↓ Skip to main content

Practical Considerations for the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Migraine

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Practical Considerations for the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Migraine
Published in
Drugs & Aging, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/00002512-200623060-00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Sarchielli, Maria Luisa Mancini, Paolo Calabresi

Abstract

Treatment of migraine presents special problems in the elderly. Co-morbid diseases may prohibit the use of some medications. Moreover, even when these contraindications do not exist, older patients are more likely than younger ones to develop adverse events. Managing older migraine patients, therefore, necessitates particular caution, including taking into account possible pharmacological interactions associated with the greater use of drugs for concomitant diseases in the elderly. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the safest drug for symptomatic treatment of migraine in the elderly. Use of selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists ('triptans') is not recommended, even in the absence of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular risk, and NSAID use should be limited because of potential gastrointestinal adverse effects. Prophylactic treatments include antidepressants, beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists and antiepileptics. Selection of a drug from one of these classes should be dictated by the patient's co-morbidities. Beta-adrenoceptor antagonists are appropriate in patients with hypertension but are contraindicated in those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and peripheral vascular disease. Use of antidepressants in low doses is, in general, well tolerated by elderly people and as effective, overall, as in young adults. This approach is preferred in patients with concomitant mood disorders. However, prostatism, glaucoma and heart disease make the use of tricyclic antidepressants more difficult. Fewer efficacy data in the elderly are available for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which can be tried in particular cases because of their good tolerability profile. Calcium channel antagonists are contraindicated in patients with hypotension, heart failure, atrioventricular block, Parkinson's disease or depression (flunarizine), and in those taking beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (verapamil). Antiepileptic drug use should be limited to migraine with high frequency of attacks and refractoriness to other treatments. Promising additional strategies include ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists because of their effectiveness and good tolerability in patients with migraine, particularly in those with hypertension. Because of its favourable compliance and safety profile, botulinum toxin type A can be considered an alternative treatment in elderly migraine patients who have not responded to other currently available migraine prophylactic agents. Pharmacological treatment of migraine poses special problems in regard to both symptomatic and prophylactic treatment. Contraindications to triptan use, adverse effects of NSAIDs, and unwanted reactions to some antiemetics reduce the list of drugs available for the treatment of migraine attacks in elderly patients. The choice of prophylactic treatment (beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, antiepileptics, and more recently, some antihypertensive drugs) is influenced by co-morbidities and should be directed at those drugs that are believed to have fewer adverse effects and a better safety profile. Unfortunately, for most of these drugs, efficacy studies are lacking in the elderly.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 42 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2014.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#602
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,140
of 187,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#155
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.