Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache
-
Headache related to the cervical spine is often misdiagnosed and treated inadequately because of confusing and varying terminology. Primary headaches such as tension-type headache and migraine are incorrectly categorized as "cervicogenic" merely because of their occipital localization. Cervicogenic headache as described by Sjaastad presents as a unilateral headache of fluctuating intensity increased by movement of the head and typically radiates from occipital to frontal regions. ⋯ Ipsilateral blockades of the C2 root and/or greater occipital nerve allow a differentiation between cervicogenic headache and primary headache syndromes such as migraine or tension-type headache. Neither pharmacological nor surgical or chiropractic procedures lead to a significant improvement or remission of cervicogenic headache. Pains of various anatomical regions possibly join into a common anatomical pathway, then present as cervicogenic headache, which should therefore be understood as a homogeneous but also unspecific pattern of reaction.
-
A 37-year-old man developed an ipsilateral headache which fulfilled the criteria for cluster headache after orbital extenteration because of a traumatic lesion of the bulb. The headache could be treated successfully by drugs usually applied in the therapy of cluster headache. ⋯ We hypothesize that orbital exenteration can cause cluster headache by lesions of sympathetic structures. Possibly, these mechanisms are similar to those of sympathetic reflex dystrophy (Sudeck-Leriche syndrome) causing pain of the limbs.
-
In order to understand the pattern of utilization of migraine prophylactic drugs by US physicians, we reviewed the scientific rigor of published trials of anti-migraine medications, assessed their cost, and tested the correlation, if any, between utilization, scientific rigor and cost. ⋯ The three most commonly chosen migraine prophylactic agents have not been shown irrefutably to prevent migraine. Furthermore, their benefit, if any, does not exceed 50% over placebo. The well-conducted recent trials that demonstrated the efficacy of divalproex in migraine prevention are steps in the right direction of finding the "ideal migraine preventative agent". Until that drug is discovered, it is difficult to argue that one migraine prophylactic medication is superior to another and accordingly should be used as a first line of treatment.
-
The classification of the International Headache Society (IHS) published in 1988 has been positively received throughout the world. However, the classification of headaches occurring daily or almost daily has been criticized repeatedly. This criticisim is discussed in the present review. ⋯ In a future revision it should also be possible to classify drug-related headache simply on the basis of drug consumption and without mandatory demands for withdrawal. Better longitudinal studies of patients with chronic daily headache are necessary to evaluate finally whether a revision of the classification of these headache syndromes is necessary. Eventually the ongoing discovery of migraine genes is likely to change radically the classification of migraine.
-
The spontaneous capricious course of cluster headache may give rise to some problems when treatment is being evaluated. This is one of several explanations for there being so few well-designed, randomized, double-blind clinical trials in cluster headache. The standard treatment of acute attacks of cluster headache is inhalation of 100% oxygen. ⋯ Interim analysis of 3 months of data from a recent multinational open trial comprising, 138 patients having treated 6353 attacks with subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg revealed a headache relief in 96% of attacks treated. There was no evidence of an increased incidence of adverse events with frequent use of sumatriptan. No tachyphylaxis was seen over the 3 months, suggesting that sumatriptan is effective and well tolerated also in long-term acute treatment for cluster headache.