Efficacy and safety of cinnarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine headaches in children: an open, randomized comparative trial with propranolol

Preventive Medications in Pediatric Migraine: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

Pediatric migraine substantially impacts quality of life and academic performance among children and adolescents. Understanding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for migraine prophylaxis in this population is crucial for developing effective treatment strategies.

Objective

To conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety associated with pharmacological treatments for pediatric migraine prophylaxis among pediatric patients with a migraine diagnosis and assess interventions involving various oral pharmacological interventions compared with each other and placebo.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS were searched for publications up to September 2023. Search terms and indexing were chosen to encompass relevant studies, focusing on randomized clinical trials in pediatric migraine prophylaxis.

Study Selection

Inclusion criteria targeted randomized clinical trials involving pediatric patients with migraine. Studies were selected based on their examination of oral pharmacological interventions. The search yielded an initial 9162 citations.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Five investigators independently extracted study data into a spreadsheet in duplicate. Study-level estimates were calculated, employing a random-effects model for primary and secondary outcomes due to identified heterogeneity. Data analysis was conducted from December 2023 to March 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was migraine frequency (number of attacks per month). Secondary outcomes included a 50% or greater responder rate, headache duration, headache intensity, and disability (assessed by pediatrics migraine-specific disability tool). Adverse events were also evaluated.

Results

The analysis incorporated 45 trials with 3771 participants. Compared with placebo, pregabalin (ratio of means [RoM], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79) and topiramate with vitamin D3 (RoM, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30-0.65) were associated with reduction in migraine frequency. Flunarizine (RoM, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.81), levetiracetam (RoM, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.72), riboflavin (RoM, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77), cinnarizine (RoM, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88), topiramate (RoM, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89), and amitriptyline (RoM, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97) were also associated with reduction in migraine frequency, but these findings were drawn from individual studies. For the 50% or greater responder rate, flunarizine and α-lipoic acid (risk ratio [RR], 8.73; 95% CI, 2.44-31.20), flunarizine (RR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.38-11.55), pregabalin (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.13-3.14), and cinnarizine (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.05) were associated with significantly greater effectiveness than placebo. Compared with placebo, propranolol and cinnarizine (RoM, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72), pregabalin (RoM, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.96), valproate (RoM, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72), levetiracetam (RoM, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77), and cinnarizine (RoM, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76) were significantly associated with reduction in headache intensity. However, no treatments were associated with significant improvements in quality of life or reduction of the duration of migraine attacks. Adverse events were higher with amitriptyline (RR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.41-10.32), topiramate (RR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.60-11.75), and valproate (RR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.93-18.23) compared with placebo.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, topiramate and pregabalin were associated with reduction in headache frequency and intensity. Although there were also other drugs that showed statistically significant results (flunarizine, riboflavin, amitriptyline, and cinnarizine), more studies were required for a robust conclusion. None of the drugs were associated with improved quality of life or attack duration, underscoring the need for further research to develop more comprehensive treatment strategies and explore the potential of combination therapies, especially those involving vitamins. Future studies should focus on validating these findings and expanding the treatment landscape for pediatric migraine management.

A comparative study on prophylactic efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in childhood migraine: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pediatric migraine prophylaxis is indicated when headaches are frequent and/or disabling. We aimed to conduct a study to compare the efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in pediatric migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 4-17 years with migraine who were eligible for prophylaxis enrolled. The primary outcome was a reduction response rate of ≥50% with p < 0.005 with respect to headache characteristics. The secondary outcome was migraine disability assessment. We evaluated patients every four weeks for three months: T1: week 4, T2: week 8 and T3: week 12. The safety profile was also assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were randomly assigned to each group. However, 43 patients completed the trial. Headache frequency decreased in amitriptyline group more effectively in T1 (p = 0.004). Amitriptyline was more successful in reducing the headache duration in all three periods (p < 0.005). There was no significant difference in severity improvement and reducing disability score between the two groups (p > 0.005). No serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medications are effective in ameliorating migraine headaches and related disabilities. However, amitriptyline appears be a preferable option over cinnarizine, given its faster onset of action, efficacy in reducing headache duration and longer-lasting effects.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the code IRCT-20191112045413N1.

