Efficacy and safety of MAP0004, orally inhaled DHE in treating migraines with and without allodynia

Background.— Central sensitization develops once migraine attacks become established and can be clinically detected by the development of cutaneous allodynia. The efficacy of triptans for migraine resolution has been shown to be markedly reduced when administered in patients with established cutaneous allodynia. Objective.— The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MAP0004, a novel, orally inhaled, form of dihydroergotamine, in patients with and without cutaneous allodynia at the time of treatment. Methods.— This evaluation was a post hoc subanalysis of a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, 2‐arm, phase 3, multicenter study. The presence or absence of baseline cutaneous allodynia at the time of drug administration was based on the response to a standard questionnaire. Treatment efficacy at 2 hours posttreatment was compared in patients with and without baseline allodynia. Results.— At the time of treatment, allodynia was present in 216 patients treated with MAP0004 and 202 patients treated with placebo. MAP0004 treatment efficacy was superior to placebo, as measured by 2‐hour pain relief for patients with and without allodynia (P < .0001) and as measured by 2‐hour pain freedom for patients with (P < .0001) and without (P < .0002) allodynia. No significant within‐treatment differences after treatment with MAP0004 in patients with and without allodynia at baseline were observed. Patients were more likely to be allodynia‐free after treatment with MAP0004 compared with placebo (73% vs 66%, P = .0013). Furthermore, treatment with MAP0004 prevented the development of allodynia in patients not experiencing allodynia at baseline (P = .0057). MAP0004 was generally well tolerated. Conclusions.— This post hoc subanalysis shows that MAP0004 was similarly effective in patients whether or not allodynia was present at treatment baseline. Patients were also more likely to be allodynia‐free following treatment of a migraine with MAP0004.     

A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of MAP0004 in Adult Patients With Migraine

Background.— Dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) is an effective treatment for acute migraine, but its effective use is often limited by the inconvenience and inconsistency of intranasal, intramuscular, or subcutaneous routes of administration. A new formulation of DHE delivered through the lungs by the novel Tempo^® inhaler is being developed and is designed to offer fast onset, consistent dosing, and sustained response. Objective.— This proof of principle and dose setting study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of inhaled DHE delivered by a breath‐synchronized, plume‐controlled inhaler (Tempo) in adult migraineurs. Methods.— This was a randomized, double blind, placebo‐controlled, 2‐period study conducted at 9 headache centers in the United States. Adult men and women with a documented history of acute migraine for at least 12 months, with an average of 2 to 8 attacks per month in the preceding 6 months were treated with MAP0004 0.5 or 1.0 mg systemic equivalent dose (1.0 or 2.0 mg nominal dose) or matching placebo during Treatment Period 1 (TP1). Patients who responded to treatment during TP1 were re‐randomized in Treatment Period 2 (TP2) to receive MAP0004 0.25 mg systemic equivalent dose or placebo. Results.— Of 86 patients randomized to treatment, 69 were included in the As‐Treated population in TP1. Pain relief at 2 hours was greater for MAP0004 0.5 mg (72%, P = .019) and 1.0 mg (65%, P = .071) than for placebo (33%). Pain relief at 10 (32%), 15 (46%), and 30 (55%) minutes was significantly (P < .05) greater with MAP0004 0.5 mg than with placebo (0%, 7% and 14%, respectively). Pain‐free at 2 hours was significantly greater with MAP0004 0.5 mg (44%, P = .015) and 1.0 mg (35%, P = .050) than with placebo (7%). Total migraine relief at 2 hours was significantly (P = .019) greater with MAP0004 0.5 mg (72%) than with placebo (33%). Sustained pain relief and pain‐free rates exhibited a therapeutic gain of 30% (P = .066) and 31% (P = .037) at 24 hours and 28% (P = .096) and 30% (P = .057) at 48 hours with MAP0004 0.5 mg vs placebo. MAP0004 was well tolerated with no serious or severe adverse events. Dysgeusia was reported as treatment‐related in 2 patients on placebo, 0 patients on MAP0004 0.5 mg, and 6 patients on MAP0004 1.0 mg. No clinically relevant changes were noted in spirometry, vital signs, electrocardiogram, or clinical laboratory values. No significant differences between treatments were observed in TP2. Conclusions.— In this study MAP0004 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were well tolerated and effective at delivering clinically significant, rapid, and sustained pain relief in adult migraine patients. No additional benefit was observed with the higher dose, thus the MAP0004 0.5 mg systemic equivalent dose has been selected as the dose for further clinical study.     

