A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine XR in out-patients with tension-type headache

The aim of this study was to evaluate in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study the safety and efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (XR) in the prophylactic treatment of out-patients with tension-type headache (TTH) and no current depression or anxiety disorders. Sixty neurology and headache clinic out-patients meeting the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for TTH were treated with venlafaxine XR (150 mg/day, n = 34) or placebo (n = 26) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the decline in number of days with headache. At end-point, the venlafaxine XR group had a significantly greater decrease in the number of days with headache compared with placebo (P = 0.05). Differences with regard to secondary efficacy variables where not significant. The number needed to treat for responders (>or=50% reduction in days with headache) was 3.48. Six patients in the venlafaxine XR group interrupted therapy due to adverse events, while no patients in the placebo group did so for the same reason. The number needed to harm was 5.58. This study provides preliminary evidence for the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day in reducing the number of days with TTH.     

Venlafaxine extended release (XR) for the prophylaxis of migraine and tension-type headache: A retrospective study in a clinical setting

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of extended-release venlafaxine in the prophylaxis of migraine and chronic tension-type headache. BACKGROUND: Venlafaxine, a structurally novel antidepressant, is a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. This study is the first to test the effects of extended-release venlafaxine on headaches. METHODS: Patients were evaluated on a retrospective basis. Fifty-six patients with chronic tension-type headache and 114 patients with migraine were prescribed extended-release venlafaxine. Nearly all the study subjects had been resistant to several previous preventive medications. Patients took venlafaxine for an average of 6 months with a median dose of 150 mg (range, 37.5 to 300 mg). RESULTS: The mean frequency of headaches in the group with chronic tension-type headache fell from 24.0 to 15.2 per month (P <.0001). The group with migraine showed a reduction from 16.1 to 11.1 headaches per month (P <.0001). The medicine was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This trial indicates that extended-release venlafaxine has potential in headache prophylaxis based on its efficacy and safety profile. We recommend a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to further assess the role of extended-release venlafaxine in headache prevention.     

Efficacy and Safety of Sumatriptan Tablets (25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Defining the Optimum Doses of Oral Sumatriptan

That sumatriptan tablets are effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine has been established, but the relationship between dose and efficacy has not been adequately defined to date in clinical trials. This multinational double-blind trial (N=1003) in which patients treated up to three migraine attacks with sumatriptan 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or placebo, with a second independently randomized dose for headache recurrence, evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of three doses of sumatriptan. The results demonstrate that all doses of sumatriptan were superior ( P <0.05) to placebo in reducing moderate or severe predose headache to mild or no headache 4 hours postdose for each of the three treated attacks; sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg were each superior ( P <0.05) to sumatiptan 25 mg 4 hours postdose for two of three attacks. Sumatriptan (all doses) was similarly effective at relieving nausea and photophobia or phonophobia or both and at reducing clinical disability. Headache recurrence was experienced by similar proportions of patients across treatment groups (35% to 48% after placebo; 26% to 39% after sumatriptan). Relief of recurrent headache 2 hours after the second dose of study medication occurred in greater percentages of patients using any dose of sumatriptan compared with patients using placebo to treat recurrence. The incidence of adverse events with 25-mg and 50-mg sumatriptan tablets was similar to the incidence with placebo and lower than the incidence with 100-mg sumatriptan tablets. These data provide the first demonstration from a large well-controlled clinical trial that both the 50- and 100-mg doses are more effective than the 25-mg dose and that the 50-mg dose is associated with a lower incidence of adverse events than the 100-mg dose.     