Cinnarizine as an alternative recommendation for migraine prophylaxis: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Despite the available prophylactic and acute drugs for migraine management, this disabling disorder remains undertreated especially among pediatrics. In this review, the authors aim at assessing the preventive role cinnarizine plays in treating migraine based on previously published studies.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized open-label trials, and retrospective studies concerning cinnarizine in migraine prevention in children and adults were reviewed. Especial attention was given to the response rate, migraine characteristics, and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

The majority of reviewed trials demonstrated that cinnarizine is comparable to the conventional drugs used in migraine prophylaxis. However, most of the reviewed studies were limited by a non-controlled open-label design. Due to poor planning and possibility of high placebo responses, particularly in children and adolescents, the interpretation of open-label studies' results should be done cautiously. The evidence shows that cinnarizine's effectiveness was more promising in pediatric migraineurs and adults with migraine-associated vertigo such as vestibular migraine. Therefore, while the efficacy of cinnarizine cannot be dismissed, before reaching a definite conclusion on its effectiveness, it is necessary to do further high-quality RCTs among both children and adults.

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pharmacologic Treatments for Pediatric Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Cinnarizine and sodium valproate as the preventive agents of pediatric migraine: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Few migraine preventive agents have been assessed in a pediatric population. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of cinnarizine and sodium valproate for migraine prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We carried out a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in the Children's Medical Center and Sina hospital, Tehran, Iran. Eligible participants were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio via interactive web response system to receive either cinnarizine, sodium valproate, or placebo. The primary endpoints were the mean change in frequency and intensity of migraine attacks from baseline to the last 4 weeks of trial. The secondary endpoint was the efficacy of each drug in the prevention of migraine. The drug was considered effective if it decreased migraine frequency by more than 50% in the double-blind phase compared with the baseline. Safety endpoint was adverse effects that were reported by children or their parents.

RESULTS

A total of 158 children participated. The frequency of migraine attacks significantly reduced compared to baseline in cinnarizine (difference: -8.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): -9.3 to -6.6), sodium valproate (difference: -8.3; 95% confidence interval: -9.3 to -7.2), and placebo (difference: -4.4; 95% confidence interval: -5.4 to -3.4) arms. The decrease was statistically greater in cinnarizine (difference: -3.6; 95% confidence interval: -5.5 to -1.6) and sodium valproate (difference: -3.9; 95% confidence interval: -5.8 to -1.9) arms, compared to placebo group. Children in all groups had significant reduction in intensity of episodes compared to baseline (cinnarizine: -4.6; 95% confidence interval: -5.2 to -4.0; sodium valproate: -4.0; 95% confidence interval: -4.8 to -3.3; placebo: -2.6; 95% confidence interval: -3.4 to -1.8). The decrease was statistically greater in cinnarizine (difference: -2.0; 95% confidence interval: -3.2 to -0.8) and sodium valproate (difference: -1.5; 95% confidence interval: -2.7 to -0.3) arms, compared to the placebo group. Seventy-one percent of individuals in the cinnarizine group, 66% of cases in the sodium valproate group, and 42% of people in the placebo arm reported more than 50% reduction in episodes at the end of the trial. The odds ratio for >50% responder rate was 3.5 (98.3% confidence interval: 1.3 to 9.3) for cinnarizine versus placebo and 2.7 (98.3% confidence interval: 1.0 to 6.9) for sodium valproate versus placebo. Nine individuals reported adverse effects (three in cinnarizine, five in sodium valproate, and one in the placebo group) and one case in the sodium valproate group discontinued the therapy due to severe sedation.

CONCLUSION

Cinnarizine and sodium valproate could be useful in migraine prophylaxis in children and adolescents. Trial registration: IRCT201206306907N4.

Recent advances in delivery systems and therapeutics of cinnarizine: a poorly water soluble drug with absorption window in stomach

Low solubility causing low dissolution in gastrointestinal tract is the major problem for drugs meant for systemic action after oral administration, like cinnarizine. Pharmaceutical products of cinnarizine are commercialized globally as immediate release preparations presenting low absorption with low and erratic bioavailability. Approaches to enhance bioavailability are widely cited in the literature. An attempt has been made to review the bioavailability complications and clinical therapeutics of poorly water soluble drug: cinnarizine. The interest of writing this paper is to summarize the pharmacokinetic limitations of drug with special focus on strategies to improvise bioavailability along with effectiveness of novel dosage forms to circumvent the obstacle. The paper provides insight to the approaches to overcome low and erratic bioavailability of cinnarizine by cyclodextrin complexes and novel dosage forms: self-nanoemulsifying systems and buoyant microparticulates. Nanoformulations need to systematically explored in future, for their new clinical role in prophylaxis of migraine attacks in children. Clinical reports have affirmed the role of cinnarizine in migraine prophylaxis. Research needs to be dedicated to develop dosage forms for efficacious bioavailability and drug directly to brain.

