Flunarizine Versus Metoprolol in Migraine Prophylaxis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Parallel Group Study of Efficacy and Tolerability

The prophylactic effect of flunarizine and metoprolol was studied in a multi-center randomized, double-blind trial of 149 patients with migraine with or without aura. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly allocated to treatment with flunarizine 10 mg daily or metoprolol 200 mg daily for 16 weeks (parallel group design). Both drugs reduced the number of migraine days per month by 37% (95% confidence interval 21-53%) compared with the placebo run-in period. All efficacy parameters were significantly reduced by both drugs and no significant difference was found between the two drugs at any time of the treatment period. However, calculation of the 95% confidence limits showed that each drug may have a superiority of more than 100% on a single main effect parameter. The most common adverse experiences were day-time sedation (both drugs) and weight gain (flunarizine). Depression was the most serious side-effect occurring in 8% on flunarizine and 3% on metoprolol. We conclude that both drugs are effective in the prevention of migraine attacks but a higher number of dropouts occurred on flunarizine because of depression or weight gain.     

Flunarizine in prophylaxis of childhood migraine

An 8-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of flunarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine has been performed in 70 children. After 4 weeks of medication-free base-line observation, 35 children (group A) received flunarizine (5 mg/day) and 35 (group B) received placebo over a 12-week period. After a 4-week washout they crossed treatments for another 12 weeks. Sixty-three patients completed the trial. In both groups flunarizine significantly reduced the frequency and average duration of headache attacks. In group A efficacy was maintained after placebo crossover for the last 4 months of the study. Five subjects in group B stopped placebo because of ineffectiveness; two children in group A discontinued flunarizine treatment, one because of excessive daytime sedation and the other because therapy was ineffective. The main side effects were daytime sedation and weight gain. It is concluded that flunarizine is an effective drug for the treatment of childhood migraine. In a study of this length no serious side effects were discovered.     

A Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial of Nimodipine in Pediatric Migraine

An 8-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial was carried out on the use of nimodipine in migraine prophylaxis in 37 patients aged 7 to 18 years old. After a 4-week medication-free run-in period, 19 subjects (Group 1) received a placebo while 18 (Group 2) received nimodipine (10-20 mg t.i.d., according to body weight), for 12 weeks. After a 4-week wash-out period, the groups switched therapy for a further 12 weeks. 30 patients completed the trial and the number of dropouts was comparable in the 2 groups. The only side-effect during nimodipine treatment was mild abdominal discomfort (3 cases). The treatments were evaluated on the basis of frequency and duration of attacks. There was a significant reduction in both parameters during the first period of treatment. During the second period of treatment, nimodipine proved to have a significantly greater effect than the placebo with regard to frequency, whereas the response was similar with the placebo as regards duration of attacks. The latter parameter shows a significant decrease during the treatment periods, regardless of type of therapy.     

Failure of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in prevention of migraine: a double-blind study versus placebo

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (OPFA) have beneficial effects on inflammatory reactions and production of cytokines. They decrease the release of 5HT by platelets and possess vasorelaxant activity. This led them to be tried in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. After 4 weeks of a single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized and treated in double-blind condition by placebo or OPFA 6 g a day for 16 weeks, followed by a 4-week placebo run-out period. The intention to treat population included 196 patients. Those who received all four treatment periods included 96 patients taking OPFA and 87 taking placebo. The primary efficacy analysis was the number of migraine attacks during the last 4 weeks of treatment. During this period, the mean number of attacks was 1.20 +/- 1.40 in the OPFA group and 1.26 +/- 1.11 in the placebo group (NS). The total number of attacks during the 4-month period of the study was significantly different between groups: 7.05 in the placebo group, 5.95 in the OPFA group (P = 0.036). Mean intensity, mean duration of the attacks and rescue medication use, were not significantly different between the two groups. Except for a significant difference against OPFA for eructations, the tolerance was satisfying. Despite a run-in placebo period of 1 month, a very strong placebo effect was observed in this trial: 45% reduction of the attacks between run-in and 4-month treatment period (55% in the OPFA group, P = 0.058). Finally, this large study did not confirm two previous studies based on a small number of patients.     