Efficacy and tolerability of oral zolmitriptan in menstrually associated migraine: a randomized, prospective, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60% of female migraineurs report experiencing migraine in association with menstruation, while 7% to 25% experience attacks almost exclusively with menstruation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of oral zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of menstrually associated migraine. In this study, menstrually associated migraine was defined as migraine that consistently occurred from 72 hours before to 5 days after onset of menses. Methods.-Participants were women with regular menstrual cycles, aged 18 to 55 years, who had experienced migraine with at least two thirds of prior menstrual cycles. Subjects were randomized to treat one attack per menstrual cycle for 3 months with either zolmitriptan or placebo. Treatment was intensity based: mild migraines were treated with half of a 2.5-mg zolmitriptan tablet, moderate migraines were treated with zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, and severe migraines were treated with 5 mg (two 2.5-mg tablets) of zolmitriptan, or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 579 women enrolled in the study, 260 were treated with zolmitriptan and 251 were assigned placebo. Twelve hundred thirty-two attacks were treated, and a 2-hour headache response was achieved in 48% of zolmitriptan-treated attacks as compared with 27% of placebo-assigned attacks (P <.0001). Zolmitriptan was superior to placebo in achieving a headache response as early as 30 minutes (18% versus 14%, P=.03) and at 1 hour (33% versus 23%, P <.001). Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of subjects receiving zolmitriptan and 9% of subjects receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: Oral zolmitriptan exhibits efficacy and good tolerability in the treatment of menstrually associated migraine. Improvement over placebo was observed as early as 30 minutes following treatment.     

Naratriptan as short-term prophylaxis of menstrually associated migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of naratriptan 1-mg and 2.5-mg tablets twice daily compared with placebo as short-term prophylaxis of menstrually associated migraine. BACKGROUND: Approximately 60% of women with migraine report headaches associated with their menstrual cycles. Results from an open-label study suggest that short-term administration of sumatriptan is useful in the prophylaxis of menstrually associated migraine. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was conducted in women aged 18 years or older with a history of migraine with or without aura, as defined by the International Headache Society, of at least 6 months. Two dose strengths of naratriptan (1 mg, 2.5 mg) or identical-appearing placebo tablets (1:1:1) were administered twice daily for 5 days starting 2 days prior to the expected onset of menses across four perimenstrual periods. End points included the number of menstrually associated migraines, total migraine days, peak headache severity, lost work/activity time, migraine-related quality of life, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, the intent-to-treat population comprised 206 women (naratriptan 1 mg, n = 70; naratriptan 2.5 mg, n = 70, and placebo, n = 66); 171 women treated four perimenstrual periods. Significantly more perimenstrual periods per subject treated with naratriptan, 1 mg, were headache-free compared with placebo (50% versus 25%, P =.003). Naratriptan, 1 mg, significantly reduced the number of menstrually associated migraines (2.0 versus 4.0, P <.05) and menstrually associated migraine days (4.2 versus 7.0, P <.01) compared with placebo. More patients treated with naratriptan, 1 mg, were headache-free across all treated perimenstrual periods compared with placebo (23% versus 8%). No difference in headache severity was observed in breakthrough headaches. The incidence and severity of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. Naratriptan, 2.5 mg, was not statistically superior to placebo for any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan, 1 mg, with tolerability similar to placebo, is an effective, short-term, prophylactic treatment for menstrually associated migraine.     

Crossover comparison of rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg in migraine. Rizatriptan Protocol 046 Study Group

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared rizatriptan 5 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg. A total of 1329 patients were allocated to one of five groups for treatment of two attacks: rizatriptan 5 mg/sumatriptan 25 mg; sumatriptan 25 mg/rizatriptan 5 mg; rizatriptan 10 mg/sumatriptan 50 mg; sumatriptan 50 mg/rizatriptan 10 mg; placebo/placebo. For each attack, patients rated headache severity, presence of associated symptoms, and functional disability prior to dosing and at intervals through 4 hours thereafter. Patients also rated their satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg provided faster relief of headache pain and greater relief of migraine symptoms than the 25-mg and 50-mg doses of sumatriptan, respectively. The response to rizatriptan was better than sumatriptan on additional measures including functional disability and satisfaction with medication. All active treatments were highly effective compared to placebo and acted as early as 30 minutes after dosing. All active treatments were well-tolerated and showed comparable safety profiles.     

Crossover Comparison of Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg Versus Sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg in Migraine

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared rizatriptan 5 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg. A total of 1329 patients were allocated to one of five groups for treatment of two attacks: rizatriptan 5 mg/sumatriptan 25 mg; sumatriptan 25 mg/rizatriptan 5 mg; rizatriptan 10 mg/sumatriptan 50 mg; sumatriptan 50 mg/rizatriptan 10 mg; placebo/placebo. For each attack, patients rated headache severity, presence of associated symptoms, and functional disability prior to dosing and at intervals through 4 hours thereafter. Patients also rated their satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg provided faster relief of headache pain and greater relief of migraine symptoms than the 25-mg and 50-mg doses of sumatriptan, respectively. The response to rizatriptan was better than sumatriptan on additional measures including functional disability and satisfaction with medication. All active treatments were highly effective compared to placebo and acted as early as 30 minutes after dosing. All active treatments were well-tolerated and showed comparable safety profiles.     

