S-fluoxetine in the prophylaxis of migraine: a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Comparison of desipramine and citalopram treatments for depression in Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. A randomized, within-patient, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants chlorimipramine and nortriptyline in central pain. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for migraine prophylaxis. Fluoxetine prophylaxis of migraine. The SSRIs drug Fluoxetine, but not the noradrenergic tricyclic drug Desipramine, improves memory performance during acute major depression. Fluoxetine for migraine prophylaxis: a double-blind trial. A placebo-controlled crossover trial of nimodipine in pediatric migraine. Oxcarbazepine in migraine headache: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Topiramate in migraine prophylaxis: a randomised double-blind versus placebo study.
S-fluoxetine is the long-acting enantiomer of the racemic antidepressant serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Sixty-five patients needing migraine prophylaxis were recruited into a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After a 1-month placebo run-in, 53 patients met entry criteria with regard to attack frequency and were randomized, 27 to S-fluoxetine and 26 to matching placebo. Three failed to start treatment and there were 17 early discontinuations, 9 from S-fluoxetine, 8 from placebo, at similar times and for similar reasons. The primary efficacy variable was attack frequency and analysis compared decline-from-baseline in the two groups. This was earlier and greater (1.7 attacks/28 days, or 52%) on active therapy than on placebo (1.1 attacks/28 days, or 27%), and statistically significant in month 2 (F = 4.93; p = 0.033) and month 4 (F = 4.55; p = 0.041). As secondary measures of efficacy, migraine-days per month and Patient's Global Impression of Disease Severity coherently reflected the changes in attack frequency. Mean attack severity and acute medication use (doses per attack) were unaltered by either treatment. There were no serious adverse events. Withdrawals for adverse events were four from each group but none was considered causally related. The finding of greater efficacy of S-fluoxetine than of placebo should be interpreted conservatively, since the analysis in the final month was made on only half of the entered patients. It supports progression to phase III evaluation, which was the purpose of the study. Depression is one of the most common psychiatric disturbances in Parkinson's disease (PD). Recent reviews have highlighted the lack of controlled trials and the ensuing difficulty in formulating recommendations for antidepressant use in PD. We sought to establish whether antidepressants provide real benefits and whether tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants differ in their short-term efficacy, because the time to onset of therapeutic benefit remains an important criterion in depression. The short-term efficacy (after 14 and 30 days) of two antidepressants (desipramine, a predominantly noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor tricyclic and citalopram, a SSRI) was assessed in a double-blind, randomized, placebo- controlled study of 48 nondemented PD patients suffering from major depression. After 14 days, desipramine prompted an improvement in the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, compared with citalopram and placebo. Both antidepressants produced significant improvements in the MADRS score after 30 days. Mild adverse events were twice as frequent in the desipramine group as in the other groups. A predominantly noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant induced a more intense short-term effect on parkinsonian depression than did an SSRI. However, desipramine's lower tolerability may outweigh its slight short-term clinical advantage.
