The relative efficacy of meperidine for the treatment of acute migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Despite guidelines recommending against opioids as first-line treatment for acute migraine, meperidine is the agent used most commonly in North American emergency departments. Clinical trials performed to date have been small and have not arrived at consistent conclusions about the efficacy of meperidine. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative efficacy and adverse effect profile of opioids compared with nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine. METHODS: We searched multiple sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS, emergency and headache medicine conference proceedings) for randomized controlled trials comparing parenteral opioid and nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine headache. Our primary outcome was relief of headache. If this was unavailable, we accepted rescue medication use or we transformed visual analog scale change scores by using an established procedure. We grouped studies by comparator: a regimen containing dihydroergotamine, antiemetic alone, or ketorolac. For each study, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) of headache relief and then assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity for the group of studies. We then pooled the ORs of headache relief with a random-effects model. RESULTS: From 899 citations, 19 clinical trials were identified, of which 11 were appropriate and had available data. Four trials involving 254 patients compared meperidine to dihydroergotamine, 4 trials involving 248 patients compared meperidine to an antiemetic, and 3 trials involving 123 patients compared meperidine to ketorolac. Meperidine was less effective than dihydroergotamine at providing headache relief (OR=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.97) and trended toward less efficacy than the antiemetics (OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11); however, the efficacy of meperidine was similar to that of ketorolac (OR=1.75; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.61). Compared to dihydroergotamine, meperidine caused more sedation (OR=3.52; 95% CI 0.87 to 14.19) and dizziness (OR=8.67; 95% CI 2.66 to 28.23). Compared to the antiemetics, meperidine caused less akathisia (OR=0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57). Meperidine and ketorolac use resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR=1.27; 95% CI 0.31 to 5.15) and sedation (OR=1.70; 95% CI 0.23 to 12.72). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should consider alternatives to meperidine when treating acute migraine with injectable agents.

Recurrence of primary headache disorders after emergency department discharge: frequency and predictors of poor pain and functional outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the frequency of moderate or severe headache during the first 24 hours after an emergency department (ED) visit for a primary headache disorder (such as migraine or tension-type headache), determine the burden of headache during the 3 months after the ED visit, and identify predictors of poor pain and functional outcomes after ED discharge for each of these periods. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled headache patients during their initial ED visit, interviewed them by using a standardized questionnaire, and followed them by telephone 24 hours and 3 months after ED discharge. Two emergency physicians classified all headaches according to criteria established by the International Headache Society, using a valid questionnaire and a reproducible technique. RESULTS: During an 18-month period, we enrolled 309 primary headache disorder patients in the cohort. The most common primary headache diagnoses assigned to patients were migraine, tension-type headache, and unclassifiable recurrent headache disorder. We successfully obtained follow-up in 94% of patients 24 hours after ED discharge and in 94% 3 months after ED discharge. Moderate or severe headache was present within 24 hours of ED discharge in 31% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25% to 38%) of migraine patients, 19% (95% CI 9% to 36%) of tension-type headache patients, and 27% (95% CI 18% to 38%) of the unclassifiable headache patients. Multiple functionally impairing headaches occurred during the 3 months after ED discharge in 37% of migraine patients (95% CI 30% to 44%), 38% of tension-type headache patients (95% CI 23% to 54%), and 26% of the unclassifiable headache patients (95% CI 17% to 37). After multivariate adjustment, independent predictors of poor 24-hour outcomes were severe baseline pain, baseline nausea, screening positive for depression, and longer duration of headache; the independent predictor of poor 3-month outcomes was Medicaid insurance. CONCLUSION: Regardless of type of primary headache disorder, ED headache patients frequently experience pain and functional impairment during the hours and months after discharge.

Applying the International Classification of Headache Disorders to the emergency department: an assessment of reproducibility and the frequency with which a unique diagnosis can be assigned to every acute headache presentation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although almost 2 decades have passed since the International Headache Society first introduced its International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), the applicability of this classification scheme in the emergency department (ED) has not been assessed. As a first step toward identifying the role the ICHD should play in the ED, we address 2 questions: Can a structured interview and adherence to the ICHD allow ED headache patients to be classified in a reproducible manner? With the ICHD, how often can one specific diagnosis be assigned to each ED headache presentation? METHODS: This was a structured interview and medical record review of patients with nontraumatic headache, performed in an urban ED from March 2004 through August 2005. Using the data from the interview and the subject's ED record, 2 emergency medicine investigators independently classified each of the headaches twice: first, to determine presence or absence of a primary headache disorder, and then to determine presence or absence of a secondary headache disorder. If a primary headache was present, it was further classified as migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, chronic daily headache, or primary headache unclassifiable. Interobserver discordance was adjudicated by an experienced headache specialist. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty patients were enrolled in the study. The emergency medicine investigators had a high level of interobserver agreement on secondary headaches (agreement 94% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 96%]) and primary headaches (agreement 91% [95% CI 88% to 93%]). Among the 480 subjects, 122 (25%) had a secondary headache disorder, 309 (64%) had a primary headache disorder, 49 (10%) had a coexisting primary and secondary headache, and for 95 (20%) subjects, neither a primary nor a secondary headache could be diagnosed. Of 309 subjects with a primary headache, 186 (60%) had migraine, 34 (11%) had tension-type headache, 2 (1%) had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, and 77 (26%) had an unclassifiable primary headache. Overall, a specific ICHD headache diagnosis could not be assigned to 36% of subjects either because a specific primary headache disorder could not be identified or because neither a primary nor a secondary headache disorder could be diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Although a detailed structured interview in the ED and adherence to the ICHD resulted in reproducible classification of headache patients, more than one third of acute headache patients could not readily be given a specific ICHD diagnosis in the ED.