[Does medication abuse in patients with chronic migraine influence the effectiveness of preventive treatment with topiramate?]. / ¿El abuso de farmacos en pacientes con migraña cronica influye en la efectividad del tratamiento preventivo con topiramato?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication abuse are difficult to treat, and have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. AIM: To evaluate whether the presence of medication abuse lowers the effectiveness of topiramate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of patients with CM were grouped according to whether they met abuse criteria or not. They were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. Treatment was adjusted to match their crises and preventive treatment with topiramate was established from the beginning. The number of days with headache and intense migraine in the previous month and at four months of treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 262 patients with CM criteria were selected and 167 (63.7%) of them fulfilled abuse criteria. In both groups there was a significant reduction in the number of days with headache/month and number of migraine attacks/month at the fourth month of treatment with topiramate. The percentage of reduction in the number of days with headache/month in CM without abuse was 59.3 ± 36.1%, and with abuse, 48.7 ± 41.7% (p = 0.0574). The percentage of reduction in the number of days with intense migraine/month in CM without abuse was 61.2%, and with abuse, 50% (p = 0.0224). Response rate according to the number of days with headache/month in CM without abuse was 69%, and with abuse, 57%. Response rate according to the number of intense migraines/month in CM without abuse was 76.8%, and in CM with abuse, 61% (p = 0.0097). CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate was effective in patients with CM with and without medication abuse, although effectiveness is lower in the latter case.

TITLE: El abuso de farmacos en pacientes con migraña cronica influye en la efectividad del tratamiento preventivo con topiramato?Introduccion. Los pacientes con migraña cronica (MC) y abuso de medicacion son dificiles de tratar y tienen peor calidad de vida que otros pacientes con migrañas. Objetivo. Valorar si la presencia de abuso de farmacos disminuye la efectividad del topiramato. Pacientes y metodos. Una serie de pacientes con MC fueron agrupados segun presentasen criterios de abuso o no abuso de farmacos. Se les aconsejo la supresion del farmaco del cual abusaban. Se ajusto el tratamiento de sus crisis y se inicio tratamiento preventivo desde el principio con topiramato. Se valoro el numero dias con cefalea y migrañas intensas en el mes previo y al cuarto mes de tratamiento. Resultados. Fueron seleccionados 262 pacientes con criterios de MC, y de ellos 167 (63,7%) cumplieron criterios de abuso. En ambos grupos hubo una reduccion significativa del numero de dias con cefalea/mes y numero de crisis de migraña/mes al cuarto mes de tratamiento con topiramato. Porcentaje de reduccion de dias con cefalea/mes en MC sin abuso, 59,3 ± 36,1%; y con abuso, 48,7 ± 41,7% (p = 0,0574). Porcentaje de reduccion de migrañas intensas/mes en MC sin abuso, 61,2%; y con abuso, 50% (p = 0,0224). Tasa de respondedores segun numero de dias con cefalea/mes en MC sin abuso, 69%; y con abuso, 57%. Tasa de respondedores segun numero de migrañas intensas/mes en MC sin abuso, 76,8%; y en MC con abuso, 61% (p = 0,0097). Conclusiones. El topiramato fue efectivo en pacientes con MC sin y con abuso de farmacos, aunque con menor efectividad en estos ultimos.

[A study to compare independent groups of patients with episodic migraine who were treated preventively with flunarizine or nadolol]. / Estudio comparativo de grupos independientes de pacientes con migrana episodica tratados preventivamente con flunaricina o nadolol.

