The natural history of headache: predictors of onset and recovery.

The objective of this study was to determine predictors of onset of new headache episodes and recovery from headache over one year. A population-based cohort study was conducted, comprising a baseline postal survey to a random sample of adults aged>or=18 years, with follow-up survey after 1 year. Risk factor data at baseline were compared with headache status at follow-up in two groups: (i) those free of recent headache at baseline and (ii) those with a recent headache at baseline. In respondents free of recent headache at baseline, previous headache [risk ratio (RR) 4.15], the presence of other pain at baseline (RR 1.43), severe sleep problems (RR 1.67) and drinking caffeine (RR 1.99) increased the risk of a new headache episode during the follow-up year. In respondents with recent headache at baseline, less severe headaches at baseline predicted recovery during the follow-up year, as did the absence of anxiety [recovery ratio (ReR) 2.84] and of sleep problems (ReR 2.77). Risks for increased headache-related disability reflected those for onset of a new episode and these risks increased in strength for large increases in disability. Sleep problems and caffeine consumption increase the risk of developing headache and thus provide targets for prevention. Low levels of anxiety, sleep problems and the absence of other pain improve the likelihood of recovering and remaining free from headache.

Advice and care for headaches: who seeks it, who gives it?

Using data from a cross-sectional survey and a prospective record linkage study the aims of this study were to: (i) determine sources of advice and care for headaches in a population survey of adults, and (ii) investigate prospectively the influences of headaches on general practice consultation in a 12-month follow-up of the responders to the population survey. A population based cross-sectional survey was mailed to 4885 adults (aged > or = 18 years) with an adjusted response rate of 56% (n = 2662). The main outcome measures of interest were (i) self-report advice and care-seeking in the survey (ii) consultation with general practitioner for headache and for other conditions in 12-month period subsequent to the survey. Reporting a recent GP consultation for headache was associated with younger age (mean: 46 vs 48 years), female gender (68% vs 60%), and greater headache severity as measured by frequency, pain, and associated disability. The commonest sources of advice and care in the past were GPs (27%), opticians (21%), and pharmacists (8%). Consultations for headache were not common in the 12-months following the survey (n = 144); however, those reporting a recent headache were almost 4 times more likely to consult subsequently with a headache than those not (relative risk; 95% CI: 3.7; 1.9, 7.0). Recent reporting of headache was also associated with an increased risk of consulting for mental disorders (1.7; 1.2, 2.6), diseases of the digestive (1.6; 1.1, 2.3) and respiratory system (1.4; 1.1, 1.8), and a decreased risk of consulting for circulatory diseases (0.8; 0.7, 1.0). Only a minority of headache sufferers consult their GP, regardless of severity, with opticians and pharmacists being other important sources of information. Headache appears to have an additional impact upon GP workload through increased rates of consultations for nonheadache conditions amongst headache sufferers. The interesting findings regarding rates of consultation for digestive and circulatory conditions amongst headache sufferers may be linked to the use of headache medication.

North Staffordshire Headache Survey: development, reliability and validity of a questionnaire for use in a general population survey.

The North Staffordshire Headache Survey aims to measure the effect and impact of headaches, medicine use and healthcare utilization in a general population sample. A self-reporting questionnaire was piloted in a general population sample, with reliability being tested in a sample of pilot responders after one month and validity by comparing pilot responders with primary and secondary care headache consulters. One hundred and twenty-two (61%) responded to the pilot survey, with 56% of items having completion rates of 90% or more, and tests showed good internal consistency (>90%). One-month test-retest data showed good agreement, though questions relating to specific time periods (with partial or no overlap between survey periods) showed expected lower agreement. The headache consulters reported greater frequency, duration and severity of headaches than the population sample suggesting good construct validity. Results from these studies indicate that the questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to collect data about headaches in the general population.

Epidemiology of headache in an English district.

