Biomedical subjects

Michele Feleppa

Publications and source records attributed to Michele Feleppa.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Naratriptan in the preventive treatment of refractory chronic migraine: a review of 27 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of naratriptan as preventive treatment in 27 patients with chronic migraine refractory to other commonly used preventive therapies. BACKGROUND: The treatment of chronic migraine often poses a major challenge to the clinician. Even when given expert care, patients with chronic migraine may continue to have daily or near-daily headaches. METHODS: Clinical records and headache calendars were reviewed of 27 patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: (1) aged 18 to 65 years; (2) diagnosis of chronic migraine (formerly transformed migraine), according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein et al; (3) previous failure of at least 4 preventive medications prescribed as part of a management program that included nonpharmacological measures, preventive medication, acute care medication, and detoxification from overused medication; and (4) have used daily naratriptan for no less than 2 consecutive months. The dose of naratriptan prescribed was 2.5 mg twice daily. We considered the following outcomes: (1) frequency of headache, (2) intensity of pain, (3) number of days per month with severe headache, (4) headache index (frequency times intensity), and (5) proportion of patients who reverted to an episodic pattern of pain after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of headache days 2 months (15.3 days versus 24.1 days at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (9.1 days, P<.001), and 1 year (7.3 days, P<.001) after daily treatment with naratriptan was initiated. There was also a statistically significant reduction in the number of days per month of severe pain at 1 month (5.6 days versus 12.5 days at baseline, P<.01), 2 months (5.7 days, P<.01), 6 months (2.8 days, P<.01), and 1 year (2.6 days, P<.01). Similarly, there was a statistically significant reduction in the headache index at 2 months (33 versus 56.4 at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (19.5, P<.001), and 1 year (17.2, P<.001). Of the 20 patients who continued to use naratriptan daily for at least 6 months, 13 (65%) reverted to an episodic pattern of pain (migraine). At 1 year, 11 (55%) still continued to experience episodic headache, 1 (5%) relapsed to chronic migraine, and 2 (10%) were lost to follow-up. No patients had intolerability to naratriptan during the treatment period, and no one stopped treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan may have a role in the preventive treatment of intractable chronic migraine. Prospective, controlled studies should be considered.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Early poststroke seizures.

We define as early seizure (ES) those occurring within 7 days after stroke and late seizures those developing beyond 1 week after stroke. Seizures are well known to occur at the onset of intracerebral hemorrhage and serve as a clinical marker. Onset seizures may be focal or generalized, are usually brief and are associated with loss of consciousness in the setting of hemorrhage. A similar concept of immediate seizure occurs in traumatic brain injury. Predictive factors of ES can be classified of general and neurologic origin. An important question is whether ES per se worsen prognosis and outcome. The viability of the penumbral region in animal models of focal ischemia is influenced by the peri-infarct depolarization waves. If this also is true in humans, seizures in the immediate poststroke period might worsen outcome. Recently, hypercholesterolemia has been associated with better functional outcome at 1 month after a first-ever stroke, and multivariate analysis studies have shown that mean cholesterol values were lower in patients with ES compared with controls.

Global Health↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Patterns of use of triptans and reasons for switching them in a tertiary care migraine population.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reasons for switching triptans within migraine patients presenting to a specialty clinic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed data of migraineurs who (1) were currently using a triptan as acute treatment medication for migraine, and (2) had previously used at least one other triptan, or a different triptan formulation. All subjects were followed for at least 1 year. For every triptan/formulation used, the reasons for discontinuation were obtained. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 386 patients, 339 of whom (87.8%) were females. Sumatriptan was first used by 349 (90.4%); zolmitriptan, by 238 (61.5%); rizatriptan, by 195 (50.5%); naratriptan, by 137 (35.4%); and almotriptan, by 31 (8.0%). Almotriptan was excluded from this analysis because of our small sample. We found significant differences among those who wanted to try another triptan to see if it would be better in those who first used sumatriptan 25 mg, compared to those first using sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .01), sumatriptan 100 mg (P < .001), sumatriptan nasal spray (NS) (P < .001), sumatriptan subcutaneous (SC) (P < .001), zolmitriptan 5 mg (P < .001), rizatriptan 10 mg (P < .001), and naratriptan (P = .001). Patients using rizatriptan, sumatriptan NS, and sumatriptan SC had significantly lower rates of reporting this answer. Subjects first using naratriptan were less likely to report recurrence than those using sumatriptan 25 mg (P = .004), sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .0005), sumatriptan 100 mg (P = .003), zolmitriptan (P = .02), and rizatriptan (P = .006). Incomplete relief was more frequently reported by those first using sumatriptan 25 mg and naratriptan. Inconsistency was a reason for switching in those initially using sumatriptan NS, sumatriptan 25 mg, and naratriptan and less frequently reported in those using zolmitriptan and sumatriptan SC. Side effects were major factors for those first using sumatriptan 100 mg, NS, and SC, and less for those using naratriptan and sumatriptan 25 mg. From those subjects that initially used sumatriptan SC and were switched to a different triptan or formulation, 19.5% returned to sumatriptan SC; for the other triptans/formulations, the percentages were: sumatriptan 25 mg, 7.8%; sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg, 42.3%; sumatriptan NS, 17.7%; zolmitriptan, 17.6%; rizatriptan, 16.5%; naratriptan, 9.4%. For those who used more than three triptans/formulations, the last triptan used was: sumatriptan, 29.5%; zolmitriptan, 31.8%; rizatriptan, 25.0%; naratriptan, 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of treatment attributes are important in determining the reasons involved in switching a triptan. To assess this attributes can provide additional information to supplement the traditional tests of efficacy provided by randomized clinical trials.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Assessment of adverse events associated with triptans--methods of assessment influence the results.

BACKGROUND: A recent study conducted in triptan-naive migraine patients showed that tolerability was the second most important attribute of an acute treatment. However, the proportion of patients reporting side effects after any acute treatment may vary with regard to the method of assessment. OBJECTIVES: To contrast two methods of assessing adverse events (prompted and unprompted) in those with headache using triptans. METHODS: This study was conducted in two sites, a headache center in the United States, and a neurology office focusing on headache in Italy. We prospectively surveyed 415 adults with headache, who had been using the same triptan for at least 3 months. Participants were asked about their headache and treatment history. Subjects then completed a standardized questionnaire, assessing adverse events in two different ways. First, subjects were asked if they had any adverse events when using the triptan. After returning the first part of the questionnaire, subjects received a second form, where 49 possible adverse events were listed. We contrasted and correlated both sets of answers. RESULTS: Most patients (U.S.=74.9%, Italy=65.5%) reported no side effects in the unprompted questionnaire. However, most of them (U.S.=62.9%, Italy=54.1%) reported at least one side effect in the prompted questionnaire. Most patients that reported side effects in the unprompted questionnaire said they had just one adverse event, while most reported two or more side effects in the prompted questionnaire. Both in the unprompted and in the prompted questionnaires, most side effects were rated as mild or moderate. Interestingly, 31 (7.5%) subjects (pooling data from both sites together) graded their adverse events as severe in the prompted questionnaire, but had not self-reported them. CONCLUSIONS: (1) When assessing adverse events, the method of data collection may dramatically influence the results. (2) From those subjects who did not self-report adverse events after using a triptan, most of them will report positively if presented with a list of side effects.

Adult↗