The International journal of neuroscience · 2021
The effect of topiramate versus flunarizine on the non-headache symptoms of migraine.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Wei, Liu Ruiting, Liu Weidong, Li Guolei, Chen Chunfu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of topiramate versus flunarizine on the non-headache symptoms (NHS) of migraine, and to observe the changes of dopamine (DA) and prolactin (PRL) before and after prophylactic treatment.
METHODS: Sixty-six episodic migraine patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either flunarizine or topiramate treatment. Clinical characteristics and NHS associated with migraine were investigated before and after prophylactic treatment. The DA and PRL levels were also determined before and after prophylactic treatment.
RESULTS: The NHS of migraine in the two groups were significantly better after treatment than before treatment in premonitory phase (PP), headache phase (HP), and resolution phase (RP). The NHS in the two groups had no significant difference in PP, HP, and RP before and after treatment. In the flunarizine group, the PRL content after treatment was significantly higher than that before treatment (t = -4.097, p < 0.001), but the DA content was decreased slightly compared with that before treatment (t = 1.909, p = 0.066). There was no significant difference in PRL content (t = 1.099, p = 0.280) and DA content (t = 1.556, p = 0.130) in topiramate group before and after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The two classical prophylactic drugs of migraine were significantly effective in treating the NHS of migraine, but there was no significant difference between the two drugs. The DA-PRL axis may be involved in the underlying mechanism of the flunarizine treatment for the NHS of migraine.
METHODS: Sixty-six episodic migraine patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either flunarizine or topiramate treatment. Clinical characteristics and NHS associated with migraine were investigated before and after prophylactic treatment. The DA and PRL levels were also determined before and after prophylactic treatment.
RESULTS: The NHS of migraine in the two groups were significantly better after treatment than before treatment in premonitory phase (PP), headache phase (HP), and resolution phase (RP). The NHS in the two groups had no significant difference in PP, HP, and RP before and after treatment. In the flunarizine group, the PRL content after treatment was significantly higher than that before treatment (t = -4.097, p < 0.001), but the DA content was decreased slightly compared with that before treatment (t = 1.909, p = 0.066). There was no significant difference in PRL content (t = 1.099, p = 0.280) and DA content (t = 1.556, p = 0.130) in topiramate group before and after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The two classical prophylactic drugs of migraine were significantly effective in treating the NHS of migraine, but there was no significant difference between the two drugs. The DA-PRL axis may be involved in the underlying mechanism of the flunarizine treatment for the NHS of migraine.