Diagnosis and management of migraine

Southern Medical Journal

Volumn 97, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 1069-1077

  Lawrence, Elizabeth C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnosis; Migraine headaches; Therapy

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ALMOTRIPTAN; ALPHA 2 ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; AMITRIPTYLINE; ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; BUTALBITAL; BUTORPHANOL; CAFFEINE; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DIHYDROERGOTAMINE; ELETRIPTAN; ERGOTAMINE DERIVATIVE; FROVATRIPTAN; IBUPROFEN; NAPROXEN; NARATRIPTAN; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; OXYCODONE; PARACETAMOL; RIZATRIPTAN; SEROTONIN 1B AGONIST; SEROTONIN 1D AGONIST; SUMATRIPTAN; TANACETUM PARTHENIUM EXTRACT; UNINDEXED DRUG; VALPROATE SEMISODIUM; VITAMIN; ZOLMITRIPTAN;

ABSENTEEISM; ANAMNESIS; DOSE RESPONSE; GENDER; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MIGRAINE; NAUSEA; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRODUCTIVITY; REVIEW; SIDE EFFECT; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADULT; ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AGENTS, NON-STEROIDAL; FEMALE; HALF-LIFE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; PREVALENCE; SEROTONIN ANTAGONISTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SUMATRIPTAN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 8744289718     PISSN: 00384348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.SMJ.0000144634.76817.8F     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. The US Headache Consortium. Multispecialty consensus on diagnosis and treatment of headache. Neurology 2000;54:1553. The US Headache Consortium is composed of seven member organizations: the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), the American Headache Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Osteopathic Association, and the National Headache Foundation. In 2000, this group completed an evidence-based literature review of headache diagnosis and management and issued practice guidelines on diagnostic testing, pharmaceutical management of acute migraines, prophylactic migraine drugs, and behavioral and physical treatments for migraine. The article cited introduces these practice parameters. The actual guidelines are only available online at www.aan.com/professionals/practice/ guidelines.cfm. The Consortium review and recommendations are the foundation for current migraine diagnosis and management, but the validity of the guidelines is still being field-tested.
2. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Kolodner K, et al. Migraine in the United States: epidemiology and patterns of health care. Neurology 2002;58:885-894. In 1998 a randomized-digit, computer-assisted telephone interview of over 4000 patients identified 568 migraineurs. Those with more than 6 migraines/year participated in a follow-up survey to clarify the current epidemiology of migraines.
3. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:813-818. An often-quoted study that helped to identify the huge economic burden of migraines.
4. Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD, Tijhuis M, et al. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology 2000;55:624-629. A cross-sectional study designed to assess the impact of headaches on migraineurs was done in the context of a population-based study in the Netherlands.
5. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The international classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition. Cephalgia 2004;24(Suppl 1). In 1988, the International Headache Society (IHS) introduced its original classification system. This system has greatly influenced the headache research community and, to a lesser extent, practicing clinicians. The guidelines have been criticized for their failure to recognize the possibility of the coexistence of multiple headache diagnoses, to fully classify medication-overuse headaches, and to adequately discuss chronic daily headaches. Revised guidelines were released in September 2003 and attempt to address these and other concerns. These guidelines are currently available only on-line at www.ihs.org; they can be read and downloaded, but not printed.
6. Wood AJJ. Migraine: current understanding and therapy. N Engl J Med 2002;346:257-270. This article is a very useful review of migraine diagnosis and treatment, and is particularly useful for its brief summary of migraine pathophysiology.
7. Diamond ML. The role of concomitant headache types and non-headache co-morbidities in the underdiagnosis of migraine. Neurology 2002;58(Suppl 6):S3-S9. This paper describes data from a follow-up survey to the American Migraine Study II. The data described pertains directly to the difficulty of diagnosing migraines in the presence of concomitant headaches and comorbid conditions.
8. MacGregor EA, Brandes J, Eikermann A. Migraine prevalence and treatment patterns: the global migraine and zolmitriptan evaluation survey. Headache 2003;43:19-26. This pharmaceutical company-sponsored survey looked at the epidemiology of migraines and patterns of health care use in migraineurs in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
9. Saper JR. Headache disorders. Med Clin North Am 1999;83:663-689. This review is a very useful summary of the different primary headache disorders and the pathogenesis of migraines, and is written by one of the experts in migraine headaches.
10. Launer LJ, Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD. The prevalence and characteristics of migraine in a population-based cohort: the GEM study. Neurology 1999;53:537-542. This article looks at the epidemiology of migraines in the Dutch population. This is same study as noted above in Reference 4.
11. Cutrer FM. Migraine: does one size fit all? Curr Opin Neurol 2003;16:315-317. This editorial review provides a useful summary of the clinical variation seen in migraine attacks and in the responses of migraines to therapy.
