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
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 Lysophospholipid receptors in neurodegeneration and neuroprotection.
×
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:481959085
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