Suppr超能文献

预防性药物对 TMS 治疗偏头痛先兆的影响。

The effect of prophylactic medications on TMS for migraine aura.

机构信息

Neurology, Mayo Clinic-Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.

出版信息

Headache. 2010 Nov;50(10):1630-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01787.x.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Low frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has recently been shown to be effective for the acute treatment of migraine with aura. TMS has recently been shown to inhibit cortical spreading depression (CSD). Prophylactic medications (PM) may reduce the frequency of migraine attacks by elevating CSD threshold. The interaction between PM and TMS is unknown.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis was performed on a double-blind, Sham-controlled study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of TMS for the acute treatment of migraine with aura. Analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint pain-free at 2 hours (pain-free rate [PFR]) between TMS and Sham groups was performed based on the non-randomized use of PM.

RESULTS

A total of 164 subjects eligibly treated at least 1 migraine with aura attack with TMS (n = 82) or Sham stimulation (n=82). Baseline pain intensity at the time of treatment for the first attack was no pain (31%), mild (40%), moderate (23%), or severe pain (6%). PM were used by 37% (31/82) and 41.5% (34/82) in the Sham- and TMS-treated patients, respectively. Sham patients on no PM (Sham without) had significantly higher PFR than Sham-treated patients on PM (Sham with) (P = .0014). There was no difference in PFR between TMS-treated patients on (TMS with) or off (TMS without) PM (P = .5513). However, TMS with had significantly higher PFR than Sham with patients (P= .002). There was no difference in PFR between TMS without and Sham without patients (P = .4061).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic medications do not appear to influence the treatment response to TMS. The better response in Sham-treated patients not on PM may indicate a more responsive subgroup or different patient phenotype than those currently using PM. These findings will need to be verified in a larger patient sample randomized by presence or absence of PM.

摘要

目的

低频经颅磁刺激(TMS)最近已被证明可有效治疗有先兆偏头痛的急性发作。TMS 最近已被证明可抑制皮质扩散性抑制(CSD)。预防性药物(PM)可能通过提高 CSD 阈值来降低偏头痛发作的频率。PM 和 TMS 之间的相互作用尚不清楚。

方法

对一项双盲、假刺激对照研究进行了亚组分析,该研究评估了 TMS 治疗有先兆偏头痛急性发作的疗效和安全性。根据非随机使用 PM,对 TMS 组和假刺激组的主要疗效终点 2 小时无疼痛(无疼痛率 [PFR])进行了分析。

结果

共有 164 名符合条件的患者至少用 TMS(n=82)或假刺激(n=82)治疗了 1 次偏头痛有先兆发作。首次发作时治疗的基线疼痛强度为无疼痛(31%)、轻度(40%)、中度(23%)或重度疼痛(6%)。PM 的使用率分别为 Sham 组和 TMS 组的 37%(31/82)和 41.5%(34/82)。Sham 组无 PM (Sham without)的 PFR 显著高于 Sham 组有 PM (Sham with)的 PFR(P=0.0014)。TMS 组有 PM(TMS with)或无 PM(TMS without)的 PFR 无差异(P=0.5513)。然而,TMS with 的 PFR 显著高于 Sham with 患者(P=0.002)。TMS without 和 Sham without 患者的 PFR 无差异(P=0.4061)。

结论

预防性药物似乎不会影响 TMS 的治疗反应。Sham 组无 PM 的患者反应更好,这可能表明存在比目前使用 PM 的患者更敏感的亚组或不同的患者表型。这些发现需要在更大的、根据是否存在 PM 随机分组的患者样本中进行验证。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验