Although the understanding of migraine pathophysiology is incomplete, it is now well accepted that this neurovascular syndrome is mainly due to a cranial vasodilation with activation of the trigeminal system. Several experimental migraine models, based on vascular and neuronal involvement, have been developed. Obviously, the migraine models do not entail all facets of this clinically heterogeneous disorder, but their contribution at several levels (molecular, in vitro, in vivo) has been crucial in the development of novel antimigraine drugs and in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology. One important vascular in vivo model, based on an assumption that migraine headache involves cranial vasodilation, determines porcine arteriovenous anastomotic blood flow. Other models utilize electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion/nerve to study neurogenic dural inflammation, while the superior sagittal sinus stimulation model takes into account the transmission of trigeminal nociceptive input in the brainstem. More recently, the introduction of integrated models, namely electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion or systemic administration of capsaicin, allows studying the activation of the trigeminal system and its effect on the cranial vasculature. Studies using in vitro models have contributed enormously during the preclinical stage to characterizing the receptors in cranial blood vessels and to studying the effects of several putative antimigraine agents. The aforementioned migraine models have advantages as well as some limitations. The present review is devoted to discussing various migraine models and their relevance to antimigraine therapy.

Topical application of capsaicin and electrical stimulation induce reproducible forehead DBF increases and therefore are suitable to study trigeminal nerve-mediated vasodilation in humans.

No abstract

It has recently been shown that the alpha-adrenoceptors mediating vasoconstriction of porcine carotid arteriovenous anastomoses resemble both alpha1- and alpha2-adrenoceptors, but no attempt was made to identify the specific subtypes (alpha1A, alpha1B and alpha1D) involved. Therefore, the present study was designed to elucidate the specific subtype(s) of alpha1-adrenoceptors involved in the above response, using the alpha1-adrenoceptor agonist phenylephrine and alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists 5-methylurapidil (alpha1A), L-765 314 (alpha1B) and BMY 7378 (alpha1D). Ten-minute intracarotid infusions of phenylephrine (1, 3 and 10 microgkg-1.min-1) induced a dose-dependent decrease in total carotid and arteriovenous anastomotic conductance, accompanied by a small tachycardia. These carotid vascular effects were abolished by L-765 314 (1000 microgkg-1; i.v.), while these responses were only attenuated by 5-methylurapidil (1000 microgkg-1; i.v.), and BMY 7378 (1000 microgkg-1; i.v.). Furthermore, intravenous bolus injections of phenylephrine (3 and 10 microgkg-1) produced a dose-dependent vasopressor response, which was only affected by 1000 microgkg-1 of 5-methylurapidil, while the other antagonists were ineffective. These results, coupled to the binding affinities of the above antagonists at the different alpha1-adrenoceptors, suggest that both alpha1A- and alpha1B-adrenoceptors mediate constriction of carotid arteriovenous anastomoses in anaesthetized pigs. In view of the less ubiquitous nature of alpha1B- compared to alpha1A-adrenoceptors, the development of potent and selective alpha1B-adrenoceptor agonists may prove to be important for the treatment of migraine.

No abstract