Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults

There are many options for acute migraine attack treatment, but none is ideal for all patients. This study aims to review current medical office‐based acute migraine therapy in adults and provides readers with an organized approach to this important facet of migraine treatment. A general literature review includes a review of several recent published guidelines. Acetaminophen, 4 nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], naproxen sodium, and diclofenac potassium), and 7 triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) have good evidence for efficacy and form the core of acute migraine treatment. NSAID–triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non‐opioid combination analgesics (acetaminophen, ASA, and caffeine), and several anti‐emetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, and prochlorperazine) are additional evidence‐based options. Opioid containing combination analgesics may be helpful in specific patients, but should not be used routinely. Clinical features to be considered when choosing an acute migraine medication include usual headache intensity, usual rapidity of pain intensity increase, nausea, vomiting, degree of disability, patient response to previously used medications, history of headache recurrence with previous attacks, and the presence of contraindications to specific acute medications. Available acute medications can be organized into 4 treatment strategies, including a strategy for attacks of mild to moderate severity (strategy one: acetaminophen and/or NSAIDs), a triptan strategy for patients with severe attacks and for attacks not responding to strategy one, a refractory attack strategy, and a strategy for patients with contraindications to vasoconstricting drugs. Acute treatment of migraine attacks during pregnancy, lactation, and for patients with chronic migraine is also discussed. In chronic migraine, it is particularly important that medication overuse is eliminated or avoided. Migraine treatment is complex, and treatment must be individualized and tailored to the patient's clinical features. Clinicians should make full use of available medications and formulations in an organized approach.     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications

Objective.— The final section of this 3‐part review analyzes published reports involving the acute treatment of migraine with opioids, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the emergency department (ED), urgent care, and headache clinic settings, as well as post‐discharge medications. In the Conclusion, there is a general discussion of all the therapies presented in the 3 sections. Method.— Using the terms (“migraine” AND “emergency”) AND (“therapy” OR “treatment”), the author searched MEDLINE for reports from ED and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Seventy‐five reports were identified that compared the efficacy and safety of multiple acute migraine medications for rescue. Of the medications reviewed in Part 3, opioids, NSAIDs, and steroids all demonstrated some effectiveness. When used alone, nalbuphine and metamizole were superior to placebo. NSAIDs were inferior to the combination of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and dihydroergotamine (DHE) but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other dopamine antagonists. Steroids afford some protection against headache recurrence after the patient leaves the treatment center. Conclusions.— All 3 opioids most frequently studied – meperidine, tramadol, and nalbuphine – were superior to placebo in relieving migraine pain, although meperidine combined with promethazine was not. Opioid side effects included dizziness, sedation, and nausea. With ketorolac being the most frequently studied drug in the class, NSAIDs were generally well tolerated, and they may provide benefit even when given late in the migraine attack. The rate of headache recurrence within 24‐72 hours after discharge from the ED can be greater than 50%. Corticosteroids can be useful in reducing headache recurrence after discharge. As discussed in Parts 1, 2, and 3, there are effective medications for provider‐administered “rescue” in all the classes discussed. Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti‐migraine medications in the emergent setting, and their effectiveness is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in migraine pain relief. Although there are fewer studies involving sumatriptan and DHE, relatively “migraine‐specific” medications, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. Lack of comparisons with placebo and the frequent use of combinations of medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one another. When used alone, prochlorperazine, promethazine, metoclopramide, nalbuphine, and metamizole were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also are more likely to produce side effects that are difficult for a patient to tolerate (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine, and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and NSAIDs. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and DHE but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. Sumatriptan was inferior or equivalent to the neuroleptics and equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were considered. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was equivalent to that observed with droperidol or prochlorperazine. (Headache 2012;52:467‐482)     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 1: triptans, dihydroergotamine, and magnesium

Objective.— To review and analyze published reports on the acute treatment of migraine headache with triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), and magnesium in emergency department, urgent care, and headache clinic settings. Methods.— MEDLINE was searched using the terms “migraine” and “emergency,” and “therapy” or “treatment.” Reports from emergency department and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery were included. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Acute rescue treatment studies involving the triptans were available for injectable and nasal sumatriptan, as well as rizatriptan. Effectiveness varied widely, even when the pain‐free and pain‐relief statistics were evaluated separately. As these medications are known to work best early in the migraine, part of this variability may be attributed to the timing of triptan administration. Multiple studies compared triptans with anti‐emetics, dopamine antagonists, and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was roughly equivalent to that recorded with droperidol and prochlorperazine. Sumatriptan was equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were performed. While the data extracted suggest that magnesium may be effective in treating all symptoms in patients experiencing migraine with aura across all migraine patients, its effectiveness seems to be limited to treating only photophobia and phonophobia. Conclusions.— Although there are relatively few studies involving health‐care provider‐administered triptans or DHE for acute rescue, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. The relatively rare inclusion of a placebo arm and the frequent use of combination medications in active treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents with each other.     

