4.4 Article

Clinical features, effectiveness of drug-based treatment, and prognosis of new daily persistent headache (NDPH): 30 cases in Japan

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 955-959

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2004.00771.x

关键词

new daily persistent headache; pharmacological treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although new daily persistent headache (NDPH) is considered to be one of the most refractory headaches to pharmacological treatment, the effectiveness of drug-based treatment, and the prognosis of NDPH have not been well studied. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment of NDPH. Seventeen men and 13 women who met the IHS diagnostic criteria for NDPH, were treated for five years from November 1997 to October 2002, and whose headache conditions were entirely available for reference as of October 2003 were investigated in Toyonaka Municipal Hospital. Mean age at onset 35.0 years (range 13-73 years). The onset of headache occurred in relation to a stressful life event in six (20%) patients and any precipitating events could not be identified in 24 (80%) patients. For treatment, muscle relaxants were first administered and if no effect was observed, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and antiepleptic drugs were subsequently administered. Results of the drug-based treatments in the 30 cases were 'very effective' for eight (27%) cases, 'moderately effective' for one (3%) case, 'mildly effective' for six (20%) cases, and 'not effective' for 15 (50%) cases. According to the survey on the phone for the patients who did not improve to the level of 'mildly effective' or better and did not come back to our institution as of October 2003, there were no cases found to have spontaneously improved to the level of 'mildly effective' or better. These results suggest that NDPH is highly recalcitrant to the treatments with poor prognosis and better treatments are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据