Migraine Disorders: Cady RK

Cady RK. · Banyan Group, Inc, Headache Care Center, Springfield, MO 65807, USA. · Mayo Clin Proc. · Pubmed #19411434 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Cady RK. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, Mo., USA. · Manag Care. · Pubmed #17927086 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Cady RK. · Headache Care, Primary Care Network, Inc, Springfield, MO, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #17425709 No free full text.

Abstract: The Convergence Hypothesis postulates a single pathophysiological mechanism to explain the clinical spectrum of primary headaches seen in patients with migraine. The history and the scientific underpinnings of the Convergence Hypothesis are presented. Extrapolations from the Convergence Hypothesis are used to explore the evolution of episodic to chronic migraine and the development of common migraine co-morbidities as a consequence of frequent migraine. A patient staging system is presented to illustrate this transformation process in migraine patients.

Sheftell FD, Cady RK, Borchert LD, Spalding W, Hart CC. · New England Center for Headache, Stamford, CT 06902, USA. · J Am Acad Nurse Pract. · Pubmed #16045591 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To describe and discuss short headache questionnaires, which can simplify and improve the diagnosis of migraine. DATA SOURCES: Review of the worldwide scientific literature on short diagnostic questionnaires for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: A new three-question Headache Screen addressing disability due to recurring headaches, headache duration, and changes in headache characteristics and/or pattern over the previous 6 months displayed high sensitivity when used to survey >3000 migraineurs, correctly identifying 77% of migraineurs diagnosed by International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, clinical impression, or the presence of recurring, disabling headaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The underdiagnosis and undertreatment of migraine are problems that may be attributed to many causes involving both patients and medical providers. These include stringent diagnostic criteria established by the IHS, which fail to easily classify many common migraine presentations, the lack of clear outcome measures of successful management of migraine, and failure to recognize the iatrogenic role of prescription and nonprescription medications as an etiologic factor in chronic daily headache. The recent development of reliable, clinically useful, short headache questionnaires that are focused on headache impact facilitates the understanding and diagnosis of migraine for both patients and healthcare professionals. As a diagnostic tool, the Headache Screen has the potential to expand appropriate medication use, leading to improved functional status and quality of life for migraineurs.

Cady RK, Dodick DW, Levine HL, Schreiber CP, Eross EJ, Setzen M, Blumenthal HJ, Lumry WR, Berman GD, Durham PL. · Headache Care Center, Primary Care Network, Inc, 3805 S Kansas Expressway, Springfield, MO 65807, USA. · Mayo Clin Proc. · Pubmed #16007896 links to  free full text

Abstract: Sinus headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, although many medical specialists consider it an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. The inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache can lead to unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to define conditions that lead to headaches of rhinogenic origin but have done so from different perspectives and in isolation of each other. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee convened to discuss the role of sinus disease as a cause of headache and to review recent epidemiological studies that suggest sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. This committee reviewed available scientific evidence from multiple disciplines and concluded that considerable research and clinical study are required to further understand and delineate the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, this group agreed that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients with sinus headaches.

Dowson AJ, Sender J, Lipscombe S, Cady RK, Tepper SJ, Smith R, Smith TR, Taylor FR, Boudreau GP, van Duijn NP, Poole AC, Baos V, Wöber C. · King's Headache Service, King's College Hospital, London, UK. · Int J Clin Pract. · Pubmed #12918889 No free full text.

Abstract: Published guidelines for the management of migraine in primary care were evaluated by an international advisory board of headache specialists, to establish evidence-based principles of migraine management that could be recommended for international use. Twelve principles of migraine management were identified, covering screening, diagnosis, management and treatments: Almost all headaches are benign/primary and can be managed by all practising clinicians. Use questions/a questionnaire to assess the impact on daily living and everyday activities, for diagnostic screening and to aid management decisions. Share migraine management between the clinician and the patient. Provide individualised care for migraine and encourage patients to manage their migraine. Follow up patients, preferably with migraine calendars or diaries. Regularly re-evaluate the success of therapy using specific outcome measures and monitor the use of acute and prophylactic medications regularly. Adapt migraine management to changes that occur in the illness and its presentation over the years. Provide acute medication to all migraine patients and recommend it is taken at the appropriate time, during the attack. Provide rescue medication/symptomatic treatment for when the initial therapy fails. Offer to prescribe prophylactic medications, as well as lifestyle changes, to patients who have four or more migraine attacks per month or who are resistant to acute medications. Consider concurrent co-morbidities in the choice of appropriate prophylactic medication. Work with the patient to achieve comfort with mutually agreed upon treatment and ensure that it is practical for their lifestyle and headache presentation. Using these principles, practising clinicians can screen and diagnose their headache patients effectively and manage their migraine patients over the long-term natural history of the migraine process. In this way, the majority of migraine patients can be well treated in primary care, ensuring a structured and individualised approach to headache management, and conserving valuable healthcare resources.

