Introduction:Migraine is a serious illness that needs correct treatment for acute attacks and, in addition, a treatment prophylaxis, since patients with migraine suffer during acute attacks and also between attacks.Methods:A systematic review of the most relevant clinical trials of migraine headache and its epidemiology, pathophysiology, comorbidity, and prophylactic treatment (medical and nonmedical) was carried out using “Medline” and “PsychINFO” from 1973 to 2009. Approximately 110 trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the current review.Results:The most effective pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis is propranolol and anticonvulsants such as topiramate, valproic acid, and amitriptyline. Nonmedical treatments such as acupuncture, biofeedback, and melatonin have also been proposed. Peripheral neurostimulation has been suggested for the treatment of chronic daily headache that does not respond to prophylaxis and for the treatment of drug-resistant primary headache. The majority of the pharmacological agents available today have limited efficacy and may cause adverse effects incompatible with long-term use.Limitations:The review was limited by the highly variable and often insufficient reporting of the complex outcome data and by the fact that migraine prophylaxis trials typically use headache diaries to monitor the course of the disease. The results of the different studies were also presented in different ways, making comparison of the results difficult.Discussion:An adequate prophylaxis is crucial in reducing disability and preventing the evolution of the problem into a chronic progressive illness. The implications of the present findings were discussed.

The methodology of prolonged gastric pH monitoring has not yet been standardized with regard to the number and position of pH probes. Twenty-seven healthy volunteers and 11 patients affected by nonulcer dyspepsia have been submitted to 24-hr ambulatory simultaneous pH monitoring of the distal esophagus, fundus, and antrum. Fundic and antral pH profiles have been compared and causes of pH variations (pH > 4) identified. Both in healthy volunteers and dyspeptic patients, percentile curves of fundic and antral pH were statistically different in more than one of the daily periods considered (24-hr, postprandial, interdigestive, nocturnal). Percent time of duodenogastric reflux is significantly higher in the antrum than in the fundus in both groups. Modalities of gastric alkalinization secondary to food or duodenogastric reflux were different for the fundus and for the antrum both in healthy and dyspeptic subjects and between the two groups. These differences suggest that single and multiple pH monitoring of the stomach have different indications, and the position of the probes should vary according to the purpose of the test.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract