Back to Authors

Cady, Roger

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4081-8395

Mayo Clinic

Missouri State University

Citations 22

Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: The topiramate INTREPID study
Silberstein, Stephen D., Cady, Roger , Freitag, Fred, Mathew, Ninan T., Biondi, David M., Ascher, Steven, Olson, William H., Hulihan, Joseph, Lipton, Richard B. , Dodick, David W.

Cephalalgia | May 17, 2010 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 18-30

10.1177/0333102410372427 Get It

Objective: The study sought to evaluate whether topiramate prevents development of chronic daily headache (CDH, ≥15 headache days per month) in adult subjects with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM, 9–14 migraine headache days/month). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of topiramate as preventive migraine treatment in this population. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing topiramate 100 mg/day and placebo for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was new-onset CDH at month 6. Secondary efficacy measures included migraine and headache days. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: A total of 159 topiramate subjects and 171 placebo subjects were efficacy-evaluable. At month 6, 1.4% of topiramate subjects versus 2.3% of placebo subjects had CDH ( p = .589). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean number of migraine days (6.6 vs. 5.3/28 days; p = .001) and headache days (6.6 vs 5.3/28 days; p = .001). Most commonly reported AEs in the topiramate versus placebo group included paresthesia (32.4% vs. 7.0%), fatigue (14.8% vs. 8.6%), dizziness (11.4% vs. 7.6%) and nausea (10.8% vs. 9.2%). Conclusion: Topiramate 100 mg/day did not prevent the development of CDH at six months in subjects with HFEM. Topiramate was effective in reducing headache days and migraine headache days and generally well tolerated.
An Otolaryngology, Neurology, Allergy, and Primary Care Consensus on Diagnosis and Treatment of Sinus Headache
Levine, Howard L., Setzen, Michael, Cady, Roger , Schreiber, Curtis P., Eross, Eric J., Blumenthal, Harvey J., Lumry, William R. , Berman, Gary , Durham, Paul L. , Dodick, David W.

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | February 22, 2006 | Volume: 134 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 516-523

10.1016/j.otohns.2005.11.024 Get It

While “sinus” headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, many medical specialists consider it to be an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. Unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments are often the result of the inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to characterize conditions leading to headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, they have done so from different perspectives and in isolation from the other specialty groups. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee recently convened to discuss the role of sinus disease and the nose in the etiology of headache and to review recent epidemiologic studies suggesting that sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. Clinical trial data are presented which clearly indicate that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines. This committee reviewed scientific evidence available from multiple disciplines and concludes that considerable research and clinical study are needed to further understand and explain the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, there was a consensus from this group that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients complaining of sinus headache that may indeed be due to the nose.