Reduced Adverse Event Profile of Orally Inhaled DHE (MAP0004) vs IV DHE: Potential Mechanism

Background.— MAP0004 is a novel orally inhaled formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) currently in development that has been clinically observed to provide rapid (～10 minutes) therapeutic levels of DHE but with lower rates of adverse effects (dizziness, nausea, and paresthesia) compared with intravenous (IV) dosing. Receptor‐based mechanistic studies were conducted to determine if differences between IV DHE and inhaled DHE (MAP0004) binding and functional activity were responsible for the improved adverse event profile. Methods.— Radioligand competitive binding assays were performed at adrenergic (α1 [non‐specific], α2A, α2B, α2C, β), dopaminergic (D; D₁, D₂, D₃), and at serotonergic (5‐HT; 5‐HT_1A, 5‐HT_1B, 5‐HT_1D, 5‐HT_2A, 5‐HT_2C, 5‐HT₃, 5‐HT₄, 5‐HT_5A, 5‐HT₆, 5‐HT₇) receptors. Binding assays were also conducted for the major metabolite of DHE, 8’‐hydroxy‐DHE (8’‐OH‐DHE). Subsequent functional receptor assays were also performed at 5‐HT_1B, 5‐HT_1D, 5‐HT_2A, 5‐HT_2C, 5‐HT₃, D₂, α1A, α2A, α2B, β1, and β2 and muscarinic receptors to ensure that observed receptor binding translated into potential functional response. Results.— For competitive binding studies, DHE demonstrated extensive activity at IV C_max for all 5‐HT receptors tested, except 5‐HT₃ and 5‐HT₄, and α1, α2A, α2B, α2C, and D₃ receptors. DHE concentrations used in the studies were equal to the peak plasma concentrations (C_max) observed in human subjects following IV DHE 1.0 mg (the standard approved dose), and 2 and 4 inhalations MAP0004 which, respectively, produced systemic circulation levels of DHE equivalent to 0.44 mg and 0.88 mg administered IV. MAP0004 binding activity at the C_max concentrations was lower than IV DHE and no binding was observed for the 8’‐OH‐DHE metabolite. However, MAP0004 preserved potent agonist action at key anti‐migraine 5‐HT_1B and 5‐HT_1D receptors, even at the lower C_max concentrations. Functional binding studies displayed similar results whereby IV DHE C_max concentrations invoked strong agonist/antagonist responses, for instance at adrenergic and 5‐HT_2C receptors, which could have been responsible for dizziness. Conversely, at C_max concentrations of MAP0004, inhaled DHE achieved a significantly lower response or no response at the adrenergic and 5‐HT_2C receptors. Conclusions.— The mechanism by which nausea was experienced with IV DHE – yet not with MAP0004 – was not associated with classic nausea pathways/targets (dopamine, 5‐HT₃, or muscarinic receptors) or with peripheral action in the intestine via enterochromaffin cells. Importantly, the maximum DHE concentrations following MAP0004 administration were insufficient to interact with receptors implicated in cardiovascular (5‐HT_2B and β₁) and pulmonary effects (β₂, adenosine, muscarinic, and leukotriene).     

