Ferrari MD. Headache: the changing migraine brain
Department of Neurology, Chair Leiden Centre for Translational Neuroscience, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands. Electronic address: .The Lancet Neurology (Impact Factor: 21.9). 01/2013; 12(1):6-8. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70290-9
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the longitudinal gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) changes between repeated observations 1 year apart in a group of the early clinical stage of migraine patients without aura, and to explore the relationship of such structural changes with headache activity, we studied patients newly diagnosed with episodic migraine lasting 8 to 14 weeks. Optimized voxel-based morphometry and tract-based spatial statistical analyses were used to evaluate changes in GM and WM by using 3-dimensional T1-weighted and diffusion-tensor imaging, respectively. At the 1-year follow-up examination, GM reduction was observed in the dorsolateral and medial part of the superior frontal gyrus, orbitofrontal cortex, hippocampus, precuneus, and primary and secondary somatosensory cortices. No significant differences were found in the fractional anisotropy and longitudinal, radial, and mean diffusivity of WM in migraine patients without aura within a year. Negative results were found for the association between changes in headache activity parameters and GM. Our results indicated that the GM and WM changed in different pathophysiological conditions of migraine patients without aura. The WM probably evolves slowly in the course of migraine chronicity. Our study found early involvement of GM reduction of sensory-discriminative brain regions in the pathologic process of migraine, but the WM did not exhibit significant changes in the same time interval. GM reduction in sensory-discriminative brain regions may characterize the pathophysiological features of migraine patients without aura in its early stage.The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society 12/2013; 14(12):1703-8. DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2013.08.013 · 4.01 Impact Factor
Article: Migraine PathophysiologyAdvances in clinical neuroscience & rehabilitation: ACNR 02/2014; 14.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background There is controversy about the efficacy of currently used treatment modalities to alleviate migraine headaches. Objective We aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of magnesium sulfate and combined use of dexamethasone/metoclopramide on relieving acute migraine headache. Methods We randomly divided 70 patients who had been referred to an emergency department, into two equal treatment groups with the two treatment plans, and analyzed pain severity at baseline using a numeric rating scale (NRS). We gave dexamethasone/metoclopramide to one group and magnesium sulfate to the other group, and evaluated pain severity at 20 min and at 1- and 2-h intervals after infusion. Finally, we used repeated-measure and two-way analysis of variance for intra- and inter-group evaluations of pain severity and complications, respectively. Results We found no significant differences in demographic data and pain severity at baseline (8.2 vs. 8.0) between the two groups (p < 0.05). In the dexamethasone/metoclopramide group, pain severity (mean ± standard deviation) was 7.4 ± 1.4 (p = 0.36), 6.0 ± 2.4, and 2.5 ± 2.9 (p < 0.0001) at 20-min, 1-h, and 2-h intervals after treatment, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the baseline values and 1-h and 2-h interval values. Administration of magnesium sulfate was associated with decreased pain severity at the three intervals (5.2 ± 1.7, 2.3 ± 1.9, and 1.3 ± 0.66, respectively), exhibiting significant differences compared to baseline values and the corresponding time intervals in the dexamethasone/metoclopramide group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions According to the results, magnesium sulfate was a more effective and fast-acting medication compared to a combination of dexamethasone/metoclopramide for the treatment of acute migraine headaches.Journal of Emergency Medicine 09/2014; 48(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.06.055 · 0.97 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.