Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry ; 48: 25-31, 2017 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28917391

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Migraine and depression are common comorbid conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess how well the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) perform as depression screening tools in patients with migraine. METHODS: Three hundred consecutive migraine patients were recruited from a large headache center. The PHQ-9 and HADS were self-administered and validated against the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV, a gold standard for the diagnosis of depression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and receiver-operator characteristic curves were calculated for the PHQ-9 and HADS. RESULTS: At the traditional cut-point of 10, the PHQ-9 demonstrated 82.0% sensitivity and 79.9% specificity. At a cut-point of 8, the HADS demonstrated 86.5% sensitivity and specificity. The PHQ-9 algorithm performed poorly (53.8% sensitivity, 94.9% specificity). The point prevalence of depression in this study was 25.0% (95% CI 19.0-31.0), and 17.0% of patients had untreated depression. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the PHQ-9 and HADS performed well in migraine patients attending a headache clinic, but optimal cut-points to screen for depression vary depending on the goals of the assessment. Also, migraine patients attending a headache clinic have a high prevalence of depression and many are inadequately treated. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the impact of depression screening.


Subject(s)
Depression/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder/diagnosis , Migraine Disorders , Patient Health Questionnaire/standards , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depressive Disorder/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Migraine Disorders/epidemiology , Prevalence , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
3.
Cephalalgia ; 35(3): 271-84, 2015 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24875925

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. METHODS: A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses. RESULTS: Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention. INTERPRETATION: We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.


Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services/standards , Migraine Disorders/epidemiology , Migraine Disorders/therapy , Pain Management/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Societies, Medical/standards , Canada/epidemiology , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Humans , Migraine Disorders/diagnosis , Pain Management/methods , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Treatment Outcome
4.
CMAJ ; 186(11): E418-26, 2014 Aug 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24890104

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency theory proposes that altered cerebral venous hemodynamics play a role in the pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis. We aimed to explore the validity of this hypothesis by assessing the diagnostic criteria for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in persons with and without multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We compared the proportion of venous outflow abnormalities between patients with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls using extracranial Doppler ultrasonography and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance venography. Interpreting radiologists were blinded to the clinical status of participants. RESULTS: We enrolled 120 patients with multiple sclerosis and 60 healthy controls. High proportions of both patients (67/115 [58%]) and controls (38/60 [63%]) met 1 or more of the proposed ultrasound criteria for diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (p = 0.6). A minority of patients (23/115 [20%]) and controls (6/60 [10%]) fulfilled 2 or more of the proposed criteria (p = 0.1). There were no differences between patients and controls in the prevalence of each individual ultrasound criterion. Similarly, there were no differences in intracranial or extracranial venous patency between groups, as measured by magnetic resonance venography. INTERPRETATION: We detected no differences in the proportion of venous outflow abnormalities between patients with multiple sclerosis and healthy controls. Moreover, our study revealed significant methodologic concerns regarding the proposed diagnostic criteria for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency that challenge their validity.


Subject(s)
Brain/blood supply , Jugular Veins/physiopathology , Magnetic Resonance Angiography , Multiple Sclerosis/etiology , Spinal Cord/blood supply , Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color , Venous Insufficiency/diagnosis , Adult , Blood Flow Velocity , Case-Control Studies , Chronic Disease , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Jugular Veins/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Single-Blind Method , Venous Insufficiency/complications , Venous Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging , Venous Insufficiency/physiopathology
6.
Can J Neurol Sci ; 39(2 Suppl 2): S1-59, 2012 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22683887

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this guideline is to assist the practitioner in choosing an appropriate prophylactic medication for an individual with migraine, based on current evidence in the medical literature and expert consensus. This guideline is focused on patients with episodic migraine (headache on ≤ 14 days a month). METHODS: Through a comprehensive search strategy, randomized, double blind, controlled trials of drug treatments for migraine prophylaxis and relevant Cochrane reviews were identified. Studies were graded according to criteria developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations were graded according to the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. In addition, a general literature review and expert consensus were used for aspects of prophylactic therapy for which randomized controlled trials are not available. RESULTS: Prophylactic drug choice should be based on evidence for efficacy, side-effect profile, migraine clinical features, and co-existing disorders. Based on our review, 11 prophylactic drugs received a strong recommendation for use (topiramate, propranolol, nadolol, metoprolol, amitriptyline, gabapentin, candesartan, butterbur, riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, and magnesium citrate) and 6 received a weak recommendation (divalproex sodium, flunarizine, pizotifen, venlafaxine, verapamil, and lisinopril). Quality of evidence for different medications varied from high to low. Prophylactic treatment strategies were developed to assist the practitioner in selecting a prophylactic drug for specific clinical situations. These strategies included: first time strategies for patients who have not had prophylaxis before (a beta-blocker and a tricyclic strategy), low side effect strategies (including both drug and herbal/vitamin/mineral strategies), a strategy for patients with high body mass index, strategies for patients with co-existent hypertension or with co-existent depression and /or anxiety, and additional monotherapy drug strategies for patients who have failed previous prophylactic trials. Further strategies included a refractory migraine strategy and strategies for prophylaxis during pregnancy and lactation. CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence from randomized controlled trials for use of a number of different prophylactic medications in patients with migraine. Medication choice for an individual patient requires careful consideration of patient clinical features.


Subject(s)
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/therapeutic use , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Migraine Disorders/drug therapy , Migraine Disorders/prevention & control , Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Canada , Humans , Life Style
8.
Can J Neurol Sci ; 30(2): 122-8, 2003 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12774951

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM) is a form of intracranial vascular disease that may arise sporadically or be dominantly inherited. Linkage studies have revealed genetic heterogeneity among the dominantly inherited forms suggesting the existence of at least three loci called CCM1, CCM2 and CCM3. METHODS: In the present study, we screened five families with dominantly inherited CCM for CCM1 gene mutations with denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC). Then, we performed linkage analysis and haplotyping on these five families using highly polymorphic markers at the candidate CCM loci. RESULTS: None of the five families tested with DHPLC were found to have mutations in the CCM1 gene. Based on haplotyping, we identified three families segregating alleles for CCM2, while two families segregated alleles for CCM3. Using linkage analysis, we could confirm that one family (IFCAS-1) had a positive Lod score of 2.03 (p<0.0001) at the CCM2 locus using marker D7S678. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first one to replicate linkage at the CCM2 locus and provides a fifth family identified as such. It also supports the concept of genetic heterogeneity in CCM, identifying four other families that showed no mutations in the CCM1 gene.


Subject(s)
Chromosome Mapping , Chromosomes, Human, Pair 7/genetics , DNA Mutational Analysis , Genetic Linkage/genetics , Hemangioma, Cavernous, Central Nervous System/genetics , Mutation/genetics , Female , Genetic Markers/genetics , Haplotypes/genetics , Hemangioma, Cavernous, Central Nervous System/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Methyltransferases/deficiency , Methyltransferases/genetics , Models, Genetic , Pedigree
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...