PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gilles Géraud

Publications and source records attributed to Gilles Géraud.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

Recognition and therapeutic management of migraine in 2004, in France: results of FRAMIG 3, a French nationwide population-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of migraineurs who are self-aware of their disease in France, to determine the factors (disability, quality of life, psychiatric comorbidities, and medical consultation) that may promote self-awareness of migraine, and to assess the influence of these factors on migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: New recommendations for migraine diagnosis and medical management were released in 2003 by the French medicoeconomic evaluation service (ANAES). In addition, the revised classification of headache disorders recently issued by the International Headache Society includes probable migraine as a form of migraine. However, strict and probable migraine now appear to be part of the same spectrum of disease. METHODS: Subjects with migraine (strict or probable) according to the revised classification were identified by a postal questionnaire from a large representative sample of the French adult population. Migraine-related disability was assessed using the MIDAS questionnaire, anxiety and depression by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by the 8 concepts of the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Migraine management was assessed according to the use of recommended or nonrecommended treatments, and treatment efficacy according to the set of 4 questions designed by the ANAES. RESULTS: Of the 10,532 subjects interviewed, 1,179 subjects (21.3%) were identified as migraineurs. Sixty percent of all migraine subjects were not self-aware that they had migraine. Medical consultation, duration of migraine history, severe intensity of attacks, impact on daily living, and female gender promoted self-awareness of migraine. On the other hand, HRQoL and anxiety and depression scores were not different between subjects self-aware or not self-aware of migraine. Only 20% of all migraine subjects were medically followed-up. Quality of the first medical consultation appears determinant for continued consulting. Subjects self-aware of migraine more frequently used recommended acute treatments of migraine, which proved more effective than nonrecommended treatments as assessed according to the ANAES set of questions. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine medical diagnosis and follow-up remain low in France. Careful medical consultation is a prime factor for migraine subject self-awareness of migraine, continued consultation, and use of recommended medications for the treatment of migraine attacks.

Acetaminophen↗

French guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The French Recommendations for Clinical Practice: Diagnosis and Therapy of Migraine are guidelines concerning the overall management of patients with migraine, including diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and assessment of disability. OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes the guidelines as they apply to adults and children, and proposes future direction for steps toward optimal treatment of migraine in patients in France. METHODS: The recommendations were categorized into 3 levels of proof (A-C) according to the National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES) methodology and were based on a professional consensus reached among members of the Working Group and the Guidelines Review Group of the ANAES. RESULTS: The International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine should be used in routine clinical practice. Recommended agents for the treatment of migraine in adults include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) monotherapy or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen monotherapy, triptans, ergotamine tartrate, and dihydroergotamine mesylate. Patients should use the medication as early as possible after the onset of migraine headache. For migraine prophylaxis in adults, the following can be used: propranolol, metoprolol, oxetorone, or amitriptyline as first-line treatment, and pizotifen, flunarizine, valproate sodium, or topiramate as second-line treatment. Migraine in children can be distinguished from that in adults by shorter duration (2-48 hours in children aged <15 years), more frequent bilateral localization, frequent predominant gastrointestinal disturbances, and frequent pallor hailing the onset of the attack. The following drugs are recommended in children and adolescents: ibuprofen in children aged >6 months, diclofenac in children weighing >16 kg, naproxen in children aged >6 years or weighing >25 kg, ASA alone or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen alone or in combination with metoclopramide, and ergotamine tartrate in children aged >10 years. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are intended to help general practitioners to manage migraine patients according to the rules of evidence-based medicine.

Adolescent↗

The PROMISE study: PROphylaxis of MIgraine with SEglor (dihydroergotamine mesilate) in French primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Seglor capsules, a unique modified-release formulation of dihydroergotamine mesilate, have long been in clinical use in France for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of the PROMISE (PROphylaxis of MIgraine with SEglor) study was to establish the efficacy and tolerability of Seglor in the prevention of migraine in a general practice setting. METHODS: The PROMISE study was a double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study carried out in primary care practice. It included 363 migraine patients treated with Seglor or placebo for 5 months after a 1-month placebo run-in phase. RESULTS: Migraine attack frequency (primary efficacy criterion) decreased markedly in the two treatment groups so that the difference in favour of Seglor did not reach statistical significance. However, most secondary outcome measures (duration of single attack, total duration of attacks over 1 month, consumption of mild opiate analgesics, subjective improvement) improved to a significantly greater degree in patients receiving Seglor than in those receiving placebo. In the 84.5% of patients who had impaired quality of life at entry, the percentage of reduction in attack frequency and most other efficacy measures showed significant improvement with Seglor. The safety profile for Seglor was comparable to that of placebo. CONCLUSION: These results support the effectiveness of Seglor in patients with migraine-related quality-of-life impairment. The findings of the PROMISE study also suggest that patients' quality of life should be assessed systematically before initiating a preventive treatment for migraine.