Long Acting Propranolol in the Prophylaxis of Migraine. Comparison of the Daily Doses of 80 mg and 160 mg

SYNOPSIS
The efficacy of long acting propranolol in a dosage of 80 mg once daily in comparison to 160 mg once daily was assessed in the prophylactic treatment of migraine in a double-blind cross-over trial. 48 patients with classic or common migraine were included in the investigation, 6 patients withdrew, but only one because of side-effects. A four week run-in placebo period preceded the drug treatments, the duration of drug treatments was 12 weeks and there was a wash-out placebo period of 4 weeks between the treatments.
The two long acting propranolol doses, 80 mg and 160 mg once daily seemed to be equally effective. There was no difference in the antimigraineous effect. Long acting propranolol decreased both the frequency and severity of migraine attacks. Side-effects reported during the trial were mild, both doses were well tolerated. The treatment compliance during the once daily treatment was very good.     

PROPRANOLOL FOR MIGRAINE PROPHYLAXIS

SYNOPSIS
The preventive effect of propranolol on migraine attacks was compared to placebo in a double-blind cross-over trial. Thirty-two patients with serious and prolonged migraine participated in the 12-week study. The effect of propranolol was significantly better than that of placebo. The number of migraine attacks during the propranolol period was reduced in 22 patients (69%), and in 11 of these (34%) a reduction of more than 50% was seen. The intensity of headache was significantly reduced during the propranolol period. The intake of analgesics and preparations containing ergotamine was significantly reduced during the propranolol period also. No serious side effects were noted.     

Flunarizine and Propranolol in the Treatment of Migraine

The clinical efficacy of flunarizine and of propranolol for the prevention of migraine attacks was assessed in a multicenter double-blind study lasting four months which was preceded by a single-blind placebo period of one month. For both drugs, more than half of the patients judged the effect to be good or very good. When considering the patients' daily logs, both drugs produced a significant reduction of the number of attacks. Propranolol furthermore significantly reduced the severity of attacks and the number of analgesics used during the attacks. In both groups no severe side effects were observed.     

The efficacy and safety of Tanacetum parthenium (feverfew) in migraine prophylaxis--a double-blind,multicentre, randomized placebo-controlled dose-response study

Tanacetum parthenium (feverfew), is a well-known herb for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. The primary objective was to show a dose-response of a new stable extract (MIG-99) reproducibly manufactured with supercritical CO2 from feverfew (T. parthenium). Furthermore, the study should provide data on the safety and tolerability of MIG-99. In a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, controlled trial with an adaptive design, the clinical efficacy and safety of three dosages of MIG-99 (2.08 mg; 6.25 mg; 18.75 mg t.i.d.) were compared with placebo. The patients (n = 147) suffered from migraine with and without aura according to International Headache Society (IHS) criteria and were treated with one of the study medications for 12 weeks after a 4-week baseline period. The primary efficacy parameter was the number of migraine attacks during the last 28 days of the treatment period compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints were total and average duration and intensity of migraine attacks, mean duration of the single attack, number of days with accompanying migraine symptoms, number of days with inability to work due to migraine as well as type and amount of additionally taken medications for the treatment of migraine attacks. The design of the study included a pre-planned adaptive interim analysis for patients with at least four migraine attacks within the baseline period. With respect to the primary and secondary efficacy parameter, a statistically significant difference was not found between the overall and the confirmatory intention-to-treat (ITT) sample in the exploratorily analysed four treatment groups. The frequency of migraine attacks for the predefined confirmatory subgroup of patients (n = 49) with at least four migraine attacks during the baseline period decreased in a dose-dependent manner (P = 0.001). The highest absolute change of migraine attacks was observed under treatment with 6.25 mg t.i.d. (mean +/- SD = -1.8 +/- 1.5 per 28 days) compared with placebo (-0.3 +/- 1.9; P = 0.02). Overall, 52 of 147 (35%) patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). The incidence of AEs in the active treatment groups was similar to that in the placebo group, and no dose-related effect was observed in any safety parameter. MIG-99 failed to show a significant migraine prophylactic effect in general. Accordingly, in the ITT analysis a dose-response relationship could not be observed. MIG-99 was shown to be effective only in a small predefined subgroup of patients with at least four attacks during the 28-day baseline period where the most favourable benefit-risk ratio was observed with a dosage of three capsules of 6.25 mg MIG-99 extract per day. Because of the low number of patients, these findings need to be verified in a larger sample. The incidence of AEs was similar for all treatment groups.     