Lipton RB, Cady RK, Stewart WF, Wilks K, Hall C. · IMR, Stamford, Connecticut, USA. · Neurology. · Pubmed #12011271 No free full text.

Abstract: Article abstract Migraine is a heterogeneous condition that causes symptoms that vary both among individuals and within individuals from attack to attack. We examined and reviewed several important lessons on the diagnosis of migraine learned from the distribution of headache types and patterns of treatment response in the Spectrum Study, including recruitment and diagnostic issues. The accuracy of an initial diagnosis, assigned by a clinician in the context of a clinical trial, was compared with the results of a final diagnosis, assigned by a neurologist, reviewing the initial evaluation as well as headache diaries for up to 10 attacks. Several lessons can be learned from the Spectrum Study. Recruitment difficulties teach us that disabling tension-type headache is difficult to find, suggesting that it is rare. Examination of the final diagnosis given after diary evaluations suggests that a diagnosis of migraine can usually be confirmed for patients with disabling headache. After reclassification of the final sample of 432 subjects, 24/75 (32%) patients initially clinically classified as having disabling episodic tension-type headache proved to have migraine or migrainous headache after a diary review. Among study participants, 90% of subjects with disabling headache (HIMQ score >250) had a migraine-related disorder. Treatment response suggests that, in migraineurs, tension-type headaches may have a pathophysiology similar to that of migraine. The diary data show that mild headaches in patients with disabling migraine often evolve into full-blown migraine. The Spectrum Study supports the view that, for patients with disabling episodic headache, migraine is often the correct diagnosis. In clinical practice, the suspicion of migraine should be high for patients experiencing episodic disabling headache. Assessment of headache-related disability may assist practitioners in making a diagnosis of migraine.

Cady RK, Schreiber CP. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, Missouri 65804, USA. · Neurology. · Pubmed #12011268 No free full text.

Abstract: Sinus headache is commonly diagnosed, and patients with headache often cite sinus pain and pressure as a cause of their headaches. A high frequency of diagnosis of sinus headache, which specialists consider to be relatively rare, among patients meeting International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria for migraine raises the possibility that migraine and perhaps other headache types are sometimes mistaken for sinus headache. This article considers clinical, epidemiologic, and pathophysiologic relationships between sinus headache and migraine and discusses the implications for clinical management of headache. Both historic and new data show that nasal symptoms frequently accompany migraine, although these symptoms are not part of the IHS diagnostic criteria for migraine. Parasympathetic activation, as well as the hypothesized mechanism of neurogenic or immunogenic switching (i.e., crossover interactions of neurogenic and immunogenic inflammation), may account for both the frequent occurrence of nasal symptoms in migraine and the possibility that sinus inflammation can sometimes act as a migraine trigger. Considered in aggregate, the data show that the occurrence of nasal symptoms associated with a headache should neither trigger a diagnosis of sinus disease nor exclude a diagnosis of migraine. It should, in fact, prompt diagnostic consideration of both conditions.

Cady RK. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, Missouri, USA. · Clin Cornerstone. · Pubmed #10682185 No free full text.

Abstract: Migraine is one of the most common and misunderstood disease encountered in general medical practice. An estimated 23 million Americans suffer disabling migraines, yet only a minority are diagnosed (1,2). An even smaller percentage receive optimal care. Migraine extracts a significant personal, psychologic, social, and economic toll from migraineurs and their families. An estimated 150 million workdays are lost annually due to headache at an estimated cost of $6 to $17 billion (3,4). Recent advances in understanding of the pathophysiology and acute therapy provide the potential to markedly reduce the impact of migraine. Available abortive medications have efficacy rates as high as 80%, but only a minority of afflicted patients currently receive these therapies. While reducing headache pain, they also restore function, enabling an individual to return to work, family, and personal commitments (5). Future progress in migraine management resides in early identification and optimization of migraine treatment. This article focuses on diagnosis and treatment.