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Avitriptan in Patients With Migraine After Oral Dosing

Avitriptan (BMS-180048) is a 5-HT₁-like receptor agonist for the treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and preliminary efficacy of avitriptan in patients with migraine during migrainous and pain-free states. Patients met the IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura and suffered one to six migraines per month for at least 1 year. Patients in a clinic experiencing a migraine headache received avitriptan 75 mg, 150 mg, or 200 mg or matching placebo capsules. Blood samples were obtained before and 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after dosing. Headache intensity was rated before and up to 6 hours after dosing. Seven to 30 days after the inclinic treatment, patients returned in a pain-free state for the same study medication. All pharmacokinetic and safety measures were repeated. Forty-eight patients (9 men and 39 women) participated. Peak plasma concentrations of avitriptan were achieved 1 to 2 hours following dosing in migraine and pain-free states for all doses. The pharmacokinetics of avitriptan were proportional to dose during a migraine attack over the 75- to 200-mg dose range. The 150- and 200-mg doses of avitriptan demonstrated a greater decrease in headache intensity scores at 2 hours postdose. The most common adverse event was paresthesia. Thus, avitriptan was rapidly absorbed, well tolerated, and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in this population.     

Pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan tablets during and between migraine attacks

Gastric stasis during migraine attacks results in delayed absorption of several orally administered antimigraine agents. This study, as part of a larger trial, was conducted to examine the pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan tablets during and between migraine attacks. Participating patients met IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura, and suffered between one and eight migraines per month for the previous 6 months. In part 1 of the study, 21 patients were randomized to receive a single 5-mg tablet of rizatriptan or placebo in the migraine-free state. In part 2, the same patients were treated during migraine with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n=18) or placebo (n=3). Blood samples were obtained before dosing and 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after dosing. The plasma concentration profile (ie, AUC_(0-∞), C_max, T_max) of rizatriptan 5-mg tablets administered during and between migraine attacks were comparable. The median T_max for rizatriptan between and during attacks was 1 hour, indicating rapid absorption even during a migraine attack. Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated and 67% of the patients experienced headache relief 2 hours postdose.     

Efficacy of sumatriptan nasal spray in recurrent migrainous headache: an open prospective study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of sumatriptan 20 mg via nasal spray and 100-mg tablets in treating migrainous headache in patients without a concomitant migraine diagnosis. METHODS: We prospectively investigated the efficacy of sumatriptan 20 mg via nasal spray and 100-mg tablets in patients with a history of at least 5 moderate to severe headache attacks lasting 2 to 72 hours that consistently did not meet the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for migraine or episodic tension-type headache. RESULTS: Nineteen headache attacks classifiable as migrainous disorder without aura (IHS 1.7) were evaluated in 13 patients using 20-mg sumatriptan nasal spray within a 10-week period. A 2-point decrease in headache severity on a four-point scale was achieved in 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50% to 89%) of the attacks within 2 hours. The pain-free incidence (a reduction in headache severity from moderate or severe to none) was 37% (95% CI, 17% to 63%) after 2 hours. Ten patients completed the second part of the study, taking oral sumatriptan for 14 migrainous attacks: a 2-point decrease in headache severity was achieved in 38% (95% CI, 13% to 71%) of the attacks within 2 hours and in 77% (95% CI, 48% to 92%) within 4 hours. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective study to show that intranasal or oral sumatriptan may be effective in patients experiencing moderate to severe headache attacks which consistently do not fulfill the IHS criteria for migraine or episodic tension-type headache.     

