• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention—part 2: flunarizine

Date
2023
Author
Sanchez-del-Rio, Margarita
de Vries, Tessa
Ornello, Raffaele
Reuter, Uwe
Versijpt, Jan
Hussain, Muizz
Zeraatkar, Dena
Lampl, Christian
Deligianni, Christina I.
Sacco, Simona
Ekizoglu, Esme
Uluduz, Derya
Gil-Gouveia, Raquel
MaassenVanDenBrink, Antoinette
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Objective: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo–controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. Results: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). Conclusions: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large‐scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/190499
https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01657-3
https://avesis.istanbul.edu.tr/api/publication/2e5aa3f8-fcf5-4ae7-881f-1967d81118b5/file
Collections
  • Makale [2276]

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 


Hakkımızda
Açık Erişim PolitikasıVeri Giriş Rehberleriİletişim
sherpa/romeo
Dergi Adı/ISSN || Yayıncı

Exact phrase only All keywords Any

BaşlıkbaşlayaniçerenISSN

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypes

My Account

LoginRegister

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV