of a subgroup of 6 HCV patients (patients 1-6) demonstrated diffuse lymphocytic infiltrates that are predominantly CD8+ T cells with a significant increase in the number of inflammatory cells. Alcian Blue/periodic acid-Schiff staining showed significant changes in the ratio and intensity of the acinar secretory units of the HCV patients' minor SG. The submandibular glands showed significant ultrasonographic abnormalities in the parenchyma relative to the parotid glands. Significant changes were also observed in the concentration of sodium and mucin 5b. Although no significant correlation was observed between the lymphocytic infiltrates and the years of HCV chronic infection, a positive correlation was observed between HCV RNA-positive epithelial cells and the years of HCV infection. Consistent with the low saliva flow and xerostomia, patients showed changes in several markers of SG acinar and ductal function. Changes in the composition of the saliva suggest that HCV infection can cause xerostomia by mechanisms distinct from SS.

An exploratory study of salivary calcitonin gene-related peptide levels relative to acute interventions and preventative treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if baseline/interictal saliva calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) levels would be lower in subjects with chronic migraine receiving onabotulinumtoxinA compared with those receiving saline. BACKGROUND: CGRP is considered central to the pathogenesis of episodic migraine, but its relationship to chronic migraine is less understood. OnabotulinumtoxinA is an effective treatment for chronic migraine and has been demonstrated to inhibit the vesicular release of CGRP. METHODS: This was an exploratory, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study of 20 subjects that received onabotulinumtoxinA and saline injection (placebo). The amount of CGRP in saliva samples collected on a nonheadache or low headache day, and prior to and after treatment of a headache exacerbation was measured. Daily headache records, medications, and response to treatment were recorded in a diary. RESULTS: A decrease in baseline/interictal saliva CGRP levels for subjects receiving onabotulinumtoxinA from 39.4 ± 7.5 pg CGRP/mg total protein after the first month to 25.5 ± 4.1 pg after the third month was observed. However, this difference did not reach significance nor was it significant when compared to the saline treatment. There was a reduction in the number of headache days for both onabotulinumtoxinA and saline over baseline throughout the active phases of the study. However, there was no statistical difference in headache days between groups. Subjects with a greater than 50% response to onabotulinumtoxinA had better 2-hour pain relief with acute treatment than non-responders to onabotulinumtoxinA or saline. CONCLUSION: While CGRP levels were not elevated during a migraine attack in chronic migraine subjects as has been reported in episodic migraine, there was an overall decrease in the baseline/interictal levels in response to onabotulinumtoxinA.

Treatment of chronic migraine: a 3-month comparator study of naproxen sodium vs SumaRT/Nap.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of a combination of 85 mg sumatriptan plus 500 mg naproxen sodium in a combination tablet with 500 mg naproxen sodium in an identically appearing tablet when used as a daily preventative and acute treatment for 1 month and episodic acute treatment for an additional 2 months in patients with chronic migraine. BACKGROUND: To date, there has been minimal study of acute medications for patients with chronic migraine. Consequently, there is a paucity of study methodology or evidence-based guidance on the use of acute treatment medications in patients with chronic migraine. METHODS: This two-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, comparator pilot trial of 28 subjects, 18 to 65 years of age, with ICHD-II defined chronic migraine, was designed to generate hypotheses about the efficacy of 2 established acute migraine medications used both as a daily preventive treatment (month 1) and episodic acute treatment (months 1, 2, and 3). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to treat daily with SumaRT/Nap (85 mg sumatriptan + 500 mg naproxen sodium) (group A) or naproxen sodium (500 mg) (group B) in a prophylactic strategy for 1 month followed by 2 months of the same medications used for episodic acute treatment. RESULTS: The combination of SumaRT/Nap used over a 3-month period did not appear to significantly reduce the number of migraine headache days. In the subset of subjects using naproxen sodium and completing the study per protocol, there was a marked reduction in migraine headache days (P < .02 vs 0.25, respectively). Duration of migraine from treatment to pain free decreased in both groups, but was more robust in group B from baseline to month 3. Subjects in group B completing the study per protocol reported a 56% reduction in headache days vs 8% for group A. Subjects in group A and group B completing the study per protocol had considerably better 2-hour headache relief than subjects withdrawing early from the study. More subjects in group B prematurely withdrew from the study because of lack of efficacy (5 vs 1, respectively). Despite using significant quantities of acute medication during month 1, there was a reduction of acute medication in month 2 and 3 vs baseline vs month 1, particularly in the naproxen group. CONCLUSION: A combination of SumaRT/Nap (group A) did not appear to reduce migraine headache frequency over a 3-month period. Subjects using naproxen sodium (group B) alone and completing the study per protocol had a marked statistically significant reduction in migraine headache days. Both groups completing the study per protocol had experienced clinically meaningful 2-hour headache relief. This suggests there may be a subset of patients with chronic migraine that are responsive to high doses of naproxen as an acute intervention with a significant prophylactic benefit. Subjects randomized to SumaRT/Nap experience benefit, primarily as an acute intervention. This hypothesis may warrant future larger scale clinical trials. Frequent dosing of SumaRT/Nap or naproxen sodium was well tolerated in this study.

