Efficacy of memantine compared with sodium valproate as prophylactic treatment for migraine: a controlled randomized pilot study

Damaris Vazquez-Guevara, Alejandro Orozco-Narvaez, Héctor G. Hernández-Rodríguez, F. Rivas-Ruvalcaba, J. Shiguetomi-Medina, Ildefonso Rodríguez-Leyva
{"title":"Efficacy of memantine compared with sodium valproate as prophylactic treatment for migraine: a controlled randomized pilot study","authors":"Damaris Vazquez-Guevara, Alejandro Orozco-Narvaez, Héctor G. Hernández-Rodríguez, F. Rivas-Ruvalcaba, J. Shiguetomi-Medina, Ildefonso Rodríguez-Leyva","doi":"10.37349/ent.2023.00042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To compare the efficacy of memantine with that of valproate as a prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine within three months. The efficacy, safety, and response rate were evaluated.\nMethods: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial randomized participants were divided into two groups. The memantine group received memantine 10 mg twice daily, and the valproate group received valproate 500 mg twice daily.\nResults: Thirty-three patients participated in the study; 27 completed the treatment protocol, 14 in the memantine group, and 13 in the valproate group. The mean number of migraine attacks per month in the memantine group was 5.31 [standard deviation (SD) ± 1.54] initially and 0.93 (SD ± 1.49) at the end of treatment, noting a decrease of 4.21 (SD ± 1.76; P < 0.001). In the valproate group, the mean number of migraine attacks per month was 5.35 (SD ± 1.11) initially and 0.77 (SD ± 1.16) at the end of treatment, with a difference of 4.5 (SD ± 1.39; P < 0.001). All 27 patients had excellent response rates. Adverse effects were infrequent and mild in severity.\nConclusions: A clinical trial compared the efficacy of memantine with that of valproate (first-line drug) as a prophylactic treatment. A significant reduction in attacks was noted in both drugs. Memantine could be a new preventive treatment option for migraine.","PeriodicalId":73000,"journal":{"name":"Exploration of neuroprotective therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploration of neuroprotective therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37349/ent.2023.00042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacy of memantine with that of valproate as a prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine within three months. The efficacy, safety, and response rate were evaluated. Methods: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial randomized participants were divided into two groups. The memantine group received memantine 10 mg twice daily, and the valproate group received valproate 500 mg twice daily. Results: Thirty-three patients participated in the study; 27 completed the treatment protocol, 14 in the memantine group, and 13 in the valproate group. The mean number of migraine attacks per month in the memantine group was 5.31 [standard deviation (SD) ± 1.54] initially and 0.93 (SD ± 1.49) at the end of treatment, noting a decrease of 4.21 (SD ± 1.76; P < 0.001). In the valproate group, the mean number of migraine attacks per month was 5.35 (SD ± 1.11) initially and 0.77 (SD ± 1.16) at the end of treatment, with a difference of 4.5 (SD ± 1.39; P < 0.001). All 27 patients had excellent response rates. Adverse effects were infrequent and mild in severity. Conclusions: A clinical trial compared the efficacy of memantine with that of valproate (first-line drug) as a prophylactic treatment. A significant reduction in attacks was noted in both drugs. Memantine could be a new preventive treatment option for migraine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美金刚与丙戊酸钠预防性治疗偏头痛的疗效比较:一项对照随机试验研究
目的:比较美金刚和丙戊酸钠在三个月内预防性治疗发作性偏头痛的疗效。评估疗效、安全性和有效率。方法:采用前瞻性、随机、双盲、对照的临床试验随机将受试者分为两组。美金刚组接受美金刚10 mg,每日两次,丙戊酸钠组接受丙戊酸钠500 mg,每日二次。结果:33例患者参与了本研究;27人完成了治疗方案,美金刚组14人,丙戊酸钠组13人。美金刚组每月偏头痛发作的平均次数最初为5.31[标准差(SD)±1.54],治疗结束时为0.93(SD±1.49),减少了4.21(SD±1.76;P<0.001),差异为4.5(SD±1.39;P<0.001)。不良反应很少,严重程度较轻。结论:一项临床试验比较了美金刚与丙戊酸钠(一线药物)作为预防性治疗的疗效。这两种药物的攻击显著减少。美金刚可能是偏头痛的一种新的预防性治疗选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Advancements in extracellular vesicle therapy for neurodegenerative diseases. Lifetime stressors relate to invisible symptoms of multiple sclerosis Neuronal plasticity in dorsal root ganglia following sciatic nerve injury Biomarkers in neurodegenerative diseases: a broad overview “Vitaction” deficiency: a possible root cause for multiple lifestyle disorders including Alzheimer’s disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1