Efficacy of nimodipine in comparison with pizotifen in the prophylaxis of migraine

The efficacy of nimodipine in comparison with that of pizotifen was assessed in the prophylaxis of migraine in a double-blind cross-over study, in which a double-dummy technique was also utilized. The study was carried out on 43 migraine patients, of whom 15 had classic and 28 had common migraine. A 4-week run-in placebo period preceded the drug treatments, the drug treatments lasted 12 weeks, and there was a washout placebo period of 4 weeks between nimodipine and pizotifen treatments. The dosages used were 40 mg three times daily for nimodipine and 0.5 mg three times daily for pizotifen. Both nimodipine and pizotifen proved to be better than placebo, the number of migraine attacks showing a significant reduction. There was no difference between nimodipine and pizotifen in antimigrainous efficacy, but there were fewer side effects during the nimodipine period. The results suggest that nimodipine is an effective drug for the prophylaxis of migraine, with few side effects and therapeutic efficacy equal to that of pizotifen.     

Cyclandelate in the prophylaxis of migraine: a placebo-controlled study

The prophylactic action of cyclandelate was investigated in a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. A 4-week baseline period was followed by a 4-week placebo phase and a 16-week treatment period with either 1600 mg cyclandelate or placebo. Patients (n = 251) with two to six migraine attacks/month were randomized. Neither the primary study endpoint (reduction of migraine days from baseline to the last 28 days) nor most of the secondary endpoints (reduction in the number of migraine attacks, severity or duration of attacks, frequency of autonomic disturbances, medication for treatment of attacks) showed a difference between cyclandelate and placebo. Cyclandelate, however, was superior to placebo in a global impression of efficacy rated by the patients and the treating physicians. Both treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, cyclandelate was not superior to placebo in the prophylaxis of migraine with regard to parameters usually used in migraine prophylaxis trials.     

Atenolol for Migraine Prophylaxis

SYNOPSIS
The preventive effect of atenolol on migraine attacks was compared to placebo in a double-blind cross-over study. 24 patients with classic and/or common migraine entered the 36-week study; four subsequently dropped out. The effect of atenolol was significantly better than that of placebo. The number of headache attacks was reduced in 15 of 20 patients (r<0.05) and the values for integrated headache diminished in 19 of 20 patients (r<0.001).
Intake of ergotamine products was significantly lower in all patients using such drugs, while the consumption of common analgesics did not differ between the trial periods. No serious side effects were noted.     

A comparative study of oral acetylsalicyclic acid and metoprolol for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. A randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel group phase III study

This study was a multinational, multicentre, double-blind, active controlled phase III trial designed to investigate efficacy and safety of 300 mg acetylsalicyclic acid (ASA) (n = 135) vs. 200 mg metoprolol (n = 135) in the prophylaxis of migraine. In total 270 (51 male and 219 female) patients, aged 18-65 years, suffering between two and six migraine attacks per month were recruited. The main objective was to show equivalence with respect to efficacy, defined as a 50% reduction in the rate of migraine attacks. A run-in phase was carried out with placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a 16-week drug phase. In both treatment groups the median frequency of migraine attacks improved during the study period, from three to two in the ASA group and from three to one in the metoprolol group; 45.2% of all metoprolol patients were responders compared with 29.6% with ASA. Medication-related adverse events were less frequent in the ASA group (37) than in the metoprolol group (73). The findings from this trial show that metoprolol is superior to ASA for migraine prophylaxis but has more side-effects. Acetylsalicylic acid is better tolerated than metoprolol. Using a strict responder criterion ASA showed a responder rate comparable with the placebo rate in the literature.     

