Biomedical subjects

R G Kaniecki

Publications and source records attributed to R G Kaniecki.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Diagnostic issues in migraine.

Headache poses diagnostic challenges to the clinician for many reasons. It is an extremely common complaint, and may be associated with acute illness or serious pathology such as brain tumor or cerebral aneurysm. However, the majority of patients experiencing recurrent headache in the population suffer either from a variant of tension-type headache or migraine. Because migraine is more likely to be disabling, it becomes the most likely diagnosis for any patient presenting with recurrent headache interfering with function. Although the diagnostic criteria developed by the International Headache Society in 1998 are useful as a guide, migraine may be more readily recognized in a clinical setting by its consideration at the top of the differential for patients presenting with recurrent headache. This article reviews the standard diagnostic criteria for migraine, while also addressing the primary and secondary headache syndromes that may be considered in a differential diagnosis. The indications and roles for specific investigative procedures such as neuroimaging are reviewed. Specific emphasis is placed on the clinical recognition of migraine in the context of an assortment of headache conditions.

Diagnostic Imaging↗

PubMed2001

Mixing sumatriptan: a prospective study of stratified care using multiple formulations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability, utility, and tolerability of a system of stratified care of acute migraine using multiple formulations of sumatriptan. BACKGROUND: Stratified care matches the treatment of a disease to its level of severity. Sumatriptan, with its multiple formulations, seems a logical option in a stratified care approach. Little data exists on the use of multiple formulations in a single patient population. DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, open-label, outpatient study recruited patients from a single center during the period from January 1998 through June 1998. Entry criteria included International Headache Society migraine diagnostic codes 1.1 or 1.2 and an established response to sumatriptan tablets or nasal spray. Patients who enrolled were allowed to use subcutaneous sumatriptan as either primary or rescue therapy for individual migraine attacks. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen (80%) of 273 patients on tablets and 40 (85%) of 47 patients on nasal spray enrolled. During a period of 6 months, 61% of the patients on tablets and 85% of the patients using the nasal spray used at least one subcutaneous dose of sumatriptan. This system was efficacious and well tolerated. The majority of injections were used as rescue treatments following a failed oral or nasal dose. Two percent withdrew due to lack of efficacy, and 6% withdrew due to adverse events; however, 92% professed satisfaction with subcutaneous sumatriptan as an available tool for migraine management. CONCLUSION: A system of stratified care using multiple formulations of sumatriptan is efficacious, well tolerated, and preferable to a program involving a single form of the drug.

Aerosols↗

PubMed1997

A comparison of divalproex with propranolol and placebo for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of divalproex sodium (Depakote) with that of propranolol hydrochloride (and placebo) for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura. DESIGN: Single-investigator, randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study with 5 phases: baseline (weeks 1-4); placebo (weeks 5-8); first treatment, 1 agent (weeks 9-20); washout (weeks 21-24); and second treatment, crossover to other agent (weeks 25-36). SETTING: Private practice of a general neurologist with a special interest in headache disorders. PATIENTS: Of 37 patients (30 women and 7 men) selected, 32 completed the study. All received placebo, after which half were randomized to receive divalproex or propranolol, then crossed over after washout. INTERVENTION: Divalproex and propranolol doses were titrated during the initial 8 weeks of each 12-week treatment cycle. For divalproex, doses were titrated to 1500 mg/d in 23 patients, to 2000 mg/d in 2, and downward in 7; the mean valproate sodium trough level was 68.5 mg/L. Propranolol was titrated to 180 mg/d in 28 patients, to 240 mg/d in 1, and downward in 3. RESULTS: Migraine frequency was reduced in 19% (6/ 32) of placebo-treated, 66% (21/32) of divalproex-treated, and 63% (20/32) of propranolol-treated patients. Assessment of migraine-days per month revealed significant response to placebo in 22% (7/32) of patients, to divalproex in 66% (21/32), and to propranolol in 69% (22/32). When results were limited to the third month of each active-agent treatment phase, 75% (24/ 32) of patients receiving divalproex and 78% (25/32) of those receiving propranolol had reduction in migraine frequency. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was identified between divalproex and propranolol for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura.

Adolescent↗