INTRODUCTION. Flunarizine, with level of evidence A, and nadolol, with evidence level C, would be indicated as preventive treatment of migraine. Yet, no previous studies have been conducted to compare the effectiveness of the two drugs. AIM. To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study, the same protocol being applied in both cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS. The subjects selected for the study were patients with episodic migraine (according to 2004 International Headache Society criteria) who had undergone preventive treatment for the first time, with flunarizine (5 mg/day) or nadolol (20-40 mg/day). The main effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of seizures at four months of treatment and responder rates) were analysed. RESULTS. The study included 227 patients who intended to receive treatment: 155 with flunarizine (80.5% females; mean age: 38.3 ± 12.1 years) and 72 with nadolol (63.8% females; mean age: 37.1 ± 12.0 years). The mean number of seizures prior to treatment was 6.09 ± 2.6 in the flunarizine group and 5.1 ± 1.7 in the nadolol group (p = 0.0079); at four months of treatment it was 2.61 ± 2.4 in the flunarizine group and 2.77 ± 2.4 in the nadolol group (p = NS). Percentage of reduction of migraines: 55.2% with flunarizine and 50.4% with nadolol (p = NS). The responder rate was 69% with flunarizine and 67% with nadolol (p = NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in the number of seizures by 75% or more) was 52.2% with flunarizine and 36.1% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Percentage of adverse side effects: 48.3% with flunarizine and 25% with nadolol (p = 0.0009). The satisfaction rate was similar in both groups, 68%. CONCLUSIONS. Both flunarizine and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Flunarizine is used more often in our milieu and was less well tolerated.

Pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación. Indicadores de respuesta al tratamiento ambulatorio / Patients with headache and medication aubse. Indicators of response to ambulatory treatment

Introducción. Los pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación (CAM) son difíciles de tratar, presentan mayor tendenciaa la cronificación y peor calidad de vida que los que cursan con otras cefaleas. Objetivo. Valorar los indicadores de respuesta de estos pacientes al tratamiento ambulatorio. Pacientes y métodos. De una serie de pacientes con migraña, seleccionamos aquéllos con criterios de CAM según el apéndice de la International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) de 2006 y que nunca habían llevado previamente tratamiento. Ambulatoriamente, se les aconsejó la supresión del fármaco del que abusaban. Se ajustó el tratamiento de sus crisis con los fármacos más eficaces y se inició tratamiento preventivo desde el principio, con topiramato o flunaricina. Se agrupó a los pacientes según persistieran con CAM o no. Se valoró el número días con cefalea en el mes previo y al cuarto mes de tratamiento y la persistencia de abuso. Resultados. Cumplieron criterios de CAM 178 pacientes (edad media: 40,9 años; 88,7% mujeres). El 68,5% (122 pacientes) respondió y dejó de cumplir criterios de CAM tras el tratamiento. En ambos grupos, los tratamientos de sus crisis (triptanes, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, analgésicos) y preventivos utilizados (topiramato o flunaricina) fueron similares. La media de días con cefalea previa al tratamiento fue de 18,52 en el grupo que respondió y de 20,87 (p = 0,0263) en el grupo que no respondió al tratamiento. Un 7,3% abandonó el tratamiento preventivo en el grupo de respondedores frente al 35% (p = 0,0001) en los no respondedores. Conclusiones. El mayor número de días con cefalea en el mes previo al tratamiento y el abandono del tratamiento preventivo fueron indicadores de mala evolución (AU)

Introduction. Patients with headache and medication abuse (HMA) are difficult to treat, have a greater tendency owards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. Aim. To evaluate the indicators showing that these patients are responding to ambulatory treatment. Patients and methods. From a series of patients with migraine, we selected those who satisfied HMA criteria according to the appendix of the 2006 International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) and who had never previously undergone treatment. As outpatients, they were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. The treatment of their seizures was adjusted with the most efficient drugs and preventive treatment was started from the outset with topiramate or flunarizine. Patients were grouped according to whether they continued with HMA or not. Comparisons were made between the number of days with headache during the previous month and after four months of treatment and the persistence of abuse. Results. HMA criteria were met by 178 patients (mean age 40.9; 88.7% females). Results showed that 68.5% (122 patients) responded and no longer met HMA criteria after treatment. The treatment used for their seizures (triptans, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, analgesics) and preventive treatment (topiramate or flunarizine) were similar in both groups. The average number of days with headache prior to treatment was 18.52 in the group that responded and 20.87 (p = 0.0263) in the group that did not respond to treatment. In the group of responders 7.3% dropped out of preventive treatment compared with 35% (p = 0.0001) in the group of non-responders. Conclusions. A higher number of days with headache during the previous month and withdrawing from preventive treatment were indicators of a bad progression (AU)