Divalproex sodium in migraine prophylaxis: a dose-controlled study

Objective : To evaluate the efficacy and safety of divalproex sodium (DVPX) when used as prophylactic monotherapy in patients with migraine. Design : Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group. Patients were previously untreated or had failed no more than two adequate trials of prophylactic therapy. During the 4-week (single-blind) baseline, patients received placebo and completed a headache diary. Patients with two or more migraine attacks during the baseline were randomized to receive a DVPX daily dose of 500, 1000, or 1500 mg, or to placebo. The experimental phase (EP) lasted 12 weeks, the first 4 weeks for dose escalation to randomized dose, and the remaining 8 weeks for maintenance at that dose. The primary efficacy variable was 4-week migraine attack frequency during the EP. Results : One-hundred-and-seventy-six patients (44 placebo, 132 DVPX) were randomized; 171 provided efficacy data and 137 completed the study. During the EP, after adjustment for differences in baseline migraine attack frequencies, mean reductions in the DVPX groups were 1.7 (500 mg), 2.0 (1000 mg) and 1.7 (1500 mg) migraine attacks per 4 weeks compared to a mean reduction of 0.5 migraine attacks in the placebo group ( p 0.05 vs placebo). Forty-four to 45% of DVPX-treated patients, compared to 21% of patients in the placebo group achieved 50% reduction in their migraine attack frequencies ( p 0.05 vs placebo). The recommended initial dose of DVPX in migraine prophylaxis is 500 mg per day, although some patients may benefit from higher doses. Adverse events were similar in the DVPX and placebo treatment groups except for nausea, dizziness and tremor, in which incidence rates were significantly higher in the DVPX 1500 mg group (nausea was also higher in 500 mg group) than in the placebo group. Conclusion : Divalproex sodium is an effective prophylactic treatment in migraine and is generally well tolerated.     

Flunarizine in the prevention of classical migraine: a placebo-controlled evaluation

Pharmacological data and early clinical experience have suggested that the calcium entry blocker flunarizine may be a valuable gain in the prophylaxis of migraine. This was supported by a study in 20 patients with classical migraine who were, after a drug free run-in phase, orally treated with either placebo or flunarizine (10 mg at night) for 3 to 4 months. Flunarizine significantly reduced the frequency, duration and severity of the migraine attacks. A corrected migraine index, based on these 3 variables was reduced by 82% in the drug group but increased by 66% in the control patients. Only 1 patient did not clearly benefit from flunarizine. In some cases flunarizine should be administered for at least 4 months before judging its efficacy. No side-effects occurred.     

Efficacy and safety of 6.25 mg t.i.d. feverfew CO2-extract (MIG-99) in migraine prevention--a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study

The efficacy and tolerability of a CO(2)-extract of feverfew (MIG-99, 6.25 mg t.i.d.) for migraine prevention were investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study. Patients (N = 170 intention-to-treat; MIG-99, N = 89; placebo, N = 81) suffering from migraine according to International Headache Society criteria were treated for 16 weeks after a 4-week baseline period. The primary endpoint was the average number of migraine attacks per 28 days during the treatment months 2 and 3 compared with baseline. Safety parameters included adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs and physical examination. The migraine frequency decreased from 4.76 by 1.9 attacks per month in the MIG-99 group and by 1.3 attacks in the placebo group (P = 0.0456). Logistic regression of responder rates showed an odds ratio of 3.4 in favour of MIG-99 (P = 0.0049). Adverse events possibly related to study medication were 9/107 (8.4%) with MIG-99 and 11/108 (10.2%) with placebo (P = 0.654). MIG-99 is effective and shows a favourable benefit-risk ratio.     