MAP0004, orally inhaled dihydroergotamine for acute treatment of migraine: efficacy of early and late treatments

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the efficacy of MAP0004, an orally inhaled dihydroergotamine, for acute treatment of migraine when administered at various time points from within 1 hour to more than 8 hours after migraine onset.PATIENTS AND METHODSThis post hoc subanalysis was conducted using data from 902 patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, phase 3, multicenter study conducted from July 14, 2008, through March 23, 2009. End points were 2-hour pain relief and pain-free rates in patients who treated a migraine in ≤1 hour, from >1 hour to ≤4 hours, from >4 to ≤8 hours, or in >8 hours after onset of migraine, given that patients may be unwilling or unable to initiate treatment at headache inception.RESULTSTreatment with MAP0004 was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving pain at all treatment points (≤1 hour after start of migraine: 66% [74/112] for MAP0004 vs 41% [48/118] for placebo, P<.001; >1 to ≤4 hours: 60% [91/153] vs 35% [58/168], P<.001; >4 to ≤8 hours: 53% [36/68] vs 30% [16/54], P=.008; and >8 hours: 48% [25/52] vs 24% [11/46], P=.007). Pain-free rates were also significantly higher with MAP0004 than placebo for treatment within 8 hours after migraine onset (≤1 hour: 38% [43/112] for MAP0004 vs 13% [15/118] for placebo, P<.001; >1 to ≤4 hours: 28% [43/153] vs 10% [17/168], P<.001; >4 to ≤8 hours: 22% [15/68] vs 7% [4/54], P<.025) but not at >8 hours (19% [10/52] vs 9% [4/46], P=.106).CONCLUSIONThis post hoc subanalysis shows that MAP0004 was effective in treating migraine irrespective of the time of treatment, even more than 8 hours after onset of migraine pain.     

Rofecoxib in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rofecoxib and ibuprofen for acute migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib was effective and well tolerated in a previous study of treatment of a single migraine attack. We sought to replicate these findings for a single attack and also study the clinical profile of rofecoxib in the acute treatment of multiple migraine attacks. Ibuprofen was included as a reference nonselective NSAID. METHODS: Adult migraineurs (n = 783) treated one migraine attack with either rofecoxib (25 or 50 mg), ibuprofen 400 mg, or placebo in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients could elect to enroll in a 3-month double-blind extension phase. RESULTS: In the single-attack phase, headache relief at 2 hours postdose was reported by 59.4%, 62.2%, and 57.7% of patients who took rofecoxib 25 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg, respectively, versus 30.5% for placebo (all P < .001 vs placebo). The active drugs were statistically superior to placebo on a variety of additional measures. In the extension phase, the mean percentage of patients' attacks with headache relief at 2 hours postdose was 61.8% for rofecoxib 25 mg, 65.4% for rofecoxib 50 mg, and 59.3% for ibuprofen 400 mg. The mean percentage of patients' attacks with 24-hour sustained headache relief was greater for rofecoxib 50 mg (52.0%) than for rofecoxib 25 mg (47.8%, P < .050) or ibuprofen (39.0%, P < .010). In the single-attack phase, the adverse event rate was higher for rofecoxib 50 mg (37.8%) than placebo (27.8%, P < .050); rates were similar to placebo for rofecoxib 25 mg (32.0%, n.s.) and ibuprofen 400 mg (28.1%, n.s.). In the extension phase, treatment groups had similar adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were effective and generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine.     

Diclofenac epolamine is effective in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. A randomized, crossover, double blind, placebo-controlled, clinical study

Hydrosoluble diclofenac epolamine (DHEP) represents an interesting approach to acute migraine attacks, where gastrointestinal motility and drug absorption are often reduced. Its efficacy was investigated in a randomized, crossover, double-blind trial on 155 patients who treated four consecutive mild-to-moderate migraine attacks, either with DHEP (65-mg sachet) or placebo. If pain was not relieved within 1 h, a second dose was given. The total number of treated attacks was 481. A pain-free condition was achieved within 2 h in 45.8% and 25.1% of attacks treated, respectively, with DHEP or placebo (P < 0.0001), with a therapeutic gain of 20.7%. Time to attack resolution, light and noise sensitivity and impact on working ability were significantly reduced by DHEP compared with placebo. Moreover, significantly fewer patients required a second drug dose or a rescue medication when treated with DHEP than with placebo. No adverse reaction was recorded. In conclusion, DHEP was effective and safe for pain relief in patients with an acute mild-to-moderate migraine attack.     