[Patients with headache and medication abuse. Indicators of response to ambulatory treatment]. / Pacientes con cefalea y abuso de medicación. Indicadores de respuesta al tratamiento ambulatorio.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with headache and medication abuse (HMA) are difficult to treat, have a greater tendency towards chronification and a poorer quality of life than those with other types of headache. AIM. To evaluate the indicators showing that these patients are responding to ambulatory treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a series of patients with migraine, we selected those who satisfied HMA criteria according to the appendix of the 2006 International Classification of the Headache Disease (ICHD-2) and who had never previously undergone treatment. As outpatients, they were advised to stop taking the drug that they were abusing. The treatment of their seizures was adjusted with the most efficient drugs and preventive treatment was started from the outset with topiramate or flunarizine. Patients were grouped according to whether they continued with HMA or not. Comparisons were made between the number of days with headache during the previous month and after four months of treatment and the persistence of abuse. RESULTS: HMA criteria were met by 178 patients (mean age 40.9; 88.7% females). Results showed that 68.5% (122 patients) responded and no longer met HMA criteria after treatment. The treatment used for their seizures (triptans, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, analgesics) and preventive treatment (topiramate or flunarizine) were similar in both groups. The average number of days with headache prior to treatment was 18.52 in the group that responded and 20.87 (p = 0.0263) in the group that did not respond to treatment. In the group of responders 7.3% dropped out of preventive treatment compared with 35% (p = 0.0001) in the group of non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of days with headache during the previous month and withdrawing from preventive treatment were indicators of a bad progression.

[Topiramate in chronic daily headache due to migraine]. / Topiramato en cefalea crónica diaria por migraña.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic daily headache (CDH) includes primary headaches that last more than four hours with a frequency equal or superior to 15 days a month over the last three months. It has a prevalence of 4-5% in the general population and is a frequent reason for visiting the physician in headache units. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of topiramate, as the primary drug, in CDH due to probable chronic migraine with or without medication abuse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the 447 patients with migraine in our database, we selected those: a) satisfying Silberstein criteria for CDH; b) that had not followed prior prophylactic treatment; and c) who were treated with topiramate as the primary drug. The mean number of days with headache and bouts of severe migraine in the fourth month of treatment using topiramate as compared to the month preceding treatment, as well as the percentage of responses and the rate of respondents in the fourth month were all analysed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (88% females) with a mean age of 38.0 +/- 14.13 years were selected. Medication abuse was reported in 44% of cases. At the fourth month of treatment, the mean number of days with headache dropped significantly from 20.8 to 7.9 (p < 0.0001) and the mean number of bouts of severe migraine diminished from 4.4 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001). The rate of respondents was 72%. Medication abuse continued in 14% of cases. Side effects were produced in 58% of patients and the dropout rate was 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate proved to be effective in the treatment of CDH due to probable chronic migraine and with probable medication abuse in de novo migraine patients.

Topiramato en cefalea crónica diaria por migraña / Topiramate in chronic daily headache due to migraine

La cefalea crónica diaria (CCD) incluye aquellas cefaleas primarias de más de cuatro horas de duracióny frecuencia igual o superior a 15 días al mes en los últimos tres meses. Presenta una prevalencia del 4-5% entre la población general y es un motivo frecuente de consulta en las unidades de cefaleas. Objetivo. Valorar la efectividad de topiramato, como primer fármaco, en la CCD por probable migraña crónica con o sin abuso de fármacos. Pacientes y métodos. De nuestra base de datos de 447 pacientes con migraña se seleccionaron aquellos: a) con criterios de Silberstein de CCD, b) queno habían llevado un tratamiento profiláctico previo, y c) tratados con topiramato como primer fármaco. Se analizaron la media de días con cefalea y crisis de migraña intensa en el cuarto mes de tratamiento con topiramato en relación con el mes previoal tratamiento, los porcentajes de respuesta y la tasa de respondedores en el cuarto mes. Resultados. Se seleccionaron 83 pacientes (88% de mujeres) con una edad media de 38,0 ± 14,13 años. El 44% abusaba de fármacos. Al cuarto mes de tratamiento, la media de días con cefalea disminuyó significativamente de 20,8 a 7,9 (p < 0,0001) y la medía de crisis de migrañaintensa, de 4,4 a 1,7 (p < 0,0001). La tasa de respondedores fue del 72%. Un 14% continuó abusando de los fármacos. Se produjeron efectos adversos en el 58% de pacientes y hubo un 24% de abandonos. Conclusión. El topiramato se mostró efectivo en el tratamiento de la CCD por probable migraña crónica y con probable abuso de fármacos en pacientes migrañosos de novo