The medical management of migraine

Migraine is a common, chronic neurologic disorder that affects 11% of the adult population in Western countries. In this article, we review the current approaches to the pharmacologic treatment of migraine. Once migraine is diagnosed, and illness severity has been assessed, clinicians and patients should work together to develop a treatment plan based on the patient needs and preferences. The goals of the treatment plan usually include reducing attack frequency, intensity, and duration; minimizing headache-related disability; improving health-related quality of life; and avoiding headache escalation and medication misuse. Medical treatments for migraine can be divided into preventive drugs, which are taken on a daily basis regardless of whether headache is present, and acute drugs taken to treat individual attacks as they arise. Acute treatments are further divided into nonspecific and migraine-specific treatments. The US Headache Consortium Guidelines recommend stratified care based on the level of disability to help physicians individualize treatment. Simple analgesics are appropriate as first-line acute treatments for less disabled patients; if simple analgesics are unsuccessful, treatment is escalated. For those with high disability levels, migraine-specific acute therapies, such as the triptans, are recommended as the initial treatment, with preventive drugs in selected patients. A variety of behavioral interventions are helpful. The clinicians have in their armamentariums an ever-expanding variety of medications. With experience, clinicians can match individual patient needs with the specific characteristics of a drug to optimize therapeutic benefit.     

Evaluation of the efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen in the treatment of acute migraine attacks: a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group multicenter study

The efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen (1000mg) in the treatment of acute migraine attacks as an alternative to parenteral application of lysine acetylsalicylate or triptans was investigated, using a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study design. Migraine diagnosis was made according to the International Headache Society Classification. Sixty patients were included in three headache outpatient centers (Neurology Departments of the Universities of Regensburg, Münster and München). In the acute migraine attack patients were treated intravenously with either 1000mg paracetamol (acetaminophen) or placebo. The primary end point was pain-free after 2h. Secondary efficacy criteria were pain-free after 24h or pain relief after 2hours and after 24hours. With regard to the efficacy criteria, 37% of patients reported pain relief or painfree after two hours, 12 patients after treatment with acetaminophen and 10 patients after treatment with placebo. Out of these, 3 patients in the acetaminophen and 4 patients in the placebo group were painfree. After 24hours 86% of the patients reported pain relief: 24 treated with acetaminophen and 27 treated with placebo. The results indicate, that 1000mg intravenous acetaminophen is not superior to placebo in treating severe acute migraine attacks.     

Predictors of Adherence to Triptans: Factors of Sustained vs Lapsed Users

Objective.— The present study was conducted to identify factors that predict adherence to triptans by migraine patients. Background.— Triptans have demonstrated efficacy for acute migraine yet many migraine sufferers discontinue their use. Design and Methods.— A survey study was conducted using 785 subjects (390 health maintenance organizations [HMO] and 395 non‐HMO). Of those, 586 were sustained users of triptans (defined by at least 1 refill within the past year), and 199 were classified as lapsed users (ie, individuals who had 0 refills in the past year). Groups were compared on a variety of measures including a comprehensive Migraine Survey that included items related to efficacy and adverse events associated with the patient's current medication, as well as the Headache Impact Test (HIT)‐6 and Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaires. Data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance and stepwise multiple regression. Results.— Sustained users of triptans were significantly more satisfied with their medication, confident in the medication's ability to control headache, and reported control of migraine with fewer doses of medication. Sustained users also switched triptans products significantly less often than lapsed users, and reported greater benefit from triptan intervention in restoring normal daily functions, including improved cognitive ability, compared with lapsed users' ratings of their nontriptan medication. More lapsed users than sustained users reported adverse events associated with past triptan use. Results from multiple and logistic regression analyses correctly classified 95% of sustained users and identified the most significant predictors for sustained use as: satisfaction and belief in medication, reliability of response, effectiveness in rapidly restoring normal levels of productivity, and fewer doses of medication for resolving an attack. The HIT‐6 and MIDAS distinguished between sustained and lapsed triptan users on days unable to do household work and missed family and social events. Conclusions.— Predictors of adherence to triptans included satisfaction and confidence in triptans' ability to stop the migraine and associated symptoms and to return the individual to normal functioning. The findings suggest that lapsed users may not be receiving optimal treatment, and that if their past response to triptans was a consequence of inadequate education, they may benefit from additional education on proper use of triptans.     

