The place of corticosteroids in migraine attack management: A 65-year systematic review with pooled analysis and critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Headaches recur in up to 87% of migraine patients visiting the emergency department (ED), making ED recidivism a management challenge. We aimed herein to determine the role of corticosteroids in the acute management of migraine in the ED and outpatient care. METHODS: Advanced search strategies employing PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases inclusive of a relevant gray literature search was employed for Clinical Studies and Systematic Reviews by combining the terms "migraine" and "corticosteroids" spanning all previous years since the production of synthetic corticosteroids ca. 1950 until August 30, 2014. Methods were in accordance with MOOSE guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (n = 3989, median age 37.5 years, interquartile range or IQR 35-41 years; median male:female ratio 1:4.23, IQR 1:2.1-6.14; 52% ED-based, 56% randomized-controlled) and four systematic reviews were included. International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria were applied in 64%. Nineteen studies (76%) indicated observed outcome differences favoring benefits of corticosteroids, while six (24%) studies indicated non-inferior outcomes for corticosteroids. Median absolute risk reduction was 30% (range 6%-48.2%), and 11% (6%-48.6%) for 24-, and 72-hour headache recurrence, respectively. Parenteral dexamethasone was the most commonly (56%) administered steroid, at a median single dose of 10 mg (range 4-24 mg). All meta-analyses revealed efficacy of adjuvant corticosteroids to various abortive medications-indicating generalizability. Adverse effects were tolerable. Higher disability, status migrainosus, incomplete pain relief, and previous history of headache recurrence predicted outcome favorability. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature review suggests that with corticosteroid treatment, recurrent headaches become milder than pretreated headaches and later respond to nonsteroidal therapy. Single-dose intravenous dexamethasone is a reasonable option for managing resistant, severe, or prolonged migraine attacks.

What is the evidence for the use of corticosteroids in migraine?

Corticosteroids are widely prescribed for the management of migraine attacks. The earliest clinical studies examining the efficacy of corticosteroid monotherapy for managing migraine attacks date back to 1952. Since then, 26 heterogeneous clinical studies and four meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the efficacy of corticosteroids in either aborting acute migraine attacks, prolonged migraine attacks or recurrent headaches. Most of these (86 %) studies employed different comparator arms with corticosteroids monotherapy administration while some studies (14 %) evaluated adjunctive corticosteroid therapy. The majority of these clinical studies revealed the superior efficacy of corticosteroids as mono- or adjunctive-therapy both for recurrent and acute migraine attacks, while the remaining showed non-inferior efficacy. Different forms of oral and parenteral corticosteroids in either single-dose or short-tapering schedules are prescribed; there are clinical studies supporting the efficacy of both methods. Corticosteroids can be administered safely up to six times annually. Corticosteroids are also useful in managing patients who frequent emergency departments with "medication-seeking behavior." Migraine patients with refractory headaches, history of recurrent headaches, severe baseline disability, and status migrainosus were found to have the most beneficial response from corticosteroid therapy.

Chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: clarifying the current International Headache Society classification criteria.

Despite the recent advances in the understanding and classification of the chronic daily headaches, considerable controversy still exists regarding the classification of individual headaches, including chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH). The original criteria, published in 2004, were difficult to apply to most patients with these disorders and were subsequently revised, resulting in broader clinical applicability. Nonetheless, they remain a topic of debate, and the revisions to the criteria have further added to the confusion. Even some prominent headache specialists are unsure which criteria to use. We aimed to explain the nature of the controversies surrounding the entities of CM and MOH. A clinical case will be used to illustrate some of the problems faced by clinicians in diagnosing patients with chronic daily headache.

New daily persistent headache in the paediatric population.

We conducted a clinic-based study focusing on the clinical features of new-onset chronic daily headaches (CDH) in children and adolescents. The clinical records and headache diaries of 306 children and adolescents were reviewed, to identify 187 with CDH. Relevant information was transferred to a standardized form that included operational criteria for the diagnoses of the headaches. Since we were interested in describing the clinical features of these headaches, we followed the criteria A and B of the 2nd edn of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) and refer to them as new daily persistent headaches (NDPH) regardless of the presence of migraine features (therefore, this is a modified version of the ICHD-2 criteria). From the 56 adolescents with NDPH, most (91.8%) did not overuse medications. Nearly half (48.1%) reported they could recall the month when their headaches started. NDPH was more common than chronic tension-type headache in both adolescents overusing and not overusing medication. Individuals with NDPH had headaches fulfilling criteria for migraine on an average of 18.5 days per month. On most days, they had migraine-associated symptoms (one of nausea, photophobia or phonophobia)). NDPH is common in children and adolescents with CDH. Most subjects do not overuse medication. Migraine features are common.

