今日の臨床サポート

片頭痛

著者: 永田栄一郎 東海大学医学部内科学系脳神経内科

監修: 高橋裕秀 昭和大学藤が丘病院 脳神経内科

著者校正/監修レビュー済:2021/11/02
参考ガイドライン:
  1. 日本神経学会/日本頭痛学会:慢性頭痛の診療ガイドライン2013
患者向け説明資料
薬価収載情報:
2021年8月12日 アジョビ 皮下注225mgシリンジ(フレマネズマブ(遺伝子組換え)注射液 ヒト化抗CGRPモノクローナル抗体製剤)
2021年8月12日 アイモビーグ 皮下注70mgペン(エレヌマブ(遺伝子組換え) ヒト抗CGRP受容体モノクローナル抗体製剤)

概要・推奨   

  1. 片頭痛の急性期治療薬はトリプタンが第1選択薬である(推奨度1)
  1. いずれのトリプタンも効果は明らかで有用性がある。それらの特性にはわずかながら差があり、患者によって効果やpreferenceは異なるが、エビデンスは不十分である(推奨度2)
  1. 片頭痛前兆期・予兆期にトリプタンを使用しても支障はないが、無効の可能性がある(推奨度2)
  1. 閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要
  1. 閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧
  1. 閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧に
  1. 閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲覧にはご契約が必要となります。閲
薬剤監修について:
オーダー内の薬剤用量は日本医科大学付属病院 薬剤部 部長 伊勢雄也 以下、林太祐、渡邉裕次、井ノ口岳洋、梅田将光による疑義照会のプロセスを実施、疑義照会の対象については著者の方による再確認を実施しております。
※薬剤中分類、用法、同効薬、診療報酬は、エルゼビアが独自に作成した薬剤情報であり、
著者により作成された情報ではありません。
尚、用法は添付文書より、同効薬は、薬剤師監修のもとで作成しております。
※薬剤情報の(適外/適内/⽤量内/⽤量外/㊜)等の表記は、エルゼビアジャパン編集部によって記載日時にレセプトチェックソフトなどで確認し作成しております。ただし、これらの記載は、実際の保険適用の査定において保険適用及び保険適用外と判断されることを保証するものではありません。また、検査薬、輸液、血液製剤、全身麻酔薬、抗癌剤等の薬剤は保険適用の記載の一部を割愛させていただいています。
(詳細はこちらを参照)
著者のCOI(Conflicts of Interest)開示:
永田栄一郎 : 特に申告事項無し[2021年]
監修:高橋裕秀 : 特に申告事項無し[2021年]

改訂のポイント:
  1. 抗CGRP抗体関連薬剤について追記を行った。

病態・疫学・診察

疾患情報(疫学・病態)  
  1. 片頭痛の診断は国際頭痛分類第3版の片頭痛診断基準に準じて行う。
 
片頭痛診断基準

片頭痛の診断には上記診断基準を用いて診断する。
 
参考文献:
平成14年度~16年厚生労働科学研究費補助金 こころの健康科学研究事業.慢性頭痛診療ガイドライン、2005.http://www.jhsnet.org/GUIDELINE/2/2-1-2.htm

 
  1. まず二次性頭痛(ほかの疾患で頭痛を起こす可能性のあるもの)を除外する。
  1. 動作により頭痛が増強し、日常生活に支障を来す場合が多い。
  1. 頭痛の持続時間は4~72時間が多い。
  1. 頭痛は片側性、拍動性のことが多い。
  1. 悪心、嘔吐を伴う場合がある。
  1. 発作時は光過敏、音過敏、嗅覚過敏などの過敏症が現れることがある。
  1. 頭痛発作の前に前兆(視覚異常、感覚症状、言語症状など)を伴うことがある。
  1. 上記のような頭痛発作が過去に5回以上ある。
病歴・診察のポイント  
  1. 頭痛診療では、ほとんどの頭痛のタイプ、重症度などが判別できる問診が非常に重要である。

これより先の閲覧には個人契約のトライアルまたはお申込みが必要です。

最新のエビデンスに基づいた二次文献データベース「今日の臨床サポート」。
常時アップデートされており、最新のエビデンスを各分野のエキスパートが豊富な図表や処方・検査例を交えて分かりやすく解説。日常臨床で遭遇するほぼ全ての症状・疾患から薬剤・検査情報まで瞬時に検索可能です。

まずは15日間無料トライアル
本サイトの知的財産権は全てエルゼビアまたはコンテンツのライセンサーに帰属します。私的利用及び別途規定されている場合を除き、本サイトの利用はいかなる許諾を与えるものでもありません。 本サイト、そのコンテンツ、製品およびサービスのご利用は、お客様ご自身の責任において行ってください。本サイトの利用に基づくいかなる損害についても、エルゼビアは一切の責任及び賠償義務を負いません。 また、本サイトの利用を以て、本サイト利用者は、本サイトの利用に基づき第三者に生じるいかなる損害についても、エルゼビアを免責することに合意したことになります。  本サイトを利用される医学・医療提供者は、独自の臨床的判断を行使するべきです。本サイト利用者の判断においてリスクを正当なものとして受け入れる用意がない限り、コンテンツにおいて提案されている検査または処置がなされるべきではありません。 医学の急速な進歩に鑑み、エルゼビアは、本サイト利用者が診断方法および投与量について、独自に検証を行うことを推奨いたします。

文献 

著者: D C McCrory, R N Gray
雑誌名: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD002915. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002915.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of disabling headache, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and, in some patients, neurological aura symptoms. Sumatriptan is one of a class of selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT1B/1D) agonists (triptans) thought to relieve migraine attacks by several mechanisms, including cranial vasoconstriction and peripheral and central neural inhibition.
OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine in adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 through November 2001), and reference lists of articles and books.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind RCTs comparing oral sumatriptan (100 mg, 50 mg, 25 mg) with placebo, no intervention, other drug treatments, behavioral therapy, or physical therapy for the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in adults. Trials comparing different doses of sumatriptan or dosing regimens were also included. Outcomes considered were: 2-hour pain-free response, headache relief/headache intensity, and functional disability; headache recurrence; and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by one reviewer and over-read by the other. The two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Information on adverse events was collected from trial reports.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 16,200 participants were included. Methodological quality was generally good. Sixteen trials were placebo comparisons and showed that sumatriptan in doses of 100 mg (14 trials), 50 mg (five trials), and 25 mg (three trials) provided significantly better pain-free response (100 mg and 25 mg only), headache relief, and relief of disability at 2 hours. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for pain-free response at 2 hours were 5.1 (3.9 to 7.1) for the 100-mg dose (n = 2221) and 7.5 (2.7 to 142) for the 25-mg dose (n = 131); there was no significant difference between the 50-mg dose and placebo for this outcome (n = 127). For headache relief at 2 hours, NNTs were 3.4 (3.0 to 4.0), 3.2 (2.4 to 5.1), and 3.4 (2.3 to 6.6) for sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 2940), 50 mg (n = 420), and 25 mg (n = 226), respectively. Precise estimates of the efficacy of the 50- and 25-mg doses relative to the 100-mg dose could not be obtained. Adverse events were more common with sumatriptan 100 mg than with placebo (risk difference [RD] = 0.14 [0.09 to 0.20]; number-needed-to-harm [NNH] = 7.1 [5.0 to 11.1]; n = 3172). RDs for the 50- and 25-mg vs. placebo comparisons were not statistically significant.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Oral sumatriptan has been shown to be an effective drug for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine. It is well tolerated, though minor adverse events were not uncommon in the included trials. Other triptans were generally similar in efficacy and adverse events. Among non-triptan drugs, ergotamine + caffeine was significantly less effective than sumatriptan, and other drugs have been insufficiently studied to draw firm conclusions.