The development of a survey to measure completeness of response to migraine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of a new patient-reported migraine instrument, the Completeness of Response Survey (CORS), which measures a comprehensive set of factors important to patients' decisions regarding the initiation and continuation of treatment. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, migraine treatments and the instruments used to demonstrate their efficacy have focused on the relief of headache pain. As new treatments emerge with the potential for more complete and consistent migraine relief, more comprehensive tools are needed to demonstrate these benefits. The CORS includes 2 modules, the static CORS, which comprehensively evaluates one treatment at one time point, and the comparative CORS, which provides a more global comparison between 2 treatments at one time point. Together, the 2 modules can measure unmet treatment needs and improvements over the course of a clinical study. METHODS: Data from an 8-site study comparing 147 patients' recent experiences with their current triptan therapy and 2 months of study treatment with a single-tablet formulation of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium were used to conduct a preliminary psychometric evaluation of the CORS. The study included both modules of the CORS, the Headache Impact Test, the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, and a migraine diary. RESULTS: The CORS response categories in both the static and comparative modules demonstrated limited floor or ceiling effects and few missing values (<3%). Inter-item correlations, principal components analysis (component loading range: 0.62 to 0.95), and high estimates of internal consistency (alpha range: 0.88 to 0.94) for each composite score supported the structure and proposed scoring algorithm for the static module. The pattern of correlations between the CORS static and comparative items and composites with the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire items and subscales, as well as the relationships between responses to selected static CORS items and the migraine diary, supported the construct validity of the CORS. CONCLUSIONS: The CORS is capable of demonstrating advantages of more comprehensive migraine therapies over traditional therapies, which are primarily focused on the resolution of headache pain, by addressing the frequency and speed with which the most common migraine symptoms are resolved and patients' return to normal functioning. This research shows evidence for the value and utility for the CORS static and comparative items and components, and further evaluation is underway.

Two center, randomized pilot study of migraine prophylaxis comparing paradigms using pre-emptive frovatriptan or daily topiramate: research and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and clinical benefit of 2 paradigms of migraine prevention using pre-emptive frovatriptan and daily topiramate. The study compares the paradigms of pre-emptive use of frovatriptan, a drug approved for acute migraine, and the daily use of topiramate, a Federal Drug Administration-approved and -accepted standard for migraine prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, preventive treatment of migraine required daily medication. However, recent studies suggest that pre-emptive prophylaxis may be beneficial to those migraineurs who can predict an attack of migraine based on premonitory symptoms and treat during that phase. METHODS: A total of 76 adult subjects with a diagnosis of migraine were screened for the study. During a 1-month baseline period, subjects demonstrated through a daily diary that they predicted at least 50% of migraine attacks during the premonitory phase and treated with their usual medication. Of these, 55 were randomized to either Group A (daily topiramate) or Group B (frovatriptan during premonitory symptoms); 44 completed the study. The treatment period lasted 2 months. The subjects answered the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire at randomization, and at Weeks 4 and 8. The revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire was answered 24 hours after taking frovatriptan (Group A, for break-through headaches; Group B, treatment during premonitory symptoms). RESULTS: The number of migraine attacks and headache days per month decreased significantly from baseline for both Groups A and B. Subjects in Group A had considerably more adverse events leading to study withdrawal than in Group B (18% vs 4%). Though this study was not powered to directly compare the efficacy of the 2 drugs, topiramate showed superiority over frovatriptan at Month 2 in reduction of headache days, which was a secondary end point in the study (P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that statistical benefit for reduction of headache days over baseline for both pre-emptive frovatriptan and daily topiramate. Subjects utilizing pre-emptive frovatriptan experienced fewer adverse events leading to study withdrawal. Subjects utilizing daily topiramate had fewer headache days at Month 2.

