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.     

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, double-blind, cross-over trial of flunarizine in common migraine

After four weeks of medication-free baseline observation, 29 patients with common migraine randomly received flunarizine (10 mg daily) or placebo for a 16-week period. After four weeks wash-out they crossed treatments for another 16 weeks; 27 patients completed the trial. Compared with placebo, flunarizine significantly reduced the frequency of migraine attacks and the derived headache indices, but the duration and severity of single attacks remained unchanged (Mann-Whitney U-test). The effect of flunarizine increased during the 16-week treatment period and during the last four weeks the number of migraine attacks reduced to 50% compared to the wash-out period. The only side-effect of flunarizine was mild daytime sedation in three patients. It is concluded that flunarizine is a valuable new prophylactic agent for common migraine.     

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.     

L-5-Hydroxytryptophan versus placebo in childhood migraine prophylaxis: a double-blind crossover study

L-5HTP was tested versus placebo in a double-blind crossover study of 27 migraine children aged 6-12 years, who recorded their headaches in a headache diary for 1 month. Twenty-one patients subsequently started the trial. The mean daily dose of L-5HTP was 5 mg/kg body weight, and each treatment period with either L-5HTP or placebo lasted 12 weeks. In group A (L-5HTP-placebo; 10 patients) and group B (placebo-L-5HTP; 11 patients) both L-5HTP and placebo led to a significant reduction of the migraine index and frequency of migraine attacks during the 3rd month of each treatment period. However, we found a treatment X period interaction because the efficacy determinants decreased significantly during the first and the second treatment periods in both groups irrespective of the sequence of treatments. No differences were found between L-5HTP (first period of group A) and placebo (first period of group B).     

Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE: To compare gabapentin with placebo for use as a prophylactic agent in patients with migraine (with or without aura). STUDY DESIGN AND TREATMENT: After screening, a 4-week, single-blind, placebo baseline period was followed by a 12-week, double-blind, treatment period. The 12-week treatment period consisted of a 4-week titration phase and an 8-week stable-dosing phase. During the 4-week titration phase, patients were started on one 300-mg capsule of gabapentin or matching placebo. Patients were titrated weekly from 900 mg/day (end of week 1) to 2400 mg/day (end of week 4) and had to be receiving a stable dose of study medication by the end of the titration period. Study medication was to be given on a three-times-a-day dosing regimen. METHODS: The study hypothesis was defined a priori as a lower 4-week migraine rate during the second stabilization period for the gabapentin-treated patients as compared with the placebo-treated patients. The analyses were performed with the 4-week migraine rate at baseline as a covariate and center as a blocking factor. RESULTS: At seven participating centers, 143 patients with migraine were randomized in a 2:1 ratio and received either gabapentin (n = 98) or matching placebo (n = 45). Thirty-three patients (24.1%) discontinued prematurely from the study, including 24 (24.5%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 9 (20.0%) of 45 placebo-treated patients; the majority of patients discontinued due to adverse events (16 [16.3%] of 98 gabapentin-treated patients; 4 [8.9%] of 45 placebo-treated patients). Patients included in the analysis were evenly balanced for age, sex, race, weight, and height. The majority of these patients were white (80 [92.0%] of 87) and women (72 [82.8%] of 87), with a mean age of approximately 39.4 years and a history of migraine episodes for a mean of about 21 years. At the end of the 12-week treatment phase, the median 4-week migraine rate was 2.7 for the gabapentin-treated patients maintained on a stable dose of 2400 mg/day and 3.5 for the placebo-treated patients (P =.006), compared with 4.2 and 4.1, respectively, during the baseline period. Additionally, 26 (46.4%) of 56 patients receiving a stable dose of 2400 mg/day gabapentin and 5 (16.1%) of 31 patients receiving placebo showed at least a 50% reduction in the 4-week migraine rate (P =.008). The average number of days per 4 weeks with migraine was also statistically significant and favored gabapentin (P =.006) during stabilization period 2. The median change in 4-week headache rate was statistically significant as well (P =.013). The most frequently reported adverse events for both treatment groups were asthenia, dizziness, somnolence, and infection. Adverse events determined by the investigator to be associated with study drug resulted in patient withdrawal in 13 (13.3%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 3 (6.7%) of 45 placebo-treated patients. Somnolence and dizziness accounted for many of the premature withdrawals among those taking gabapentin. CONCLUSION: Gabapentin is an effective prophylactic agent for patients with migraine. In addition, gabapentin appears generally well tolerated with mild to moderate somnolence and dizziness.     