Randomized controlled trial of an oral CGRP receptor antagonist, MK-0974, in acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an effective and tolerable dose of a novel oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, MK-0974, for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, clinical trial with a two-stage, adaptive, dose-ranging design. Patients were allocated to treat a moderate or severe migraine attack with MK-0974 (25, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, or 600 mg), rizatriptan 10 mg, or placebo taken orally. The primary endpoint was pain relief (reduction to mild or none) 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included pain freedom at 2 hours and sustained pain relief at 24 hours. A prespecified, blinded, automated interim analysis was used to discontinue randomization to less effective doses. RESULTS: Per the adaptive study design, the four lowest MK-0974 groups (25, 50, 100, 200 mg) were discontinued due to insufficient efficacy. For the remaining treatment groups, the estimated pain relief proportions at 2 hours were 300 mg (n = 38) 68.1%, 400 mg (n = 45) 48.2%, 600 mg (n = 40) 67.5%, rizatriptan 10 mg (n = 34) 69.5%, and placebo (n = 115) 46.3%. The prespecified primary efficacy hypothesis test, which compared the average 2-hour pain relief response proportion of the combined 300, 400, and 600 mg MK-0974 groups to placebo, was significant (P = 0.015). A generally similar efficacy pattern was seen for other endpoints. MK-0974 was generally well tolerated and there did not appear to be an increase in adverse events with increasing dose. CONCLUSIONS: The novel, orally administered calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, MK-0974, was effective and generally well tolerated for the acute treatment of migraine.

Zolmitriptan nasal spray in the acute treatment of cluster headache: a double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan 5 mg and 10 mg nasal spray (ZNS) vs placebo in the acute treatment of cluster headache. Design/ METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, three-period crossover study using ZNS 5 mg, ZNS 10 mg, and placebo. Headache intensity was rated by a 5-point scale: none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe. The primary efficacy measure was headache response (pain reduced from moderate, severe, or very severe at baseline, to mild or none) at 30 minutes. Logistic regression was used to account for treatment period effect as well as for cluster headache subtype effect. RESULTS: A total of 52 adult patients treated 151 attacks. For the primary endpoint, both doses reached significance at 30 minutes (placebo = 30%, ZNS 5 mg = 50%, ZNS 10 mg = 63.3%). For headache relief, ZNS 10 mg separated from placebo at 10 minutes (24.5% vs 10%). Zolmitriptan 5 mg separated from placebo at 20 minutes (38.5% vs 20%). For pain-free status, ZNS 10 mg was superior to placebo at 15 minutes (22.0% vs 6%). Both doses had higher pain-free rates than placebo at 30 minutes (placebo = 20%, ZNS 5 mg = 38.5%, ZNS 10 mg = 46.9%). Side effects were mild and seen in 16% of those attacks treated with placebo, 25% of attacks treated with ZNS 5 mg, and 32.7% treated with ZNS 10 mg. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: Zolmitriptan nasal spray, at doses of 5 and 10 mg, is effective and tolerable for the acute treatment of cluster headache.

The future of acute care and prevention in headache.

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease with heterogeneous characteristics resulting in a range of symptom profiles, burden and disability. It affects nearly 12% of the adult population in Western countries and up to 22% of the Brazilian population, imposing considerable suffering as well as personal, economic and social losses. The pharmacological treatment of migraine is divided into preventive and acute treatment. A better comprehension of migraine pathophysiology, as well as the finding of novel molecular targets, has led to a growing number of upcoming therapeutic opportunities. The same is true of cluster headache, which affects only about 0.07%-0.4% of most populations. This review focuses on current and emerging agents and procedures for the treatment of migraine and cluster headache.

Migraine and adiponectin: is there a connection?

Migraine is a common disorder, characterized by recurrent episodes of headache and associated symptoms. The full pathophysiology of migraine is incompletely delineated. Current theories suggest that it is a neurovascular disorder involving cortical depression, neurogenic inflammation and vasodilation. Various neuropeptides and cytokines have been implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine including calcitonin gene-related peptide, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha. There is evidence demonstrating an association between migraine and processes associated with inflammation, atherosclerosis, immunity and insulin sensitivity. Similarly, adiponectin, an adipocytokine secreted by adipose tissue, has protective roles against the development of insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia and atherosclerosis and exhibits anti-inflammatory properties. The anti-inflammatory activities of adiponectin include inhibition of IL-6 and TNF-induced IL-8 formation, as well as induction of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and IL-1 receptor antagonist. Adiponectin levels are also inversely correlated with C-reactive protein (CRP), TNF-alpha and IL-6 levels. Likewise, recent studies have shown a possible correlation between CRP, TNF-alpha and IL-6 and migraine attacks. In addition, insulin sensitivity is impaired in migraine and obesity is a risk factor for the transformation from episodic to chronic migraine. In this review we discuss the basic science of adiponectin and its potential connection to the pathophysiology of migraine. Future research may focus on how adiponectin levels are potentially altered during migraine attacks, and how that information can be potentially translated into migraine therapy.

