Advertisement

Other Preventive Anti-Migraine Treatments: ACE Inhibitors, ARBs, Calcium Channel Blockers, Serotonin Antagonists, and NMDA Receptor Antagonists

  • Jill C. Rau
  • David W. DodickEmail author
Headache (JR Couch, Section Editor)
  • 182 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Headache

Abstract

Purpose of review

Migraine causes more years of life lived with disability than almost any other condition in the world and can significantly impact the lives of individuals with migraine, their families, and society. The use of medication for the prevention of migraine is an integral component to reducing disability caused by migraine. There are many different drug classes that have been investigated and shown efficacy in migraine prophylaxis. This article examines several of the classes of medications that are used for migraine preventive treatment, specifically, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, serotonin antagonists, alpha-adrenergic agonists, and N-methyl-d-aspartic acid receptor antagonists.

Recent findings

There have been randomized control trials investigating medications in these drug classes since the most recent guidelines for migraine prevention in adults were published by the American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, and the Canadian Headache Society. In these investigations, enalapril, candesartan, and memantine all demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention. The evidence for these and the aforementioned drug classes are reviewed.

Summary

When oral medications are being selected for migraine prevention, comorbid and coexistent medical conditions, concomitant medications, patient preference, and pregnancy and breast-feeding plans should be considered. Within the drug classes discussed, memantine and candesartan have a moderate level of evidence for efficacy.

Keywords

Migraine Adult Prevention Medications 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

David W. Dodick reports the following conflicts from within the past 48 months. Personal fees: Amgen, Autonomic technologies, Axsome, Allergan, Alder, Biohaven, Charleston Laboratories, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories/Promius, Electrocore LLC, Eli Lilly, eNeura, Neurolief, Novartis, Ipsen, Impel, Satsuma, Supernus, Sun Pharma (India), Theranica, Teva, Vedanta, WL Gore, Zosano, ZP Opco, Foresite Capital, Oppenheimer, Arteaus, Pfizer, Colucid, Merck, NuPathe, Ethicon J&J, Zogenix, Labrys, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Impax, MAP, Tonix, Alcobra, Insys, Acorda, Biocentric, Magellan, Xenon, CC Ford West Group, IntraMed, SAGE Publishing, Sun Pharma, American Academy of Neurology, Decision Resources, Synergy, Peer View Institute for Medical Education, MeetingLogiX, Wiley Blackwell. CME fees or Royalty payments: Healthlogix, Medicom, Medlogix, Mednet, Miller Medical, PeerView, WebMD/Medscape, Chameleon, Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning, Universal meeting management, Haymarket, Global Scientific Communications, UpToDate, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Wolters Kluwer Equity (stock options): Aural analytics, Healint, Theranica, Second Opinon/Mobile Health, Epien, GBS/Nocira, Matterhorn/Ontologics, King-Devick Technologies. Board of Directors: Aural analytics, Epien, Matterhorn/Ontologics, King-Devick Technologies. Patent: 17189376.1-1466:v Title: Botulinum Toxin Dosage Regimen for Chronic Migraine Prophylaxis. Professional society fees or reimbursement for travel: American Academy of Neurology, American Brain Foundation, American Headache Society, American Migraine Foundation, International Headache Society, Canadian Headache Society. Other: use agreement through employer Myndshft. Expense reimbursement from West Virginia University Foundation, Oregon Health Science Center, Albert Einstein University, University of Toronto, Starr Clinical, University of British Columbia, University of Southern California, and University of California, Los Angeles. Consulting use agreement through employer: Neuro-Assessment Systems.

