4.4 Article

Vascular biomarkers in migraine

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 95-117

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414544976

关键词

Endothelium; migraine; biomarkers; vascular markers; headache; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Migraine has been associated with stroke as well as with several non-atherosclerotic vascular conditions leading to discussions about the potential role of endothelium in the etiopathogenesis of migraine and migraine-associated stroke. We present a systematic review of the literature on vascular biomarkers in migraine, including those suggesting endothelial activation and damage. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search from 1990 to 2013 using multiple research databases with the keywords migraine, headache, vascular, and biomarkers. We used selected inclusion and exclusion criteria to create a final pool of studies for this review. Results The literature search identified a total of 639 citations of which 129 were included in our review. The final pool of clinical- and population-based studies assessed the level of various biomarkers (e.g. inflammatory, prothrombotic, endothelial activation, endothelial repair) in migraineurs of varying ages, gender, and demographic characteristics. Although for each biomarker there is at least one study suggesting an association with migraine, in many cases the quality of evidence is poor and there are conflicting studies showing no relationship. The results were, therefore, in each case inconclusive. Conclusion This systematic review indicated that in migraine populations there are a number of positive vascular biomarker studies, including some involving novel biomarkers such as endothelial microparticles and endothelial precursor cells. These lend insight into possible pathophysiological mechanisms by which migraine may be associated with stroke. More high-quality studies are needed to establish whether a true association between promising vascular biomarkers and migraine exists.

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