Rizatriptan 5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents: results from a double-blind, single-attack study and two open-label, multiple-attack studies

OBJECTIVE: To examine the short- and long-term efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan 5 mg in adolescents with migraine. METHODS: Two studies were conducted in patients aged 12 to 17 years. The first study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack study followed by a randomized, 1-year, open-label extension. The second study was a randomized, 1-year, open-label study. In the single-attack study, patients treated a moderate or severe migraine headache and up to two recurrences with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n = 234) or placebo (n = 242). Patients were instructed to use the study medication only on nonschool days. Headache severity, associated symptoms, and functional disability were assessed by the patient at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 hours after the initial dose. In the 1-year studies, patients treated up to 6 migraine attacks per month with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n = 273), rizatriptan 5-mg wafers (n = 281), or standard care therapy (n = 132). Headache severity was assessed by the patient at 2 hours after the initial dose. In all studies, the primary efficacy measure was pain relief at 2 hours post dose. RESULTS: In the single-attack study, the proportion of patients with pain relief at 2 hours was not significantly different between rizatriptan 5 mg (68.2%) and placebo (68.8%). Fewer patients than expected (about 30%) treated their migraine attacks on the weekend. Among these patients, the proportion with pain relief at 2 hours was significantly higher in the rizatriptan group than in the placebo group (74% vs. 58%, P = 0.022). In the multiple-attack studies, pain relief at 2 hours was achieved in significantly more attacks treated with rizatriptan 5-mg tablet (77%) or with rizatriptan 5-mg wafer (77%) than with standard care (64%). Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated in both the studies, with an adverse event profile not significantly different from that of placebo or standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was not more effective than placebo in the treatment of a single migraine attack in adolescents, but appeared to be more effective than standard care for treating multiple attacks occurring over 1 year in these patients. Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated in adolescents during short-term and long-term use.     

Combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide in the acute treatment of migraine: a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled study

This multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide (LAS-MCP) in the acute treatment of migraine attacks. A total of 266 patients, 18–65 years old, with two to six attacks of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) per month were included. The patients had to treat two migraine attacks with LAS-MCP (1620 mg lysine acetylsalicylate-the equivalent of 900 mg aspirin- combined with 10 mg metoclopramide) or placebo. The main outcome measure was headache relief (reduction in headache severity from grade 3 or 2-severe or moderate-to grade 1 or 0-mild or none) 2 h after treatment. LAS-MCP was superior to placebo for headache relief (56% vs 28%) and for the following secondary outcome measures: complete headache relief (18% vs 7%; p < 0.001), nausea (28% vs 44%; p < 0.001), vomiting (3% vs 11%; p = 0.001), use of rescue medication (47% vs 68%; p < 0.001), global efficacy judged as good or excellent (32% vs 14%; p < 0.001). The tolerability was considered as good in 94% of treated attacks in both groups. Combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide is an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment of migraine attacks.     

Topiramate as an adjunctive treatment in migraine prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: Anticonvulsants now are commonly used for headache prevention. Topiramate, one of the newer anticonvulsants, recently has been demonstrated to be effective as monotherapy for migraine prophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of topiramate as adjunctive prophylactic therapy for migraine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective trial involving patients with more than 3 migraine attacks per month was performed. Patients continued their usual prophylactic treatment. Baseline analgesic use and frequency and duration of migraine attacks were recorded. A 4-point visual analog scale evaluated severity. Laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were performed before study entry. After informed consent was obtained, patients were instructed to take 25 mg of topiramate per day, with 25- to 50-mg weekly increments to a maximum of 100 mg per day. Safety was assessed at the first month; tolerability and efficacy were assessed every week for the first month and then every month for 3 months. Effectiveness was assessed by comparing baseline and on-treatment migraine status, and data were analyzed by the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Twenty-five women and 11 men (mean age, 44 years) were evaluated. Existing prophylactic treatment was either propranolol or flunarizine (or both) in 80% of the patients. At 3 months of therapy with topiramate, headache frequency decreased from 17 to 3 episodes per month, headache duration from 559 to 32 minutes, and intensity from 9 to 1 by visual analog scale (P <.001). Improvement in frequency and severity of migraine was observed in 83% of patients. Slight or no changes in headache were observed in 6 patients. Tolerability was good in 30 patients. The most common side effects were acroparesthesias, weight loss, sleepiness, and headache worsening. No adverse interaction with propranolol or flunarizine was observed. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that topiramate is efficacious and safe as an adjunctive treatment in patients with migraine whose prior response to prophylactic management has been less than satisfactory.     

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.     