Cady RK. · Primary Care Network, Springfield, Missouri 65804, USA. · Obstet Gynecol Surv. · Pubmed #10603604 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Diamond ML, Cady RK, Mao L, Biondi DM, Finlayson G, Greenberg SJ, Wright P. · Diamond Headache Clinic, Chicago, IL 60614, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #18234046 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical characteristics of menstrually related migraines (MRMs) and nonmenstrually related migraines (nonMRMs) and to investigate the efficacy of almotriptan in the treatment of these migraine subtypes. DESIGN/METHODS: These are post hoc analyses of data from the AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS), a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial that evaluated adults with IHS-defined migraine with and without aura. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treat 3 consecutive headaches with almotriptan 12.5 mg or matching placebo at the first sign of headache typical of their usual migraine, at any level of pain intensity but within 1 hour of onset. MRMs were defined as those occurring +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow. Post hoc analyses to describe headache characteristics pooled all migraine attacks experienced by patients who reported > or = 1 menses during the study regardless of assigned treatment group. The post hoc efficacy analyses included outcomes of almotriptan treatment compared with placebo treatment for all migraines in patients with a menstrual record. RESULTS: Of the 275 women in the AEGIS intent-to-treat population, 190 (69.1%; 97 almotriptan, 93 placebo; aged 18-54 years) reported > or = 1 menses during the trial. Of the 506 migraines reported by these patients, 95 (18.8%) occurred +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow and were defined as MRM. Aura was associated with 11.7% of MRM and 15.0% of nonMRM. Allodynia-associated symptoms were present with 62.8% of MRM and 57.0% of nonMRM. Prior to treatment, 19.1% of MRM were associated with normal functional ability, 68.1% with disturbed functional ability, and 12.8% required bed rest compared with 18.9%, 68.8%, and 12.3%, respectively, of nonMRM. Pretreatment pain intensity was mild in 40.0%, moderate in 47.4%, and severe in 12.6% of MRM compared with 43.6%, 47.2%, and 9.2%, respectively, of nonMRM. Almotriptan treatment efficacy outcomes for MRM vs nonMRM, respectively, were: 2-hour pain relief, 77.4% vs 68.3%; 2-hour pain free, 35.4% vs 35.9%; and sustained pain free, 22.9% vs 23.8%. Almotriptan was similarly effective in relieving migraine-associated symptoms and improving functional disability associated with both MRM and nonMRM. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to treatment, the presence of migraine-associated characteristics including aura, allodynia-associated symptoms, photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea were similar for both MRM and nonMRM attacks. The pretreatment levels of pain intensity and functional disability were likewise similar across the migraine subtypes. Almotriptan was equally effective in the treatment of both MRM and nonMRM attacks and was associated with an adverse event profile that was similar to placebo treatment.

Dodick DW, Silberstein S, Saper J, Freitag FG, Cady RK, Rapoport AM, Mathew NT, Hulihan J, Crivera C, Rupnow MF, Mao L, Finlayson G, Greenberg SJ. · Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #18052949 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is a disabling primary chronic daily headache disorder that significantly impacts the daily activities of patients with this disorder. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that assessed the impact of topiramate on the daily activities, emotional distress, headache-related disability, and global impression of change in patients with chronic migraine. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether topiramate 100 mg/day reduces migraine-related disability and limitations of daily activities in patients with chronic migraine. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Patients aged > or =18 years with chronic migraine were randomized 1 : 1 ratio to topiramate 100 mg/day or placebo. The double-blind period lasted 16 weeks. Three patient-reported outcome measures were administered: Migraine Disability Assessment, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Domains: Role Function Restrictive and Preventive and Emotional Function), and Subject's Global Impression of Change. Investigators completed a Physician's Global Impression of Change for each patient. Subject's Global Impression of Change and Physician's Global Impression of Change were completed one time, at the end of study, and measured on a 7-point scale (1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse). The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire was analyzed using analysis of covariance (last observation carried forward) approach. Results were not adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients were randomized (topiramate, n = 165; placebo, n = 163), and 306 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Mean age was 38.2 years, and a majority of the patients were female (85.3%). Fifty-six percent of topiramate-treated patients vs 45% of placebo-treated patients reported >50% improvement from baseline in Migraine Disability Assessment scores (P = .074). The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire analysis demonstrated significant improvements at week 4 in all 3 domains, and at weeks 8 and 16 in both Role Function-Restrictive and Emotional Function domains (P < .05). Role Function-Preventive approached, but did not reach significance, at week 8 (P = .053). Seventy-five percent and 72% of topiramate-treated patients vs 61% and 59% of placebo-treated patients reported improvements on the Subject and Physician's Global Impression of Change scales (P = .025 and P = .037, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo-treated patients, topiramate 100 mg/day appears to contribute to reductions in migraine-related limitations on daily activities and emotional distress beginning as early as week 4 and continuing up to week 16 after treatment. Physician's Global Impression of Change results are very similar with Subject's Global Impression of Change, indicating concordance between the physician's and the subject's assessment of improvement.