Intravenous dipyrone in the acute treatment of migraine without aura and migraine with aura: a randomized,double blind,placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND: Dipyrone (Metamizol) has been used in the acute treatment of migraines in Brazil. Some investigators have found it to be a highly effective medication for migraine pain and associated symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized, placebo controlled, double blind study to assess the effect of dipyrone on the pain and symptoms associated with migraine without aura or with aura and the adverse effect profile of this medication. METHODS: For the migraine without aura group, 44 patients were assigned at random to receive 1 g intravenous dipyrone, and 30 patients received 10 mL 0.9% physiological saline. For the migraine with aura group, 30 patients received both dipyrone or placebo. We used seven parameters of analgesic evaluation and an analog scale to assess nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. RESULTS: Patients receiving dipyrone demonstrated a statistically superior improvement (P<.05 and P<.01) in pain and all associated symptoms compared with control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Dipyrone is an effective drug for the relief of acute migraine pain and associated symptoms.     

Oral sumatriptan for the acute treatment of probable migraine: first randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan tablets in adults who meet International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for probable migraine but who do not meet IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura. BACKGROUND: Headaches with some but not all of the features of migraine meet criteria for probable migraine, a form of migraine recognized by the IHS. Probable migraine attacks are also prevalent and frequently underdiagnosed. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults (18 to 65 years) with a 1-year history of headaches that met 2004 IHS criteria for probable migraine without aura (same operational definition as 1988 IHS migrainous disorder) were eligible for enrollment. All patients were triptan- and ergot-na?ve and had never been diagnosed with migraine. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion to receive sumatriptan 25, 50, or 100 mg conventional tablets or matching placebo and were instructed to treat a single moderate or severe probable migraine attack. A post hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the population of patients who achieved headache relief sustained throughout the immediate posttreatment period. Patients who reported relief within 2 hours and subsequently lost headache relief within 4 hours were considered nonresponders. RESULTS: At 2 hours, more patients treated with sumatriptan achieved headache relief, the primary efficacy measure, compared with placebo, but differences only approached statistical significance for 100 mg (P= .053). The 2-hour headache relief rate in the sumatriptan 25 or 50 mg groups was not significantly different than placebo. The time to use of rescue was significantly shorter in the placebo group compared with the sumatriptan 100 mg group (P= .002). The time to use of rescue in the sumatriptan 25 or 50 mg groups was not significantly different than placebo. More patients treated with placebo (22%) lost headache relief within 4 hours compared with patients treated with sumatriptan 25 mg (17%), 50 mg (14%), or 100 mg (7%). A post hoc analysis demonstrated that at 2 hours, headache relief sustained through 4 hours (S 0-4 hours) was achieved in 44%, 49%, and 57% of patients treated with sumatriptan 25, 50, and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 34% of patients treated with placebo (P < .05 for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg vs. placebo). All doses of sumatriptan were well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that oral sumatriptan may be effective and is well tolerated for the acute treatment of probable migraine without aura, however, the difference between sumatriptan and placebo was not statistically significant for the a priori defined primary endpoint.     

Dihydroergotamine nasal spray in the treatment of acute migraine

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dihydroergotamine (DHE) nasal spray in patients suffering from common or classical migraine. METHODS: In a double-blind parallel-group study, 52 outpatients with migraine were randomly allocated to DHE nasal spray or to placebo. Two puffs, one in each nostril, was taken as an initial dose (resulting in either 0.5 or 1 mg of DHE), followed by another puff (0.5 mg) after 30 and 60 minutes, if necessary, achieving a maximum dose of 2 mg for patients of the DHE 1-mg group or of 1.5 mg for patients of the 0.5-mg group. Four consecutive attacks were thus treated. The efficacy analysis was done for observed cases. The main outcome measure was reduction of the severity of the attacks. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the migraine characteristics or the number of treatments of the patients from the different groups. Dihydroergotamine 1 mg tended to provide better relief than 0.5 mg, although the effect was not statistically significant. Patients taking DHE used less rescue medications, with a dose-dependent effect. Side effects were reported by four patients receiving DHE but not placebo. The tolerability of the drug was assessed as good by 94% of the patients. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that DHE nasal spray is well tolerated and has dose-dependent efficacy in migraine.     

Efficacy and safety of topiramate for the treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (100 mg/day) compared with placebo for the treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study consisting of 16 weeks of double-blind treatment. Subjects aged 18 to 65 years with 15 or more headache days per month, at least half of which were migraine/migrainous headaches, were randomized 1:1 to either topiramate 100 mg/day or placebo. An initial dose of topiramate 25 mg/day (or placebo) was titrated upward in weekly increments of 25 mg/day to a maximum of 100 mg/day (or to the maximum tolerated dose). Concomitant preventive migraine treatment was not allowed, and acute headache medication use was not to exceed 4 days per week during the double-blind maintenance period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine/migrainous days; the change in the mean monthly number of migraine days also was analyzed. A fixed sequence approach (ie, gatekeeper approach) using analysis of covariance was used to analyze the efficacy endpoints. Assessments of safety and tolerability included physical and neurologic examinations, clinical laboratory parameters, and spontaneous reports of clinical adverse events. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 306 (topiramate, n = 153; placebo, n = 153) of 328 randomized subjects who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment; 55.8% of the topiramate group and 55.2% on placebo were trial completers. The mean final topiramate maintenance dose was 86.0 mg/day. The mean duration of therapy was 91.7 days for the topiramate group and 90.6 days for the placebo group. Topiramate treatment resulted in a statistically significant mean reduction of migraine/migrainous headache days (topiramate -6.4 vs placebo -4.7, P= .010) and migraine headache days relative to baseline (topiramate -5.6 vs placebo -4.1, P= .032). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 132 (82.5%) and 113 (70.2%) of topiramate-treated and placebo-treated subjects, respectively, and were generally of mild or moderate severity. Most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group were paresthesia (n = 46, 28.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 22, 13.8%), and fatigue (n = 19, 11.9%). The most common adverse events in the placebo group were upper respiratory tract infection (n = 20, 12.4%), fatigue (n = 16, 9.9%), and nausea (n = 13, 8.1%). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 18 (10.9%) topiramate subjects and 10 (6.1%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate treatment at daily doses of approximately 100 mg resulted in statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days. Topiramate is safe and generally well tolerated in this group of subjects with chronic migraine, a burdensome condition with important unmet treatment needs. Safety and tolerability of topiramate were consistent with experience in previous clinical trials involving the drug.     

Rizatriptan for the acute treatment of ICHD-II proposed menstrual migraine: two prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies

These are the first prospective studies to use criteria for menstrual migraine proposed in the 2004 revision of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) to examine the efficacy of rizatriptan for treatment of a menstrual attack. Two identical protocols (MM1 and MM2) were randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. Adult women with ICHD-II menstrual migraine were assigned to either rizatriptan 10-mg tablet or placebo in a 2 : 1 ratio. Patients treated a single menstrual migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The primary end-point was 2-h pain relief and the secondary end-point was 24-h sustained pain relief. A total of 707 patients (MM1 357, MM2 350) treated a menstrual migraine attack. The percentage of patients reporting 2-h pain relief was significantly greater for rizatriptan than for placebo (MM1 70% vs. 53%, MM2 73% vs. 50%), as was the percentage of patients reporting 24-h sustained pain relief (MM1 46% vs. 33%; MM2 46% vs. 33%). Rizatriptan 10 mg was effective for the treatment of ICHD-II menstrual migraine, as measured by 2-h pain relief and 24-h sustained pain relief.     