Characteristics,impact and treatment of 6000 headache attacks: The PAMINA study

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the characteristics of headache attacks, their impact on daily activities as well as the type and efficacy of acute medication in patients with migraine. We included 281 patients with episodic migraine (87% females, aged 41.2±12.1). All patients kept a headache diary for 3 months covering headache characteristics, therapy and questions adopted from the Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) for rating the impact of each single headache attack (HIT‐6 s). For evaluating the efficacy of acute medication we compared triptans with other compounds using headache duration as outcome parameter. Of 6051 headache attacks 52.8% fulfilled the ICHD‐II criteria of migraine. The HIT‐6 s score was 2.4±2.2 (range 0–6). It was lowest in untreated headaches (2.0±2.1) and highest in those treated with a combination of triptans and other compounds (4.1±2.0, p <0.001). Patients used triptans on 8.0% of all headache days, other compounds on 33.1%, a combination of both on 1.5% and no medication on 57.3% of the headache days. Migraine attacks of moderate or severe intensity treated with triptans alone lasted significantly shorter than those treated with other compounds (5.1±3.6 vs. 6.9±5.3 h, p <0.001). In conclusion, almost 50% of the headaches occurring in patients with migraine do not fulfill migraine criteria. Use of triptans is associated with a shorter duration of moderate and severe migraine attacks compared to use of other compounds.     

The Traffic Light of Headache: Simplifying Acute Migraine Management for Physicians and Patients Using the Canadian Headache Society Guidelines

Migraine is a disabling neurological condition and it is well described that early treatment is more effective and less likely to lead to headache recurrence. While it would seem intuitive for a migraine sufferer to treat early, despite well-established guidelines by the Canadian Headache Society, many sufferers continue to treat late. As a result, acute therapy is less effective, resulting in higher associated disability and a longer lasting attack. Pain scales can help patients determine how to treat; however, we propose a simple, easily recalled traffic light system to help patients determine which drug to use based upon how they feel. The traffic light system is based on the associated disability of the migraine attack, with green being a “I can still go” headache, a yellow being a “I have to slow down” headache, and a red being a “I have to stop” headache. The traffic light system leads to earlier more effective treatment with a reduction in migraine-associated disability.     

Headache currents commentary

What Happens to the Old Headache Medicines? Rapoport AM, MD Old headache medicines never die; they either fade away or come back in disguise. The disguise is often a new route of administration, which may work better, faster, more completely, with fewer adverse events, and/or have certain other advantages. The clinical aspects of 3 of the oldest headache medicines (ergotamine tartrate, dihydroergotamine, and methysergide) will be discussed here. Sumatriptan will then be discussed as the prototype of the newest category of acute care therapy (triptans) for migraine. It will be compared with the older medications, and the new forms being developed will be briefly discussed. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution will be mentioned as the newest drug approved for migraine by the Food and Drug Administration and a possible alternative to triptans in patients with frequent headaches or those with contraindications to vasoconstrictors. Dihydroergotamine, Ergotamine, Methysergide and Sumatriptan – Basic Science in Relation to Migraine Treatment Dahlöf C, Maassen Van Den Brink A. The 5‐hydroxytryptamine (5‐HT) receptor family mediates the effects of several drugs highly effective in migraine primarily by activating 5‐HT_1B, 5‐HT_1D, and 5‐HT_1F receptors. Ergotamine, dihydroergotamine and methysergide, as well as the “triptan” sumatriptan, are all agonists for these receptors. The receptor profile and degree of selectivity of these 4 drugs differ, which is reflected by their side effects that limit their use in the acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. The acute antimigraine efficacy of these remedies is very much dependent on the formulation used where, in general, parenteral formulations are more effective in relieving the symptoms of a migraine attack.     