                (c) 2008 Movement Disorder Society. Antidepressant drugs are increasingly used in the management of chronic pain. They are mainly prescribed for cancer-related pain and central pain, e.g. phantom or stump pain, post-herpetic neuropathy. However, no controlled clinical trials have validated their in either pathology. Thus, physicians still do not know whether antidepressants are really effective and which might be best. It is still debated whether the effect of antidepressants in the management of chronic pain is limited to the amelioration of frequently concomitant depression or extends to pain itself. To verify both the analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants, and the possible relationship between their antidepressant effect and the relief of central pain, we carried out a randomized, within-patient (cross-over) placebo-controlled study in patients suffering from central pain. The results clearly indicate the better analgesic effect of tricyclic antidepressants over placebo (p less than 0.0001). Within the antidepressants tested, chlorimipramine, a blocker of serotonin reuptake, is significantly more effective (p less than 0.0001) than notriptyline, a blocker of noradrenaline reuptake. Finally, the antinociceptive effect is independent of the effects of the two drugs on the symptoms of depression. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of sertraline in migraine prophylaxis. Other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been studied for migraine prophylaxis, but this is the first report with sertraline. Twenty-seven subjects were enrolled and baseline assessment of migraine frequency and severity were measured over a 4-week period. Subjects were then randomized to receive placebo or sertraline in a double-blind fashion with headache frequency and severity measured over an 8-week period. Subjects completed a daily diary reporting the occurrence, severity, and degree of impairment associated with migraine. The headache index, a composite measure of migraine frequency and severity, scores did not significantly improve between assessments at baseline (20.8 +/- 14.88), 8 weeks (17.6 +/- 12.27), and 12 weeks (16.7 +/- 6.38) in the treatment group (n=6) (P=0.956). This finding is compared to other studies with the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine. The authors believe that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not as effective as conventional migraine prophylaxis medications such as beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, or divalproex sodium, but that in patients with comorbid depression who have failed conventional therapy selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be effective. Many patients with severe migraine remain refractory to the current treatment regimens or cannot tolerate the side effects. Since current research implicates serotonin dysregulation in migraine pathogenesis, we investigated in a double blind, placebo controlled study the prophylactic effect of the serotonergic drug fluoxetine. Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to 8 week fluoxetine treatment and 16 to the placebo group; nine subjects in each group completed the study. Migraine headache scores were obtained for two weeks prior to commencement of treatment, and then for each successive two week period. Zung depression scores were obtained before and after completion of the study. Fluoxetine caused significant reduction in headache scores starting with weeks 3-4 of treatment; there was no significant change with placebo. Depression scores did not differ between groups before treatment, and did not significantly change with either treatment. Fluoxetine appears to be a safe and effective drug for migraine prophylaxis, and deserves further therapeutic trials with larger groups for longer periods of time. Accumulating evidence suggests that noradrenergic and serotonergic drugs are equally effective in ameliorating the depressive symptoms of major depression. Major depression is associated also with memory impairments, but the comparative effects of the antidepressant drugs on memory are not clear. We previously found that serotonergic neurotransmission is of particular importance for some aspects of episodic memory. We set out to test whether treatment with the selective serotonergic drug Fluoxetine (Prozac) would be advantageous in this respect over treatment with the selective noradrenergic tricyclic antidepressant drug Desipramine (Deprexan). Seventeen patients with major depressive episode, randomly assigned for treatment with either Fluoxetine (n = 8) or Desipramine (n = 9), were assessed for their clinical situation and for memory performance at the beginning of treatment, after 3 weeks, and after 6 weeks of pharmacological treatment. We found that although clinically both drugs were equally effective, the improvement of memory performance in the Fluoxetine-treated patients was significantly greater compared with that of the Desipramine-treated patients. The results support the role of serotonin in memory. More studies in larger samples of patients are required, but it may be that in cases where memory impairment is a major symptom, it would be beneficial to consider serotonergic antidepressant drugs for treatment. Furthermore, in cases where, for various reasons, the treatment of choice is noradrenergic, it may be worthwhile to consider a supplementary serotonergic drug to improve memory deficits. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have recently been used in the treatment of migraine.
                We studied the safety and efficacy of fluoxetine in the prevention of migraine.
                Between February 1997 and December 1997, we examined 52 patients (33 women) at the Headache Diagnosis and Therapy Service of the Second University of Naples. Ages ranged from 18 to 65 years, and all patients suffered from migraine without aura according to IHS 1988 criteria. The sample was divided into two groups: group A included 32 patients (19 women; mean age, 36.8 years [SD 12.4]) who received fluoxetine at a dosage of 20 mg per day; group B included 20 patients (14 women; mean age, 38.8 years [SD 15.6]) who received placebo.
                Our study was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel study of fluoxetine for the prophylactic control of migraine and consisted of two phases: 30 days of pharmacological wash out and 6 months of therapy with monthly follow-up. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: A, fluoxetine or B, placebo. At the first visit, patients provided a detailed history and underwent neurological evaluation and a Zung test for depression. No pathological values were revealed. In order to monitor symptomatology, all patients received a form for the calculation of the total pain index at monthly follow-up.
