110 Phenotype of new daily persistent headache

Lobo, Rhannon; Lobo, Sean; Jacobs, Benjamin; Bahra, Anish

doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-abn-2.109

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As demonstrated in a recent systematic review by Yamani and Olesen, the currently available studies on the treatment of NDPH are largely case studies or small sample size studies of low quality 3 . It has been suggested that treatment should be based on the headache phenotype, 4 but whether this approach is useful has not been tested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in the management of new daily persistent headache at a tertiary headache center—A retrospective real‐world evidence study

Linnet,

Hussein,

Schytz

et al. 2024

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveIn this retrospective cross‐sectional real‐world evidence study from the Danish Headache Center (DHC), a national tertiary headache center in Denmark, we sought to identify potential pharmacological agents for the treatment of new daily persistent headache (NDPH).BackgroundNDPH is an enigmatic headache disorder with abrupt onset and chronic duration for which evidence‐based treatments are lacking. NDPH is a diagnosis of exclusion, for which secondary headaches must be ruled out and the etiology remains idiopathic. The sparse investigations of this disorder have not yielded a pathophysiological basis and no effective treatment for NDPH has been found.MethodsAll patients with an NDPH diagnosis at the DHC were enrolled (n = 64). First, we reviewed the records of all patients with an NDPH diagnosis to evaluate whether they fulfilled the diagnostic criteria. Next, we extracted all the trialled acute and prophylactic pharmacological interventions for the included patients. Then, pharmacological interventions that had been tried in ≥ 20 patients were analyzed post hoc with efficacy as the outcome, which was stratified in five effect categories (“no effect,” “partial effect,” “full effect,” “partial effect and cessation due to adverse events,” and “full effect and cessation due to adverse events”). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed, and the results were schematically presented (see Table 2).ResultsFifty‐one patients out of 64 were found to fulfill NDPH criteria and were included in the study. The drugs tried by ≥ 20 patients were amitriptyline (n = 34), candesartan (n = 27), and mirtazapine (n = 20). No patients experienced a complete effect with these drugs while 9% (3/34), 26% (7/27), and 15% (3/20) experienced a partial effect with no adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, respectively. The remaining patients experienced either no effect or a partial effect with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation.ConclusionIn this study we add real‐world evidence to suggest that prophylactic drugs conventionally used for treating chronic migraine and chronic tension‐type headache have limited utility for treating NDPH; however, a partial response in 26% of patients using candesartan and 15% of patients using mirtazapine warrants further investigation in randomized double‐blinded placebo‐controlled trials.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%