Background
Acupuncture is often used for migraine prevention but its effectiveness is still controversial. We present an update of our Cochrane review from 2009.
Objectives
To investigate whether ...acupuncture is a) more effective than no prophylactic treatment/routine care only; b) more effective than sham (placebo) acupuncture; and c) as effective as prophylactic treatment with drugs in reducing headache frequency in adults with episodic migraine.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: 2016, issue 1); MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2008 to January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to January 2016); and Ovid AMED (1985 to January 2016). We checked PubMed for recent publications to April 2016. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform to February 2016 for ongoing and unpublished trials.
Selection criteria
We included randomized trials at least eight weeks in duration that compared an acupuncture intervention with a no‐acupuncture control (no prophylactic treatment or routine care only), a sham‐acupuncture intervention, or prophylactic drug in participants with episodic migraine.
Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers checked eligibility; extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the acupuncture intervention. The primary outcome was migraine frequency (preferably migraine days, attacks or headache days if migraine days not measured/reported) after treatment and at follow‐up. The secondary outcome was response (at least 50% frequency reduction). Safety outcomes were number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects and number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect. We calculated pooled effect size estimates using a fixed‐effect model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
Main results
Twenty‐two trials including 4985 participants in total (median 71, range 30 to 1715) met our updated selection criteria. We excluded five previously included trials from this update because they included people who had had migraine for less than 12 months, and included five new trials. Five trials had a no‐acupuncture control group (either treatment of attacks only or non‐regulated routine care), 15 a sham‐acupuncture control group, and five a comparator group receiving prophylactic drug treatment. In comparisons with no‐acupuncture control groups and groups receiving prophylactic drug treatment, there was risk of performance and detection bias as blinding was not possible. Overall the quality of the evidence was moderate.
Comparison with no acupuncture
Acupuncture was associated with a moderate reduction of headache frequency over no acupuncture after treatment (four trials, 2199 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) ‐0.56; 95% CI ‐0.65 to ‐0.48); findings were statistically heterogeneous (I² = 57%; moderate quality evidence). After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 41% of participants receiving acupuncture and 17% receiving no acupuncture (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.40; 95% CI 2.08 to 2.76; 4 studies, 2519 participants) with a corresponding number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); there was no indication of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 7%; moderate quality evidence). The only trial with post‐treatment follow‐up found a small but significant benefit 12 months after randomisation (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.45; NNT 7; 95% 4 to 25; 377 participants, low quality evidence).
Comparison with sham acupuncture
Both after treatment (12 trials, 1646 participants) and at follow‐up (10 trials, 1534 participants), acupuncture was associated with a small but statistically significant frequency reduction over sham (moderate quality evidence). The SMD was ‐0.18 (95% CI ‐0.28 to ‐0.08; I² = 47%) after treatment and ‐0.19 (95% CI ‐0.30 to ‐0.09; I² = 59%) at follow‐up. After treatment headache frequency at least halved in 50% of participants receiving true acupuncture and 41% receiving sham acupuncture (pooled RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.36; I² = 48%; 14 trials, 1825 participants) and at follow‐up in 53% and 42%, respectively (pooled RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; I² = 61%; 11 trials, 1683 participants; moderate quality evidence). The corresponding NNTBs are 11 (95% CI 7.00 to 20.00) and 10 (95% CI 6.00 to 18.00), respectively. The number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.84; 95% CI 0.43 to 18.71; 7 trials, 931 participants; low quality evidence) and the number of participants reporting adverse effects (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56; 4 trials, 1414 participants; moderate quality evidence) did not differ significantly between acupuncture and sham groups.
Comparison with prophylactic drug treatment
Acupuncture reduced migraine frequency significantly more than drug prophylaxis after treatment ( SMD ‐0.25; 95% CI ‐0.39 to ‐0.10; 3 trials, 739 participants), but the significance was not maintained at follow‐up (SMD ‐0.13; 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.01; 3 trials, 744 participants; moderate quality evidence). After three months headache frequency at least halved in 57% of participants receiving acupuncture and 46% receiving prophylactic drugs (pooled RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44) and after six months in 59% and 54%, respectively (pooled RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; moderate quality evidence). Findings were consistent among trials with I² being 0% in all analyses. Trial participants receiving acupuncture were less likely to drop out due to adverse effects (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.86; 4 trials, 451 participants) and to report adverse effects (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 5 trials 931 participants) than participants receiving prophylactic drugs (moderate quality evidence).
Authors' conclusions
The available evidence suggests that adding acupuncture to symptomatic treatment of attacks reduces the frequency of headaches. Contrary to the previous findings, the updated evidence also suggests that there is an effect over sham, but this effect is small. The available trials also suggest that acupuncture may be at least similarly effective as treatment with prophylactic drugs. Acupuncture can be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment. As for other migraine treatments, long‐term studies, more than one year in duration, are lacking.
Purpose of Review
To review the pathophysiologic, epidemiologic, and clinical evidence for similarities and differences between migraine with and without aura.