Adolescent↗

Migraine headache recurrence: relationship to clinical, pharmacological, and pharmacokinetic properties of triptans.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Triptan use is associated with headache recurrence, and this has been cited as an important reason for patient dissatisfaction with the treatment. The mechanism by which recurrence occurs is not clear, and the incidence of recurrence varies with the triptan used. In order to explore the pharmacological and physiological interaction of triptans and migraine headache recurrence further, some specific clinical, pharmacological, and pharmacokinetic factors that might influence migraine recurrence were evaluated in a review of the major efficacy data for the drugs in the triptan class. These factors were 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor activities, the pharmacokinetic elimination half-life of each triptan, and the clinical efficacy of each compound, determined by the proportion of patients with headache relief and the therapeutic gain over placebo. METHODS: Clinical data were derived from 31 triptan, placebo-controlled, major efficacy studies used in a previous meta-analysis. The mean recurrence rate, mean headache response, and therapeutic gain were calculated using the results from the individual clinical studies. Mean headache response and therapeutic gain were calculated at the time point used to define recurrence in each study. Data for binding affinity and potency were taken from a direct-comparison in vitro pharmacology study, and the elimination half-life quoted in the data sheet for each triptan was used. Rank correlation with recurrence rate was performed for each of the test parameters. RESULTS: Mean headache recurrence rates ranged from 17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg to 40% for rizatriptan. Elimination half-life and recurrence were inversely correlated (r = -1.0, P =.0016). There was also a significant inverse correlation between 5-HT1B receptor potency and recurrence (r = -0.68, P =.034), but 5-HT1D receptor potency was not correlated with recurrence (r = -0.20, P =.54). In addition, the binding affinities for the 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptors were not correlated to headache recurrence. Importantly, it also was demonstrated that initial clinical efficacy was not correlated to headache recurrence. The correlation coefficient for headache response was 0.18 (P =.53) and for therapeutic gain, -0.11 (P =.71). CONCLUSION: The incidence of migraine headache recurrence varies between drugs in the triptan class. Migraine recurrence does not appear to be related to initial clinical efficacy, but is influenced by the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of the individual triptans. The triptans with longer half-lives and greater 5-HT1B receptor potency had the lowest rates of headache recurrence.

Animals↗

Tolerability and safety of frovatriptan with short- and long-term use for treatment of migraine and in comparison with sumatriptan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the tolerability and safety of frovatriptan 2.5 mg in patients with migraine. BACKGROUND: Frovatriptan is a new, selective serotonin agonist (triptan) developed for the acute treatment of migraine. Dose range-finding studies identified 2.5 mg as the dose that conferred the optimal combination of efficacy and tolerability. METHODS: The tolerability and safety of frovatriptan 2.5 mg were assessed during controlled, acute migraine treatment studies, including a study that compared frovatriptan 2.5 mg with sumatriptan 100 mg, as well as a 12-month open-label study during which patients could take up to three doses of frovatriptan 2.5 mg within a 24-hour period. Safety and tolerability were assessed through the collection of adverse events, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure performance of 12-lead electrocardiogram, hematology screen, and blood chemistry studies. RESULTS: In the short-term studies, 1554 patients took frovatriptan 2.5 mg and 838 took placebo. In the 12-month study, 496 patients treated 13 878 migraine attacks. Frovatriptan was well tolerated in the short- and long-term studies with 1% of patients in the short-term studies and 5% of patients in the long-term study withdrawing due to lack of tolerability. The incidence of adverse events was higher in the frovatriptan-treated patients than in the patients who took placebo (47% versus 34%) and the spectrum of adverse events was similar. When compared to sumatriptan 100 mg, significantly fewer patients taking frovatriptan experienced adverse events (43% versus 36%; P=.03) and the number of adverse events was lower (0.62 versus 0.91), there were also fewer adverse events suggestive of cardiovascular symptoms in the frovatriptan group. Analysis of the entire clinical database (n=2392) demonstrated that frovatriptan was well tolerated by the patients regardless of their age, gender, race, concomitant medication, or the presence of cardiovascular risk factors. No effects of frovatriptan on heart rate, blood pressure, 12-lead electrocardiogram, hematology screen, or blood chemistry were observed. No patient suffered any treatment-related serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Short- and long-term use of frovatriptan 2.5 mg was well tolerated by a wide variety of patients. Frovatriptan treatment produced an adverse events profile similar to that of placebo, and in a direct comparison study was better tolerated than sumatriptan 100 mg.

Acute Disease↗