中国神经再生研究(英文版)

中国神经再生研究(英文版) ›› 2012, Vol. 7 ›› Issue (23): 1806-1811.

• 原著:脑损伤修复保护与再生 • 上一篇    下一篇

托吡酯预防治疗偏头痛疗效的系统综述托吡酯预防治疗偏头痛疗效的系统综述

  

  • 收稿日期:2012-05-01 修回日期:2012-06-23 出版日期:2012-08-15 发布日期:2012-08-15

Meta-analysis of efficacy of topiramate in migraine prophylaxis

Yiyi Guo1, 2, Ximei Han3, Tingmin Yu1, Gang Yao1   

  1. 1 Department of Neurology, Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun 130041, Jilin Province, China
    2 Department of Neonatology, First Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, Jilin Province, China
    3 Department of Neurology, Chifeng Municipal Hospital, Chifeng 024000, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China
  • Received:2012-05-01 Revised:2012-06-23 Online:2012-08-15 Published:2012-08-15
  • Contact: Tingmin Yu, M.D., Professor, Master’s supervisor, Department of Neurology, Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun 130041, Jilin Province, China ytm_396@163.com
  • About author:Yiyi Guo★, Studying for master’s degree, Department of Neurology, Second Hospital, Jilin University (working at First Hospital of Jilin University), Changchun 130041, Jilin Province, China; Department of Neo-natology, First Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, Jilin Province, China

PDF

1058

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment effects and safety of topiramate in migraine prophylaxis.
DATA RETRIEVAL: We searched the Medline database, EMbase, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database for articles published between January 1995 and May 2011, using the key words “migraine”, “topiramate”, and “prophylaxis”.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials of migraine patients, in which the experimental group was orally administered topiramate, and the control group was given placebo. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using a fixed effects model/random effects model. Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed independently by two re-searchers utilizing RevMan 5.0 software.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was recorded as the responder rate (response defined as at least a 50% reduction in average monthly migraine frequency) and change in mean monthly number of migraine days. Adverse events were recorded as the number of subjects exhibiting at least one adverse event.
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were found to be appropriate, and had available data. The meta-analysis results revealed that topiramate (100 or 200 mg/d) was more effective than placebo in responder rate (OR = 2.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.17-4.08, P < 0.01; OR = 2.35, 95%CI: 1.77-3.12, P < 0.01). Topiramate (100 mg/d) was more effective than placebo in terms of the change in mean monthly migraine days (MD: -1.14, 95%CI: -1.69 to -0.59, P < 0.01). The total incidence rate of adverse events for topiramate was higher than in the placebo group (P < 0.01), but most adverse events were mild to moderate.
CONCLUSION: Overall, topiramate obtained good outcomes and safety in migraine prophylaxis.