Recent Findings
The ICHD-3 has recently ...refined the diagnostic criteria for aura to include positive symptomatology, which better differentiates aura from TIA. Although substantial evidence supports cortical spreading depression as the cause of visual aura, the role (if any) of CSD in headache pain is not well understood. Recent imaging evidence suggests a possible hypothalamic origin for a headache attack, but further research is needed. Migraine with aura is associated with a modest increase in the risk of ischemic stroke. The etiology for this association remains unclear. There is a paucity of evidence regarding treatments specifically aimed at the migraine with aura subtype, or whether migraine with vs without aura responds to treatment differently. Migraine with typical aura is therefore often treated similarly to migraine without aura. Lamotrigine, daily aspirin, and flunarizine have evidence for efficacy in prevention of migraine with aura, and magnesium, ketamine, furosemide, and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation have evidence for use as acute treatments. Although triptans have traditionally been contraindicated in hemiplegic migraine and migraine with brainstem aura, this prohibition is being reconsidered in the face of evidence suggesting that use may be safe.
Summary
The debate as to whether migraine with and without aura are different entities is ongoing. In an era of sophisticated imaging, genetic advancement, and ongoing clinical trials, efforts to answer this question are likely to yield important and clinically meaningful results.
Background
Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. In 1980, C. Miller Fisher described late-life migraine accompaniments as transient neurological episodes in older ...individuals that mimic transient ischemic attacks. There has not been an update on the underlying nature and etiology of late-life migraine accompanimentsd since the original description.
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive and extensive review of the late-life migraine accompaniments including the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, and treatment.
Methods
Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE®, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for publications from 1941 to July 2014. The search terms “Migraine accompaniments,” “Late life migraine,” “Migraine with aura,” “Typical aura without headache,” “Migraine equivalents,” “Acephalic migraine,” “Elderly migraine,” and “Transient neurological episodes” were used.
Conclusion
Late-life onset of migraine with aura is not rare in clinical practice and can occur without headache, especially in elderly individuals. Visual symptoms are the most common presentation, followed respectively by sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Gradual evolution, the march of transient neurological deficits over several minutes and serial progression from one symptom to another in succession are typical clinical features for late-life migraine accompaniments. Transient neurological disturbances in migraine aura can mimic other serious conditions and can be easily misdiagnosed. Careful clinical correlation and appropriate investigations are essential to exclude secondary causes. Treatments are limited and still inconsistent.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose of Review
A wide variety of triggers prompt attacks in episodic migraine. Although experimental triggers such as glyceryl trinitrate reliably produce migraine, natural triggers are much less ...predictable and vary in importance between individuals. This review describes the most common triggers in episodic migraine and provides strategies for managing them in clinical practice.
Recent Findings
Multiple migraine attack triggers have been established based on patient surveys, diary studies, and clinical trials. Stress, menstrual cycle changes, weather changes, sleep disturbances, alcohol, and other foods are among the most common factors mentioned. Clinical studies have verified that fasting, premenstrual periods in women, “letdown” after stress, and most likely low barometric pressures are migraine triggers. Premonitory symptoms such as neck pain, fatigue, and sensitivity to lights, sounds, or odors may mimic triggers.
Summary
Multiple studies clearly demonstrate triggers in episodic migraine, often related to change in homeostasis or environment. Many common migraine triggers are not easily modifiable, and avoiding triggers may not be realistic. Healthy lifestyle choices such as exercise, adequate sleep, stress management, and eating regularly may prevent triggers and transformation to chronic migraine over time.
Comorbidity in Migraine Schoenen, Jean; Dodick, David W; Sándor, Peter
2011, 2011-02-18, 2011-02-23
eBook
This text presents a clinically-oriented approach to understanding and treating comorbid migraine. Case vignettes and management algorithms will enhance the clinical utility of the book, and will ...enable clinicians to identify and manage the most important conditions that are comorbid with migraine such as psychiatric disorders.
Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder that affects an estimated 36 million Americans. Migraine headaches often occur over many years or over an individual's lifetime. By ...definition, episodic migraine is characterized by headaches that occur on fewer than 15 days per month. According to the recent International Classification of Headache Disorders (third revision) beta diagnostic criteria, chronic migraine is defined as “headaches on at least 15 days per month for at least 3 months, with the features of migraine on at least 8 days per month.” However, diagnostic criteria distinguishing episodic from chronic migraine continue to evolve. Persons with episodic migraine can remit, not change, or progress to high‐frequency episodic or chronic migraine over time. Chronic migraine is associated with a substantially greater personal and societal burden, more frequent comorbidities, and possibly with persistent and progressive brain abnormalities. Many patients are poorly responsive to, or noncompliant with, conventional preventive therapies. The primary goals of migraine treatment include relieving pain, restoring function, and reducing headache frequency; an additional goal may be preventing progression to chronic migraine. Although all migraineurs require abortive treatment, and all patients with chronic migraine require preventive treatment, there are no definitive guidelines delineating which persons with episodic migraine would benefit from preventive therapy. Five US Food and Drug Association strategies are approved for preventing episodic migraine, but only injections with onabotulinumtoxinA are approved for preventing chronic migraine. Identifying persons who require migraine prophylaxis and selecting and initiating the most appropriate treatment strategy may prevent progression from episodic to chronic migraine and alleviate the pain and suffering associated with frequent migraine.
PDF
