| 1 |
Guideline Practice parameter: pharmacological treatment of migraine headache in children and adolescents: report of the American Academy of Neurology Quality Standards Subcommittee and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. 2004
Lewis D, Ashwal S, Hershey A, Hirtz D, Yonker M, Silberstein S, Anonymous00323, Anonymous00324. · Division of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, USA. · Neurology. · Pubmed #15623677 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To review evidence on the pharmacologic treatment of the child with migraine headache. METHODS: The authors reviewed, abstracted, and classified relevant literature. Recommendations were based on a four-tiered scheme of evidence classification. Treatment options were separated into medications for acute headache and preventive medications. RESULTS: The authors identified and reviewed 166 articles. For acute treatment, five agents were reviewed. Sumatriptan nasal spray and ibuprofen are effective and are well tolerated vs placebo. Acetaminophen is probably effective and is well tolerated vs placebo. Rizatriptan and zolmitriptan were safe and well tolerated but were not superior to placebo. For preventive therapy, 12 agents were evaluated. Flunarizine is probably effective. The data concerning cyproheptadine, amitriptyline, divalproex sodium, topiramate, and levetiracetam were insufficient. Conflicting data were found concerning propranolol and trazodone. Pizotifen, nimodipine, and clonidine did not show efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: For children (>age 6 years), ibuprofen is effective and acetaminophen is probably effective and either can be considered for the acute treatment of migraine. For adolescents (>12 years of age), sumatriptan nasal spray is effective and should be considered for the acute treatment of migraine. For preventive therapy, flunarizine is probably effective and can be considered, but is not available in the United States. There are conflicting or insufficient data to make any other recommendations for the preventive therapy of migraine in children and adolescents. For a clinical problem so prevalent in children and adolescents, there is a disappointing lack of evidence from controlled, randomized, and masked trials.
|
| 2 |
Guideline Practice parameter: evaluation of children and adolescents with recurrent headaches: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. 2002
Lewis DW, Ashwal S, Dahl G, Dorbad D, Hirtz D, Prensky A, Jarjour I, Anonymous00174, Anonymous00175. · Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA. · Neurology. · Pubmed #12196640 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society develop practice parameters as strategies for patient management based on analysis of evidence. For this parameter, the authors reviewed available evidence on the evaluation of the child with recurrent headaches and made recommendations based on this evidence. METHODS: Relevant literature was reviewed, abstracted, and classified. Recommendations were based on a four-tiered scheme of evidence classification. RESULTS: There is inadequate documentation in the literature to support any recommendation as to the appropriateness of routine laboratory studies or performance of lumbar puncture. EEG is not recommended in the routine evaluation, as it is unlikely to define or determine an etiology or distinguish migraine from other types of headaches. In those children undergoing evaluation for recurrent headache found to have a paroxysmal EEG, the risk for future seizures is negligible; therefore, further investigation for epilepsy or treatments aimed at preventing future seizures is not indicated. Obtaining a neuroimaging study on a routine basis is not indicated in children with recurrent headaches and a normal neurologic examination. Neuroimaging should be considered in children with an abnormal neurologic examination or other physical findings that suggest CNS disease. Variables that predicted the presence of a space-occupying lesion included 1) headache of less than 1-month duration; 2) absence of family history of migraine; 3) abnormal neurologic findings on examination; 4) gait abnormalities; and 5) occurrence of seizures. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent headaches occur commonly in children and are diagnosed on a clinical basis rather than by any testing. The routine use of any diagnostic studies is not indicated when the clinical history has no associated risk factors and the child's examination is normal.
|