The International Classification of Headache Disorders revised criteria for chronic migraine­field testing in a headache specialty clinic.

In the absence of a biological marker and expert consensus on the best approach to classify chronic migraine (CM), recent revised criteria for this disease has been proposed by the Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. This revised criteria for CM is now presented in the Appendix. Herein we field test the revised criteria for CM. We included individuals with transformed migraine with or without medication overuse (TM+ and TM­), according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein and Lipton, since this criterion has been largely used before the Second Edition of the International Classification of the Headache Disorders (ICHD-2). We assessed the proportion of subjects that fulfilled ICHD-2 criteria for CM or probable chronic migraine with probable medication overuse (CM+), as well as the revised ICHD-2 (ICHD-2R) criteria for CM (15 days of headache, 8 days of migraine or migraine-specific acute medication use­ergotamine or triptans). We also tested the ICHD-2R vs. three proposals. In proposal 1, CM/CM+ would require at least 15 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Proposal 2 required 15 days of headache per month and at least 50% of these days were migraine or probable migraine. Proposal 3 required 15 days of headache and at least 8 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Of the 158 patients with TM­, just 5.6% met ICHD-2 criteria for CM. According to the ICHD-2R, a total of 92.4% met criteria for CM (P < 0.001 vs. ICHD-2). The ICHD-2R criterion performed better than proposal 1 (47.8% of agreement, P < 0.01) and was not statistically different from proposals 2 (87.9%) and 3 (94.9%). Subjects with TM+ should be classified as medication overuse headache (MOH), and not CM+, according to the ICHD-2R. Nonetheless, we assessed the proportion of them who had 8 days of migraine per month. Of the 399 individuals with TM+, just 10.2% could be classified as CM+ in the ICHD-2. However, most (349, 86.9%) had 8 days of migraine per month and could be classified as MOH and probable CM in the ICHD-2R(P < 0.001 vs. ICHD-2). We conclude that the ICHD-2R addresses most of the criticism towards the ICHD-2 and should be adopted in clinical practice and research. In the population where use of specific acute migraine medications is less common, the agreement between ICHD-2R CM and TM may be less robust.

Tolosa-Hunt syndrome: critical literature review based on IHS 2004 criteria.

In 2004, the International Headache Society (IHS) re-defined the diagnostic criteria of Tolosa-Hunt syndrome (THS) specifying that granuloma, demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or biopsy, is required for diagnosis. We reviewed the literature on THS published from 1988 (year of publication of first IHS criteria) to 2002, analysing individual cases in relation to the new IHS criteria. One hundred and twenty-four cases were identified. As far as it was possible to discern, clinical presentation was similar in all, but 44 (35%) were reported to have inflammation on MRI or bioptic evidence of granuloma, 41/124 (33%) had normal neuroimaging findings and 39 (31%) had a specific lesion, so the THS was secondary. These data confirm that clinical criteria for THS are common to several conditions and their application alone does not guarantee a correct diagnosis. The requirement for inflammation on MRI will result in better classification of painful ophthalmoplegias; nevertheless, an MRI protocol that best defines inflammation should be specified. The status of cases which fulfil the clinical criteria but have normal MRI remains to be clarified.

Which triptan for which patient?

The triptans were developed for the acute treatment of a migraine attack and have revolutionised the treatment of this disorder since their introduction in the early 1990s. Although their mechanisms of actions are similar and based on the stimulation of specific serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) receptors including peripheral 1B and central and peripheral 1D subtypes, each triptan has its own distinctive pK properties that result in different profiles of efficacy and tolerability. Triptans work by decreasing neurogenic inflammation peripherally in the meninges, vasoconstriction of meningeal vessels and by modulating secondary-order neurons in the brain stem. Studies of patient attitudes towards their acute care regimens reveal that they are often unhappy with some aspect of their treatment-usually the speed of action, degree of efficacy, presence of adverse events and the need for additional doses due to frequent and/or rapid recurrence. The majority of patients, when asked in a clinical trial performed at tertiary care headache centres, are willing to try another triptan. The aim of this article is to review the pK and clinical characteristics of these acute care, migraine-specific triptan medications and discuss how their individual characteristics lead to their preferred choice in various clinical scenarios. The pK and clinical efficacy data presented are taken from older published studies in which triptans were compared to placebo or each other, but the patients were asked to wait till the headache reached moderate or severe intensity prior to taking study medication. New studies have looked at early treatment paradigms and result in better efficacy data, but are difficult to compare due to different endpoints.

Mitochondrial dysfunction and migraine: evidence and hypotheses.

The molecular basis of migraine is still not completely understood. An impairment of mitochondrial oxidative metabolism might play a role in the pathophysiology of this disease, by influencing neuronal information processing. Biochemical assays of platelets and muscle biopsies performed in migraine sufferers have shown a decreased activity of the respiratory chain enzymes. Studies with phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((31)P-MRS) have demonstrated an impairment of the brain oxidative energy metabolism both during and between migraine attacks. However, molecular genetic studies have not detected specific mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in patients with migraine, although other studies suggest that particular genetic markers (i.e. neutral polymorphisms or secondary mtDNA mutations) might be present in some migraine sufferers. Further studies are still needed to clarify if migraine is associated with unidentified mutations on the mtDNA or on nuclear genes that code mitochondrial proteins. In this paper, we review morphological, biochemical, imaging and genetic studies which bear on the hypothesis that migraine may be related to mitochondrial dysfunction at least in some individuals.

Headache prevention outcome and body mass index.

A population-based longitudinal study suggests that obesity is a strong risk factor for the development of headaches on 15 or more days per month. Little is know about the influence of weight on the response to headache preventive treatment. Herein we prospectively assessed the influence of the baseline body mass index (BMI) on the response to headache preventive treatment. We included adults with episodic or chronic migraine (ICHD-2), or transformed migraine (Silberstein and Lipton criteria) that sought care in a headache clinic. BMI was assessed in the first visit. Baseline information included headache frequency, number of days with severe headache (prospectively obtained over 1 month), and headache-related disability (HIT-6). The same information was obtained after 3 months of preventive treatment. Subjects were categorized based on BMI in: normal weight (/=30). We contrasted the headache end-points using anova with post-test and Kruskal-Wallis with post-test. We used logistic regression to model BMI and headache parameters adjusting for covariates. Our sample consisted of 176 subjects (79.5% women, mean of 44.4 years). At baseline 40.9% had normal weight, 29.5% were overweight and 27.3% were obese. No significant differences were observed in the number of headache days at baseline. After treatment, frequency declined in the entire population, but no significant differences were found by BMI group. Regarding the number of days with severe pain per month, there were also no significant differences at baseline (normal = 6.1, overweight = 6.5, obese = 6.7), and improvement overall (P = 0.01). However, changes were greater in the obese (reduction in 2.7 days with treatment) and overweight (3.9) vs. normal (1.5, P < 0.01). Finally, HIT scores at baseline did not differ by BMI group (normal weight = 63.8, overweight = 64.1, obese = 63.6). However, compared with the normal weighted group, change in HIT scores (follow-up baseline) were greater in the obese (6.4 vs. 3.5, P < 0.05) and overweight groups (6.8 vs. 3.5, P < 0.05). In the logistic regression model, BMI did not account for changes in disability, headache frequency, or in the number of days with severe headache per month, after adjusting for covariates. Contrary to what we hypothesized, obesity at baseline does not seem to be related to follow-up refractoriness to preventive treatment.

Field testing alternative criteria for chronic migraine.

The criteria for chronic migraine (CM), as proposed by the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) is very restrictive, excluding most patients that evolve from episodic migraine. In this study we empirically tested three recent proposals for revised criteria for CM. We included individuals with transformed migraine (TM) with or without medication overuse, according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein and Lipton. All individuals had headache calendars for at least three consecutive months. We assessed the proportion of subjects that fulfilled ICHD-2 criteria for CM or probable chronic migraine with probable medication overuse (CM+). We also tested three proposals for making the CM criteria more inclusive. In proposal 1, CM/CM + would require at least 15 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Proposal 2 suggests that CM/CM + would be classified in those with >or= 15 days of headache per month, where at least 50% of these days are migraine or probable migraine. Proposal 3 suggests that CM/CM + would be classified in those with chronic daily headache and at least 8 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Among TM sufferers, 399 (62.5%) had TM with medication overuse, and just 10.2% were classified as CM+ 158 (37.5%) had TM without medication overuse; just nine (5.6%) met current ICHD-2 criteria for CM. Using the alternative criteria, proposal 1 included 48.7% of patients with TM without medication overuse; proposal 2 captured 88%, and proposal 3 classified 94.9% of these patients. For TM with medication overuse, the proportions for proposals 1-3 were, respectively, 37%, 81% and 91%. The differences were statistically significant, favouring proposal 3. Consistently, criteria for CM and CM+ should be revised to require at least 8 days of migraine or probable migraine per month, in individuals with 15 or more days of headache per month.