Lanepitant is a high-affinity, selective neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) and is effective in the dural inflammation model of acute migraine. Lanepitant 30, 80, and 240 mg given orally was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to determine its effect in reducing migraine pain and severity of associated symptoms. Outpatients treated four migraine headaches of moderate or severe pain intensity with study drug according to a randomization schedule. They recorded their pain intensity and severity of migraine-associated symptoms at 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Although 53 patients were randomly allocated to a treatment sequence, only 40 patients completed all treatments. There was no statistically significant difference in improvement in migraine pain at any time for any of the treatments. Additionally, there was no change in severity of migraine-associated symptoms associated with lanepitant therapy. No adverse events could be attributed to lanepitant. Lanepitant was ineffective orally in treating acute migraine in this trial. This may be due to poor bioavailability during a migraine attack. Alternatively, the neurogenic inflammation hypothesis may not apply to migraine.

No abstract

Four hundred patients attending a headache clinic were classified using the IHS criteria. The majority required more than two, often three or four, diagnoses. Even though migraine was the most common diagnosis, only 1/4 of those with a migraine diagnosis had it as the only diagnosis. Seventy-five percent of migraine patients had coexistent chronic tension-type headache (CTTH), drug-induced headache or both. Ninety-six percent of patients diagnosed as having migraine with aura also suffered from migraine without aura. More than 1/3 of patients (37.7%) attending the clinic suffered from chronic daily headache (CDH) (chronic cluster headache excluded), which is not included as a separate entity in the IHS classification. Pure CTTH formed only a small minority of CDH, whereas 86.6% of CDH had migraine as one of the diagnoses. Drug-induced headache was a prominent second or third diagnosis. The advantages and disadvantages of multiple verses single diagnosis in CDH and the need to recognize the natural history of headache disorders in the classification are discussed.

Serotonin syndrome, a condition with numerous clinical neurological manifestations, is the result of central serotonergic hyperstimulation. Features of the syndrome include mental status and behavioral changes (agitation, excitement, hypomania, obtundation), motor system involvement (myoclonus, hemiballismus, tremor, hyperreflexia, motor weakness, dysarthria, ataxia) and autonomic symptoms (fever, chills, diarrhea). Serotonin syndrome has been reported exclusively in patients on medications for psychiatric illness and Parkinsonism, despite the fact that the putative action of many antimigraine agents also involves the serotonin system. We herein report six patients with migraine who developed symptoms suggestive of the serotonin syndrome. Five were taking one or more serotomimetic agents for migraine prophylaxis (sertraline, paroxetine, lithium, imipramine, amitriptyline). In each case the symptoms and signs developed in close temporal proximity with use of a migraine abortive agent known to interact with serotonin receptors. In three instances the agent was subcutaneous sumatriptan and, in three, intravenous dihydroergotamine. In each instance the symptoms were transient and there was full recovery. With the ever increasing use of migraine medications active at serotonin receptor sites, cases of serotonin syndrome will likely occur more frequently. It is important that physicians treating migraine are aware of the serotonin syndrome and are able to recognize its varying presentations.