Silberstein SD, Cady RK, Sheftell FD, Almas M, Parsons B, Albert KS. · Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #17501848 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To provide a multidimensional assessment of the extent of functional impairment during an acute migraine attack, and of the improvement in functioning in response to treatment, using 4 concurrently administered scales: the 7-item work productivity questionnaire (PQ-7), the functional assessment in migraine (FAIM) activities and participation (FAIM-A&P) subscale, the FAIM-impact of migraine on mental functioning (FAIM-IMMF) subscale, and the traditional 4-point global functional impairment scale (FIS). METHODS: Outpatients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnosis of migraine were randomized to double-blind treatment of a single attack with either oral eletriptan 20 mg (n = 192) once-daily, eletriptan 40 mg (N = 213) once-daily, or placebo (n = 208). Patients were encouraged to take study medication as soon as they were sure they were experiencing a typical migraine headache, after the aura phase (if present) had ended. Patients with moderate-to-severe functional impairment were identified on each of the 4 disability scales, and 2-hour functional response was compared between treatments. RESULTS: At baseline, the PQ-7 and FAIM-IMMF items that assessed ability to perform tasks requiring concentration, sustained work or attention, and ability to think quickly or spontaneously, were especially sensitive to the effects of mild headache pain, with 27% to 48% of patients (n = 92-112) reporting moderate-to-severe impairment. Only 11.3% of patients (n = 112) reported this level of impairment due to mild pain on the FIS. Functional response at 2 hours was significantly higher on eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo on the FAIM-A&P (63% vs 36%; n = 218; P < .0001); on the PQ-7 (56% vs 34%; n = 116; P= .0052); and on the FAIM-IMMF (50% vs 34%; n = 215; P= .017). These rates were all lower than the functional response rates on the FIS for eletriptan 40 mg (75%) and eletriptan 20 mg (70%) versus placebo (45%; P < .001). Conclusions.-In this exploratory analysis, use of multidimensional scales was found to provide a sensitive measure of headache-related functional impairment, especially for detecting clinically meaningful cognitive effects, and for detecting drug versus placebo differences.

Winner P, Cady RK, Ruoff GE, Frishberg BM, Alexander WJ, Zhang Y, Kori SH, Lener SE. · Palm Beach Headache Center, 4631 N Congress Ave, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33407, USA. · Mayo Clin Proc. · Pubmed #17285787 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for the treatment of moderate to severe acute migraines and to assess the safety of administration of an optional second dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 12-month, multicenter, open-label safety study was conducted in adults treated for migraine attacks of moderate to severe intensity from April 14, 2004, to August 18, 2005. Safety evaluations included adverse events and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Of 600 patients enrolled, 565 (94%) were treated for at least 1 migraine. Of treated patients, 414 (73%) and 362 (64%) completed 6 and 12 months of treatment, respectively. Of the 24,485 attacks treated, 17,144 (70%) were treated with only 1 dose. On average, patients treated 5 migraine attacks per month, with a median of 6 days between attacks. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea, muscle tightness, and dizziness. Fourteen patients reported 1 or more serious adverse event with only 1 judged probably related to treatment. No deaths occurred. Eight percent of patients discontinued participation in the study because of adverse events or pregnancy. The rates of adverse events reported were no higher after treatment with 2 tablets (at least 2 hours apart) compared with 1 tablet. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month data set of more than 24,000 migraine attacks in 565 patients, sumatriptan-naproxen sodium formulated in a single tablet was well tolerated when used episodically for the treatment of acute migraine. The adverse events did not differ from those expected for the individual components alone, and no new or unexpected findings occurred.