Chronic daily headache (CDH) includes primary headaches that last more than four hours with afrequency equal or superior to 15 days a month over the last three months. It has a prevalence of 4-5% in the general population and is a frequent reason for visiting the physician in headache units. Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of topiramate, as theprimary drug, in CDH due to probable chronic migraine with or without medication abuse. Patients and methods. From the 447 patients with migraine in our database, we selected those: a) satisfying Silberstein criteria for CDH; b) that had not followed prior prophylactic treatment; and c) who were treated with topiramate as the primary drug. The mean number of days with headache and bouts of severe migraine in the fourth month of treatment using topiramate as compared to the monthpreceding treatment, as well as the percentage of responses and the rate of respondents in the fourth month were all analysed.Results. Eighty-three patients (88% females) with a mean age of 38.0 ± 14.13 years were selected. Medication abuse was reported in 44% of cases. At the fourth month of treatment, the mean number of days with headache dropped significantly from20.8 to 7.9 (p < 0.0001) and the mean number of bouts of severe migraine diminished from 4.4 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001). The rate of respondents was 72%. Medication abuse continued in 14% of cases. Side effects were produced in 58% of patients and thedropout rate was 24%. Conclusions. Topiramate proved to be effective in the treatment of CDH due to probable chronic migraine and with probable medication abuse in de novo migraine patients

[Topiramate or flunarizine in the preventive treatment of migraine. A comparative study of two series of cases]. / Topiramato o flunaricina en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña. Estudio comparativo de dos series de casos.

INTRODUCTION: Both flunarizine and, more recently, topiramate have proved to be effective in the prophylaxis of migraine. AIM: To compare two independent groups of patients with similar clinical and demographic characteristics who were treated with flunarizine or topiramate as the preferred drug in the prevention of their migraines and to evaluate effectiveness and safety according to the medication they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All the patients reported more than four episodes a month and/or transformed migraine according to Silberstein's criteria, and had never received prophylactic treatment. Data determined: the number and average number of migraines in the previous month and at the fourth month of treatment, and the rate of respondents. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included in each group. No significant differences were found between the groups as regards mean age or the average number of migraines in the previous month. With both drugs there was a significant decrease (0.0001) in the mean number of episodes in the fourth month of treatment, but with no significant difference between them: topiramate (5.88 +/- 3.7 to 2.1 +/- 2.5) and flunarizine (5.24 +/- 3.2 to 2.3 +/- 2.7). The mean reduction in the number of migraines at the fourth month was 58.2 +/- 38.2% with topiramate, and 55.4 +/- 37.5% with flunarizine. The respondent rate was 71% with topiramate and 67% with flunarizine. The percentage of dropouts with topiramate (28%) was higher than with flunarizine (11%) (0.0013). With topiramate 69 patients reported side effects and 53 patients reported them with flunarizine (0.0427). CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs showed a high degree of effectiveness when used as the preferred drug in the preventive treatment of migraine. Topiramate offered better results as far as effectiveness is concerned, but also more side effects, none of which were serious.

Topiramato o flunaricina en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña. Estudio comparativo de dos series de casos / Topiramate or flunarizine in the preventive treatment of migraine. A comparative study of two series of cases

