Central effects of drugs used in migraine prophylaxis evaluated by visual evoked potentials

Diener, Hans‐Christoph; Scholz, E; Dichgans, J.; Gerber, Wolf‐Dieter; Jäck, Agnes; Artur, Bille,; Niederberger, Uwe

doi:10.1002/ana.410250204

Cited by 113 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, the faster and smaller checksize stimulation by TVEP may play a crucial role in habituation behavior [14]. The present SSVEP study is in accordance with previous studies [30,35] that demonstrated greater migraine amplitude between attacks. Furthermore, the amplitude tended to increase depending on spatial frequency.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Spatial frequency differentially affects habituation in migraineurs: a steady-state visual-evoked potential study

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lack of habituation in visual-evoked potentials (VEPs) is the main abnormality observed in migraineurs. However, no study of steady-state VEPs has yet evaluated pattern-reversal stimuli with respect to habituation behavior or spatial frequency. The aim of this study was to clarify habituation behavior in migraineurs between attacks and to establish characteristics of VEPs in these patients. Steady-state VEPs were sequentially recorded as checkerboard patterns in four consecutive blocks from 12 patients with migraine without aura (MO), 12 patients with migraine with aura (MA), and 12 healthy controls (HC) at four spatial frequencies of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 cycles per degree (cpd) with a stimulus rate of 7.5 Hz (15 reversal/s). VEP amplitudes were consistently higher in migraineurs. However, habituation was not demonstrated in HCs, and migraineurs did not reveal a clear lack of habituation. MAs exhibited high-amplitude VEPs, depending on spatial frequency. In the MA patients, amplitude differences reached statistical significance at 2.0 cpd. The sequential amplitude changes at 0.5 cpd were significantly different in MAs compared with HCs. Migraine patients exhibited high-amplitude VEPs, which were dependent on spatial frequency, and may be related to altered excitability in pre-cortical and cortical visual processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Spatial frequency differentially affects habituation in migraineurs: a steady-state visual-evoked potential study

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the prolonged CSP in our CM patients may point to an increased excitability of intracortical inhibitory neurons or axons. This finding, however, contradicts biochemical [7,9,22] and most of the neurophysiological studies [2,3,6,8,12,17,21,23, 35] on migraine suggesting increased cortical neuronal excitability. It has been shown that excitability increases with attack frequency in migraine [3,34,35].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Comparison of cortical excitability in chronic migraine (transformed migraine) and migraine without aura

Öztürk

Çakmur

Donmez

et al. 2002

Journal of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the excitability of the motor cortex in patients with migraine without aura (MWOA) (n = 20) and with chronic migraine (CM) (n = 20) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). By using a 90-mm circular coil placed over the vertex and recording of the first dorsal interosseous muscle, we measured thresholds, latencies and amplitudes of motor evoked potentials and duration of cortical silent periods in patient groups and in controls (n = 20). No differences were found between groups for threshold, latency and amplitude values. However, the duration of the cortical silent period was longer in CM patients, being significantly different from both controls and MWOA. We suggest that either this difference in cortical excitability may develop during transformation from MWOA to CM or different pathophysiological mechanisms may play a role in these two headache syndromes.

show abstract

“…Several studies reported increased VEP amplitude in migraineurs (Diener et al, 1989;Khalil et al, 2000;Oelkers et al, 1999;Sand et al, 2008;Shibata et al, 1997Shibata et al, , 1998, while other studies could not confirm this (Coppola et al, 2007b;Kennard et al, 1978;Mariani et al, 1988;Oelkers-Ax et al, 2005;Polich et al, 1986;Sand and Vingen, 2000;Sener et al, 1997). In other words, the results of VEP measurements in migraine are contradictory in general, and not just regarding habituation.…”

Section: Visual Evoked Potential Amplitude In Migrainementioning

confidence: 96%

Visual evoked potentials in migraine: Is the “neurophysiological hallmark” concept still valid?

Omland

Uglem

Hagen

et al. 2016

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Omland, P.M., Uglem, M., Hagen, K., Linde, M., Tronvik, E., Sand, T., Visual evoked potentials in migraine: Is the "neurophysiological hallmark" concept still valid ?, Clinical Neurophysiology (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.clinph.2014.12.035 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. • Lack of VEP habituation is not a reliable "neurophysiological hallmark" in interictal migraine• Strict focus on methodology, including blinding during the recording and assessment of VEP, is important to avoid overestimation of effect sizes in future studies.2 Abstract Objective Lack of habituation is considered a neurophysiological hallmark of migraine. However, the results of visual evoked potential (VEP) studies have been discrepant, possibly because of different stimulation parameters and lack of blinding. Hence, there is a need for independent confirmation of lack of VEP habituation in migraine. In this blinded study we applied 16' checks to supplement our previous findings with 8', 31', 62' and 65' checks. MethodsVEPs in 41 interictal migraineurs and 30 controls were compared. VEPs were recorded in six blocks of 100 single responses. Linear N70-P100 amplitude change over blocks (habituation slope) was compared with an independent samples Student's t-test. ResultsAmplitude decline over blocks was observed in both groups. Habituation slope was not significantly different between controls (-0.43 ± 0.54 μV/block) and migraineurs (-0.29 ± 0.35 μV/block) (p = 0.33). ConclusionVEP habituation with 16' checks did not differ in migraineurs and controls. This is in agreement with previous findings with other stimulation parameters. It is therefore unlikely that use of different stimulation parameters could explain the discrepant results of previous studies. No studies that applied blinding during recording of VEP have found lack of habituation in migraineurs. SignificanceLack of VEP habituation cannot be considered a reliable neurophysiological hallmark in migraine.

show abstract

Central effects of drugs used in migraine prophylaxis evaluated by visual evoked potentials

Cited by 113 publications

References 16 publications

Spatial frequency differentially affects habituation in migraineurs: a steady-state visual-evoked potential study

Spatial frequency differentially affects habituation in migraineurs: a steady-state visual-evoked potential study

Comparison of cortical excitability in chronic migraine (transformed migraine) and migraine without aura

Visual evoked potentials in migraine: Is the “neurophysiological hallmark” concept still valid?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About