Cady RK, Schreiber CP, Beach ME, Hart CC. · Clinvest, Inc., Springfield and Headache Care Center, Springfield, Missouri, USA. · Med Sci Monit. · Pubmed #16127373 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Treatment of migraine headaches is often delayed due to assessing the potential severity of an evolving headache or anticipating unwanted consequences from prescription medication. Studies have demonstrated improved pain-free response when prescription treatments are taken during the mild headache phase of a migraine. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an OTC product, GelStat Migraine, when taken in the early, mild pain phase of migraine. MATERIAL/METHODS: An open-label study enrolling 30 subjects, male and female, with a one-year history of migraine meeting IHS diagnostic criteria with or without aura, 2-8 migraines per month and < or = 15 headache days per month. Inclusion required having migraines that consistently started at mild and worsened to moderate or severe, if untreated, in at least 75% of attacks. Subjects also had to be able to distinguish migraine from non-migraine headaches and reliably identify migraine early in the course of an attack. One headache was treated in the mild pain phase with GelStat Migraine, a combination of feverfew and ginger. RESULTS: 29 evaluable subjects completed the study, all treating at mild pain. Two hours after treatment, 48% were pain-free with 34% reporting a headache of only mild severity. 29% reported a recurrence within 24 hours. Side effects were minimal and not serious. 59% of subjects were satisfied with Gelstat Migraine therapy and 41% preferred GelStat Migraine or felt it was equal to their pre-study medication. CONCLUSIONS: GelStat Migraine is effective as a first line abortive treatment for migraine when initiated early during the mild headache phase.

Cady RK, Lipton RB, Hall C, Stewart WF, O'Quinn S, Gutterman D. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, MO 65804, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #11135022 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of sumatriptan, 50-mg tablets, versus placebo for early intervention while head pain was mild in patients with disabling migraine. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed in a subgroup of patients from a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study of patients with disabling headache who treated while pain was mild. Pain-free response 2 and 4 hours postdose, headache recurrence, and safety were examined. Significance tests were performed only for the first-treated attacks. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with disabling headache treated 46 mild and 166 moderate or severe headaches. For the first-treated headaches while pain was mild, pain-free rates were significantly higher for sumatriptan than placebo 4 hours postdose (78% versus 0%, P =.02), but not 2 hours postdose (52% versus 0%, P =.22). Across all headaches treated while pain was mild, pain-free responses were higher for sumatriptan than placebo 4 hours (85% versus 17%) and 2 hours (50% versus 0%) postdose compared with placebo. When the same patients treated headaches while pain was moderate or severe, pain-free rates were lower than that reported for treatment during mild pain. There was a trend toward lower headache recurrence in headaches treated while pain was mild compared with moderate or severe pain (13% versus 18%). No drug-related adverse events were reported in the headaches treated while pain was mild. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with disabling migraine may benefit from early intervention with sumatriptan, 50 mg, while pain is mild.

Cady RK, Sheftell F, Lipton RB, O'Quinn S, Jones M, Putnam DG, Crisp A, Metz A, McNeal S. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, Missouri, USA. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #11048903 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of sumatriptan 50- and 100-mg tablets in the treatment of migraine attacks while the pain is mild rather than moderate/severe. BACKGROUND: Results from The Spectrum Study suggested that early treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan 50-mg tablets while the pain is mild might enhance pain-free response and reduce headache recurrence. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of headaches treated during mild pain were performed using data from 3 studies of sumatriptan tablets (protocols S2CM09, S2BT25, and S2BT26). Our primary interest was pain-free response 2 and 4 hours after dosing; secondary interests were use of a second dose of medication, clinical disability (as measured on a 4-point disability scale), migraine-associated symptoms, meaningful pain relief (patient defined), time to meaningful relief, sustained pain-free response, and proportion of attacks in which pain had worsened 2 and 4 hours after dosing, all of which were compared in headaches treated during mild versus moderate/severe pain. RESULTS: In S2CM09, 92 patients treated 118 headaches during mild pain. Rates of pain-free response were higher 2 hours after dosing with sumatriptan 50 mg (51%) or 100 mg (67%; P < 0.05) compared with placebo (28%), and were higher with early treatment of mild pain compared with treatment of moderate/severe pain at 2 hours (sumatriptan 50 mg: mild pain, 51%; moderate/severe pain, 31%; P < 0.05; sumatriptan 100 mg: mild pain, 67%; moderate/severe pain, 36%) and 4 hours (50 mg: 75% vs 56%; 100 mg: 90% vs 61%; P < 0.05). Early intervention also resulted in less redosing than when moderate/severe pain was treated (50 mg: 21% vs 32%; 100 mg: 20% vs 29%). More attacks treated early with sumatriptan 50 or 100 mg were associated with normal function 4 hours after dosing compared with placebo (70% and 93% vs 46%, respectively). Sustained pain-free response rates 2 to 24 hours after early dosing with sumatriptan 50 or 100 mg were also higher (34% and 53%, respectively) compared with treatment of moderate/severe pain (19% and 24%, respectively). Early treatment with sumatriptan 100 mg produced significantly higher pain-free rates at 2 hours after dosing (P < 0.001) than did ergotamine plus caffeine (S2BT25: 69% vs 34%, respectively) or aspirin plus metoclopramide (S2BT26: 73% vs 25%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sumatriptan 50- and 100-mg tablets are effective whether pain is mild or moderate/severe. However, treatment with sumatriptan while pain is mild provides high pain-free response rates while reducing the need for redosing, benefits not seen with ergotamine plus caffeine or aspirin plus metoclopramide.

