42 research outputs found

    Italian guidelines for primary headache: 2012 revised version

    Get PDF
    The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105-190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedic

    Antidromic vasodilatation and the migraine mechanism

    Get PDF
    Despite the fact that an unprecedented series of new discoveries in neurochemistry, neuroimaging, genetics and clinical pharmacology accumulated over the last 20 years has significantly increased our current knowledge, the underlying mechanism of the migraine headache remains elusive. The present review article addresses, from early evidence that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, the role of ‘antidromic vasodilatation’ as part of the more general phenomenon, currently defined as neurogenic inflammation, in the unique type of pain reported by patients suffering from migraine headaches. The present paper describes distinctive orthodromic and antidromic properties of a subset of somatosensory neurons, the vascular- and neurobiology of peptides contained in these neurons, and the clinical–pharmacological data obtained in recent investigations using provocation tests in experimental animals and human beings. Altogether, previous and recent data underscore that antidromic vasodilatation, originating from the activation of peptidergic somatosensory neurons, cannot yet be discarded as a major contributing mechanism of the throbbing head pain and hyperalgesia of migraine

    Combined analgesics in (headache) pain therapy: shotgun approach or precise multi-target therapeutics?

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain in general and headache in particular are characterized by a change in activity in brain areas involved in pain processing. The therapeutic challenge is to identify drugs with molecular targets that restore the healthy state, resulting in meaningful pain relief or even freedom from pain. Different aspects of pain perception, i.e. sensory and affective components, also explain why there is not just one single target structure for therapeutic approaches to pain. A network of brain areas ("pain matrix") are involved in pain perception and pain control. This diversification of the pain system explains why a wide range of molecularly different substances can be used in the treatment of different pain states and why in recent years more and more studies have described a superior efficacy of a precise multi-target combination therapy compared to therapy with monotherapeutics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this article, we discuss the available literature on the effects of several fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of headaches and discuss the evidence in support of the role of combination therapy in the pharmacotherapy of pain, particularly of headaches. The scientific rationale behind multi-target combinations is the therapeutic benefit that could not be achieved by the individual constituents and that the single substances of the combinations act together additively or even multiplicatively and cooperate to achieve a completeness of the desired therapeutic effect.</p> <p>As an example the fixesd-dose combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), paracetamol (acetaminophen) and caffeine is reviewed in detail. The major advantage of using such a fixed combination is that the active ingredients act on different but distinct molecular targets and thus are able to act on more signalling cascades involved in pain than most single analgesics without adding more side effects to the therapy.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Multitarget therapeutics like combined analgesics broaden the array of therapeutic options, enable the completeness of the therapeutic effect, and allow doctors (and, in self-medication with OTC medications, the patients themselves) to customize treatment to the patient's specific needs. There is substantial clinical evidence that such a multi-component therapy is more effective than mono-component therapies.</p

    Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

    Get PDF
    The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version

    Connectivity Measures Differentiate Cortical and Subcortical Sub-Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients

    No full text
    Brain lesions caused by cerebral ischemia lead to network disturbances in both hemispheres, causing a subsequent reorganization of functional connectivity both locally and remotely with respect to the injury. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) methods have long been used for exploring brain electrical activity and functional connectivity modifications after stroke. However, results obtained so far are not univocal. Here, we used basic and advanced EEG methods to characterize how brain activity and functional connectivity change after stroke. Thirty-three unilateral post stroke patients in the sub-acute phase and ten neurologically intact age-matched right-handed subjects were enrolled. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on lesion location: cortico-subcortical (CS, n = 18) and subcortical (S, n = 15), respectively. Stroke patients were evaluated in the period ranging from 45 days since the acute event (T0) up to 3 months after stroke (T1) with both neurophysiological (resting state EEG) and clinical assessment (Barthel Index, BI) measures, while healthy subjects were evaluated once. Brain power at T0 was similar between the two groups of patients in all frequency bands considered (δ, θ, α, and β). However, evolution of θ-band power over time was different, with a normalization only in the CS group. Instead, average connectivity and specific network measures (Integration, Segregation, and Small-worldness) in the β-band at T0 were significantly different between the two groups. The connectivity and network measures at T0 also appear to have a predictive role in functional recovery (BI T1-T0), again group-dependent. The results obtained in this study showed that connectivity measures and correlations between EEG features and recovery depend on lesion location. These data, if confirmed in further studies, on the one hand could explain the heterogeneity of results so far observed in previous studies, on the other hand they could be used by researchers as biomarkers predicting spontaneous recovery, to select homogenous groups of patients for the inclusion in clinical trials
    corecore