PMID 12917936  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD002915. doi: 10.・・・
著者: A D Oldman, L A Smith, H J McQuay, R A Moore
雑誌名: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003221. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003221.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: There are a number of different drug treatments for acute migraine, including currently four triptans, with several more likely to become available in the future. There is a need for evidence-based information to help determine the balance of benefit and harm for acute migraine treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively assess the efficacy of a single dose of rizatriptan (Maxalt) for treating a single migraine attack using the outcomes of headache response and pain-free response at half-an-hour, one hour, two hours, and sustained relief over 24 hours. To express efficacy in terms of numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs).
SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-July 2000), EMBASE (1980-June 2000), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994). Date of last search: July 2000.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised, placebo-controlled trials of rizatriptan for acute migraine; double-blind design; International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura; single migraine attack; single-dose treatment at standard doses; adult population; baseline pain of moderate or severe intensity using a four-point standardised rating scale; dichotomous or percentage data for at least one of the main efficacy outcomes; and full journal publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Main outcomes considered were i) headache response at two hours, ii) headache response at one hour, iii) pain-free response at two hours, iv) sustained relief over 24 hours, v) pain-free response at 24 hours and vi) adverse effects. Minor outcomes were headache response and pain-free response at half-an-hour and four hours, and pain-free response at one hour. Dichotomous or percentage data were extracted and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials met our inclusion criteria, with 2626 patients given rizatriptan and 902 given placebo. Significant benefit of rizatriptan over placebo was shown for both doses of rizatriptan (5 mg and 10 mg) for all five main efficacy outcomes (ranging from one to 24 hours). A dose response was seen for the main outcomes. It was not possible to analyse adverse effects information in a meaningful way.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg are effective in treating acute migraine, with a dose-related increase in efficacy.

PMID 11687054  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003221. doi: 10.・・・
著者: L A Smith, A D Oldman, H J McQuay, R A Moore
雑誌名: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003224.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: Eletriptan (Relpax) is a new triptan soon to be made available by prescription for the treatment of acute migraine. Currently five triptans are available by prescription and more are under development. In light of the many drugs for treating acute migraine, there is a need for evidence-based assessments to help determine the relative efficacy and harm of these treatments.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of eletriptan for treating a single migraine attack using the outcomes of headache response and pain-free response at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 hours, and sustained relief over 24 hours. To express efficacy in terms of number-needed-to-treat (NNT). To determine the adverse effects of a single dose of eletriptan and express this in terms of number-needed-to-harm (NNH). To allow for the comparison of the efficacy of eletriptan with other migraine treatments evaluated systematically in the same way.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Data from all Phase III randomised placebo-controlled trials were made available by the manufacturer, Pfizer Inc. To date, these trials comprise the only data on eletriptan relevant to this review in a published or unpublished form; thus, searches of electronic databases for further trials of eletriptan were not conducted.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials of eletriptan for acute migraine; randomised allocation to treatment groups, including a placebo group; double-blind design; International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura; single migraine attack; single-dose treatment at standard doses; adult population; baseline pain of moderate or severe intensity using a 4-point standardised rating scale (0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain and 3 = severe pain); and dichotomous or percentage data for at least one of the main efficacy outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were scored for quality and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Dichotomous or percentage data were extracted and pooled to calculate the relative benefit (RB) or relative risk (RR) and NNTs or NNHs for a number of outcomes for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg. The main outcomes considered were headache response at 1 and 2 hours, pain-free response at 2 hours, sustained relief over 24 hours and adverse effects. Minor outcomes considered were headache response at 0.5 and 4 hours, and pain-free response at 0.5, 1 and 4 hours.
MAIN RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant benefit of eletriptan over placebo was shown for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg for the primary efficacy outcomes of headache response and pain-free response at 2 hours. For headache response at 2 hours, the NNTs (with 95% confidence intervals) were 4.4 (3.4 to 6.2), 2.9 (2.6 to 3.3) and 2.6 (2.4 to 3.0) for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively. For pain-free response at 2 hours, the NNTs were 9.9 (6.9 to 18), 4.5 (4.0 to 5.1) and 3.7 (3.4 to 4.2), for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 and 80 mg, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of major adverse effects between any dose of eletriptan and placebo. The incidence of minor adverse effects was significantly higher for all eletriptan doses than for placebo, with NNHs of 11 (95% confidence interval, 6.2 to 39), 7.0 (5.2 to 11) and 3.7 (3.1 to 4.5) for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg are effective for the treatment of an acute migraine attack. Effectiveness is dose-related, with statistically significant differences between doses for pain-free response and 24-hour outcomes. Eletriptan compares well with other triptans available for outcomes measured up to 2 hours and provides meaningful relief for 24 hours. Taken as a single dose, eletriptan was well tolerated and caused no major harm. The incidence of minor harm was dose-dependent, with 80 mg giving significantly more adverse effects than 40 mg.

PMID 11687056  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003224. doi: 10.・・・
著者: M D Ferrari, K I Roon, R B Lipton, P J Goadsby
雑誌名: Lancet. 2001 Nov 17;358(9294):1668-75. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06711-3.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: The triptans, selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists, are very effective acute migraine drugs with a well- developed scientific rationale. Seven different triptans will soon be clinically available, making evidence-based selection guidelines necessary. Triptan trials have similar designs, facilitating meta-analysis; this will provide a foundation for using triptans in clinical practice.
METHOD: We asked pharmaceutical companies and the principal investigators of company-independent trials for raw patient data of all double-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trials of oral triptans in migraine. We calculated summary estimates across studies for important efficacy and tolerability parameters, and separately summarised direct comparator trials.
RESULTS: 53 clinical trials (12 unpublished) involving 24089 patients, met the criteria for inclusion. Mean results for 100 mg sumatriptan were 59% (95% CI 57-60) for 2 h headache response (improvement from moderate or severe to mild or no pain); 29% (27-30) for 2 h pain free (improvement to no pain); 20% (18-21) for sustained pain free (pain free by 2 h and no headache recurrence or use of rescue medication 2-24 h post dose); and 67% (63-70) for consistency (response in at least two of three treated attacks); placebo-subtracted proportions for patients with at least one adverse event (AE) were 13% (8-18), for at least one central nervous system AE 6% (3-9), and for at least one chest AE 1.9% (1.0-2.7). Compared with these data, 10 mg rizatriptan showed better efficacy and consistency, and similar tolerability; 80 mg eletriptan showed better efficacy, similar consistency, but lower tolerability; 12.5 mg almotriptan showed similar efficacy at 2 h but better other results; 2.5 mg naratriptan and 20 mg eletriptan showed lower efficacy and (the first two) better tolerability; 2.5 mg and 5 mg zolmitriptan, 40 mg eletriptan, and 5 mg rizatriptan showed very similar results. The results of the 22 trials that directly compared triptans show the same overall pattern. We received no data on frovatriptan, but publicly available data suggest lower efficacy.
INTERPRETATION: At marketed doses, all oral triptans were effective and well tolerated. 10 mg rizatriptan, 80 mg eletriptan, and 12.5 mg almotriptan provide the highest likelihood of consistent success.