Migraine Disability Awareness Campaign in Asia: Migraine Assessment for Prophylaxis

Objectives.— This study aimed to survey the headache diagnoses and consequences among outpatients attending neurological services in 8 Asian countries. Methods.— This survey recruited patients who consulted neurologists for the first time with the chief complaint of headache. Patients suffering from headaches for 15 or more days per month were excluded. Patients answered a self‐administered questionnaire, and their physicians independently completed a separate questionnaire. In this study, the migraine diagnosis given by the neurologists was used for analysis. The headache symptoms collected in the physician questionnaire were based on the diagnostic criteria of migraine proposed by the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD‐2). Results.— A total of 2782 patients (72% females; mean age 38.1 ± 15.1 years) finished the study. Of them, 66.6% of patients were diagnosed by the neurologists to have migraine, ranging from 50.9% to 85.8% across different countries. Taken as a group, 41.4% of those patients diagnosed with migraine had not been previously diagnosed to have migraine prior to this consultation. On average, patients with migraine had 4.9 severe headaches per month with 65% of patients missing school, work, or household chores. Most (87.5%) patients with migraine took medications for acute treatment. Thirty‐six percent of the patients had at least one emergency room consultation within one year. Only 29.2% were on prophylactic medications. Neurologists recommended pharmacological prophylaxis in 68.2% of patients not on preventive treatment. In comparison, migraine prevalence was the highest with ICHD‐2 “any migraine” (ie, migraine with or without migraine and probable migraine) (73.3%) followed by neurologist‐diagnosed migraine (66.6%) and ICHD‐2 “strict migraine” (ie, migraine with or without aura only) (51.3%). About 88.6% patients with neurologist‐diagnosed migraine fulfilled ICHD‐2 any migraine but only 67.1% fulfilled the criteria of ICHD‐2 strict migraine. Conclusions.— Migraine is the most common headache diagnosis in neurological services in Asia. The prevalence of migraine was higher in countries with higher referral rates of patients to neurological services. Migraine remains under‐diagnosed and under‐treated in this region even though a high disability was found in patients with migraine. Probable migraine was adopted into the migraine diagnostic spectrum by neurologists in this study.     

"Mixing triptans": patient satisfaction

(Headache 2011;51:135‐140) Background.— Although some patients may prefer using an oral triptan other than sumatriptan and injectable sumatriptan to treat an attack of persistent migraine, administration of 2 different triptans within a 24‐hour period currently is contradicted. Objective.— We sought to determine patient satisfaction with an acute migraine treatment regimen wherein patients were permitted to administer an oral triptan other than sumatriptan and injectable sumatriptan within 24 hours of one another Methods.— We evaluated a consecutive series of migraine patients who either had tried and failed oral sumatriptan or were using another oral triptan and were satisfied with it. We advised subjects that they could administer their oral triptan and injectable sumatriptan within a single 24‐hour period (but not within 2 hours of one another); we termed such treatment “mixing triptans.” We asked all subjects to keep detailed written headache diaries for the 6‐month treatment period, and at the 6‐month end‐of‐study visit we asked subjects who had treated at least 3 migraine attacks by mixing triptans to rate their satisfaction with that treatment according to a 5‐point Likert scale. Results.— Of the 200 subjects enrolled, 132 (66%) used an oral triptan other than sumatriptan and injectable sumatriptan within a 24‐hour period on at least 3 occasions. At their final follow‐up visits, 117 (89%) of the 132 reported themselves “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with this specific treatment regimen. No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusion.— The option of sequentially using an oral triptan other than sumatriptan and injectable sumatriptan to treat a given attack of migraine appears to correlate with a high rate of patient satisfaction. While in our subject population this treatment regimen was well tolerated, our study results do not suffice to establish the safety of “mixing triptans.”     

Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study

Background.— Though symptomatic medication overuse is believed to play a major role in progression from episodic to chronic or transformed migraine (TM), population‐based longitudinal data on these agents are limited. Objectives.— To assess the role of specific classes of acute medications in the development of TM in episodic migraine (EM) sufferers after adjusting for other risk factors for headache progression. Methods.— As a part of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study (AMPP), we initially surveyed a population sample of 120,000 individuals to identify a sample of migraineurs to be followed annually over 5 years. Using logistic and linear regression, we modeled the probability of transition from EM in 2005 to TM in 2006 in relation to medication use status at baseline. Adjustments were made for gender, headache frequency and severity, and prevention medication use. Results.— Of 8219 individuals with EM in 2005, 209 (2.5%) had developed TM by 2006. Baseline headache frequency was a risk factor for TM. Using acetaminophen user as the reference group, individuals who used medications containing barbiturates (OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.3‐3.1) or opiates (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.4‐2.2) were at increased risk of TM. A dose–response relationship was found for use of barbiturates. Use of triptans (OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.9‐1.7) at baseline was not associated with prospective risk of TM. Overall, NSAIDs (OR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.63‐1.17) were not associated with TM. Indeed, NSAIDs were protective against transition to TM at low to moderate monthly headache days, but were associated with increased risk of transition to TM at high levels of monthly headache days. Conclusion.— EM sufferers develop TM at the rate of 2.5% per year. Any use of barbiturates and opiates was associated with increased risk of TM after adjusting for covariates, while triptans were not. NSAIDs were protective or inducers depending on the headache frequency.     

Factors associated with triptan use in episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

Background.— Though triptans are considered the standard of acute therapy for migraine attacks with headache‐related disability, they are used by the minority of potentially eligible persons. Understanding the socio‐demographic and headache features that predict triptan use may help to clarify barriers to optimal treatment. Objective.— To assess the sociodemographic and headache features associated with triptan use in a US population sample of persons with episodic migraine. Methods.— The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study (AMPP) is a longitudinal study conducted in a representative sample of US headache sufferers. Episodic migraineurs (n = 11,388) who provided treatment data in 2005 were included in the current analyses. We assessed factors associated with triptan use through univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, headache‐related disability, cutaneous allodynia, depression, and preventive headache medication use. Results.— Among persons with episodic migraine, 18.31% reported current use of triptans for acute headache treatment. In univariate analyses, triptan use was most common in midlife (ages 30‐59), among females, and was more common in Caucasians than in African Americans. Triptan use increased with headache frequency, headache‐related disability and allodynia, but decreased among persons with depression. In multivariate analyses, female gender, Caucasian race, age 40‐49, higher levels of education (college or higher), annual household income of ≥$40,000, having health insurance, the presence of cutaneous allodynia, greater headache‐related disability, and preventive medication use for migraine were significantly associated with triptan use. Conclusions.— Less than 1 in 5 persons with migraine in the United States who were respondents to this survey used triptans for acute headache treatment over the course of a year. Several markers of severe headache, including disability and allodynia, were associated with increased triptan use. Groups less likely to get triptans included males, African Americans, older adults, and the uninsured. Predictors of use provide insight into groups with unmet treatment needs.     

French guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults and children

BACKGROUND: The French Recommendations for Clinical Practice: Diagnosis and Therapy of Migraine are guidelines concerning the overall management of patients with migraine, including diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and assessment of disability. OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes the guidelines as they apply to adults and children, and proposes future direction for steps toward optimal treatment of migraine in patients in France. METHODS: The recommendations were categorized into 3 levels of proof (A-C) according to the National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES) methodology and were based on a professional consensus reached among members of the Working Group and the Guidelines Review Group of the ANAES. RESULTS: The International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine should be used in routine clinical practice. Recommended agents for the treatment of migraine in adults include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) monotherapy or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen monotherapy, triptans, ergotamine tartrate, and dihydroergotamine mesylate. Patients should use the medication as early as possible after the onset of migraine headache. For migraine prophylaxis in adults, the following can be used: propranolol, metoprolol, oxetorone, or amitriptyline as first-line treatment, and pizotifen, flunarizine, valproate sodium, or topiramate as second-line treatment. Migraine in children can be distinguished from that in adults by shorter duration (2-48 hours in children aged <15 years), more frequent bilateral localization, frequent predominant gastrointestinal disturbances, and frequent pallor hailing the onset of the attack. The following drugs are recommended in children and adolescents: ibuprofen in children aged >6 months, diclofenac in children weighing >16 kg, naproxen in children aged >6 years or weighing >25 kg, ASA alone or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen alone or in combination with metoclopramide, and ergotamine tartrate in children aged >10 years. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are intended to help general practitioners to manage migraine patients according to the rules of evidence-based medicine.     

Migraine variants

The term "migrant variant" is not used in the headache classification of the International Headache Society (IHS), but it includes those forms of migraine that are not typical of migraine with or without aura. Headaches that do not quite fulfill all of the IHS criteria are termed "migrainous disorder." Migraine associated with auras arising from unusual sites includes basilar migraine, retinal migraine, and ophthalmoplegic migraine. Two of the chromosomal sites for hemiplegic migraine have been identified. Migraine aura may occur without headache and an aura may be prolonged. Migrainous infarct has occurred when the aura lasts more than 1 week or imaging studies are positive and other etiologies have been ruled out. If the migraine attack is prolonged beyond 3 days the term "status migrainousus" is applied.