4.4 Article

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

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 205-212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.06.013

关键词

Migraine; Characteristics; Impact; Medication

资金

  1. Pfizer Corporation Austria
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Sanofi-Synthelabo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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-6s). 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-6s 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. (C) 2010 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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