Introducción. La flunaricina y recientemente el topiramato han mostrado su eficacia en la profilaxis de la migraña. Objetivo. Comparar dos grupos independientes de pacientes con similares características clínicas y demográficas tratados con flunaricina o topiramato como primer fármaco en la prevención de sus migrañas y valorar la eficacia y tolerabilidad según el fármaco recibido. Pacientes y métodos. Todos los pacientes presentaban más de cuatro crisis al mes y/o migraña transformada según los criterios de Silberstein y nunca habían recibido tratamiento profiláctico. Se determinó: número y media de crisis en el mes previo y al cuarto mes de tratamiento y tasa de respondedores. Resultados. Se incluyó a 125 pacientes en cada grupo. No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos en edad media y media de crisis en el mes previo. Con ambos fármacos hubo un descenso significativo (0,0001) de la media de crisis en el cuarto mes de tratamiento, aunque sin diferencias significativas: topiramato (5,88 ± 3,7 a 2,1 ± 2,5) y flunaricina (5,24 ± 3,2 a 2,3 ± 2,7). La reducción media de crisis al cuarto mes fue del 58,2 ± 38,2% con topiramato y del 55,4 ± 37,5% con flunaricina. La tasa de respondedores fue del 71% con topiramato y 67% con flunaricina. El porcentaje de abandonos con topiramato (28%) fue superior que con flunaricina (11%) (0,0013). Con topiramato 69 pacientes refirieron efectos adversos y 53 pacientes con flunaricina (0,0427). Conclusiones. Ambos fármacos mostraron una alta efectividad cuando se usaron como primer fármaco en el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña. El topiramato mostró mejores resultados de efectividad, pero más efectos adversos, aunque ninguno grave

Introduction. Both flunarizine and, more recently, topiramate have proved to be effective in the prophylaxis of migraine. Aim. To compare two independent groups of patients with similar clinical and demographic characteristics who were treated with flunarizine or topiramate as the preferred drug in the prevention of their migraines and to evaluate effectiveness and safety according to the medication they received. Patients and methods. All the patients reported more than four episodes a month and/or transformed migraine according to Silberstein’s criteria, and had never received prophylactic treatment. Data determined: the number and average number of migraines in the previous month and at the fourth month of treatment, and the rate of respondents. Results. A total of 125 patients were included in each group. No significant differences were found between the groups as regards mean age or the average number of migraines in the previous month. With both drugs there was a significant decrease (0.0001) in the mean number of episodes in the fourth month of treatment, but with no significant difference between them: topiramate (5.88 ± 3.7 to 2.1 ± 2.5) and flunarizine (5.24 ± 3.2 to 2.3 ± 2.7). The mean reduction in the number of migraines at the fourth month was 58.2 ± 38.2% with topiramate, and 55.4 ± 37.5% with flunarizine. The respondent rate was 71% with topiramate and 67% with flunarizine. The percentage of dropouts with topiramate (28%) was higher than with flunarizine (11%) (0.0013). With topiramate 69 patients reported side effects and 53 patients reported them with flunarizine (0.0427). Conclusions. Both drugs showed a high degree of effectiveness when used as the preferred drug in the preventive treatment of migraine. Topiramate offered better results as far as effectiveness is concerned, but also more side effects, none of which were serious

[Differences between migraine patients referred to a headache unit or a general neurology service]. / Diferencias entre los pacientes con migraña enviados a una unidad de cefaleas o a una consulta general de neurología.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine accounts for 10% of patients first visits due to neurological reasons in Spain and over half the new visits in headache units (HU) and hence the importance of this pathology. AIMS: The aim of this study is to determine whether there are any differences between migraine patients referred to a general neurology service (GNS) or to a HU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients with migraine were compared: those sent for the first time to a GNS and the others, who were sent directly to a HU. RESULTS: In a GNS, 10.7% (374 patients) of the overall number of new visits concerned migraines; these were compared with 107 migraines (64%) from the total number of headaches treated for the first time in the HU during the year 2000. The average age and distribution of sexes were similar in both groups. In the group of migraines from the HU there were more requests for CAT/MRI (20%), 77.5% had previous treatment, 71% were given preventive therapy, 51% received triptans and 44.8% needed an examination. In the group of migraines from visits to general service, there were fewer requests for CAT/MRI (14%), only 20% had previous therapy, preventive therapy was started in 45%, 6% received triptans and 25% required an examination. CONCLUSIONS: The group of patients with migraine who were sent to the HU presented a more serious pathology, required more preventive therapies, more triptans and more monitoring than the group of patients with migraine referred to the GNS.