Jill C. Rau reports personal fees from speaking at an Amgen sponsored educational event on a general topic outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Smitherman TA, Burch R, Sheikh H, Loder E. The prevalence, impact, and treatment of migraine and severe headaches in the United States: a review of statistics from national surveillance studies. Headache. 2013;53(3):427–36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.12074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10100):1211–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Berger ML. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(8):813–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology. 2007;68(5):343–9.  https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000252808.97649.21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrasik F. What does the evidence show? Efficacy of behavioural treatments for recurrent headaches in adults. Neurol Sci. 2007;28(Suppl 2):S70–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-007-0754-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Probyn K, Bowers H, Mistry D, Caldwell F, Underwood M, Patel S, et al. Non-pharmacological self-management for people living with migraine or tension-type headache: a systematic review including analysis of intervention components. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016670.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016670.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Rosenberg L, Butler N, Seng EK. Health behaviors in episodic migraine: why behavior change matters. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2018;22(10):65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-018-0721-5. These authors highlight lifestyle and behavioral changes that are beneficial for reducing migraine burden.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calhoun AH, Ford S. Behavioral sleep modification may revert transformed migraine to episodic migraine. Headache. 2007;47(8):1178–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00780.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kristoffersen ES, Straand J, Russell MB, Lundqvist C. Lasting improvement of medication-overuse headache after brief intervention - a long-term follow-up in primary care. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24(7):883–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Buse DC, Andrasik F. Behavioral medicine for migraine. Neurol Clin. 2009;27(2):445–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncl.2009.01.003. This paper reviews the evidence for behavioral therapies for migraine prevention.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Grimsrud KW, Halker Singh RB. Emerging treatments in episodic migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2018;22(9):61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-018-0716-2 This paper describes available and upcoming neuromodulatory treatments for migraine.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, Dodick DW, Argoff C, Ashman E. Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the quality standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78(17):1337–45.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d20. These are the most up-to-date guidelines in the United States for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simpson DM, Hallett M, Ashman EJ, Comella CL, Green MW, Gronseth GS, et al. Practice guideline update summary: botulinum neurotoxin for the treatment of blepharospasm, cervical dystonia, adult spasticity, and headache: report of the guideline development subcommittee of the American Academy of neurology. Neurology. 2016;86(19):1818–26.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002560.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Pringsheim T, Davenport W, Mackie G, Worthington I, Aube M, Christie SN, et al. Canadian Headache Society guideline for migraine prophylaxis. Can J Neurol Sci. 2012;39(2 Suppl 2):S1–59. These are the most up-to-date guidelines in Canada for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Stovner LJ, Linde M, Gravdahl GB, Tronvik E, Aamodt AH, Sand T, et al. A comparative study of candesartan versus propranolol for migraine prophylaxis: a randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, double cross-over study. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(7):523–32.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102413515348. This study reports efficacy of the ARB, candesartan, for migraine prophylaxis. It was published after both of the recent North American guidelines for migraine prevention in adults and lend additional evidence for the safety, tolerability and efficacy of candesartan for migraine prevention.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Sonbolestan SA, Heshmat K, Javanmard SH, Saadatnia M. Efficacy of enalapril in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(1):72–7. This study reports efficacy of the NMDAR-antagonist, memantine, for migraine prophylaxis. It was published after both of the recent North American guidelines for migraine prevention in adults. It introduces good evidence for the use of a different class of medication for migraine prevention.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Noruzzadeh R, Modabbernia A, Aghamollaii V, Ghaffarpour M, Harirchian MH, Salahi S, et al. Memantine for prophylactic treatment of migraine without aura: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Headache. 2016;56(1):95–103.  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.12732. This study reports efficacy of the NMDAR-antagonist, memantine, for migraine prophylaxis. It was published after both of the recent North American guidelines for migraine prevention in adults. It introduces good evidence for the use of a different class of medication for migraine prevention.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paterna S, di Pasquale P, Martino S, Arrostuto A, Ingurgio NC, Parrinello G, et al. Captopril versus placebo in the prevention of hemicrania without aura. A randomized double-blind study. Clin Ter. 1992;141(12):475–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrader H, Stovner LJ, Helde G, Sand T, Bovim G. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril): randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study. BMJ (Clin Res). 