European Multicenter Trial of Nimodipine in the Prophylaxis of Classic Migraine (Migraine With Aura)

SYNOPSIS
This double-blind, randomized study of the Nimodipine 40 mg t.i.d. vs placebo in the prophylaxis of classic migraine (migraine with aura) included 89 patients. Required migraine frequency was 2–8 migraine days/4 weeks and at least two of the attacks within the last 6 months had to be with aura. The study was carried out at 11 European centers. After a 4 week run-in period, patients were randomly allocated to nimodipine or placebo for 12 weeks (parallel groups). There were 7 dropouts, 3 on Nimodipine, and 4 on placebo. A gradual and verymarked improvement was seen both with Nimodipine and placebo amounting to between 60 and 90 per cent during the last 4 weeks. Statistical analysis on all included patients (intention to treat) revealed no difference between Nimodipine and placebo for migraine days or migraine index. In patients "valid for analysis of efficacy" there were also no significant difference. Due to a very marked placebo effect and use of the parallel groups design, the present trial is relatively weak despite a fairly large sample size. It cannot rule out the possibility of an important effect of Nimodipine in classic migraine with a high degree of certainty.     

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.     

A multi-center double-blind pilot comparison of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine

(Headache 2011;51:21‐32) Objective.— This multi‐center pilot study compared the efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA with topiramate (a Food and Drug Administration approved and widely accepted treatment for prevention of migraine) in individuals with chronic migraine (CM). Methods.— A total of 59 subjects with CM were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group 1 (n = 30) received topiramate plus placebo injections, Group 2 (n = 29) received onabotulinumtoxinA injections plus placebo tablets. Subjects maintained daily headache diaries over a 4‐week baseline period and a 12‐week active study period. The primary endpoint was the Physician Global Assessment, which measured the treatment responder rate and indicated improvement in both groups over 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints, measured at weeks 4 and 12, included headache days per month, migraine days, headache‐free days, days on acute medication, severity of headache episodes, Migraine Impact & Disability Assessment, Headache Impact Test, effectiveness of and satisfaction with current treatment on the amount of medication needed, and the frequency and severity of migraine symptoms. At 12 weeks subjects were re‐evaluated and tapered off oral study medications over a 2‐week time period. Subjects not reporting a >50% reduction of headache frequency at 12 weeks were invited to participate in a 12‐week open label extension study with onabotulinumtoxinA. Of these, 20 subjects, 9 from the Topiramate Group and 11 from the OnabotulinumtoxinA Group, volunteered for this extension from weeks 14 to 26. Results.— This study demonstrated positive benefit for both onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate in subjects with CM. Overall, the results were statistically significant within groups but not between groups. By week 26, subjects had a reduction of headache days per month compared with baseline. This was a significant within‐group finding. Conclusion.— OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate demonstrated similar efficacy for subjects with CM as determined by Global Physician Assessment and supported by multiple secondary endpoint measures.     

European Multicenter Trial of Nimodipine in the Prophylaxis of Common Migraine (Migraine Without Aura)

SYNOPSIS
This double blind, randomized study of the calcium antagonist Nimodipine 40 mg t.i.d. vs placebo in the prophylaxis of common migraine (migraine without aura) included 192 patients. Patients with 2–8 migraine days/4 weeks, age 18–60, who had no other types of recurring headaches except up to 6 interval headaches/4 weeks were included. The study was carried out at 11 European centers. After a 4 week run-in period, patients were randomly allocated to Nimodipine or placebo for 12 weeks (parallel groups). There were 19 drop-outs, 12 on Nimodipine and 7 on placebo, A gradual and marked improvement was seen both with Nimodipine and with placebo amounting to approximately 60% during the last 4 weeks. Statistical analysis on all included patients (intention to treat) revealed no difference between Nimodipine and placebo for migraine days (P = 0.69) or migraine index (p = 0.91). In patients "valid for analysis of efficacy" there were also no significant differences. Due to a very marked placebo effect and use of the parallel groups design, the present trial was not very powerful despite the large number of patients and a satisfactory compliance. We cannot rule out that Nimodipine might have up to 30% effect on a single main outcome parameter, but the uniform lack of response in all tested parameters makes this unlikely. Therefore Nimodipine probably has only a small or no effect in common migraine (migraine without aura).     