Efficacy and safety of cinnarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine in children: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial

BACKGROUND

In spite of the high occurrence of migraine headaches in school-age children, there are currently no approved and widely accepted pharmacologic agents for migraine prophylaxis in children. Our previous open-label study in children revealed the efficacy of cinnarizine, a calcium channel blocker, in migraine prophylaxis. A placebo-controlled trial was conducted to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of cinnarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine in children.

TRIAL DESIGN

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study conducted in a tertiary medical center in Tehran, Iran.

METHODS

Children (5-17 years) who experienced migraines with and without aura, as defined on the basis of 2004 International Headache Society criteria, were recruited into the study. Children were excluded if they had complicated migraine, epilepsy, or a history of use of migraine prophylactic agents. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive cinnarizine (a single 1.5 mg/kg/day dose in children weighing less than 30 kg and a single 50 mg dose in children weighing more than 30 kg, administered at bedtime) or placebo. The frequency, severity, and duration of headaches over the trial period were assessed and adverse effects were monitored.

RESULTS

A total of 68 children (34 in each group) with migraine were enrolled and 62 participants completed the study. After 3 months of taking cinnarizine or placebo, children in both groups experienced significantly reduced frequency, severity, and duration of headaches compared with baseline measurements (P < 0.001). However, compared with 31.3% of children in the placebo group, 60% of children in the cinnarizine group reported more than 50% reduction in monthly headache frequency (P = 0.023), suggesting that cinnarizine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the frequency of headaches. No serious adverse effects of the medications were observed in the treated children, including no abnormal weight gain or extrapyramidal signs.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the use of cinnarizine at doses administered in this study is effective and safe for prophylaxis of migraine headaches in children.

DUPLICATE: Cinnarizine: A Promising Agent for Migraine Prevention You May Never Get the Chance to Use

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.07.002. The duplicate article has therefore been removed. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Removal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Pharmacogenetic insights into migraine treatment in children

Pediatric migraine is a disabling condition that can affect the everyday activities and emotional states of children. Due to the multifactorial character of the pathology and the variety of the disease's phenotypes, establishment of an effective treatment is often challenging. Pharmacological treatment is often administered off-label and includes very different drugs, from analgesics to antidepressants. Since interindividual variability in therapy response commonly causes inefficacy and an exacerbation of symptoms, pharmacogenetics may help to decrease the prescription rate of useless or unsafe drugs. If there are many drugs used in migraine, then there are even more candidate or established pharmacogenetic markers that are implicated in clinical profiles. This article presents the current situation regarding the pharmacogenetics of drugs used in pediatric migraine.

Pharmacologic treatment of pediatric headaches: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic headache treatment in children and adolescents. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, and bibliography of retrieved articles through August 11, 2012. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials of headache treatment among children and adolescents (&lt;18 years old). INTERVENTION Any placebo-controlled trial or comparisons between 2 or more active medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Number of headaches per month. RESULTS Among 21 included trials, there were 13 placebo-controlled and 10 active comparator trials (2 also included placebo). Twenty trials focused on episodic migraines and 1 on chronic daily headaches. Drugs more effective than placebo for episodic migraines (&lt;15 headaches per month) included topiramate (difference in headaches per month, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.24) and trazodone (-0.60; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.11). Ineffective drugs included clonidine, flunarizine, pizotifen, propranolol, and valproate. A single trial of fluoxetine for chronic daily headaches found it ineffective. Patients given placebo experienced a significant (P = .03) decline in headaches, from 5.6 (95% CI, 4.52-6.77; Q = 8.14 [Cochran Q is a measure of the heterogeneity of the included studies]) to 2.9 headaches per month (95% CI, 1.66-4.08; Q = 4.72). Among the 10 active comparator trials, flunarizine was more effective than piracetam (difference in headaches per month, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.93 to -0.47) but no better than aspirin, dihydroergotamine, or propranolol. Propranolol was compared with valproate as well as behavioral treatment, and 2 studies compared different doses of topiramate; none of these trials showed significant differences. CONCLUSIONS Topiramate and trazodone have limited evidence supporting efficacy for episodic migraines. Placebo was effective in reducing headaches. Other commonly used drugs have no evidence supporting their use in children and adolescents. More research is needed.