2001;322(7277):19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tronvik E, Stovner LJ, Helde G, Sand T, Bovim G. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with an angiotensin II receptor blocker: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289(1):65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diener HC, Gendolla A, Feuersenger A, Evers S, Straube A, Schumacher H, et al. Telmisartan in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(9):921–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01825.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adam EI, Gore SM, Price WH. Double blind trial of clonidine in the treatment of migraine in a general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1978;28(195):587–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anthony M, Lance JW, Somerville B. A comparative trial of prindolol, clonidine and carbamazepine in the interval therapy of migraine. Med J Aust. 1972;1(26):1343–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boisen E, Deth S, Hubbe P, Jansen J, Klee A, Leunbach G. Clonidine in the prophylaxis of migraine. Acta Neurol Scand. 1978;58(5):288–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bredfeldt RC, Sutherland JE, Kruse JE. Efficacy of transdermal clonidine for headache prophylaxis and reduction of narcotic use in migraine patients. A randomized crossover trial. J Fam Pract. 1989;29(2):153–6. discussion 7-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Das SM, Ahuja GK, Narainaswamy AS. Clonidine in prophylaxis of migraine. Acta Neurol Scand. 1979;60(4):214–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kallanranta T, Hakkarainen H, Hokkanen E, Tuovinen T. Clonidine in migraine prophylaxis. Headache. 1977;17(4):169–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kass B, Nestvold K. Propranolol (Inderal) and clonidine (Catapressan) in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. A comparative trial. Acta Neurol Scand. 1980;61(6):351–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Louis P, Schoenen J, Hedman C. Metoprolol v. clonidine in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1985;5(3):159–65.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1985.0503159.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lynggaard F, Ostergaard F. [Clonidine in prevention of migraine. Report of a double-blind study of 38 patients referred for neurological assessment]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1975;137(3):149–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mondrup K, Moller CE. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with clonidine. A controlled clinical trial. Acta Neurol Scand. 1977;56(5):405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ryan RE Sr, Diamond S, Ryan RE Jr. Double blind study of clonidine and placebo for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Headache. 1975;15(3):202–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shafar J, Tallett ER, Knowlson PA. Evaluation of clonidine in prophylaxis of migraine. Double-blind trial and follow-up. Lancet (London, England). 1972;1(7747):403–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sillanpaa M. Clonidine prophylaxis of childhood migraine and other vascular headache. A double blind study of 57 children. Headache. 1977;17(1):28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sills M, Congdon P, Forsythe I. Clonidine and childhood migraine: a pilot and double-blind study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1982;24(6):837–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sjaastad O, Stensrud P. 2-(2.6-dichlorophenylamino)-2-imidazoline hydrochloride (ST 155 or Catapresan) as a prophylactic remedy against migraine. Acta Neurol Scand. 1971;47(1):120–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stensrud P, Sjaastad O. Clonidine (Catapresan)-double-blind study after long-term treatment with the drug in migraine. Acta Neurol Scand. 1976;53(3):233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilkinson M. Preliminary report on the use of clonidine (Boehringer Ingelheim) in the treatment of migraine. Res Clin Stud Headache. 1970;3:315–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elkind AH, Webster C, Herbertson RK. Efficacy of guanfacine in a double blind parallel study for migraine prophylaxis. Cephalalgia. 1989;9(Suppl. 10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saper JR, Lake AE 3rd, Cantrell DT, Winner PK, White JR. Chronic daily headache prophylaxis with tizanidine: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter outcome study. Headache. 2002;42(6):470–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leandri M, Rigardo S, Schizzi R, Parodi CI. Migraine treatment with nicardipine. Cephalalgia. 1990;10(3):111–6.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1990.1003111.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shukla R, Garg RK, Nag D, Ahuja RC. Nifedipine in migraine and tension headache: a randomised double blind crossover study. J Assoc Physicians India. 1995;43(11):770–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McArthur JC, Marek K, Pestronk A, McArthur J, Peroutka SJ. Nifedipine in the prophylaxis of classic migraine: a crossover, double-masked, placebo-controlled study of headache frequency and side effects. Neurology. 1989;39(2 Pt 1):284–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gerber WD, Diener HC, Scholz E, Niederberger U. Responders and non-responders to metoprolol, propranolol and nifedipine treatment in migraine prophylaxis: a dose-range study based on time-series analysis. Cephalalgia. 1991;11(1):37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1991.1101037.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lamsudin R, Sadjimin T. Comparison of the efficacy between flunarizine and nifedipine in the prophylaxis of migraine. Headache. 1993;33(6):335–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Albers GW, Simon LT, Hamik A, Peroutka SJ. Nifedipine versus propranolol for the initial prophylaxis of migraine. Headache. 1989;29(4):215–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    European multicenter trial of nimodipine in the prophylaxis of classic migraine (migraine with aura). Migraine-Nimodipine European Study Group (MINES). Headache. 