PMID 11728541  Lancet. 2001 Nov 17;358(9294):1668-75. doi: 10.1016/S01・・・
著者: M D Ferrari, P J Goadsby, K I Roon, R B Lipton
雑誌名: Cephalalgia. 2002 Oct;22(8):633-58.
Abstract/Text The triptans, selective serotonin 5-HT1B/1D agonists, are very effective acute migraine drugs. Soon, seven different triptans will be clinically available at 13 different oral doses, making evidence-based selection guidelines necessary. Triptan trials have similar designs, facilitating meta-analysis. We wished to provide an evidence-based foundation for using triptans in clinical practice, and to review the methodological issues surrounding triptan trials. We asked pharmaceutical companies and the principal investigators of company-independent trials for the 'raw patient data' of all double-blind, randomized, controlled, clinical trials with oral triptans in migraine. All data were cross-checked with published or presented data. We calculated summary estimates across studies for important efficacy and tolerability parameters, and compared these with those from direct, head-to-head, comparator trials. Out of 76 eligible clinical trials, 53 (12 not yet published) involving 24089 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Mean results (and 95% confidence intervals) for sumatriptan 100 mg, the first available and most widely prescribed oral triptan, are 59% (57-60) for 2 h headache response (improvement from moderate or severe to mild or no pain); 29% (27-30) for 2 h pain free (improvement to no pain); 20% (18-21) for sustained pain free (pain free by 2 h and no headache recurrence or use of rescue medication 2-24 h post-dose), and 67% (63-70) for consistency (response in at least two out of three treated attacks); placebo-subtracted proportions for patients with at least one adverse event (AE) are 13% (8-18), for at least one central nervous system AE 6% (3-9), and for at least one chest AE 1.9% (1.0-2.7). Compared with these data: rizatriptan 10 mg shows better efficacy and consistency, and similar tolerability; eletriptan 80 mg shows better efficacy, similar consistency, but lower tolerability; almotriptan 12.5 mg shows similar efficacy at 2 h but better sustained pain-free response, consistency, and tolerability; sumatriptan 25 mg, naratriptan 2.5 mg and eletriptan 20 mg show lower efficacy and better tolerability; zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, and rizatriptan 5 mg show very similar results. The results of the 22 trials that directly compared triptans show the same overall pattern. We received no data on frovatriptan, but publicly available data suggest substantially lower efficacy. The major methodological issues involve the choice of the primary endpoint, consistency over multiple attacks, how to evaluate headache recurrence, use of placebo-subtracted proportions to control for across-study differences, and the difference between tolerability and safety. In addition, there are a number of methodological issues specific for direct comparator trials, including encapsulation and patient selection. At marketed doses, all oral triptans are effective and well tolerated. Differences among them are in general relatively small, but clinically relevant for individual patients. Rizatriptan 10 mg, eletriptan 80 mg and almotriptan 12.5 mg provide the highest likelihood of consistent success. Sumatriptan features the longest clinical experience and the widest range of formulations. All triptans are contra-indicated in the presence of cardiovascular disease.

PMID 12383060  Cephalalgia. 2002 Oct;22(8):633-58.
著者: D Bates, E Ashford, R Dawson, F B Ensink, N E Gilhus, J Olesen, A J Pilgrim, P Shevlin
雑誌名: Neurology. 1994 Sep;44(9):1587-92.
Abstract/Text This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study assessed whether subcutaneous sumatriptan administered during the migraine aura would prolong or modify the aura and prevent or delay development of the headache. One hundred seventy-one patients (88 receiving 6 mg sumatriptan, 83 receiving placebo) treated a single attack of migraine with typical aura at home, by self-injection. The median duration of aura following the first injection was 25 minutes for the sumatriptan group and 30 minutes for the placebo group (NS). The aura symptom profile was similar for the two treatment groups. The proportion of patients who developed a moderate or severe headache within 6 hours after dose administration was similar in the two groups--68% among those receiving sumatriptan and 75% among those receiving placebo (NS). Sumatriptan given during the aura did not prolong or alter the nature of the migraine aura and did not prevent or significantly delay headache development.

PMID 7936279  Neurology. 1994 Sep;44(9):1587-92.
著者: A Dowson
雑誌名: Eur Neurol. 1996;36 Suppl 2:28-31.
Abstract/Text The purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether 20 mg oral 311C90 can prevent the development of migraine headache when taken during the aura phase of a migraine attack. The study also aimed to provide an initial safety profile for 311C90 when taken during the aura. Forty patients (31 females, 9 males) were entered into this outpatient, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial. They all almost invariably experienced a migraine headache after the aura phase. Patients treated two migraine attacks during the aura phase in a random order, one with 311C90 20 mg and the other with placebo. Efficacy assessments were recorded on standard diary cards completed by each patient. A primary response was defined as the complete absence of headache pain in the 24 hour period following administration of the first dose of study medication. Safety assessments included ECGs, laboratory tests and the recording of adverse experiences. Twenty patients completed the study by treating 2 attacks, 16 of these were fully adherent to the study protocol. Three of the 16 patients responded to 311C90 whereas all patients developed a migraine headache after taking placebo. Two patients who did not respond to 311C90 described the developing headache as being "non-migraine'. Adverse experiences reported were similar to those experienced by patients in previous studies when 311C90 was taken during a migraine headache. There were no reports of 311C90-related adverse effects on the aura. These preliminary results suggest that oral 311C90 may be of value in preventing a migraine headache and is safe when taken during the aura phase. This intriguing possibility therefore warrants further investigation possibly utilising formulations that would deliver meaningful plasma levels of drug more rapidly.

PMID 8791030  Eur Neurol. 1996;36 Suppl 2:28-31.
著者: J Olesen, H C Diener, J Schoenen, J Hettiarachchi
雑誌名: Eur J Neurol. 2004 Oct;11(10):671-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2004.00914.x.
Abstract/Text Migraine aura is a warning sign readily recognized by patients. From the onset of aura it takes 30-60 min before the headache phase starts. Administration of acute medication during aura should provide sufficient time to achieve therapeutic plasma levels, counteracting the headache. To test this hypothesis we evaluated the efficacy of eletriptan 80 mg taken during aura. Patients met International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine with aura, with an attack frequency of at least one per month and with aura occurring in > 50% of recent attacks. Of 123 patients randomized, 87 (71%) were treated with a double-blind, one attack, during the aura phase before headache, dose of either eletriptan 80 mg (n = 43; 74% female; mean age, 40 years), or placebo (n = 44; 82% female; mean age, 40 years). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients not developing moderate-to-severe headache within 6 h post-dose. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients developing moderate-to-severe headache on eletriptan (61%) versus placebo (46%). Eletriptan was well tolerated and did not prolong the aura phase. Typical transient triptan adverse events were observed; most were mild-to-moderate in intensity. This study confirms the findings of two studies showing that triptans are ineffective but safe when given during the migraine aura phrase.