Long-acting propranolol in migraine prophylaxis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The efficacy and safety of long-acting propranolol (LA.P), 160 mg once-daily, in the prophylactic treatment of migraine have been tested against placebo in a multicentric, double-blind, randomized study. The two groups are compared in a parallel manner over a treatment period of 12 weeks, following a 4-week placebo run-in period. Fifty-five of the 74 patients who entered the trial were included at the end of the run-in period. Forty-one patients completed the study. None of the 14 patients who withdrew from the study did so because of side effects. The statistical analysis was done according to the "intention to treat" principle. LA.P was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the frequency of migraine attacks (p = 0.01 by variance analysis). LA.P reduced the average number of monthly crises by 48% on day 84. There was a slight but significant reduction of the systolic blood pressure and heart rate in the erect position, but there was no significant difference between LA.P and placebo regarding either the number of complaints or the number of side effects elicited out of a 17-item questionnaire. None of the observed side effects led to a withdrawal from treatment.     

Long-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: results of a randomized controlled trial

To examine the long-term management of irritable bowel syndrome we conducted a two-part controlled therapeutic trial on 28 patients who had recovered completely after four to six weeks of treatment with ispaghula husk and propantheline. In part I patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group A received a placebo capsule while Group B continued with treatment as before. After six months the response to treatment was assessed according to a scoring system. The overall relapse rate in Group B was 46 per cent compared to 82 per cent in group A. With continued treatment patients in Group B became asymptomatic from the fourth month while patients in Group A continued to deteriorate. In part II, patients who had relapsed whilst on placebo received active treatment. Six of the seven who agreed to continue with the study became asymptomatic within four weeks. However, all the patients who were asymptomatic while on active treatment relapsed on discontinuation and again recovered on reinstitution of active treatment. We conclude that irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic relapsing disorder and that treatment with a combination of ispaghula husk and propantheline is effective, both in relieving symptoms and in the maintenance of remission.     

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.     

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.     

Amitriptyline in the prophylactic treatment of migraine and chronic daily headache

(Headache 2011;51:33‐51) Objective and Background.— Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used medications in migraine prophylaxis. There have been relatively few placebo‐controlled studies of amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis or in treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). This report deals with a large placebo‐controlled trial of amitriptyline vs placebo of 20 weeks duration that included subjects with intermittent migraine (IM) as well as CDH. The study was carried out between 1976 and 1979; however, results have never been fully reported. Methods.— Patients with a history of migraine as defined by the 1962 Ad Hoc Committee report were recruited for this study. Subjects had at least 2 headaches per month, and no limit was placed on the number of headaches per month that could be experienced. The study format included a 4‐week baseline period (Period A) in which all subjects received placebo in a dose of 2 pills per day for one week, 3 pills per day for one week and then 4 pills per day for 2 weeks. Subjects with at least 2 migraine headaches in this period were then entered into Period B and randomized into either amitriptyline or placebo tracks. Medication consisted of identical tablets containing either 25 mg amitriptyline or placebo. Period B was 4 weeks in duration with dose titration identical to Period A. The dose could be reduced if necessary to reduce side effects. The minimum dose was one pill per day. Period C was a 12‐week maintenance or stabilization period in which the patient continued the dose established by week 8 with visits at weeks 12, 16, and 20. Patients kept a headache calendar that was used for data collection. Headache frequency (per month), severity, and duration (hours) were the primary measurement parameters employed for data analysis. Results.— For the entire group, 391 subjects were entered into Period A, 338 were randomized into Period B, 317 (81%) subjects completed the first post‐randomization visit (8 weeks), 255 (65%) completed week 12, 210 (54%) completed week 16, and 186 (48%) completed week 20. Using headache frequency and evaluating parameters of (a) improvement, (b) no change, or (c) worsening relative to baseline, there was a significant improvement in headache frequency for amitriptyline over placebo at 8 weeks (P = .018) but not at 12, 16, or 20 weeks. When amitriptyline and placebo patients were compared for headache frequency at 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks to their own placebo stabilization period at 4 weeks, statistically significant improvement vs worsening was seen in headache frequency at each evaluation point for both amitriptyline and placebo groups (P ≤ .01) reaching 50% reporting a decrease in frequency in each group and approximately 10% reporting worsening by week 20. There were no significant differences in headache severity or duration between amitriptyline and placebo groups at anytime during the study. Within the study sample, there were 36 amitriptyline and 22 placebo subjects who had headaches ≥17 days/month that fit the current definition of CDH by the Silberstein‐Lipton criteria. These were analyzed separately as a subgroup for comparison of amitriptyline vs placebo using a metric of (1) no change or worsening; (2) up to a 50% improvement; and (3) ≥50% improvement in headache frequency. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in number with improvement in frequency of ≥50% at 8 weeks (25% vs 5% [P = .031]) and at 16 weeks (46% vs 9% [P = .043]). There was a trend for amitriptyline to be superior to placebo at 12 and 20 weeks but this did not reach significance. Conclusions.— In this study, using headache frequency as the primary metric, for the entire group, amitriptyline was superior to placebo in migraine prophylaxis at 8 weeks but, because of a robust placebo response, not at subsequent time points. For the subgroup with CDH, amitriptyline was statistically significantly superior to placebo at 8 weeks and 16 weeks with a similar but nonsignificant trend at 12 and 20 weeks. Compared with placebo amitriptyline is effective in CDH. Amitriptyline was also significantly effective in IM compared intragroup to its own baseline; however, placebo was equally effective in the same analysis. The reason for the robust placebo response in the IM group is not clear, but has been occasionally reported.     

Clomipramine and Metoprolol in Migraine Prophylaxis — A Double-blind Crossover Study

SYNOPSIS
Clomipramine, metoprolol, or placebo was administered to 36 migraine patients in a double-blind crossover study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of the following five treatment groups: group 1 (clomipramine followed by placebo), group 2 (placebo followed by clomipramine), group 3 (metoprolol followed by placebo), group 4 (placebo followed by metoprolol), and group 5 (clomipramine followed by metoprolol). Dosage form was the same in all groups. The study de sign consisted of a 6-week baseline period, administration of first drug for 4 weeks, a 4-week washout period, administration of second drug for 4 weeks, and a 6-week followup period. Headache variables such as attack frequency as well as headache intensity and duration were recorded daily in diaries. The data were evaluated by time series analysis (ARIMA). Only metoprolol significantly reduced attack frequency and headache duration. Adverse reactions to clomipramine were severe. Our results showed metoprolol to be an effective antimigraine drug.     

Long-term Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

To examine the long-term management of irritable bowel syndromewe conducted a two-part controlled therapeutic trial on 28 patientswho had recovered completely after four to six weeks of treatmentwith ispaghula husk and propantheline. In part I patients wererandomly divided into two groups. Group A received a placebocapsule while Group B continued with treatment as before. Aftersix months the response to treatment was assessed accordingto a scoring system. The overall relapse rate in Group B was46 per cent compared to 82 per cent in group A. With continuedtreatment patients in Group B became asymptomatic from the fourthmonth while patients in Group A continued to deteriorate. Inpart II, patients who had relapsed whilst on placebo receivedactive treatment. Six of the seven who agreed to continue withthe study became asymptomatic within four weeks. However, allthe patients who were asymptomatic while on active treatmentrelapsed on discontinuation and again recovered on reinstitutionof active treatment. We conclude that irritable bowel syndromeis a chronic relapsing disorder and that treatment with a combinationof ispaghula husk and propantheline is effective, both in relievingsymptoms and in the maintenance of remission.     

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.     

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.     

Eptinezumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Sustained Effect Through 1 Year of Treatment in the PROMISE-1 Study

PurposeThe Prevention of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy 1 (PROMISE-1) study was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic properties of repeat intravenous (IV) doses of the calcitonin gene–related peptide‒targeted monoclonal antibody eptinezumab (ALD403) for migraine prevention in adults with episodic migraine. Here we present the results of PROMISE-1 through 1 year of treatment (up to 4 doses).MethodsPatients received up to 4 IV administrations of eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks. Patients recorded migraine and headache in an electronic diary daily. Additional assessments, including the patient-reported outcomes, were performed at regularly scheduled clinic visits throughout the 56-week study period.FindingsA total of 888 adults (mean age, 39.8 years; 84.3% female; 83.8% white) received treatment: eptinezumab 30 mg, n = 219; eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 223; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 224; and placebo, n = 222. During the primary 12-week study evaluation period, single doses of eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg led to significant reductions in mean monthly migraine-days versus placebo, beginning as early as the first day after the initial dose. The reduction in mean monthly migraine-days was maintained throughout the study (100 mg, −3.9, −4.5, −4.7, and −4.5 days; 300 mg, −4.3, −4.8, −5.1, and −5.3 days; and placebo, −3.2, −3.8, −4.0, and −4.0 days during weeks 1–12, 13–24, 25–36, and 37–48, respectively). Overall, the number of patients with a ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in migraine for each 12-week interval during the entire study was consistently numerically higher in the eptinezumab groups than in the placebo group. The proportions of patients with ≥50% reduction in migraine were similar across the eptinezumab groups. Eptinezumab was well tolerated throughout the study. Adverse events were similar across dosing periods, and there were no serious tolerability signals identified with continued dosing.ImplicationsIV eptinezumab administered every 12 weeks for up to 4 doses was associated with early and sustained migraine-preventive effects and a favorable safety profile in adults with episodic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02559895.