4.7 Article

Risk of Stroke in Migraineurs Using Triptans. Associations with Age, Sex, Stroke Severity and Subtype

Journal

EBIOMEDICINE
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages 199-205

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.02.039

Keywords

Stroke; Ischemic stroke; Hemorrhagic stroke; Migraine; Triptans

Funding

  1. Helge Peetz og Verner Peetz og hustru Vilma Peetz Foundation [1-24-12-2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Identifying migraineurs by triptan utilization we studied risk for stroke in migraineurs compared to the general population. Methods: A cohort study including all citizens 25-80 years of age in Denmark 2003-2011 was conducted. All persons prescribed triptans, and all those hospitalized for a first stroke were identified in the Danish Registries. Information on stroke severity/subtype and cardiovascular risk factors was available for stroke patients. Findings: Of the 49,711 patients hospitalized for a first stroke, 1084 were migraineurs using triptans. Adjusting for age, sex, income, and educational level, risk for stroke was higher among migraineurs in respect to all strokes (RR 1.07; CI 1.01-1.14) and ischemic strokes (RR 1.07; CI 1.00-1.14). Risk for hemorrhagic stroke was increased but only in women (RR 1.41; CI 1.11-1.79). Risk was for mild strokes (RR 1.31; CI 1.16-1.48) while risk for severe strokes was lower among migraineurs (RR 0.77; CI 0.65-0.91). Risk was age-related; highest among women 25-45 years (RR approximate to 1.7). Risk was unrelated to numbers of dispensations. Interpretation: Migraineurs identified by triptan utilization had higher risk for stroke. Strokes were minor and cardiovascular risk factors were less prevalent pointing to a migraine-specific etiology of stroke different from that of thromboembolism. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available