Schulman EA, Cady RK, Henry D, Batenhorst AS, Putnam DG, Watson CB, O'Quinn SO. · Center for Headache Management, Springfield, Pa., USA. · Mayo Clin Proc. · Pubmed #10943230 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of sumatriptan on migraine-related workplace productivity loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, adult migraineurs self-injected 6 mg of sumatriptan or matching placebo to treat a moderate or severe migraine within the first 4 hours of a minimum of an 8-hour work shift. Outcome measures included productivity loss and number of patients returning to normal work performance 2 hours after injection and across the work shift, time to return to normal work performance, and time to headache relief. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients underwent screening, 140 (safety population) of whom returned for clinic treatment. Of these 140 patients, 119 received migraine treatment in the workplace (intent-to-treat population), 116 of whom comprised the study population. Of these 116 patients, 76 self-administered sumatriptan, and 40 self-administered placebo. Sumatriptan treatment tended to reduce median productivity loss 2 hours after injection compared with placebo (25.2 vs 29.9 minutes, respectively; P = .14). Significant reductions in productivity loss were obtained across the work shift after sumatriptan treatment compared with placebo (36.8 vs 72.6 minutes, respectively; P = .001). Significantly more sumatriptan-treated patients vs placebo-treated patients experienced shorter return to normal work performance at 2 hours (53/76 [70%] vs 12/40 [30%], respectively) and across the work shift (64/76 [84%] vs 23/40 [58%], respectively; P < .001). Significantly more sumatriptan-treated patients experienced headache relief 1 hour after injection compared with placebo-treated patients (48/76 [63%] vs 13/40 [33%], respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSION: Across an 8-hour work shift, sumatriptan was superior to placebo in reducing productivity loss due to migraine.

Cady RK, Schreiber CP. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, MO 65807, USA. · Curr Pain Headache Rep. · Pubmed #19586597 No free full text.

Abstract: Sinus headache is not a diagnostic term supported by the academia, yet it appears to be understood by the general public and larger medical community. It can be considered both a primary and secondary headache disorder. As a primary headache disorder, most of the patients considered to have sinus headache indeed have migraine (migraine with sinus symptoms). Yet it is also possible that some attacks of sinus headache may represent a unique clinical phenotype of migraine or be a unique clinical entity. Potentially, primary sinus headache can chronify and be refractory through immune-mediated mechanisms or as a catalyst for migraine chronification through ineffective treatment or medication overuse and misuse. As a secondary headache disorder, sinus headache can be associated with a wide range of underlying etiologies such as infection, anatomical abnormalities, trauma, and immunological disease or sleep disorders. It is possible that these underlying pathophysiological processes generate long-standing activation of nociceptive mechanisms involved in headache and can lead to chronification and refractoriness of the headache symptomatology. This article explores some of the potential mechanisms and the available scientific studies that may explain how sinus headache can become chronic and present to the clinician as a refractory headache disorder.