1989;29(10):639–42.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    European multicenter trial of nimodipine in the prophylaxis of common migraine (migraine without aura). Migraine-Nimodipine European Study Group (MINES). Headache. 1989;29(10):633–8.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Havanka-Kanniainen H, Hokkanen E, Myllyla VV. Efficacy of nimodipine in the prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1985;5(1):39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1985.0501039.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ansell E, Fazzone T, Festenstein R, Johnson ES, Thavapalan M, Wilkinson M, et al. Nimodipine in migraine prophylaxis. Cephalalgia. 1988;8(4):269–72.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1988.0804269.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gelmers HJ. Nimodipine, a new calcium antagonist, in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Headache. 1983;23(3):106–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bussone G, Baldini S, D'Andrea G, Cananzi A, Frediani F, Caresia L, et al. Nimodipine versus flunarizine in common migraine: a controlled pilot trial. Headache. 1987;27(2):76–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Formisano R, Falaschi P, Cerbo R, Proietti A, Catarci T, D'Urso R, et al. Nimodipine in migraine: clinical efficacy and endocrinological effects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;41(1):69–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00280110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Havanka-Kanniainen H, Hokkanen E, Myllyla VV. Efficacy of nimodipine in comparison with pizotifen in the prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1987;7(1):7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1987.0701007.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Micieli G, Tucco M, Agostinis C, Mancuso A, Papalia F, Sinforiani E. Nimodipine vs. pizotifen in common migraine: results of a double-clind cross-over trial. Cephalalgia. 1985;5(Suppl 3):532–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gawel MJ. A double-blind, cross over study of nimopidipine versus pizotyline in a common and classical migraine. Cephalalgia. 1987;7(Suppl 6):453–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Markley HG, Cheronis JC, Piepho RW. Verapamil in prophylactic therapy of migraine. Neurology. 1984;34(7):973–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Solomon GD, Steel JG, Spaccavento LJ. Verapamil prophylaxis of migraine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. JAMA. 1983;250(18):2500–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Solomon GD. Verapamil and propranolol in migraine prophylaxis: a double blind crossover study. Headache. 1986;26.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Louis P. A double-blind placebo-controlled prophylactic study of flunarizine (Sibelium) in migraine. Headache. 1981;21(6):235–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Frenken CW, Nuijten ST. Flunarizine, a new preventive approach to migraine. A double-blind comparison with placebo. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1984;86(1):17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mentenopoulos G, Manafi T, Logothetis J, Bostantzopoulou S. Flunarizine in the prevention of classical migraine: a placebo-controlled evaluation. Cephalalgia. 1985;5(Suppl 2):135–40.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024850050s225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sorensen PS, Hansen K, Olesen J. A placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial of flunarizine in common migraine. Cephalalgia. 1986;6(1):7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1986.0601007.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thomas M, Behari M, Ahuja GK. Flunarizine in migraine prophylaxis: an Indian trial. Headache. 1991;31(9):613–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    al Deeb SM, Biary N, Bahou Y, al Jaberi M, Khoja W. Flunarizine in migraine: a double-blind placebo-controlled study (in a Saudi population). Headache. 1992;32(9):461–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cerbo R, Casacchia M, Formisano R, Feliciani M, Cusimano G, Buzzi MG, et al. Flunarizine-pizotifen single-dose double-blind cross-over trial in migraine prophylaxis. Cephalalgia. 1986;6(1):15–8.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1986.0601015.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Louis P, Spierings EL. Comparison of flunarizine (Sibelium) and pizotifen (Sandomigran) in migraine treatment: a double-blind study. Cephalalgia. 1982;2(4):197–203.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1982.0204197.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rascol A, Montastruc JL, Rascol O. Flunarizine versus pizotifen: a double-blind study in the prophylaxis of migraine. Headache. 1986;26(2):83–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rao BS, Das DG, Taraknath VR, Sarma Y. A double blind controlled study of propranolol and cyproheptadine in migraine prophylaxis. Neurol India. 2000;48(3):223–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bellavance AJ, Meloche JP. A comparative study of naproxen sodium, pizotyline and placebo in migraine prophylaxis. Headache. 1990;30(11):710–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lawrence ER, Hossain M, Littlestone W. Sanomigran for migraine prophylaxis, controlled multicenter trial in general practice. Headache. 1977;17(3):109–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Osterman PO. A comparison between placebo, pizotifen and 1-isopropyl-3-hydroxy-5-semicarbazono-6-oxo-2.3.5.6-tetrahydroindol (Divascan) in migraine prophylaxis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1977;56(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Carroll JD, Maclay WP. Pizotifen (BC 105) in migraine prophylaxis. Curr Med Res Opin. 1975;3(2):68–71.  https://doi.org/10.1185/03007997509113649.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sjaastad O, Stensrud P. Appraisal of BC-105 in migraine prophylaxis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1969;45(5):594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    • Charles A. The pathophysiology of migraine: implications for clinical management. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):174–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30435-0. This is an exceptional and recent review of the current understanding of migraine pathophysiology.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.•
    Dodick DW. CGRP ligand and receptor monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: Evidence review and clinical implications. Cephalalgia. 2019:333102418821662.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102418821662. This paper reviews the newest class of migraine preventive medications which were designed specifically for migraine, are targeted against CGRP receptors or ligand and were released in the past year.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Moldovan Loomis C, Dutzar B, Ojala EW, Hendrix L, Karasek C, Scalley-Kim M, et al. Pharmacologic characterization of ALD1910, a potent humanized monoclonal antibody against the pituitary adenylate cyclase activating peptide. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.118.253443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ayata C, Jin H, Kudo C, Dalkara T, Moskowitz MA. Suppression of cortical spreading depression in migraine prophylaxis. Ann Neurol. 2006;59(4):652–61.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Philipp M, Brede M, Hein L. Physiological significance of alpha(2)-adrenergic receptor subtype diversity: one receptor is not enough. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002;283(2):R287–95.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00123.2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ginsburg J, O'Reilly B, Swinhoe J. Effect of oral clonidine on human cardiovascular responsiveness: a possible explanation of the therapeutic action of the drug in menopausal flushing and migraine. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92(11):1169–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fairbanks CA, Stone LS, Kitto KF, Nguyen HO, Posthumus IJ, Wilcox GL. Alpha(2C)-adrenergic receptors mediate spinal analgesia and adrenergic-opioid synergy. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;300(1):282–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Lavand'homme PM, Ma W, De Kock M, Eisenach JC. Perineural alpha(2A)-adrenoceptor activation inhibits spinal cord neuroplasticity and tactile allodynia after nerve injury. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):972–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ripa P, Ornello R, Pistoia F, Carolei A, Sacco S. The renin-angiotensin system: a possible contributor to migraine pathogenesis and prophylaxis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2014;14(9):1043–55.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737175.2014.946408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pietrobon D. Calcium channels and migraine. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1828(7):1655–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2012.11.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Monzani D, Genovese E, Pini LA, Di Berardino F, Alicandri Ciufelli M, Galeazzi GM, et al. Nimodipine in otolaryngology: from past evidence to clinical perspectives. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2015;35(3):135–45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ophoff RA, Terwindt GM, Vergouwe MN, van Eijk R, Oefner PJ, Hoffman SM, et al. Familial hemiplegic migraine and episodic ataxia type-2 are caused by mutations in the Ca2+ channel gene CACNL1A4. Cell. 1996;87(3):543–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pelzer N, Stam AH, Haan J, Ferrari MD, Terwindt GM. Familial and sporadic hemiplegic migraine: diagnosis and treatment. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2013;15(1):13–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-012-0208-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ambrosio C, Stefanini E. Interaction of flunarizine with dopamine D2 and D1 receptors. Eur J Pharmacol. 1991;197(2–3):221–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Marmura MJ. Use of dopamine antagonists in treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2012;14(1):27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-011-0150-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    DaSilva AF, Nascimento TD, Jassar H, Heffernan J, Toback RL, Lucas S, et al. Dopamine D2/D3 imbalance during migraine attack and allodynia in vivo. Neurology. 2017;88(17):1634–41.  https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000003861.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wober C, Brucke T, Wober-Bingol C, Asenbaum S, Wessely P, Podreka I. Dopamine D2 receptor blockade and antimigraine action of flunarizine. Cephalalgia. 1994;14(3):235–40.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1994.014003235.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rothrock JF, Mar KR, Yaksh TL, Golbeck A, Moore AC. Cerebrospinal fluid analyses in migraine patients and controls. Cephalalgia. 1995;15(6):489–93.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1995.1506489.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Martinez F, Castillo J, Rodriguez JR, Leira R, Noya M. Neuroexcitatory amino acid levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid during migraine attacks. Cephalalgia. 1993;13(2):89–93.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1993.1302089.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Charles A, Brennan K. Cortical spreading depression-new insights and persistent questions. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(10):1115–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01983.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Oshinsky ML, Luo J. Neurochemistry of trigeminal activation in an animal model of migraine. Headache. 2006;46(Suppl 1):S39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hoffmann J, Charles A. Glutamate and its receptors as therapeutic targets for migraine. Neurotherapeutics. 2018;15(2):361–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-018-0616-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ramadan NM. Glutamate and migraine: from Ikeda to the 21st century. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(2):86–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102413499646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kilinc E, Guerrero-Toro C, Zakharov A, Vitale C, Gubert-Olive M, Koroleva K, et al. Serotonergic mechanisms of trigeminal meningeal nociception: implications for migraine pain. Neuropharmacology. 2017;116:160–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.12.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Yuan H, Silberstein SD. Histamine and migraine. Headache. 2018;58(1):184–93.  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gray RN, Goslin RE, McCrory DC, Eberlein K, Tulsky J, Hasselblad V. AHRQ Technical Reviews. Drug treatments for the prevention of migraine headache. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (US); 1999.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Neurology AAo. Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. St. Paul: The American Academy of Neurology; 2011.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    •• Jackson JL, Cogbill E, Santana-Davila R, Eldredge C, Collier W, Gradall A, et al. A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis of drugs for the prophylaxis of migraine headache. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e0130733.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130733. This is a comprehensive systematic review of oral medications used for migraine propylaxis.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Stewart DJ, Gelston A, Hakim A. Effect of prophylactic administration of nimodipine in patients with migraine. Headache. 1988;28(4):260–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Diamond S, Freitag FG. A double-blind trial of flunarizine in migraine prophylaxis. Headac Q. 1992;4:169–72.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Pini LA, Ferrari A, Guidetti G, Galetti G, Barbieri L, Sternieri E. Effectiveness of flunarizine in altering electronystagmographic patterns in migraine patients: a preliminary report. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1986;6(1):27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Reveiz-Herault L, Cardona AF, Ospina EG, Carrillo P. [Effectiveness of flunarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine: a meta-analytical review of the literature]. Rev Neurol. 2003;36(10):907–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Pini LA, Ferrari A, Guidetti G, Galetti G, Sternieri E. Influence of flunarizine on the altered electronystagmographic (ENG) recordings in migraine. Cephalalgia. 1985;5(Suppl 2):173–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024850050s233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Arthur GP, Hornabrook RW. The treatment of migraine with BC 105 (pizotifen): a double blind trial. N Z Med J. 1971;73(464):5–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Cleland PG, Barnes D, Elrington GM, Loizou LA, Rawes GD. Studies to assess if pizotifen prophylaxis improves migraine beyond the benefit offered by acute sumatriptan therapy alone. Eur Neurol. 1997;38(1):31–8.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000112899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hughes RC, Foster JB. BC 105 in the prophylaxis of migraine. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1971;13(1):63–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kangasniemi P. Placebo, 1-isopropylnoradrenochrome-5-monosemicarbazono and pizotifen in migraine prophylaxis. Headache. 1979;19(4):219–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ryan RE. Double-blind crossover comparison of bc-105, methysergide and placebo in the prophylaxis of migraine headache. Headache. 1968;8(3):118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Krakowski AJ, Engisch R. A new agent for chemotherapy of migraine headaches: a controlled study. Psychosomatics. 1973;14(5):302–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(73)71324-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kahan A, Weber S, Amor B, Guerin F, Degeorges M. Nifedipine in the treatment of migraine in patients with Raynaud’s phenomenon. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(18):1102–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Paterna S, Martino SG, Campisi D, Cascio Ingurgio N, Marsala BA. [Evaluation of the effects of verapamil, flunarizine, diltiazem, nimodipine and placebo in the prevention of hemicrania. A double-blind randomized cross-over study]. Clin Ter. 1990;134(2):119–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yuan Q, Liu DL, Yu LS, Zhang QF. [Flunarizine in the prophylaxis of vestibular migraine:a randomized controlled trial]. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2016;30(10):805–10.  https://doi.org/10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2016.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Liu F, Ma T, Che X, Wang Q, Yu S. The efficacy of venlafaxine, flunarizine, and valproic acid in the prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Front Neurol. 2017;8:524.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00524.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lepcha A, Amalanathan S, Augustine AM, Tyagi AK, Balraj A. Flunarizine in the prophylaxis of migrainous vertigo: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(11):2931–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2786-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Lance JW, Anthony M. Clinical trial of a new serotonin antagonist, BC105, in the prevention of migraine. Med J Aust. 1968;1(2):54–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ryan RE. BC-105 a new preparation for the interval treatment of migraine--a double blind evaluation compared with a placebo. Headache. 1971;11(1):6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Rizzoli P, Loder EW. Tolerance to the beneficial effects of prophylactic migraine drugs: a systematic review of causes and mechanisms. Headache. 2011;51(8):1323–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01985.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Loder EW, Rizzoli P. Tolerance and loss of beneficial effect during migraine prophylaxis: clinical considerations. Headache. 2011;51(8):1336–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01986.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations