ABSTRACT
In order to investigate the plausible association of migraine recurrence with anxiety and depressive symptoms, a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial was conducted using sumatriptan as a vehicle drug. Migraineurs were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg sumatriptan or placebo for three consecutive migraine attacks, and then cross over to the other treatment for three more migraine attacks. The primary measurements were the observed rate of migraine recurrence in relation to (i) patient's mood condition, measured by the Hamilton rating scales for depression and anxiety and (ii) patient's general health and functioning measured by the Symptom Checklist (SCL)-90-R. Migraine recurrence was defined as any migrainous headache that occurred within 24 h post treatment, only when pain free at 2 h was achieved. The analysis of efficacy was performed on 376 migraine attacks treated with sumatriptan and 373 attacks treated with placebo. Recurrence ratio was 14.1% and 5.1%, respectively (P = 0.045). The number needed to treat for pain free at 2 h post dose was 5.4. Recurrence was not affected by Hamilton scores for depression or anxiety, SCL-90-R scores or treatment. Apparently, depressive or anxiety symptoms do not influence headache recurrence in acute pharmaceutical migraine treatment, but further investigation is required.
Subject(s)
Anxiety/complications , Depression/complications , Migraine Disorders/complications , Adult , Cross-Over Studies , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Migraine Disorders/drug therapy , Recurrence , Sumatriptan/therapeutic use , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use , Young AdultABSTRACT
Two groups of subjects, 8 Parkinson patients and 16 normal elderly people, were examined on a matching and a naming olfactory task. On the former, subjects had to recognize among four a previously sniffed odour, while on the latter they had to label an odour by choosing among four alternatives proposed by the examiner. Analysis indicated different trends for the two groups, Parkinson patients being more efficient in naming than in matching, and the elderly people showing the opposite pattern. Data are discussed with reference to the loss of dopamine in Parkinson patients and the decline of memory processes in elderly people.
