Comparison Of Efficacy Among the Migraine Patients Prescribed With Flunarizine, Propranolol And Petasites In The Management Of Severity Of Pain And Disability
Main Article Content
Keywords
Flunarizine, Headache, Migraine, Pain, Petasites, Propranolol
Abstract
Aim: To compare the efficacy among the migraine patients prescribed with flunarizine, propranolol and petasites in the management of severity of pain and disability.
Methods: A total of 90 patients who were recruited in this study were categorized into three groups i.e., group A, B & C where flunarizine, propranolol and petasites were prescribed respectively. The severity of pain and disability among the three groups were assessed by using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS questionnaire) before and after the treatment with respective drugs.
Results: Among the group-A subjects, the mean VAS score was observed to be 8.46 (±2.01) before the treatment and was reduced to 4.43 (±1.67) with a mean score difference of 4.03 (p<0.0001*) where as in case of group-B subjects, the mean VAS score was observed to be 8.33(±1.93) before the initiation of the treatment and was reduced to 5.40 (±1.65) with a mean score difference of 2.93 (p<0.0001*) and in case of group-C subjects, the mean VAS score was observed to be 7.83 (±1.87) before the initiation of treatment and was reduced to 5.26 (±2.01) with a mean score difference of 2.57 (p<0.0001*). Among the group-A subjects, the mean MIDAS score was observed to be 15.67 (±5.38) before the initiation of the treatment and was reduced to 11.0 (±4.16) with a mean score difference of 4.67 (p=0.0004*) whereas in case of group-B subjects, the mean MIDAS score was observed to be 12.07 (±3.99) before starting the treatment and was reduced to 7.9 (±2.64) with a mean score difference of 4.17 (p<0.0001*) and in case of group-C subjects, the mean MIDAS score was observed to be 13.77 (±5.40) before the initiation of the treatment and was reduced to 9.83 (±5.20) with a mean score difference of 3.94 (p=0.0056*).
Conclusion: In this study, a highest reduction of the mean VAS score and mean MIDAS score was observed in the group-A subjects who were prescribed with flunarizine when compared to the group-B and group-C subjects who were prescribed with propranolol and petasites respectively. It is the responsibility of the clinical pharmacists to get involved in the pharmaceutical care of the migraine patients along with the other health care professionals in order to increase the quality of life among them by managing the severity of pain and disability due to migraine.
References
2. Steiner TJ, Birbeck GL, Jensen RH, Katsarava Z, Stovner LJ, Martelletti P. Headache disorders are third cause of disability worldwide. J Headache Pain. 2015; 16: 58.
3. Bonafede M, Sapra S, Shah N, Tepper S, Cappell K, Desai P. Direct and Indirect Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs among Migraine Patients in the United States. Headache. 2018; 58(5): 700-14.
4. Lateef TM, Cui L, Nakamura E, Dozier J, Merikangas K. Accuracy of family history reports of migraine in a community-based family study of migraine. Headache. 2015; 55(3): 407-12.
5. Goadsby PJ, Holland PR, Martins-Oliveira M et al. Pathophysiology of Migraine: A Disorder of Sensory Processing. Physiol Rev. 2017; 97(2): 553-622.
6. Weatherall MW. The diagnosis and treatment of chronic migraine. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2015; 6(3):115-23.
7. Silberstein SD. Preventive Migraine Treatment. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015; 21(4): 973-89.
8. Srinivasan AV. Propranolol: A 50-year historical perspective. Annals of Indian academy of neurology. 2019; 22(1): 21-6.
9. Karsan N, Palethorpe D, Rattanawong W, Marin JC, Bhola R, Goadsby PJ. Flunarizine in migraine‐related headache prevention: Results from 200 patients treated in the UK. European Journal of Neurology. 2018; 25(6): 811-7.
10. Chandan Raybarman. The efficacy of combined low-doses of propranolol and flunarizine in episodic migraine. Eastern journal of medicine. 2016; 21(2): 75-8.
11. Utterback G, Zacharias R, Timraz S et al. Butterbur extract: Prophylactic treatment for childhood migraines. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 2014; 20(1): 61-4.
12. Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F et al. NSAIDS and Other Complementary Treatments for Episodic Migraine Prevention in Adults. American Headache Society. 2012; 78(17): 1346-53.
13. Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: Results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. 2005; 45(3): 196-203.
14. Aicher B, Peil H, Peil B, et al. Pain measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) in clinical trials with OTC analgesics in headache. Cephalalgia. 2012; 32(3): 185-97.
15. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB et al. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain. 2000; 88(1): 41-52.
16. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K. Migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score: Relation to headache frequency, pain intensity and headache symptoms. Headache. 2003; 43(3): 258-65.
17. Wijeratne T, Tang H, Crewther D. Prevalence of Migraine in the Elderly: A Narrated Review. Neuroepidemiology. 2019; 52: 104-10.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.