Cady RK, Mathew N, Diener HC, Hu P, Haas M, Novak GP, Anonymous00030. · Headache Care Center, Banyan Group, 3805 S. Kansas Exp., Springfield, MO 65807, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #19222595 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study explored the dose-response relationship of carisbamate administered at doses of 100 mg per day, 300 mg per day, or 600 mg per day, in the prevention of migraine. BACKGROUND: Carisbamate ([S]-2-O-carbamoyl-1-o-chlorophenyl-ethanol; RWJ 333369) is a new chemical entity being studied for efficacy as adjunctive therapy in partial onset epilepsy. Because some antiepileptic drugs are also efficacious in migraine, for example, topiramate and valproate sodium, we tested carisbamate in migraine prophylaxis. DESIGN/METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, approximately 22-week duration. The primary efficacy variable was the percent reduction from baseline through the double-blind phase in average monthly migraine frequency using a 48-hour rule. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to treatment with carisbamate 100, 300, or 600 mg per day, or placebo. Migraine attacks were counted during a prospective 4-week baseline period, which was followed by a 2-week titration period, a 12-week maintenance period, a 1-week medication reduction period, and a 3-week observation period. Patients had an established history of migraine, with or without aura, for at least 1 year and a 3-month history of 3-12 migraine attacks per month. RESULTS: Patients (n = 323) were predominantly women (85%) and white (89%); mean age was 41 years. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the carisbamate groups and placebo (P > or = .6) for the median (range) percentage reduction from baseline to end point in average monthly migraine frequency (P value vs placebo): 37% (-250%, 100%) for placebo; 33% (-210%, 100%; P = .7) CRS 100 mg/day; 27% (-100%, 100%; P = .8) CRS 300 mg/day; and 35% (-87%, 100%; P = .6) CRS 600 mg/day. Results for secondary efficacy measures (responder rate, percent reduction in average monthly migraine frequency using the 24-hour rule, and percent reduction in average monthly migraine days) were consistent (P > or = .075). The proportion of patients discontinuing because of adverse events was similar for placebo and carisbamate-treated patients (13% each). The most common (occurring in > or =5% of patients) treatment-emergent adverse events in patients treated with carisbamate were fatigue (17%) and nasopharyngitis (13%). Fatigue appeared to be dose related. CONCLUSIONS: Carisbamate was not more efficacious in migraine prophylaxis than placebo in this well-controlled study that included a suitable population. However, carisbamate monotherapy was well tolerated at doses up to 600 mg per day.

Cady RK, Freitag FG, Mathew NT, Elkind AH, Mao L, Fisher AC, Biondi DM, Finlayson G, Greenberg SJ, Hulihan JF. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, MO 65807, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #19220503 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between treatment outcomes and allodynia-associated symptoms (AAS) at the time of treatment with almotriptan. METHODS: Analyses were performed with data collected prospectively from patients in 2 recently completed early intervention trials, AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS) and AXERT 12.5 mg time vs Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS): 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief (AEGIS only), sustained pain free (SPF), use of rescue medication, and median headache duration (AIMS only), in the presence and absence of pretreatment AAS, which was determined by responses to a questionnaire. Analyses were conducted to evaluate possible prognostic variables. RESULTS: The presence of pretreatment AAS did not have a significant effect on 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief or SPF rates, use of rescue medication, or headache duration. Significant factors for most favorable outcomes (greater 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief and SPF rates, less use of rescue medication, and shorter headache duration) included treatment with almotriptan 12.5 mg, treatment of mild or moderate headache pain, and treatment within 1 hour of headache onset. CONCLUSION: Almotriptan 12.5 mg was efficacious in providing 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief, SPF, and reducing rescue medication use irrespective of the presence of AAS at the time of treatment. The most optimal efficacy outcomes occurred when patients treated migraine attacks early and before the onset of severe pain. The presence of AAS, which may indicate an early phase of allodynia, did not influence the efficacy of almotriptan therapy.