PMID 15469451  Eur J Neurol. 2004 Oct;11(10):671-7. doi: 10.1111/j.146・・・
著者: R Lange, J A Schwarz, M Hohn
雑誌名: Cephalalgia. 2000 Sep;20(7):663-7.
Abstract/Text In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, single-dose study a total of 374 patients generally suffering from migraine attacks suitable for treatment with non-prescription drugs, received either oral acetylsalicylic acid effervescent 1000 mg (ASAE) or effervescent placebo for the treatment of an acute migraine attack. Of the 343 patients fulfilling the criteria for efficacy analysis 169 patients took acetylsalicylic acid and 174 placebo. Response rates (reduction of headache severity from severe or moderate to mild or no pain at 2 h after administration) were 55.0% for acetylsalicylic acid and 36.8% for placebo (P < 0.001). Twenty-nine percent of patients in the active treatment group were pain-free after 2 h compared with 16.7% in the placebo group (P = 0.007). No headache recurred within 24 h post-dose in 84.6% of patients in the active group and in 85.1% of patients in the placebo group. Effervescent placebo reduced nausea and vomiting to the same degree as the active drug. Adverse events of acetylsalicylic acid (8.3%) were generally mild or moderate and comparable to those of placebo (2.9%). This study shows that oral ASAE is safe and effective for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

PMID 11128825  Cephalalgia. 2000 Sep;20(7):663-7.
著者: E Anne MacGregor, Andrew Dowson, Paul T G Davies
雑誌名: Headache. 2002 Apr;42(4):249-55.
Abstract/Text 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.

PMID 12010380  Headache. 2002 Apr;42(4):249-55.
著者:
雑誌名: Eur Neurol. 1992;32(3):177-84.
Abstract/Text In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy, safety and tolerability of 100 mg oral sumatriptan, given as a dispersible tablet, was compared with that of 900 mg oral aspirin plus 10 mg oral metoclopramide in the acute treatment of migraine. A total of 358 patients treated up to three migraine attacks within 3 months, recording clinical information on a diary card. In attack 1, headache relief after 2 h, defined as a reduction in severity from severe or moderate pain to mild or no pain, was recorded in 56% (74/133) of patients who took sumatriptan and 45% (62/138) of patients who took aspirin plus metoclopramide (p = 0.078). This analysis of the primary efficacy end point was not statistically significant. However, for attacks 2 and 3 (secondary end points), headache relief was achieved in 58 versus 36% of patients (p = 0.001) and 65 versus 34% of patients (p less than 0.001), respectively. Relief from nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia was similar in both treatment groups. Rescue medication was required by fewer patients treated with sumatriptan than by those who received aspirin plus metoclopramide (attack 1, 34 versus 56%, p less than 0.001; attack 2, 32 versus 51%, p = 0.001, and attack 3, 35 versus 54%, p = 0.001). Sumatriptan also produced a faster improvement and resolution of migraine attacks. Comparing the sumatriptan and aspirin plus metoclopramide treatment groups, complete resolution of the attack occurred within 6 h in 32 versus 19% (attack 1), 35 versus 23% (attack 2) and 32 versus 20% of patients (attack 3).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PMID 1317294  Eur Neurol. 1992;32(3):177-84.
著者: P Tfelt-Hansen, P Henry, L J Mulder, R G Scheldewaert, J Schoenen, G Chazot
雑誌名: Lancet. 1995 Oct 7;346(8980):923-6.
Abstract/Text Aspirin is commonly used to treat migraine attacks, although sumatriptan, a much more expensive treatment, is also effective. We compared a combination of lysine acetylsalicylate (equivalent to 900 mg aspirin) and 10 mg metoclopramide (LAS+MTC) with oral sumatriptan (100 mg) and placebo in 421 patients with migraine. LAS+MTC was as effective as sumatriptan with a decrease of headache from severe or moderate to mild or none of 57% and 53%, respectively, for the first migraine attack treated. Both treatments were better than placebo (success rate 24%, p < 0.0001). LAS+MTC was significantly more effective in the treatment of nausea than sumatriptan (p < 0.0001) and was better tolerated (adverse events in 18% and 28%, respectively, p < 0.05). LAS+MTC is as effective as sumatriptan in the treatment of migraine attacks. It is also much cheaper.

PMID 7564725  Lancet. 1995 Oct 7;346(8980):923-6.
著者: G Geraud, A Compagnon, A Rossi, COZAM Study Group
雑誌名: Eur Neurol. 2002;47(2):88-98. doi: 47959.
Abstract/Text This multicentre, randomised, double-blind study compared oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg with a combination of oral acetylsalicylic acid 900 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg as acute anti-migraine therapy for 3 migraine attacks. In total, 666 patients took at least one dose of study medication (326 took zolmitriptan and 340 took acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide). The percentage of patients with a 2-hour headache response after the first dose for all 3 attacks (the primary end point) was 33.4% with zolmitriptan and 32.9% with acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide [odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.47; p = 0.7228]. For the majority of secondary end points, the two treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy. However, post hoc analysis showed that significantly more patients receiving zolmitriptan were free of pain 2 h after the first dose in all 3 attacks compared with patients receiving acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide (10.7 vs. 5.3%; odds ratio 2.19, 95% CI 1.23-4.03; p = 0.0095). In addition, post hoc analysis showed that the overall 2-hour pain-free response rate was consistently higher with zolmitriptan (34.6%) than with acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide (27.9%) (odds ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.09-1.78; p = 0.007). Both treatments reduced migraine-associated nausea, vomiting, phonophobia and photophobia. There were no important inter-group differences with respect to the onset of meaningful migraine relief, the frequency of headache recurrence, the usage or efficacy of a second dose of medication or the use of escape medication. However, at the last attack, the proportion of patients who expressed overall satisfaction with the treatment was significantly higher in the zolmitriptan group, i.e. 83.7%, versus 75.0% with acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide (p = 0.0346). Both agents were well tolerated. Adverse events were reported by 40.8% (133/326) of zolmitriptan-treated patients and 29.1% (99/340) of those treated with acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide. The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was very low with both zolmitriptan (0.9%) and the combination regimen (1.5%); the latter percentage included 1 patient who withdrew from the study due to phlebitis, which was classified as a serious adverse event. This study showed that zolmitriptan is effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine. Zolmitriptan was at least as effective as acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide in achieving a 2-hour headache response, but significantly more effective than the combination therapy for other end points, including the 2-hour pain-free response.

Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
PMID 11844897  Eur Neurol. 2002;47(2):88-98. doi: 47959.
著者: G L Ellis, J Delaney, D A DeHart, A Owens
雑誌名: Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Feb;22(2):191-5.
Abstract/Text STUDY OBJECTIVES: By evaluating the efficacy of metoclopramide alone and in combination with ibuprofen versus placebos, this study was designed to both evaluate the efficacy of metoclopramide and elucidate its mechanism of action in the treatment of migraine headache.
DESIGN: The study was conducted over a two-year period and was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
SETTING: An urban teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled were at least 18 years old and had recurring headaches with one or more of the following characteristics: unilateral, preceded by neurologic symptoms, significant nausea and vomiting, or mood changes and photophobia.
INTERVENTION: Ten milligrams of metoclopramide or an equal volume of IV normal saline was given and 600 mg of ibuprofen or identical-appearing placebo was given orally at time 0. Patients rated their pain and nausea at time 0, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes using visual-analog scales.
RESULTS: The differences in pain and nausea scores for the metoclopramide + placebos group versus the other three groups were tested using exact nonparametric (Mann-Whitney) statistical procedures. The metoclopramide + placebos group had significantly better relief of pain compared with the placebos + ibuprofen and placebos + placebos groups. The metoclopramide + placebos group had significantly better relief of nausea than the ibuprofen + placebos group; nausea scores for the placebos + placebos group could not be analyzed due to excessive variance from the other groups at baseline. The differences between the metoclopramide + placebos group and the metoclopramide + ibuprofen group were not statistically significant with regard to either pain or nausea.
CONCLUSION: Metoclopramide is efficacious in the treatment of both the pain and nausea of migraine headache. This is a direct action that is not dependent on the concomitant administration of another agent.

PMID 8427430  Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Feb;22(2):191-5.
著者: E B Jones, E R Gonzalez, J G Boggs, J A Grillo, R K Elswick
雑誌名: Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Aug;24(2):237-41.
Abstract/Text STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of rectal prochlorperazine in the treatment of acute migraines.
DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.
SETTING: Emergency department of an inner-city university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: ED patients with documented diagnosis of migraines.
INTERVENTIONS: Vital signs and level of alertness were monitored immediately before drug administration and 120 minutes after dosing. Pain intensity and adverse events were monitored immediately before drug administration and at 30, 60, and 120 minutes after dosing.
RESULTS: A positive outcome was defined as a pain score less than or equal to 5 on a 10-point scale or a 50% reduction in pain intensity from baseline at 120 minutes after dosing. All patients treated with prochlorperazine suppositories experienced a positive treatment outcome; only 50% of patients treated with placebo experienced a positive result at 120 minutes after dosing (P = .016). Pain intensity scores were significantly lower in the prochlorperazine group at 120 minutes (P = .018). There were no adverse reactions in either group, and there were no significant differences in vital signs or levels of alertness between groups. Patients who failed therapy were given rescue medication 120 minutes after dosing.
CONCLUSION: Prochlorperazine administered as a 25-mg rectal suppository provides excellent pain relief within 2 hours in patients with acute migraines.

PMID 8037389  Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Aug;24(2):237-41.
著者: P Tfelt-Hansen, J Olesen, A Aebelholt-Krabbe, B Melgaard, B Veilis
雑誌名: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1980 Apr;43(4):369-71.
Abstract/Text One hundred and fifty patients with migraine attacks attending the Copenhagen acute migraine clinic were treated either with metoclopramide 10 mg i.m. metoclopramide 20 mg as suppository or placebo in a double blind trial. All patients simultaneously or 30 minutes later received paracetamol 1 g and diazepam 5 mg orally. The nausea was relieved in 71% of the patients by placebo and bed rest, but metoclopramide was significantly (p = 0.04) more effective and relieved nausea in 86% of the patients. Metoclopramide did not by itself reduce the pain, but enhanced the effect of the analgesic or sedative medication. This effect, however, just failed to be statistically significant (p = 0.06).

PMID 7373338  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1980 Apr;43(4):369-71.
著者: W K Amery, J Waelkens
雑誌名: Headache. 1983 Jan;23(1):37-8.
Abstract/Text
PMID 6337976  Headache. 1983 Jan;23(1):37-8.
著者: M Coppola, D M Yealy, R A Leibold
雑誌名: Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Nov;26(5):541-6.
Abstract/Text STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative efficacy of i.v. metoclopramide and prochlorperazine for the initial emergency department treatment of migraine headache.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
SETTING: Military community hospital ED with an annual census of 75,000.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy consenting adults from a convenience sample of patients presenting with migraine headache similar to that experienced in at least one prior episode. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, fever, signs of meningismus, altered sensorium, drug or alcohol use, oxygen saturation less than 90%, recent trauma or seizure, "worst headache," abnormal blood pressure, recent (within 48 hours) use of metoclopramide or prochlorperazine, and allergy to metoclopramide or prochlorperazine.
INTERVENTIONS: In a random manner, each subject received a 2-mL i.v. injection of identical-appearing fluid containing metoclopramide (10 mg), prochlorperazine (10 mg), or saline solution (placebo). No other analgesics or medications were administered during the initial study period; rescue agents were administered by the choice of the treating physician after all data were collected.
MEASUREMENTS: Patients scored their nausea, pain, and sedation before receiving the 2-mL injections and at 30 minutes after injection. Ten-centimeter nonhatched visual analog scales were used for these measurements, with distance from the left end (zero) calculated for each use. Clinically important successful treatment was defined a priori as achievement of the following criteria: patient satisfaction and either a decrease of 50% or more in the 30-minute pain score (compared with the initial score) or an absolute pain score of 2.5 cm or less. Failure to achieve these criteria constituted treatment failure. Differences between groups were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and chi 2 tests. Data are reported as frequency percentages and median values, with a two-tailed P value of .05 or less considered significant.
RESULTS: Nausea, pain, and sedation scores were similar in all three groups before therapy. Thirty minutes after treatment, pain scores differed among those treated with prochlorperazine (1.1 cm), with metoclopramide (3.9 cm), and with placebo (6.1 cm, P = .003). Clinical success occurred more commonly after treatment with prochlorperazine (82%) than after metoclopramide (46%) or placebo (29%, P = .03). However, metoclopramide and placebo scores did not differ (P = .14). Nausea tended to be improved after prochlorperazine, compared with metoclopramide or placebo, at 30 minutes (P = .64). Four patients (6%) returned to the ED for relapse of migraine headache within 24 hours (three in the placebo group and one in the metoclopramide group).
CONCLUSION: i.v. prochlorperazine relieves the headache and tends to improve nausea better than metoclopramide in ED patients with acute migraine headache.

