2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tratamiento sintomático en migraña. Fármacos utilizados y variables relacionadas. Resultados de la encuesta europea sobre trabajo y migraña Translated title: Symptomatic treatment for migraine. Drugs used and related variables. Results of the european survey on work and migraine

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN Objetivos: Conocer el uso de tratamientos sintomáticos para las crisis de migraña en distintos países de Europa y las diferencias que se observan en función de variables sociales y demográficas. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional transversal mediante encuesta anónima vía web a 3342 pacientes de España, Italia, Francia, Portugal, Irlanda, Reino Unido, Alemania y otros países de la Unión Europea. Variables de estudio: edad género, país, tipo de localidad, nivel de estudios y ámbito rural o urbano. Los tratamientos sintomáticos que se recogen son: analgésicos simples, antinflamatorios no esteroideos, triptanes, otros tratamientos, varios tratamientos, sin tratamiento, desconocimiento de tratamiento sintomático. Resultados: En analgésicos simples los mayores consumidores están entre 41-60 años (p < 0,0001). España y Alemania son los países con mayor uso (p < 0,0001). El cuanto a los antinflamatorios el mayor uso se da entre 21-60 años (p < 0,0001). España, Italia y Alemania son los países que mayor uso hacen de ellos (p < 0,0001) y mayor consumo en pacientes con estudios superiores (p < 0,003). El uso de triptanes muestra relación con la edad y el género, mayor uso entre 21-60 años (p < 0,0001) y en mujeres (p < 0,0001). Por países, el mayor consumo es en Alemania, resto de países de Unión Europea, España y Reino Unido (p < 0,0001). Mayor consumo en pacientes que viven en ciudades de más de 500 habitantes (p < 0,010) y con estudios medios o superiores (p < 0,0001). En el grupo de estudios medios y superiores se encuentra por contraste el mayor porcentaje de pacientes que desconocen qué es un tratamiento sintomático (p < 0,0001). Conclusiones: Existe una gran variabilidad de los resultados en cada país y se modifican en función de distintas condiciones sociales y demográficas, siendo la edad, el género, el ámbito rural o urbano y el nivel cultural los factores que más condicionan el uso de cada medicación sintomática para las crisis de migraña.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT Goals: To know the use of migraine crisis symptomatic treatments in different countries of Europe and the differences observed depending on social and demographic variables. Material and methods: Cross-sectional observational study by anonymous web survey to 3,342 patients from Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Ireland, United Kingdom, Germany and other countries of the European Union. Study variables: age, gender, country, type of location, level of studies and rural or urban area. The symptomatic treatments that are collected are: simple analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, other treatments, several treatments, without treatment, ignorance of symptomatic treatment. Results: For simple analgesics, the largest consumers are between 41-60 years (p < 0.0001). Spain and Germany are the countries with the highest use (p < 0.0001). For the anti-inflammatories, the greatest use is between 21-60 years (p < 0.0001). Spain, Italy and Germany are the countries that make the most use of them (p < 0.0001) and higher consumption in patients with higher education (p < 0.003). Triptans use shows a relationship with age and gender, greater use between 21-60 years (p < 0.0001) and in women (p < 0.0001). By countries, the highest consumption is in Germany, the rest of the European Union countries, Spain and the United Kingdom (p < 0.0001). Greater consumption in patients living in cities with more than 500 inhabitants (p < 0.010) and with medium or higher studies (p < 0.0001). In the group of middle and upper studies, we find, by contrast, the highest percentage of patients who do not know what a symptomatic treatment is (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The result varies according each country greatly and they are modified depending on different social and demographic conditions, being the age, gender, rural or urban environment and cultural level the factors that most affect the use of each symptomatic medication for the migraine crisis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA

          To review research published before and after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) examining barriers in seeking or accessing health care in rural populations in the USA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe – evidence from the Eurolight study

            Background Migraine is prevalent everywhere, and disabling. It is also neglected: consequently, it is under-diagnosed and undertreated. We analysed data from the Eurolight study on consultations and utilization of migraine-specific medications as indicators of adequacy of medical care in Europe. Methods Eurolight was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in 10 European countries. Sampling was population-based in six (Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain) and from consecutive patients attending general practitioners (GPs) for any reason in three (Austria, France, UK). Additional samples in Netherlands and Spain, and the only sample from Ireland, were recruited by lay headache organisations. We recorded migraine prevalence and frequency, and utilization of medical services and medications (acute and preventative). Results Among 9247 participants (mean age 43.9 ± 13.9 years, M/F ratio 1:1.4), 3466 (37.6%) were diagnosed with migraine (definite or probable). Of these, 1175 (33.8%) reported frequent migraine (> 5 days/month) and might clearly expect benefit from, and therefore had need of, preventative medication. In population-based samples, minorities of participants with migraine had seen a GP (9.5–18.0%) or specialist (3.1–15.0%), and smaller minorities received adequate treatment: triptans 3.4–11.0%, with Spain outlying at 22.4%; preventative medication (1.6–6.4% of those eligible, with Spain again outlying at 13.7%). Proportions were greater in GP-based samples (13.6–24.5% using triptans, 4.4–9.1% on preventative medication) and among those from lay organisations (46.2–68.2% and 16.0–41.7%). Participants with migraine who had consulted specialists (3.1–33.8%) were receiving the best care by these indicators; those treated by GPs (9.5–29.6%) fared less well, and those dependent on self-medication (48.0–84.2%) were, apparently, inadequately treated. Conclusion In wealthy European countries, too few people with migraine consult physicians, with proportionately too many of these seeing specialists, and migraine-specific medications are used inadequately even among those who do. These findings represent yet another call for action in Europe to improve care for people with headache. Education of both health-care providers and the public should be central to this action.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              My Migraine Voice survey: a global study of disease burden among individuals with migraine for whom preventive treatments have failed

              Background Migraine is associated with many debilitating symptoms that affect daily functioning. My Migraine Voice is a large global cross-sectional study aimed at understanding the full burden and impact of migraine directly from patients suffering from ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) with a history of prophylactic treatment failure. Methods This study was conducted worldwide (31 countries across North and South Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region) using an online survey administered to adults with migraine who reported ≥4 MMDs in the 3 months preceding survey administration, with pre-specified criteria of 90% having used preventive migraine treatment (80% with history of ≥1 treatment failure). Prophylactic treatment failure was defined as a reported change in preventive medication by individuals with migraine for any reason, at least once. Results In total, 11,266 individuals participated in the survey. Seventy-four percent of the participants reported spending time in darkness/isolation due to migraine (average: 19 h/month). While 85% of all respondents reported negative aspects of living with migraine (feeling helpless, depressed, not understood), sleeping difficulties (83%), and fear of the next attack (55%), 57% shared ≥1 positive aspect (learning to cope, becoming a stronger person). Forty-nine percent reported feeling limited in daily activities throughout all migraine phases. Migraine impact on professional, private, or social domains was reported by 87% of respondents (51% in all domains). In the previous 12 months, 38% of respondents had visited the emergency department (average: 3.3 visits), whereas 23% stayed in hospital overnight (average: 3.2 nights) due to migraine. Conclusions The burden of migraine is substantial among this cohort of individuals with at least 4 migraine days per month and for whom at least 1 preventive migraine treatment had failed. Interestingly, respondents reported some positive aspects in their migraine journey; the greater resilience and strength brought on by coping with migraine suggests that if future treatments could address existing unmet needs, these individuals with migraine will be able to maximize their contribution to society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                dolor
                Revista de la Sociedad Española del Dolor
                Rev. Soc. Esp. Dolor
                Inspira Network Group, S.L (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1134-8046
                June 2020
                : 27
                : 3
                : 178-191
                Affiliations
                [3] orgnameAsociación Española de Especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo España
                [2] orgnameEuropean Migraine and Headache Alliance España
                [1] orgnameAsociación Española de Especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo orgdiv1Grupo de Trabajo de Guías y Protocolos España
                Article
                S1134-80462020000300178 S1134-8046(20)02700300178
                10.20986/resed.2020.3744/2019
                afd3e84a-808b-4d10-ab4d-53e20e560738

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 15 May 2020
                : 15 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 16, Pages: 14
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Originales

                pain,medicina del trabajo,Migraine,occupational health,symptomatic treatment,encuesta,survey,occupational medicine,tratamiento sintomático,salud laboral,Migraña,dolor

                Comments

                Comment on this article