Telmisartan in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

We evaluated telmisartan 80 mg for migraine prophylaxis. Migraine patients ( n  = 95) with three to seven migraine attacks in 3 months were randomized, double-blind to telmisartan or placebo. The primary end-point was the reduction in the number of migraine days (i.e. a day with ≥ 1 h of symptoms) between the 4-week baseline period and the last 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period. A responder was recorded when there was a symptom reduction of ≥ 50% in these 4-week baseline and treatment periods. The reduction in migraine days was 1.65 with telmisartan and 1.14 with placebo ( P  > 0.05). Post hoc analyses adjusting for baseline and centre showed a 38% reduction in migraine days with telmisartan vs. 15% with placebo ( P  = 0.03), and a borderline significant difference in responders (40% vs. 25%, P  = 0.07). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. This study indicates that telmisartan might be effective in migraine prophylaxis.     

Propranolol in the treatment of acute migraine attacks

The efficacy of the beta-adrenoceptor antagonist propranolol in the acute treatment of patients in attacks of either classical (migraine with aura) or common migraine (migraine without aura) headache was assessed in a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial with fixed doses. The trial was carried out on 25 patients. The treatment period was set at eight weeks, with the provision of shortening or lengthening it if necessary with a maximum period of seventeen weeks. A minimum of three migraine attacks were treated during each treatment period. Patients were assessed according to: the mean duration and mean severity per treatment period of migraine attacks. The secondary efficacy assessment was made on the basis of the percentage of attacks requiring escape medication per treatment period. The study, based on the t-distribution statistical model with a confidence level of 95%, showed that propranolol had no significant effect in aborting acute attacks of migraine when compared with placebo.     

Flunarizine (10 and 20 mg) i.v. versus placebo in the treatment of acute migraine attacks: a multi-centre double-blind study

In a multi-centre, randomized double-blind study, the effect and tolerance of 10 and 20 mg flunarizine i.v. versus placebo was tested on 102 migraineurs with acute migraine attacks with and/or without aura. Thirty-seven patients received 10 mg flunarizine, 32 received 20 mg and 33 received placebo. The groups were comparable. Response to treatment was defined as pain reduction of at least 50% within 60 min on a visual analogue scale after i.v. drug administration. This effect was noted on 59.4% with 20 mg flunarizine, on 24.3% with 10 mg flunarizine and on 30.3% with placebo. The tolerance of flunarizine i.v. was similar to placebo. Blood pressure and pulse rate were not affected by flunarizine. All in all, 20 mg flunarizine i.v. appeared to be a suitable alternative for treatment of acute migraine attacks.     

Magnesium in the prophylaxis of migraine-a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The migraine prophylactic effect of 10 mmol magnesium twice-daily has been evaluated in a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with two to six migraine attacks per month without aura, and history of migraine of at least 2 years, were included. A 4-week baseline period without medication was followed by 12 weeks of treatment with magnesium or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was a reduction of at least 50% in intensity or duration of migraine attacks in hours at the end of the 12 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. With a calculated total sample size of 150 patients, an interim analysis was planned after completing treatment of at least 60 patients, which in fact was performed with 69 patients (64F, 5M), aged 18–64 years. Of these, 35 had received magnesium and 34 placebo. The number of responders was 1 in each group (28.6% under magnesium and 29.4% under placebo). As determined in the study protocol, this was a major reason to discontinue the trial. With regard to the number of migraine days or migraine attacks there was no benefit with magnesium compared to placebo. There were no centre-specific differences, and the final assessments of treatment efficacy by the doctor and patient were largely equivocal. With respect to tolerability and safety, 45.7% of patients in the magnesium group reported primarily mild adverse' events like soft stool and diarrhoea in contrast to 23.5% in the placebo group.     

Long-acting propranolol in the prophylaxis of migraine: a comparative study of two doses

A randomized double-blind, cross-over study using treatment periods of 12 weeks with a 2-week washout, comparing two long-acting formulations of propranolol ('Inderal' LA 160 mg daily and Half-'Inderal' LA 80 mg daily) was performed after a placebo run-in of 4 weeks on 51 patients. The study indicated that both long-acting formulations were significantly better than placebo in reducing the frequency of migraine attacks (p less than 0.01). After 12 weeks there was a significantly lower (p = 0.03) frequency of migraine attacks in patients on the higher dose formulation than in those on the lower dose formulation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of side effects produced by the two formulations.