The effect of venlafaxine on ongoing and experimentally induced pain in neuropathic pain patients: a double blind, placebo controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this randomized double blind placebo controlled study was to investigate the effectiveness and the safety of venlafaxine XR 75 and 150 mg on ongoing pain and on quantitative sensory tests in 60 patients with neuropathic pain for 8 weeks. METHODS: Evaluation parameters consisted of ongoing pain intensity (VAS), patient satisfaction, side effects, global efficacy and tolerance. Quantitative sensory measurements taken from the affected area before and after the drug treatment included pin-prick hyperalgesia, allodynia, detection and pain thresholds to electrical and heat stimuli, temporal summation of repetitive electrical and heat stimuli. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients completed the study. VAS scores decreased significantly compared to the baseline measurements in all groups. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding pain intensity and escape medication. The areas of allodynia and pin-prick hyperalgesia decreased significantly in venlafaxine groups compared to the placebo. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the detection thresholds (electrical and heat). The pain threshold and the summation threshold to electrical stimuli and the summation threshold to heat stimuli increased significantly following treatment in both venlafaxine groups. In addition, the degree of the temporal summation to electrical and heat stimuli decreased significantly following treatment in both venlafaxine groups compared to the placebo. CONCLUSION: The study showed significant effect of venlafaxine in the manifestations of hyperalgesia and temporal summation, but not on the ongoing pain intensity. Furthermore, the quantitative sensory tests provided complementing information to the clinical measures.     

Naproxen sodium in the treatment of migraine

Seventy patients with classical or common migraine were treated during their attacks with either naproxen sodium or placebo in a randomised, double-blind parallel group study. The initial dose of naproxen sodium was 825 mg followed one hour later by a further 550 mg, if symptoms were the same or had improved. If the migraine symptoms had worsened, patients were offered an escape analgesic combination of 1000 mg paracetamol and 10 mg metoclopramide. Patients were assessed at monthly intervals for changes in the severity and duration of headache, premonitory symptoms (mainly visual disturbances) and photophobia, nausea and vomiting associated with migraine attacks that had occurred since the previous visit. Patients were studied for a maximum of ten attacks and significant improvement was observed in the severity and duration of headache when the patients were on naproxen sodium. Also the premonitory symptoms and photophobia improved significantly on naproxen sodium and significantly less rescue analgesics were required. Patients suffering from common migraine had less severe headaches and photophobia when taking naproxen sodium than when taking placebo and the headaches were shorter in duration and patients took less rescue analgesic. No significant difference was observed between the treatment groups in patients with classical migraine. Ten patients in the placebo group and six in the naproxen sodium group reported side-effects but these were possibly related to the use of rescue medication. Naproxen sodium proved safe and effective in common migraine attacks, but in this study efficacy was not established for classical migraine.     

Mouth-dispersible aspirin in the treatment of migraine: a placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of mouth-dispersible aspirin 900 mg and placebo in the treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely accepted as an effective therapy for migraine. Previous studies have indicated that gastric stasis and delayed gastric emptying, which occur during migraine attacks, delay aspirin absorption. Mouth-dispersible formulations are considered to be more quickly absorbed than solid formulations and, therefore, may be more effective in treating migraine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in four specialized migraine clinics in the United Kingdom. METHODS: One hundred one patients diagnosed with migraine (according to the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria) participated in the study. Patients received either single doses of mouth-dispersible aspirin (3 x 300 mg) or placebo for moderate pain in the treatment of two migraine attacks. Rescue medication could be taken after 2 hours, if required. The primary efficacy parameter was response to therapy at 2 hours posttreatment. Other efficacy parameters were response to treatment, pain-free, and pain intensity at all other time points. Functional disability, nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, symptom relief, patient and investigator global evaluation, use of rescue medication, headache recurrence, and palatability and convenience were also recorded. RESULTS: Of 101 patients, 73 took both treatments. At 2 hours, 48% of patients taking mouth-dispersible aspirin responded, compared to only 19% taking placebo (P =.0005). Mouth-dispersible aspirin was significantly better than placebo for response to treatment (P<.05) and pain intensity difference (P<.01) at all time points from 30 minutes posttreatment; for pain-free (P<.05) and use of rescue medication (P<.01) from 3 hours posttreatment; for headache recurrence (P<.05); and for patients' and investigators' global evaluations of efficacy (P =.0001 in both cases). CONCLUSIONS: Mouth-dispersible aspirin 900 mg is effective compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate migraine head pain, with relief seen from as early as 30 minutes after taking medication.     