Headache prevalence, characteristics and impact in adults were measured using a cross-sectional general population survey in North Staffordshire, UK. A postal survey was mailed out to 4885 adults (aged > or = 18 years) with an adjusted response rate of 56% (n = 2662). Of respondents 93% reported headache ever and 70% in the last 3 months. Women and younger people reported higher headache prevalences. Of those reporting headache in the last 3 months, 23% experienced headache at least weekly and 16% experienced severe headache pain. Headaches affected work, home or social activities in 43% of sufferers and 20% reported at least moderate headache-related disability. Higher levels of disability were associated with higher levels of pain, 61% with severe disability reporting severe pain compared with 13% who had mild or moderate disability. In the total adult population sample headache affected more than two-thirds in the last 3 months and 14% of all adults reported headache-related disability of at least moderate level, which translates to a large burden in the general population.

Upper gastroduodenal ulceration in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative incidence of endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis treated with celecoxib. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SUBJECTS: Patients (n = 4632) with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis reported in five trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate ratios, rate differences, and the number needed to harm were calculated for the incidence of endoscopically documented gastroduodenal ulcers. RESULTS: Pooled rate ratios (RRs) relative to placebo for endoscopic ulcers at 12 weeks were 1.96 (95% CI 0.85 to 4.55) for celecoxib 100 mg twice daily and 2.35 (95% CI 1.02 to 5.38) for celecoxib 200 mg twice daily. There was no significant difference in gastroduodenal ulcers at 12 weeks between celecoxib 200 mg twice daily and celecoxib 100 mg twice daily; the corresponding pooled RR was 1.21 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.38). In contrast, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily was associated with a significantly lower rate of gastroduodenal ulcers than was naproxen 500 mg twice daily at 12 weeks (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.33). On average, for every seven patients treated with naproxen, one more had an endoscopic ulcer than if they were treated with celecoxib. Celecoxib 200 mg twice daily also had a significantly lower risk of endoscopic ulcers than did either modified-release diclofenac 75 mg twice daily at 24 weeks (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.52) or ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily at 12 weeks (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic studies have shown that celecoxib, at a wide range of doses, is associated with a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers than are diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The incidence rates of gastroduodenal ulcers associated with celecoxib were similar, although not equivalent, to placebo. Head-to-head comparisons suggest that, at the wide range of doses studied (100-800 mg/d), there are no dose-related increases in endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib. The results of longer term comparative trials of celecoxib based on clinical outcomes are needed to determine celecoxib's ultimate risk-benefit profile.

Zolmitriptan versus sumatriptan for the acute oral treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, international study.

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan (2.5 or 5 mg) and sumatriptan (50 mg) in the acute oral treatment of up to six moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. The intention to treat (ITT) population comprised of 1522 patients: 500 treated with zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (2671 attacks), 514 with zolmitriptan 5 mg (2744 attacks) and 508 with sumatriptan 50 mg (2693 attacks). Overall, the 2-h headache response rates in these groups were 62.9, 65.7 and 66.6%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between sumatriptan 50 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (P = 0.12) or 5 mg (P = 0.80). Approximately 40% of patients in each group reported a 2-h headache response in > or = 80% of attacks. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the rates of headache response at 1 h (zolmitriptan 2.5 mg 36.9%, zolmitriptan 5 mg 39.5% and sumatriptan 50 mg 38.0%) or 4 h (70.3, 72.9 and 72.2%, respectively) or in the rates of meaningful migraine relief at 1, 2 or 4 h or sustained (24-h) pain relief. All treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, zolmitriptan (2.5 or 5 mg) proved similarly efficacious compared with sumatriptan (50 mg), both in terms of response rates and consistency across attacks.

Rational migraine management: optimising treatment with the triptans.

In the last two years, a number of 5-HT1B/1D agonist triptans with enhanced lipophilicity (TELs) relative to the first drug of this class, sumatriptan, have been approved for marketing in most countries of the world (naratriptan, rizatriptan and zolmitriptan). In addition, at least three others are in advanced stage of clinical development (almotriptan, eletriptan, and frovatriptan). This paper sets out to review the recent data with the aim of identifying: 1) What are the critical differences between the TELs and sumatriptan? 2) How do the currently licensed TELs compare? 3) Is it possible to provide a rational approach to migraine therapy based on objective differences in the clinical profile of these new drugs? Recent randomised controlled and comparator data were reviewed, including the independent FDA assessment of rizatriptan. Critical differences for the new TELs (naratriptan, rizatriptan and zolmitriptan) which may lead to more rational migraine management: Both rizatriptan (10 mg) and zolmitriptan (2.5 mg and 5.0 mg) have demonstrated superior efficacy to sumatriptan 100 mg, and 25 and 50 mg respectively. Therefore, for first line use either rizatriptan or zolmitriptan would be appropriate for moderate and severe headache. Rizatriptan has a more rapid onset of action than sumatriptan 100 mg. Both rizatriptan and zolmitriptan have a more rapid onset of action than naratriptan. Therefore, for a rapid onset of action either rizatriptan or zolmitriptan would be appropriate. Naratriptan would appear to have a lower recurrent headache rate than sumatriptan, rizatriptan or zolmitriptan. However, 24-hour efficacy rates for zolmitriptan 2.5 mg were significantly greater than for sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg and were not significantly different from naratriptan. Therefore, for headaches of long duration and with a tendency to recur (e.g. menstrual headaches) either naratriptan or zolmitriptan would be appropriate. Naratriptan has lower reported adverse event rates comparable with placebo. This would support the use of naratriptan 2.5 mg in patients who have demonstrated poor tolerance to the "triptan type" adverse events.

Migraine pharmacotherapy with oral triptans: a rational approach to clinical management.

The recent clinical development of a number of migraine specific 5-HT1B/1D agonist triptans with enhanced lipophilicity (TELs), relative to the first drug of this class sumatriptan, and with a range of different metabolic, pharmacokinetic and receptor affinity profiles, provides the potential for critically different clinical profiles. Eletriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan and zolmitriptan display both increased stability to first pass metabolic inactivation by monoamine oxidase (MAO-A) and enhanced lipophilicity (4- to > 120-fold more than sumatriptan), leading to increased oral bioavailability (2- to 5-fold more than the 14% reported for oral sumatriptan). Central penetration and increased receptor affinity and selectivity for the neuronal (5-HT1D) receptor also combine to allow for lower total oral dosing (i.e., unit doses of 15 mg or less compared with 50-300 mg doses of sumatriptan) and reduced peripheral exposure to the coronary vasoconstrictor (5-HT1B) receptor. The notable exception being eletriptan, where an active P-glycoprotein blood-brain barrier efflux system effectively negates these benefits and requires an 80 mg oral dose. Differences in the metabolic balance between hepatic P450 (especially CYP 1A2) and MAO-A inactivation lead to potential drug interactions for all TELs with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), fluvoxamine and the quinilone antibiotics (with increased triptan levels). An important but complex MAO-A interaction between a metabolite of propranolol and rizatriptan mandates dosage reduction (to 5 mg) for rizatriptan in the presence of propranolol treatment. There is also an absolute contraindication for the concurrent administration of the MAO-A inhibitor moclobemide and rizatriptan. All the new-marketed TELs have potential clinical benefits and were well-tolerated relative to sumatriptan. Both rizatriptan (10 mg) and zolmitriptan (2.5 mg and 5 mg) demonstrate at least equivalent efficacy to sumatriptan 25, 50 and 100 mg, respectively, making them suitable first line agents for moderate or severe migraine headaches. Rizatriptan has the fastest onset of effect of the TELs. Naratriptan would appear to have lower recurrent headache rate than sumatriptan, rizatriptan or zolmitriptan. Therefore, for headaches of long duration and with a tendency to recur naratriptan may be the most appropriate treatment. Thus, knowledge of the metabolic, pharmacokinetic and clinical profiles of the TELs facilitates the selection of a triptan which allows optimisation of the clinical benefits for individual patients, minimising the risk of drug interactions and a minimally effective dose to reduce potential adverse events (AEs).

A long-term study to maximise migraine relief with zolmitriptan.

Part 1 of this international study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 2.5 mg and 5 mg zolmitriptan (Zomig) in the treatment of persistent migraine headache, two hours after an initial dose of 2.5 mg zolmitriptan. Part 2 was a non-comparative evaluation of long-term, unrestricted zolmitriptan use for treatment of initial, persistent and recurrent migraine headaches. In Part 1, following the treatment of moderate or severe persistent headache, two-hour headache response rates with 5 mg zolmitriptan (51.6%, n = 322), 2.5 mg zolmitriptan (49.7%, n = 324) and placebo (51.6%, n = 343) were not significantly different. However, the pain-free response rate following the treatment of persistent migraine headache of any intensity was significantly higher with 5 mg zolmitriptan than with placebo (36.0% vs. 25.5%; p < 0.001). This was predominantly due to effects in the subgroup of patients with mild headache. Thus, migraine relief in patients whose initial headache shows a partial response to 2.5 mg zolmitriptan may be maximised by a second 5 mg dose. In Part 2 (involving 2499 evaluable patients), 65.8% of attacks were treated with a single dose of zolmitriptan (2.5 mg or 5 mg). Of those migraine attacks initially treated with 2.5 mg zolmitriptan, 70.3% required no further dose, similarly 62.7% of migraine attacks treated initially with 5 mg zolmitriptan only required a single dose. Over the whole attack (i.e. initial and any persistent headache), headache response rates to one or two zolmitriptan doses were greater than 88.8%. 'Level of pain' was the primary factor influencing the choice of dose. Zolmitriptan provided consistent migraine headache relief in the majority of patients and was well tolerated.

Tolerability profile of zolmitriptan (Zomig; 311C90), a novel dual central and peripherally acting 5HT1B/1D agonist. International clinical experience based on > 3000 subjects treated with zolmitriptan.

Zolmitriptan (Zomig, formerly 311C90) at doses of 0.5-50 mg was administered to 316 unique volunteers in clinical pharmacology studies and 2,750 unique patients in eight clinical studies of acute migraine treatment. Overall, subjects received almost 50,000 doses; 97% of exposures were at doses > or = 2.5 mg. In the clinical pharmacology studies, the overall incidence of subject exposures experiencing at least one adverse event was 52% with zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (28% with placebo). In placebo-controlled studies, the overall incidence of patients with at least one adverse event was dose-dependent for zolmitriptan over the 1-15 mg dose range, e.g. 42% and 46% with 1 and 2.5 mg, respectively and 58% with 5 mg (29% with placebo). Only four serious adverse events attributable to zolmitriptan were reported. In a long-term study, during which 2,058 outpatients treated a total of 31,579 migraine attacks with either one or two zolmitriptan 5 mg doses over a period of up to 1 year, the number of attacks associated with at least one adverse event was similar after one (26%) and two (24%) doses. The majority (59%) of the adverse events reported in this study (59%) occurred within 2 h of dosing, were predominantly mild (59%) or moderate (35%) in intensity, of < or = 4 h duration (58%), required no further action (94%). In placebo-controlled studies, the percentage of patients who reported severe adverse events was similar with zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (4%) and placebo (5%). The most frequently reported adverse events with zolmitriptan in the placebo-controlled clinical studies were asthenia, heaviness (other than chest or neck), dry mouth, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, paresthesia and warm sensations. The type and severity of the adverse events was not influenced by gender (although the frequency of reported adverse events was higher in females, as was the case in the placebo group), age, presence of aura prior to the attack, association of migraine with menstruation, concurrent medication, or by the addition of a second zolmitriptan dose. Zolmitriptan showed a similar tolerability profile in the long-term study, in which a low withdrawal rate due to adverse events of 8% was observed. Zolmitriptan was not associated with an increased frequency of central nervous system-related adverse events in a comparative study of sumatriptan, despite pre-clinical and neurophysiological evidence of a dual peripheral and central action of zolmitriptan. Moreover, zolmitriptan doses of 5-20 mg produced no statistically significant effects on objective assessments of psychometric function. Zolmitriptan had no clinically significant effects on blood pressure (even in patients with controlled mild to moderate hypertension or impaired renal function), ECGs (e.g. there was no evidence of ischemic events) or clinical chemistry, hematological or urinalysis measurements. In summary, zolmitriptan is well tolerated, particularly at the recommended dose of 2.5 mg. Zolmitriptan has a well-defined dose-response with 2.5 mg proving highly effective and optimizing the benefit/risk ratio of treatment. Thus, zolmitriptan is well suited as an acute oral treatment for migraine in the outpatient setting.

The effects of a selective 5-HT2 receptor antagonist (ICI 170,809) on platelet aggregation and pupillary responses in healthy volunteers.

1. ICI 170,809 (2-(2-dimethylamino-2-methylpropylthio)-3-phenylquinoline hydrochloride) is a potent 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) type 2 postsynaptic receptor antagonist. 2. Effects of ICI 170,809 as single oral doses (3, 7, 15 and 30 mg) or placebo were studied on the duration of antagonism for the ex vivo platelet aggregatory response to 5-HT and to the pupillary light constrictor response in eight healthy male volunteers. 3. Pupillary dark adapted responses to a 0.5 s light stimulus were measured using a portable infrared pupillometer, for up to 24 h after dosing. 4. The in vitro platelet 5-HT aggregation response was reduced by ICI 170,809, with depression of the dose-response curve to 5-HT at all concentrations of 5-HT and with no evidence for a parallel shift. 5. The ex vivo platelet 5-HT response demonstrated a dose related significant (P less than 0.02) decrease in aggregation reaching a maximum at 2 h after dosing with the effect persisting for at least 8 h after dosing with the 7 and 15 mg doses. 6. Resting pupil diameter (RPD), and light induced pupillary responses in the dark adapted pupil, showed a significant (P less than 0.01) dose related reduction with significant (P less than 0.05) effects still present with the 15 and 30 mg doses at 8 h after dosing. 7. We conclude that, changes in both ex vivo platelet aggregation to 5-HT and dark adapted pupil size, are significantly correlated (P less than 0.0001) with log plasma concentrations (ng ml-1) of ICI 170,809, enabling the assessment of 5-HT2-receptor antagonism in man.

The effects of a 5-HT2 receptor antagonist (ICI 169,369) on changes in waking EEG, pupillary responses and state of arousal in human volunteers.

1. ICI 169,369 (2-(2-dimethylamino ethylthio)-3-phenyl quinoline) is a potent selective competitive antagonist of the 5-HT2 receptor in animal models. Effects of ICI 169,369 as single oral doses (80 and 120 mg) separated by 1 week, on the power spectrum of waking EEG, dark adapted pupil responses and sedation score, were studied in a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised cross over within subject comparison, in six healthy male volunteers. 2. Pupillary responses were measured using a portable infrared pupillometer following 15 min dark adaptation, assessing resting vertical pupil diameter (RPD), light constricted diameter (MPD) and recovered final diameter (FPD) at the end of a 3 s measurement cycle. 3. Both doses of ICI 169,369 produced a mean 36% (range 10-54%) decrease in log 10 power of the waking EEG alpha activity with eyes closed (P less than 0.02), and mean 38% (range 2-86%) increase in theta activity at 2 h compared with placebo. 4. Both 80 and 120 mg doses of ICI 169,369 reduced RPD by approximately 30% from a predose value of 6.25 mm (+/- 0.87; 95% CI) and from placebo values 6.41 mm (+/- 1.06) and 7.48 mm (+/- 1.49) at 3 and 5 h after dosing. MPD was reduced by 50% with the 120 mg dose at 5 h after dosing (placebo 5.2 mm; ICI 169,369 2.7 mm; P less than 0.05). FPD was significantly reduced (P less than 0.01) by both doses at 3 h after dosing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)