This study has several limitations. First, data shown here still include a limited number of CM patients and controls without headache. Second, our results in CM patients come from a selected clinical population. We do not know the true specificity of the increases in neuropeptides shown here, though at least for CGRP, it has been shown that levels in tension-type headache,[40] cervicogenic headache,[41] and in cluster headache (outside a cluster period) are below those seen in CM.[9] One of our potential confounders could be PI3K Inhibitor Library high throughput the fact that, due to ethical

reasons, CM patients treated here with onabotA were also taking oral preventatives. However, this could make our results even more relevant as these drugs should also reduce to some degree the activation of TVS and as a consequence decrease neuropeptide release. Finally, longitudinal studies with several determinations before and after onabotA are necessary to demonstrate the consistency of our data. With these limitations in mind, our data show that interictal CGRP, and to a lesser degree VIP, levels are reliable markers first for a CM diagnosis and second for predicting response to onabotA, which confirms a crucial role of these neuropeptides in the sensitization process required for migraine chronification and suggest that the mechanism of action of onabotA in CM includes a local inhibition of the release of CGRP and other

pain producing neuropeptides. This study was supported by the PI11/00889 FISSS grant (Fondos Feder, ISCIII, Ministry of Economy, Spain). P.M.C. is supported by screening assay grant MTM2011-23204 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. (a)  Conception and Design (a)  Drafting the Manuscript (a)  Final Approval of the Completed Manuscript “
“Contexts.— An evidence base for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) consumption within general populations is emerging. However, research data on CAM use for headache disorders MCE公司 remain poorly documented.

This paper, constituting the first critical review of literature on this topic, provides a synopsis and evaluation of the research findings on CAM use among patients with headache and migraine. Methods.— A comprehensive search of literature from 2000 to 2011 in CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, and Health Sources was conducted. The search was confined to peer-reviewed articles published in English reporting empirical research findings of CAM use among people with primary headache or migraine. Results.— The review highlights a substantial level of CAM use among people with headache and migraine. There is also evidence of many headache and migraine sufferers using CAM concurrent to their conventional medicine use. Overall, the existing studies have been methodologically weak and there is a need for further rigorous research employing mixed method designs and utilizing large national samples. Discussion.