A double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual feverfew and ginger (LipiGesic™ M) in the treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic needs of migraineurs vary considerably from patient to patient and even attack to attack. Some attacks require high-end therapy, while other attacks have treatment needs that are less immediate. While triptans are considered the "gold standard" of migraine therapy, they do have limitations and many patients are seeking other therapeutic alternatives. In 2005, an open-label study of feverfew/ginger suggested efficacy for attacks of migraine treated early during the mild headache phase of the attack. METHODS/MATERIALS: In this multi-center pilot study, 60 patients treated 221 attacks of migraine with sublingual feverfew/ginger or placebo. All subjects met International Headache Society criteria for migraine with or without aura, experiencing 2-6 attacks of migraine per month within the previous 3 months. Subjects had <15 headache days per month and were not experiencing medication overuse headache. Inclusion required that subjects were able to identify a period of mild headache in at least 75% of attacks. Subjects were required to be able to distinguish migraine from non-migraine headache. Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive either sublingual feverfew/ginger or a matching placebo and were instructed but not required to treat with study medication at the earliest recognition of migraine. RESULTS: Sixty subjects treated 208 evaluable attacks of migraine over a 1-month period; 45 subjects treated 163 attacks with sublingual feverfew/ginger and 15 subjects treated 58 attacks with a sublingual placebo preparation. Evaluable diaries were completed for 151 attacks of migraine in the population using feverfew/ginger and 57 attacks for those attacks treated with placebo. At 2 hours, 32% of subjects receiving active medication and 16% of subjects receiving placebo were pain-free (P= .02). At 2 hours, 63% of subjects receiving feverfew/ginger found pain relief (pain-free or mild headache) vs 39% for placebo (P= .002). Pain level differences on a 4-point pain scale for those receiving feverfew/ginger vs placebo were -0.24 vs -0.04 respectively (P= .006). Feverfew/ginger was generally well tolerated with oral numbness and nausea being the most frequently occurring adverse event. CONCLUSION: Sublingual feverfew/ginger appears safe and effective as a first-line abortive treatment for a population of migraineurs who frequently experience mild headache prior to the onset of moderate to severe headache.

Nurse-based education: an office-based comparative model for education of migraine patients.

BACKGROUND: A person with migraine needs to be prepared to make therapeutic decisions on her own. For this reason, patients often need education to understand the nuisances of managing theirmigraines. In this study an educationalCD-ROM/DVD that described the pathophysiology was utilized by nurses in an office-based primary care setting for patient education. Outcomes from this encounter were measured. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identify educational information that assisted migraine patients feel empowered to more effectively manage migraine; (2) encourage patients to intervene during the mild headache phase of the migraine; (3) measure education related changes in patient satisfaction and confidence regarding management of migraine; (4) measure changes in nurse satisfaction and confidence in educating migraine patients; (5) compare the effectiveness of 3 methods of delivery of nurse-based migraine education. METHODS: One hundred and eighty migraineurs at 21 primary care practices were divided into 4 groups: group A watched the CD-ROM/DVD in the office with a nurse available to answer questions; group B was given the CD-ROM/DVD by a nurse knowledgeable of the content; group C received the educational CD-ROM/DVD from a nurse without comment; group D received no educational material. The 10 nurses in groups A and B participated in a 45-minute teleconference that reviewed the information on the CD-ROM/DVD. Patients and nurses answered a pre- and post-study migraine questionnaire. Patients filled in a treatment diary online within 24 hours of treating a migraine. Nurses completed a satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 17 educational points tested on the pre-test, 75% of patients and nurses already knew about 1/3 of the information. There was significant improvement noted for both patients and nurses on the post-test in groups A, B, and C but not in group D. The percentage of correct responses by patients and nurses was directly and statistically significantly correlated with the involvement of the nurse in the educational effort. As a result of the education, patients felt more confident in their ability to manage and treat migraine. Likewise, nurses gained increased confidence in teaching patients about migraine. Patients did not intervene with acute therapy during the mild headache phase. Overall, 94% of the nurses were very satisfied or satisfied with the format and information provided. CONCLUSIONS: All but objective 2 were met for groups A, B, and C compared to control group D. Patients readily accepted nurse-directed education and assimilated information that increased their confidence to manage migraine. This emphasizes the importance of training nurses about materials used to educate patients.

Responsiveness of non-IHS migraine and tension-type headache to sumatriptan.

In a long-term efficacy and safety study, 424 patients were treated with sumatriptan (6 mg sc) for 1,904 migraine attacks. The patients were diagnosed with migraine based on IHS criteria but individual migraine attacks treated in the study were physician diagnosed; not necessarily required to meet IHS criteria. A re-analysis of the treatment response to open label sumatriptan (6 mg sc) indicated that 43 patients had treated at least one migraine that fulfilled IHS criteria for tension-type headache. Analysis of this population revealed they treated 232 headaches. Of these headaches, 114 were classified per IHS criteria as migraine; 76 as tension-type; and 42 as non-IHS migraine (not classifiable as IHS migraine or IHS tension-type headache). Of the 114 migraines, a positive response to sumatriptan occurred in 109 (96%) cases; of the 76 tension-types, 73 responded to sumatriptan (97%); of the 42 non-IHS migraine, 40 (95%) responded to sumatriptan. An equivalent response to sumatriptan among three diagnostic groups of headache supports the concept of a common biologic mechanism involving 5HT1 receptors that spans a range of clinical presentations.