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.     

A double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual feverfew and ginger (LipiGesic™ M) in the treatment of migraine

(Headache 2011;51:1078‐1086) Background.— Therapeutic needs of migraineurs vary considerably from patient to patient and even attack to attack. Some attacks require high‐end therapy, while other attacks have treatment needs that are less immediate. While triptans are considered the “gold standard” of migraine therapy, they do have limitations and many patients are seeking other therapeutic alternatives. In 2005, an open‐label study of feverfew/ginger suggested efficacy for attacks of migraine treated early during the mild headache phase of the attack. Methods/Materials.— In this multi‐center pilot study, 60 patients treated 221 attacks of migraine with sublingual feverfew/ginger or placebo. All subjects met International Headache Society criteria for migraine with or without aura, experiencing 2‐6 attacks of migraine per month within the previous 3 months. Subjects had <15 headache days per month and were not experiencing medication overuse headache. Inclusion required that subjects were able to identify a period of mild headache in at least 75% of attacks. Subjects were required to be able to distinguish migraine from non‐migraine headache. Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive either sublingual feverfew/ginger or a matching placebo and were instructed but not required to treat with study medication at the earliest recognition of migraine. Results.— Sixty subjects treated 208 evaluable attacks of migraine over a 1‐month period; 45 subjects treated 163 attacks with sublingual feverfew/ginger and 15 subjects treated 58 attacks with a sublingual placebo preparation. Evaluable diaries were completed for 151 attacks of migraine in the population using feverfew/ginger and 57 attacks for those attacks treated with placebo. At 2 hours, 32% of subjects receiving active medication and 16% of subjects receiving placebo were pain‐free (P = .02). At 2 hours, 63% of subjects receiving feverfew/ginger found pain relief (pain‐free or mild headache) vs 39% for placebo (P = .002). Pain level differences on a 4‐point pain scale for those receiving feverfew/ginger vs placebo were ?0.24 vs ?0.04 respectively (P = .006). Feverfew/ginger was generally well tolerated with oral numbness and nausea being the most frequently occurring adverse event. Conclusion.— Sublingual feverfew/ginger appears safe and effective as a first‐line abortive treatment for a population of migraineurs who frequently experience mild headache prior to the onset of moderate to severe headache.     

Low-dose topiramate versus lamotrigine in migraine prophylaxis (the Lotolamp study)

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate and lamotrigine for prophylaxis in patients with frequent migraine as compared to each other and to placebo. METHODS: Sixty patients with frequent migraine (more than 4 attacks per month) from the headache clinic at a tertiary referral centre in India were randomized to receive 50 mg topiramate/lamotrigine or matching placebo for 1 month each in 2 divided doses in 4 phases in a crossover manner with a washout period of 7 days in between. Primary efficacy measure was responder rate (50% decrease in mean migraine frequency/intensity). Secondary efficacy measures included reduction in mean monthly frequency, intensity, duration, rescue medication use, migraine associated symptoms, and adverse events. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis was on intention to treat basis. Data were analyzed as correlated data. Generalized estimation equation was used to compute overall mean standard deviation and 95% confidence intervals for each of the outcome variables. Bonferroni's correction done for multiple comparisons. P value of < .017 was taken as significant. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients comprised the intent-to-treat population. Four patients withdrew from the study at various phases, none because of the side effects. Responder rate for frequency was significantly higher for topiramate versus placebo (63% vs 30%, P < .001), and versus lamotrigine (63% vs 46 %, P = .02). For intensity of headache also a responder rate of topiramate versus placebo (50% vs 10%, P < .001), and versus lamotrigine (50% vs 41%, P = .01) was observed. Topiramate showed statistically significant benefits (P < .017) in most of the secondary efficacy measures while lamotrigine was beneficial for reduction in headache frequency, and migraine associated symptoms. Adverse events were similar. CONCLUSION: Low-dose topiramate is efficacious in migraine prophylaxis as compared to both placebo and lamotrigine. Lamotrigine in low doses might be beneficial for headache frequency; however, longer trials are required to establish its efficacy on the intensity and frequency of migraine.