Oral and subcutaneous sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: an open randomized cress-over study

In an open, randomized cross-over study in 124 patients, we compared the efficacy, safety and patient preference of oral and subcutaneous sum triptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Patients were treated for 3 attacks or 3 months and then crossed over. Primary clinical efficacy was defined as a reduction in headache severity on a four-point self-rating scale from severe (3) or moderate (2) to mild (1) or none (0), or mild (1) to none (0). Efficacy was evaluated 2 h after the administration of subcutaneous and 4h after the administration of oral sumatriptan. Subcutaneous sumatriptan was significantly more effective than oral sumatriptan in relieving headache (over all three attacks 78% vs 61% improvement), improving clinical disability (55% vs 41 % improvement) and relieving nausea (69% vs 53%), vomiting (72% vs 32%) and phono- or photophobia (67% vs 49%). Median time to recurrence was shorter after subcutaneous (12.5 h) than after oral sumatriptan (18 h); the number of patients experiencing a recurrence was similar Patients reported more adverse events after subcutaneous sumatriptan (1.32 per attack) than after the oral form (0.85 per attack), but all adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and of short duration. Patient opinion was more often positive after subcutaneous sumatriptan. These results may be useful in counselling patients to choose between the available marketed formulations of sumatriptan.     

Comparison of intravenous valproate with intravenous lysine-acetylsalicylic acid in acute migraine attacks

OBJECTIVE: The study compared efficacy and tolerability of intravenous valproate (iVPA) with intravenous lysine-acetylsalicylic acid (iLAS) in acute migraine attacks. Background.-iLAS has been proven to be a highly effective treatment in acute migraine attacks, but it is not available in many countries and contraindicated in patients with asthma or peptic ulcers. Current data suggest that iVPA may be effective in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. DESIGN/METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase-II study, 40 patients with acute migraine attacks (onset <5 hours, severe or moderate headache on a four-point IHS scale) alternately received iVPA 800 mg or iLAS 1000 mg. Primary outcome criteria were the percentage of patients reporting pain relief after 1 hour and patients who remained sustained pain free for 24 hours following drug administration. Secondary outcome criteria were relief of pain and associated migrainous symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia) at 1, 2, 24, and 48 hours following drug administration. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical features between both treatment groups. Percentage of pain relief after 1 hour in the iVPA and iLAS groups were 25% and 30%, respectively, and of sustained pain free for 24 hours were 20% and 30%, respectively, without significant differences (P = 1 and P= .72, respectively). Both drugs improved associated migrainous symptoms without significant differences at the different time points, but again with a trend in favor of iLAS. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Both drugs were effective in acute migraine attacks with a trend in favor of iLAS. As both drugs were well tolerated, further studies with higher doses of iVPA for the treatment of acute migraine attacks are recommended.     

Tramadol/acetaminophen for the treatment of acute migraine pain: findings of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare tramadol/acetaminophen (APAP) and placebo for the management of acute migraine pain. BACKGROUND: Tramadol/APAP tablets reduced moderate-to-moderately severe acute pain in controlled studies of other painful conditions. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study enrolled adults with migraine pain as per International Headache Society criteria. Subjects took tramadol/APAP (total dose, 75 mg/650 mg) or placebo for a typical migraine with moderate-to-severe pain. Severity of pain and migraine-related symptoms were recorded before study medication and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 24 hours after study medication. RESULTS: Efficacy analyses included 305 subjects (154 tramadol/APAP and 151 placebo). Treatment response was higher for tramadol/APAP than a placebo at 2 hours after dosing (55.8% vs. 33.8%, P < .001) and at every other assessment from 30 minutes (12.3% vs. 6.6%) through 6 hours (64.9% vs. 37.7%) (all P< or = .022). Subjects in the tramadol/APAP group were more likely than those in the placebo group to be pain-free at 2 hours (22.1% vs. 9.3%), 6 hours (42.9% vs. 25.2%), and 24 hours (52.7% vs. 37.9%) (all P< or = .007). Two hours after dosing, moderate-to-severe symptoms that were less common for tramadol/APAP than placebo included photophobia (34.6% vs. 52.2%, P= .003) and phonophobia (34.3% vs. 44.9%, P = .008), but not migraine-related nausea (38.5% vs. 29.4%, P= .681). Treatment-related adverse events included nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Tramadol/APAP reduces the severity of pain, photophobia, and phonophobia associated with migraine headache, but does not reduce migraine-associated nausea. Tramadol/APAP might be an appropriate option for the management of moderate-to-severe migraine headache.     