PMID 7486359  Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Nov;26(5):541-6.
著者: J D Cameron, P L Lane, M Speechley
雑誌名: Acad Emerg Med. 1995 Jul;2(7):597-602.
Abstract/Text OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of IV chlorpromazine with that of IV metoclopramide in the treatment for acute migraine headache in the ED.
METHODS: A prospective randomized double-blind trial was undertaken at two university-affiliated urban EDs with a combined annual census of more than 85,000 patients. Included in the study were patients presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of migraine headache. The subjects were randomized to receive 0.1 mg/kg/dose IV of either chlorpromazine (CPZ) or metoclopramide (MC), up to a total of three doses.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients completed the protocol; 44 received MC and 47 received CPZ. The demographics of the two groups were similar. Both drugs provided, for the majority of patients, adequate pain relief as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) completed every 15 minutes from T = 0 minutes to T = 45 minutes. The average pain relief over 45 minutes (delta VAS) for CPZ was 4.87 cm, vs 4.34 cm for MC (p = 0.35). There also was no statistically significant difference in blood pressure (BP) changes (delta BP < 2 mm Hg for both systolic and diastolic BPs, p = 0.47 and 0.33) or numbers of patients reporting adverse effects (AEs) (CPZ: 16 of 35; MC: 13 of 29, p = 0.43). There was no severe AE with either study drug.
CONCLUSIONS: Metoclopramide and chlorpromazine administered IV are both effective in the management of acute migraine headache. They are associated with similar minor side-effect profiles.

PMID 8521205  Acad Emerg Med. 1995 Jul;2(7):597-602.
著者: J Jones, S Pack, E Chun
雑誌名: Am J Emerg Med. 1996 May;14(3):262-4. doi: 10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90171-0.
Abstract/Text To compare the efficacy of intramuscular prochlorperazine and metoclopramide in the short-term treatment of migraine headache in the emergency department 86 eligible adult patients with moderate to severe migraine headache were evaluated prospectively at a university-affiliated community hospital. After randomization, each subject received a 2-mL intramuscular injection of sterile saline, prochlorperazine (10 mg), or metoclopramide (10 mg). No other analgesics were administered during the 60-minute study period; patient assessment of relief was followed using visual analog scales. Reduction in median headache scores was significantly better among those treated with prochlorperazine (67%) compared to metoclopramide (34%) or placebo (16%). Similarly, symptoms of nausea and vomiting were significantly relieved in the prochlorperazine group (chi 2 = 17.1, P < .001). However, rescue analgesic therapy was necessary in the majority of patients treated with prochlorperazine (16/28) and metoclopramide (23/29) after the 60-minute study period. Although intramuscular prochlorperazine appears to provides more effective relief than metoclopramide, these results do not recommend either drug as single-agent therapy for acute migraine headache.

PMID 8639197  Am J Emerg Med. 1996 May;14(3):262-4. doi: 10.1016/S073・・・
著者: E A MacGregor, M Wilkinson, K Bancroft
雑誌名: Cephalalgia. 1993 Apr;13(2):124-7.
Abstract/Text This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of domperidone in combination with paracetamol in the treatment of migraine. Severity of headache, duration of migraine attack and overall efficacy of treatment were amongst the variables assessed in a randomized, double-blind, three-way cross-over comparison of 1 g paracetamol plus either domperidone 30 mg, domperidone 20 mg or placebo, taken at onset of headache. Forty-six patients attending the City of London Migraine Clinic completed the study. A significant difference was observed in the duration of the migraine attack: a median of 17.5 h with paracetamol alone was reduced to 12.0 h with the addition of domperidone 20 mg, and to 12.0 h with domperidone 30 mg. No significant adverse events were reported. A reduction in pain intensity and nausea was noted but this was not statistically significant. It was concluded that domperidone shortens the duration of a migraine attack and may help reduce headache and associated symptoms.

PMID 8495454  Cephalalgia. 1993 Apr;13(2):124-7.
著者:
雑誌名: Funct Neurol. 1993 Nov-Dec;8(6):441-6.
Abstract/Text
PMID 8150324  Funct Neurol. 1993 Nov-Dec;8(6):441-6.
著者: W E Pryse-Phillips, D W Dodick, J G Edmeads, M J Gawel, R F Nelson, R A Purdy, G Robinson, D Stirling, I Worthington
雑誌名: CMAJ. 1997 May 1;156(9):1273-87.
Abstract/Text OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians and allied health care professionals with guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice.
OPTIONS: The full range and quality of diagnostic and therapeutic methods available for the management of migraine.
OUTCOMES: Improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of migraine, which will lead to a reduction in suffering, increased productivity and decreased economic burden. EVIDENCE AND VALUES: The creation of the guidelines followed a needs assessment by members of the Canadian Headache Society and included a statement of objectives; development of guidelines by multidisciplinary working groups using information from literature reviews and other resources; comparison of alternative clinical pathways and description of how published data were analysed; definition of the level of evidence for data in each case; evaluation and revision of the guidelines at a consensus conference held in Ottawa on Oct. 27-29, 1995; redrafting and insertion of tables showing key variables and data from various studies and tables of data with recommendations; and reassessment by all conference participants.
BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Accuracy in diagnosis is a major factor in improving therapeutic effectiveness. Improvement in the precise diagnosis of migraine, coupled with a rational plan for the treatment of acute attacks and for prophylactic therapy, is likely to lead to substantial benefits in both human and economic terms.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnosis of migraine can be improved by using modified criteria of the International Headache Society as well as a semistructured patient interview technique. Appropriate treatment of symptoms should take into account the severity of the migraine attack, since most patients will have attacks of differing severity and can learn to use medication appropriate for each attack. When headaches are frequent or particularly severe, prophylactic therapy should be considered. Both the avoidance of migraine trigger factors and the application of nonpharmacological therapies play important roles in overall migraine management and will be addressed at a later date.
VALIDATION: The guidelines are based on consensus of Canadian experts in neurology, emergency medicine, psychiatry, psychology, family medicine and pharmacology, and consumers. Previous guidelines did not exist. Field testing of the guidelines is in progress.

PMID 9145054  CMAJ. 1997 May 1;156(9):1273-87.
著者:
雑誌名: Cephalalgia. 1998 Jan;18(1):9-22.
Abstract/Text
PMID 9601619  Cephalalgia. 1998 Jan;18(1):9-22.
著者: S D Silberstein
雑誌名: Neurology. 2000 Sep 26;55(6):754-62.
Abstract/Text
PMID 10993991  Neurology. 2000 Sep 26;55(6):754-62.
著者: Stephen D Silberstein, David Dodick, Fred Freitag, Starr H Pearlman, Steven R Hahn, Ann I Scher, Richard B Lipton
雑誌名: Headache. 2007 Apr;47(4):585-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00760.x.
Abstract/Text Comorbidity is defined as an illness that occurs more frequently in association with a specific disorder than would be found as a coincidental association in the general population. Conditions that are frequently comorbid with migraine include depression, anxiety, stroke, epilepsy, sleep disorders, and other pain disorders. In addition, many common illnesses occur concomitantly (at the same time) with migraine and influence the treatment choice. Migraine management, and especially migraine prevention, can be challenging when patients have comorbid or concomitant illnesses. The objectives of this initiative are to review the literature on managing patients who have migraine and common comorbidities, present additional clinical approaches for care of these difficult patients, and evaluate the areas in which research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for the management of migraine with associated comorbid conditions.