12. Kaniecki RG. Migraine and tension-type headache: an assessment of challenges in diagnosis. Neurology 2002;58(Suppl 6):S15-S20. This paper outlines the diagnostic challenge of distinguishing tension-type from migraine headaches and offers ways to improve the diagnosis of the these two primary headache disorders.
13. Cady RC, Dodick DW. Diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:255-261. This paper is another useful review article, and is particularly helpful in clarifying different models of care for migraines.
14. Lipton RB, Silberstein SD, Saper JR, et al. Why headache treatment fails. Neurology 2003;60:1064-1070. Three experts in migraine headaches summarize and clarify the five main reasons why primary care physicians do not always successfully treat headache disorders.
15. Gallagher RM, Kunkel R. Migraine medication attributes important for patient compliance: concerns about side effects may delay treatment. Headache 2003;43:36-43. This study, supported by the International Headache Foundation and a pharmaceutical company, surveyed 1,160 migraineurs (from a larger sample of 4,000 adults) about their use of prescription migraine medications.
16. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Steiner TJ, et al. Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States. Neurology 2003;60:441-448. A computer-assisted telephone survey, the same one used in the study cited in Reference 2, examined patterns of migraine diagnosis and treatment in two countries.
17. Maizels M, Burchette R. Rapid and sensitive paradigm for screening patients with headache in primary care settings. Headache 2003;43:441-450. This paper is an attempt to clarify the sensitivity and specificity of a primary care screening tool developed by the author.
18. Ashkenazi A, Silberstein S. The evolving management of migraine. Curr Opin Neurol 2003;16:341-355. This article is a current review of selected medications for both acute migraine attacks and migraine prophylaxis.
19. Snow V, Weiss K, Wall EM, et al. Pharmacologic management of acute attacks of migraine and prevention of migraine headache. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:840-849. This paper is a very user-friendly guide to both acute and prophylactic pharmacologic management of migraines. This practice guideline clearly indicates when its recommendations conflict with those of the US Headache Consortium. It provides a useful summary of the US Headache Consortium's evidence on the topics of pharmacologic management and a comprehensive reference list.
20. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Ryan RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine in alleviating migraine headache pain: three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Arch Neurol 1998;55:210-217. More than 1,300 migraine patients were randomly assigned to the three studies described in this paper to assess the efficacy of this combination analgesic.
21. Vansenbrink AM, Reekers M, Bax WA, et al. Coronary side-effect potential of current and prospective migraine drugs. Circulation 1998;98:25-30. The study described in this reference looked at isolated coronary arteries to assess the magnitude and sensitivity of the coronary arteries to five different triptans and four ergotamine derivatives.
22. Bigal ME, Bordini CA, Antoniazzi AL. The triptan formulations: a critical evaluation. Ar Qneuropsiquiatr 2003;61:313-320. This paper is one of the few found that summarizes prior studies of the triptans in order to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the seven available triptan formulations.
23. Geraud G, Keywood C, Senard JM. Migraine headache recurrence: relationship to clinical, pharmacological, and pharmacokinetic properties of triptans. Headache 2003;43:376-388. This paper reviewed 31 prior triptan studies to compare the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of the triptans and to evaluate the effect of these properties on migraine recurrence.
24. Dahlof C. Integrating the triptans into clinical practice. Curr Opin Neurol 2002;15:317-322. This paper is the most user-friendly of the triptan review articles. It also reviews some of the common gastrointestinal side effects caused by the oral triptan formulations.
25. Matther NT. Transformed migraine, analgesic rebound, and other chronic daily headaches. Neurol Clin 1997;15:167-186. This review presents an overview of chronic daily headaches, as well as a critique of the IHS guidelines. The paper's discussion of rebound headache is concise and informative.
26. Capobianco DJ, Swanson JW, Dodick DW. Medication-induced (analgesic rebound) headache: historical aspects and initial descriptions of the North American experience. Headache 2001;41:500-502. This review provides an historical perspective on rebound headaches, which were not recognized as a significant clinical entity until the 1980s.
27. Silberstein SD, Goadsby PJ. Migraine: preventive treatment. Cephalgia 2002;22:491-512. This article is a very clear and well-written review of currently used prophylactic therapies, repeating much of what is stated in the AAN guidelines (Reference 1) on migraine prophylaxis.
28. Dodick DW. Botulinum neurotoxin for the treatment of migraine and other primary headache disorders: from bench to bedside. Headache 2003;43(Suppl 1):S25-S33. This article is an interesting review of the evidence supporting the use of botulinum toxin A for migraine prophylaxis, and of the possible mechanism by which this toxin relieves headache pain.
29. Tronvik E, Stovner LJ, Sand T, et al. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with an angiotensin II receptor blocker: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;289:65-69. This study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study performed in Norway with sixty patients. Larger and longer studies are needed to support its promising results concerning the use of candesartan for migraine prophylaxis.