Propranolol in acute migraine: a controlled study

Propranolol is an established agent in migraine prophylaxis. Uncontrolled studies have suggested an action in the acute attack. We present the first double-blind placebo controlled study of propranolol in 27 unselected patients with common (migraine without aura) and classical (migraine with aura) migraine. There were 23 pairs of headaches in the 14 patients who completed the study. No difference was found, when the data were analysed by headache pair or by patient, in severity duration and subjective assessment of efficacy between those treated in an attack with propranolol 40 mg and placebo.     

Traditional acupuncture in migraine: a controlled, randomized study

OBJECTIVE: To check the effectiveness of a true acupuncture treatment according to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in migraine without aura, comparing it to a standard mock acupuncture protocol, an accurate mock acupuncture healing ritual, and untreated controls. BACKGROUND: Migraine prevalence is high and affects a relevant rate of adults in the productive phase of their life. Acupuncture has been increasingly advocated and used in Western countries for migraine treatment, but the evidence of its effectiveness still remains weak. A large variability of treatments is present in published studies and no acupoint selection according to TCM has been investigated so far; therefore, the low level of evidence of acupuncture effectiveness might partly depend on inappropriate treatment. DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled study was performed in 160 patients suffering from migraine without aura, assessed according to the ICD-10 classification. The patients were divided into the following 4 groups: (1) group TA, treated with true acupuncture (according to TCM) plus Rizatriptan; (2) group RMA, treated with ritualized mock acupuncture plus Rizatriptan; (3) group SMA, treated with standard mock acupuncture plus Rizatriptan; (4) group R, without prophylactic treatment with relief therapy only (Rizatriptan). The MIDAS Questionnaire was administered before treatment (T0), at 3 (T1) and 6 months (T2) from the beginning of treatment, and the MIDAS Index (MI) was calculated. Rizatriptan intake was also checked in all groups of patients at T0, T1, and T2. Group TA and RMA were evaluated according to TCM as well; then, the former was submitted to true acupuncture and the latter to mock acupuncture treatment resembling the same as TA. The statistical analysis was conducted with factorial ANOVA and multiple tests with a Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients completed the study (33 dropouts): 32 belonged to group TA, 30 to group RMA, 31 to group SMA, and 34 to group R. Before treatment the MI (T(0)) was moderate to severe with no significant intergroup differences. All groups underwent a decrease of MI at T(1) and T(2), with a significant group difference at both T(1) and T(2) compared to T(0) (P < .0001). Only TA provided a significant improvement at both T(1) and T(2) compared to R (P < .0001). RMA underwent a transient improvement of MI at T(1). The Rizatriptan intake paralleled the MI in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: TA was the only treatment able to provide a steady outcome improvement in comparison to the use of only Rizatriptan, while RMA showed a transient placebo effect at T1.     

Intravenous magnesium sulphate in the acute treatment of migraine without aura and migraine with aura. A randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled study

Magnesium sulphate has been used in the acute treatment of migraines; some studies found it to be a highly effective medication in the acute control of migraine pain and associated symptoms. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assesses the effect of magnesium sulphate on the pain and associated symptoms in patients with migraine without aura and migraine with aura. Sixty patients in each group were assigned at random to receive magnesium sulphate, 1000 mg intravenously, or 0.9% physiological saline, 10 ml. We used seven parameters of analgesic evaluation and an analogue scale to assess nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. In the migraine without aura group there was no statistically significant difference in the patients who received magnesium sulphate vs. placebo in pain relief. The analgesic therapeutic gain was 17% and number needed to treat was 5.98 at 1 h. There was also no statistical difference in relief of nausea. We did observe a significant lower intensity of photophobia and phonophobia in patients who received magnesium sulphate. In the migraine with aura group patients receiving magnesium sulphate presented a statistically significant improvement of pain and of all associated symptoms compared with controls. The analgesic therapeutic gain was 36.7% at 1 h. A smaller number of patients continued to have aura in the magnesium sulphate group compared with placebo 1 h after the administration of medication. Our data support the idea that magnesium sulphate can be used for the treatment of all symptoms in migraine with aura, or as an adjuvant therapy for associated symptoms in patients with migraine without aura.