PMID 17445108  Headache. 2007 Apr;47(4):585-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-46・・・
著者: Vincenza Snow, Kevin Weiss, Eric M Wall, Christel Mottur-Pilson, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine
雑誌名: Ann Intern Med. 2002 Nov 19;137(10):840-9.
Abstract/Text
PMID 12435222  Ann Intern Med. 2002 Nov 19;137(10):840-9.
著者: Gilles Géraud, Michel Lantéri-Minet, Christian Lucas, Dominique Valade, French Society for the Study of Migraine Headache (SFEMC)
雑誌名: Clin Ther. 2004 Aug;26(8):1305-18.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: The French Recommendations for Clinical Practice: Diagnosis and Therapy of Migraine are guidelines concerning the overall management of patients with migraine, including diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and assessment of disability.
OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes the guidelines as they apply to adults and children, and proposes future direction for steps toward optimal treatment of migraine in patients in France.
METHODS: The recommendations were categorized into 3 levels of proof (A-C) according to the National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES) methodology and were based on a professional consensus reached among members of the Working Group and the Guidelines Review Group of the ANAES.
RESULTS: The International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine should be used in routine clinical practice. Recommended agents for the treatment of migraine in adults include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) monotherapy or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen monotherapy, triptans, ergotamine tartrate, and dihydroergotamine mesylate. Patients should use the medication as early as possible after the onset of migraine headache. For migraine prophylaxis in adults, the following can be used: propranolol, metoprolol, oxetorone, or amitriptyline as first-line treatment, and pizotifen, flunarizine, valproate sodium, or topiramate as second-line treatment. Migraine in children can be distinguished from that in adults by shorter duration (2-48 hours in children aged <15 years), more frequent bilateral localization, frequent predominant gastrointestinal disturbances, and frequent pallor hailing the onset of the attack. The following drugs are recommended in children and adolescents: ibuprofen in children aged >6 months, diclofenac in children weighing >16 kg, naproxen in children aged >6 years or weighing >25 kg, ASA alone or in combination with metoclopramide, acetaminophen alone or in combination with metoclopramide, and ergotamine tartrate in children aged >10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are intended to help general practitioners to manage migraine patients according to the rules of evidence-based medicine.

PMID 15476911  Clin Ther. 2004 Aug;26(8):1305-18.
著者: Stephen D Silberstein, Paul K Winner, Joseph J Chmiel
雑誌名: Headache. 2003 Mar;43(3):171-8.
Abstract/Text OBJECTIVE: To determine if long-term resource utilization is reduced by adding a preventive medication to a migraine management regimen that already includes acute medication.
BACKGROUND: In 2000, new evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of migraine were released by the US Headache Consortium and the American Academy of Neurology. Although these guidelines emphasize the role of preventive medication in achieving significant clinical improvement, little yet is known concerning the impact of such management on medical and pharmaceutical resources. Methods.-Resource utilization information in a large claims database was analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: Adding a preventive medication to migraine management reduced the use of other migraine medications, as well as visits to physician offices and emergency departments. In addition, both acute and preventive medications were associated with lower utilization of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans.
CONCLUSION: Migraine preventive drug therapy is effective in reducing resource consumption when added to therapy consisting only of an acute medication.

PMID 12603635  Headache. 2003 Mar;43(3):171-8.
著者: David W Dodick, Peter J Goadsby, Egilius L H Spierings, Joel C Scherer, Steven P Sweeney, David S Grayzel
雑誌名: Lancet Neurol. 2014 Sep;13(9):885-92. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70128-0. Epub 2014 Aug 10.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: Migraine remains poorly treated, with few effective preventive drugs available. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LY2951742, a fully humanised monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, for migraine prevention.
METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 proof-of-concept study at 35 centres in the USA. Patients aged 18-65 years with four to 14 migraine headache days per month were randomly assigned (1:1) to LY2951742 or placebo by a computerised randomisation scheme. LY2951742 (150 mg) or placebo were given as a subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change in number of migraine headache days per 28-day period assessed at 9-12 weeks. Safety was assessed over 24 weeks, including the 12-week treatment period and the subsequent 12 weeks after study drug administration. Patients and treating investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. A mixed-effects model of repeated measures was used, including patient baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and patients as random effects. Safety measures were analysed according to the treatment received. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01625988.
FINDINGS: Between July 31, 2012, and Sept 18, 2013, 218 patients were randomly assigned to LY2951742 (n=108, but one patient withdrew before treatment) or placebo (n=110). The mean change from baseline to week 12 in the number of migraine headache days was -4·2 (SD 3·1; 62·5% decrease) in the LY2951742 group compared with -3·0 (SD 3·0; 42·3% decrease) in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference -1·2, 90% CI -1·9 to -0·6; p=0·0030). Adverse events that occurred more frequently with LY2951742 than with placebo included injection site pain, erythema, or both (21 [20%] of 107 vs seven [6%] of 110), upper respiratory tract infections (18 [17%] vs ten [9%]), and abdominal pain (six [6%] vs three [3%]). There were two serious adverse events reported in the treatment arm and four in the placebo arm, none of which were deemed to be related to the study drug.
INTERPRETATION: These results provide preliminary evidence that LY2951742 might be beneficial in migraine prevention and provide support for the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide in the pathogenesis of migraine. Further controlled studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine.
FUNDING: Arteaus Therapeutics.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PMID 25127173  Lancet Neurol. 2014 Sep;13(9):885-92. doi: 10.1016/S147・・・
著者: Virginia L Stauffer, David W Dodick, Qi Zhang, Jeffrey N Carter, Jessica Ailani, Robert R Conley
雑誌名: JAMA Neurol. 2018 Sep 1;75(9):1080-1088. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1212.
Abstract/Text Importance: Migraine is a disabling neurological disease characterized by severe headache attacks. Treatment options reduce migraine frequency for many patients, but adverse effects lead to discontinuation in many patients.
Objective: To demonstrate that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the prevention of episodic migraine with or without aura.
Design, Setting, and Participants: The EVOLVE-1 (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine 1) trial was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (January 11, 2016, to March 22, 2017) trial comparing galcanezumab (120 mg and 240 mg) vs placebo. Patients received treatments once monthly for 6 months (subcutaneous injection via prefilled syringe) and were followed up for 5 months after their last injection. It was a multicenter, clinic-based study involving 90 sites in North America. Participants in the study were adults (aged 18 to 65 years) with at least a 1-year history of migraine, 4 to 14 migraine headache days per month and a mean of at least 2 migraine attacks per month within the past 3 months, and were diagnosed prior to age 50 years. During the study, no other preventive medications were allowed. A total of 1671 patients were assessed; 809 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria, and 858 were included in the intent-to-treat population.
Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1:1) to monthly placebo, galcanezumab, 120 mg, and galcanezumab, 240 mg.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the treatment period. Secondary measures included at least 50%, at least 75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine headache days, migraine headache days with acute medication use, and scores from the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Severity, and Migraine Disability Assessment. Treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events were reported.
Results: Of the 1671 patients assessed, 858 (mean age, 40.7 years; 718 women [83.7%]) met study entry criteria and received at least 1 dose of investigational product. The primary objective was met for both galcanezumab doses; treatment with galcanezumab significantly reduced monthly migraine headache days (both P < .001) by 4.7 days (120 mg) and 4.6 days (240 mg) compared with placebo (2.8 days). All key secondary objectives were also significant after multiplicity adjustment. There were no meaningful differences between 120-mg and 240-mg doses of galcanezumab on measures of efficacy. Completion rate during treatment was high (81.9%; n = 718), and the incidence of discontinuation owing to adverse events was less than 5% across all treatment groups.
Conclusions and Relevance: Galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg monthly injections provided clinical benefits and improved functioning. The incidence rate of adverse events was low, demonstrating the favorable tolerability profile of galcanezumab.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614183.

