M Maizels1. 1. Department of Family Practice, Kaiser-Permanente, 5601 DeSoto Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA 91365-4084, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the consistent effect of intranasal lidocaine 4% on preventing headache following aura in one individual. BACKGROUND: A treatment that could prevent the headache which follows an aura would be an important advance in the treatment of migraine. No migraine abortive treatment has been shown to have such an effect. METHODS: A 15-year-old adolescent boy with a history of recurrent headache since aged 2, fulfilling the criteria for migraine with aura, was seen in consultation. Intranasal lidocaine 4% was used during the aura phase to prevent the headaches. RESULTS: Before using intranasal lidocaine, the patient invariably experienced a migraine following a typical visual aura. The episodes occurred approximately weekly, with a stable pattern for several years. When given during the aura, intranasal lidocaine prevented the headache following the aura, and remained successful on all but two occasions over 1 1/2 years of use (approximately 75 episodes). There was no effect on the duration of the aura itself. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal lidocaine consistently prevented the development of headache symptoms following aura in this individual. Such an effect suggests a role for the sphenopalatine ganglion in the development of migraine pain.
OBJECTIVE: To report the consistent effect of intranasal lidocaine 4% on preventing headache following aura in one individual. BACKGROUND: A treatment that could prevent the headache which follows an aura would be an important advance in the treatment of migraine. No migraine abortive treatment has been shown to have such an effect. METHODS: A 15-year-old adolescent boy with a history of recurrent headache since aged 2, fulfilling the criteria for migraine with aura, was seen in consultation. Intranasal lidocaine 4% was used during the aura phase to prevent the headaches. RESULTS: Before using intranasal lidocaine, the patient invariably experienced a migraine following a typical visual aura. The episodes occurred approximately weekly, with a stable pattern for several years. When given during the aura, intranasal lidocaine prevented the headache following the aura, and remained successful on all but two occasions over 1 1/2 years of use (approximately 75 episodes). There was no effect on the duration of the aura itself. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal lidocaine consistently prevented the development of headache symptoms following aura in this individual. Such an effect suggests a role for the sphenopalatine ganglion in the development of migraine pain.
Authors: Jakob M Hansen; Richard B Lipton; David W Dodick; Stephen D Silberstein; Joel R Saper; Sheena K Aurora; Peter J Goadsby; Andrew Charles Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Joan Crespi; Daniel Bratbak; David Dodick; Manjit Matharu; Kent Are Jamtøy; Irina Aschehoug; Erling Tronvik Journal: J Headache Pain Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 7.277