Cady RK, Maizels M, Reeves DL, Levinson DM, Evans JK. · Clinvest, Springfield, MO, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #19220501 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The present study was conducted to identify factors that predict adherence to triptans by migraine patients. BACKGROUND: Triptans have demonstrated efficacy for acute migraine yet many migraine sufferers discontinue their use. DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey study was conducted using 785 subjects (390 health maintenance organizations [HMO] and 395 non-HMO). Of those, 586 were sustained users of triptans (defined by at least 1 refill within the past year), and 199 were classified as lapsed users (ie, individuals who had 0 refills in the past year). Groups were compared on a variety of measures including a comprehensive Migraine Survey that included items related to efficacy and adverse events associated with the patient's current medication, as well as the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 and Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaires. Data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance and stepwise multiple regression. RESULTS: Sustained users of triptans were significantly more satisfied with their medication, confident in the medication's ability to control headache, and reported control of migraine with fewer doses of medication. Sustained users also switched triptans products significantly less often than lapsed users, and reported greater benefit from triptan intervention in restoring normal daily functions, including improved cognitive ability, compared with lapsed users' ratings of their nontriptan medication. More lapsed users than sustained users reported adverse events associated with past triptan use. Results from multiple and logistic regression analyses correctly classified 95% of sustained users and identified the most significant predictors for sustained use as: satisfaction and belief in medication, reliability of response, effectiveness in rapidly restoring normal levels of productivity, and fewer doses of medication for resolving an attack. The HIT-6 and MIDAS distinguished between sustained and lapsed triptan users on days unable to do household work and missed family and social events. CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of adherence to triptans included satisfaction and confidence in triptans' ability to stop the migraine and associated symptoms and to return the individual to normal functioning. The findings suggest that lapsed users may not be receiving optimal treatment, and that if their past response to triptans was a consequence of inadequate education, they may benefit from additional education on proper use of triptans.

Newman LC, Cady RK, Landy S, O'Carroll P, Kwong WJ, Burch SP, Nelsen AC, McDonald SA. · The Headache Institute, Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bronx, NY 10019, USA. · Int J Clin Pract. · Pubmed #19166436 links to  free full text

Abstract: AIMS: To evaluate treatment satisfaction, efficacy and functional ability of the rapid release formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets (sumatriptan RT 100 mg) in an early intervention paradigm in patients who were dissatisfied with low-dose sumatriptan and not completely satisfied with their current migraine regimen. METHODS: Experienced migraineurs who reported a mild migraine pain phase, dissatisfaction with the previous sumatriptan treatment and some dissatisfaction with their current treatment regimen had no experience with sumatriptan at the 100 mg dose were enrolled in an open-label, single group study. Subjects were instructed to treat four migraine attacks within 30 min of the onset of mild pain. Treatment satisfaction was measured with the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire Revised version (PPMQ-R) questionnaire. RESULTS: More than half of the subjects were either very satisfied or satisfied with the efficacy of early intervention sumatriptan RT 100 mg after each attack and at the follow-up study visit. The mean total PPMQ-R score was 75.2 out of 100. Between 63% and 73% of subjects were pain-free within 4 h of dosing. Between 79% and 90% of subjects reported an ability to function normally within 4 h of taking the study medication. CONCLUSION: Subjects who were previously unsatisfied with lower doses of sumatriptan and less than very satisfied with their current treatment regimen were more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied with sumatriptan RT 100 mg in an early intervention paradigm. Results were consistent across four migraine attacks and at a follow-up visit. The treatment satisfaction results corresponded with positive results on efficacy measures and a functional status measure.

Katić BJ, Golden W, Cady RK, Hu XH. · Center for Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · J Headache Pain. · Pubmed #19009231 No free full text.

Abstract: The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and heartburn in migraine patients and examine their use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin-containing medications when treating acute migraine attacks. Responses from a web-based survey of migraine patients were matched to the same patient's responses on a general health survey. A total of 1,832 migraineurs (92.0%) were successfully matched. A total of 403 migraineurs (22.0%) reported having diagnosed GERD, 212 (11.6%) reported diagnosed heartburn, and 290 (15.8%) reported reflux symptoms but were undiagnosed. The most common prescription drugs used to treat migraines were triptans. First-line NSAID/aspirin medication use was 10.0% among diagnosed GERD and heartburn patients, 17.8% among undiagnosed patients, and 11.8% among GERD/heartburn-free migraineurs. In conclusion, almost half of migraineurs reported physician-diagnosed GERD and heartburn or symptoms of these conditions. Use of NSAID medications for migraine is fairly common among diagnosed GERD patients and more so for those with undiagnosed GERD symptoms. Physicians should minimize prescribing NSAIDs or NSAID-containing acute migraine medications in this population.

Cady RK. · Headache Care Center, Springfield, MO, USA. · Headache. · Pubmed #19006560 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.