PMID 29813147  JAMA Neurol. 2018 Sep 1;75(9):1080-1088. doi: 10.1001/j・・・
著者: David W Dodick, Stephen D Silberstein, Marcelo E Bigal, Paul P Yeung, Peter J Goadsby, Tricia Blankenbiller, Melissa Grozinski-Wolff, Ronghua Yang, Yuju Ma, Ernesto Aycardi
雑誌名: JAMA. 2018 May 15;319(19):1999-2008. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.4853.
Abstract/Text Importance: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be effective for treating episodic migraine.
Objective: To assess the efficacy of fremanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic migraine with a monthly dosing regimen or a single higher dose.
Design and Setting: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at 123 sites in 9 countries from March 23, 2016 (first patient randomized), to April 10, 2017, consisting of a screening visit, 28-day pretreatment period, 12-week treatment period, and final evaluation at week 12.
Participants: Study participants were aged 18 to 70 years with episodic migraine (6-14 headache days, with at least 4 migraine days, during 28-day pretreatment period). Patients who had previous treatment failure with 2 classes of migraine-preventive medication were excluded.
Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous monthly dosing of fremanezumab (n = 290; 225 mg at baseline, week 4, and week 8); a single higher dose of fremanezumab, as intended to support a quarterly dose regimen (n = 291; 675 mg of fremanezumab at baseline; placebo at weeks 4 and 8); or placebo (n = 294; at baseline, week 4, and week 8).
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was mean change in mean number of monthly migraine days during the 12-week period after the first dose.
Results: Among 875 patients who were randomized (mean age, 41.8 [SD, 12.1] years; 742 women [85%]), 791 (90.4%) completed the trial. From baseline to 12 weeks, mean migraine days per month decreased from 8.9 days to 4.9 days in the fremanezumab monthly dosing group, from 9.2 days to 5.3 days in the fremanezumab single-higher-dose group, and from 9.1 days to 6.5 days in the placebo group. This resulted in a difference with monthly dosing vs placebo of -1.5 days (95% CI, -2.01 to -0.93 days; P < .001) and with single higher dosing vs placebo of -1.3 days (95% CI, -1.79 to -0.72 days; P < .001). The most common adverse events that led to discontinuation were injection site erythema (n = 3), injection site induration (n = 2), diarrhea (n = 2), anxiety (n = 2), and depression (n = 2).
Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with episodic migraine in whom multiple medication classes had not previously failed, subcutaneous fremanezumab, compared with placebo, resulted in a statistically significant 1.3- to 1.5-day reduction in the mean number of monthly migraine days over a 12-week period. Further research is needed to assess effectiveness against other preventive medications and in patients in whom multiple preventive drug classes have failed and to determine long-term safety and efficacy.
Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02629861.

PMID 29800211  JAMA. 2018 May 15;319(19):1999-2008. doi: 10.1001/jama.・・・
著者: Marcelo E Bigal, David W Dodick, Abouch V Krymchantowski, Juliana H VanderPluym, Stewart J Tepper, Ernesto Aycardi, Pippa S Loupe, Yuju Ma, Peter J Goadsby
雑誌名: Neurology. 2016 Jul 5;87(1):41-8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002801. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
Abstract/Text OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the onset of efficacy of TEV-48125, a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, recently shown to be effective for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM) and high-frequency episodic migraine.
METHODS: A randomized placebo-controlled study tested once-monthly injections of TEV-48125 675/225 mg or 900 mg vs placebo. Headache information was captured daily using an electronic headache diary. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the number of headache hours in month 3. Herein, we assess the efficacy of each dose at earlier time points.
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 261 patients. For headache hours, the 675/225-mg dose separated from placebo on day 7 and the 900-mg dose separated from placebo after 3 days of therapy (p = 0.048 and p = 0.033, respectively). For both the 675/225-mg and 900-mg doses, the improvement was sustained through the second (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001) and third (p = 0.025 and p < 0.001) weeks of therapy and throughout the study (month 3, p = 0.0386 and p = 0.0057). For change in weekly headache days of at least moderate intensity, both doses were superior to placebo at week 2 (p = 0.031 and p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: TEV-48125 demonstrated a significant improvement within 1 week of therapy initiation in patients with CM.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, TEV-48125 significantly decreases the number of headache hours within 3 to 7 days of injection.

© 2016 American Academy of Neurology.
PMID 27281531  Neurology. 2016 Jul 5;87(1):41-8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000・・・
著者: Peter J Goadsby, Uwe Reuter, Yngve Hallström, Gregor Broessner, Jo H Bonner, Feng Zhang, Sandhya Sapra, Hernan Picard, Daniel D Mikol, Robert A Lenz
雑誌名: N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 30;377(22):2123-2132. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705848.
Abstract/Text BACKGROUND: We tested erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, for the prevention of episodic migraine.
METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive a subcutaneous injection of either erenumab, at a dose of 70 mg or 140 mg, or placebo monthly for 6 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline to months 4 through 6 in the mean number of migraine days per month. Secondary end points were a 50% or greater reduction in mean migraine days per month, change in the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication, and change in scores on the physical-impairment and everyday-activities domains of the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (scale transformed to 0 to 100, with higher scores representing greater migraine burden on functioning).
RESULTS: A total of 955 patients underwent randomization: 317 were assigned to the 70-mg erenumab group, 319 to the 140-mg erenumab group, and 319 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline was 8.3 in the overall population; by months 4 through 6, the number of days was reduced by 3.2 in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 3.7 in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 1.8 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). A 50% or greater reduction in the mean number of migraine days per month was achieved for 43.3% of patients in the 70-mg erenumab group and 50.0% of patients in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 26.6% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication was reduced by 1.1 days in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 1.6 days in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 0.2 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). Physical-impairment scores improved by 4.2 and 4.8 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.4 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and everyday-activities scores improved by 5.5 and 5.9 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 3.3 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). The rates of adverse events were similar between erenumab and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab administered subcutaneously at a monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg significantly reduced migraine frequency, the effects of migraines on daily activities, and the use of acute migraine-specific medication over a period of 6 months. The long-term safety and durability of the effect of erenumab require further study. (Funded by Amgen and Novartis; STRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02456740 .).

PMID 29171821  N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 30;377(22):2123-2132. doi: 10.10・・・

ページ上部に戻る

戻る

さらなるご利用にはご登録が必要です。

こちらよりご契約または優待日間無料トライアルお申込みをお願いします。

(※トライアルご登録は1名様につき、一度となります)


ご契約の場合はご招待された方だけのご優待特典があります。

以下の優待コードを入力いただくと、

契約期間が通常12ヵ月のところ、14ヵ月ご利用いただけます。

優待コード: (利用期限:まで)

ご契約はこちらから