                A comparison of the total pain index between basal values (calculated during the period of wash out) and monthly follow-up (calculated monthly during the period of 6 months of the therapy) showed significant reduction (P < .05) beginning from the third month of treatment in the fluoxetine group and no significant reduction in the placebo group.
                Even if preliminary and to be confirmed, these data seem to support the use of fluoxetine in the treatment of migraine. An 8-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial was carried out on the use of nimodipine in migraine prophylaxis in 37 patients aged 7 to 18 years old. After a 4-week medication-free run-in period, 19 subjects (Group 1) received a placebo while 18 (Group 2) received nimodipine (10-20 mg t.i.d., according to body weight), for 12 weeks. After a 4-week wash-out period, the groups switched therapy for a further 12 weeks. 30 patients completed the trial and the number of dropouts was comparable in the 2 groups. The only side-effect during nimodipine treatment was mild abdominal discomfort (3 cases). The treatments were evaluated on the basis of frequency and duration of attacks. There was a significant reduction in both parameters during the first period of treatment. During the second period of treatment, nimodipine proved to have a significantly greater effect than the placebo with regard to frequency, whereas the response was similar with the placebo as regards duration of attacks. The latter parameter shows a significant decrease during the treatment periods, regardless of type of therapy. To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oxcarbazepine (1,200 mg/day) vs placebo as prophylactic therapy for patients with migraine headaches.
                This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial consisted of a 4-week single-blind baseline phase and a 15-week double-blind phase consisting of a 6-week titration period, an 8-week maintenance period, and a 1-week down-titration period, after which patients could enter a 13-week open-label extension phase. During the 6-week titration period, oxcarbazepine was initiated at 150 mg/day and increased by 150 mg/day every 5 days to a maximum tolerated dose of 1,200 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in the number of migraine attacks during the last 28-day period of the double-blind phase.
                Eighty-five patients were randomized to receive oxcarbazepine and 85 to receive placebo. There was no difference between the oxcarbazepine (-1.30) and placebo groups in mean change in number of migraine attacks from baseline during the last 28 days of double-blind phase (-1.74; p = 0.2274). Adverse events were reported for 68 oxcarbazepine-treated patients (80%) and 55 placebo-treated patients (65%). The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most common adverse events (>or=15% of patients) in the oxcarbazepine-treated group were fatigue (20.0%), dizziness (17.6%), and nausea (16.5%); no adverse event occurred in more than 15% of the placebo-treated patients.
                Overall, oxcarbazepine was safe and well tolerated; however, oxcarbazepine did not show efficacy in the prophylactic treatment of migraine headaches. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate, given at the dose of 100 mg/day, in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. The hypothesis that migraine is the result of a condition of neuronal hyperexcitability and the quest for drugs that are able to limit the number of crises justifies the attempt to utilise the new antiepileptic drugs in the prophylaxis of this pathology, which is so important due to its high prevalence and due to the high disability it causes. The study was randomised double-blind versus placebo, lasting 16 weeks, and was preceded by a run-in period of 4 weeks. One hundred and fifteen patients were randomly allocated to treatment with topiramate (TPM) or placebo: 35 patients completed the study in the TPM group and 37 patients in the placebo group. At the end of the double-blind phase of study, in the TPM group, we recorded a significant reduction in the frequency of migraine crises (from 5.26 at baseline to 2.60 in the last 4 weeks), a significant reduction in the quantity of symptomatic drugs taken as compared to the placebo control group (from 6.17+/-1.80 SD to 2.57+/-0.80) and a significant downward trend in the number of days of disability over the 16-week period of therapy. In the TPM group, side effects were transient and well tolerated. TPM has thus proven its efficacy and tolerability in the prophylaxis of migraine.
Over 2 months of treatment, SSRIs are no more efficacious than placebo in patients with migraine. In patients with chronic TTH, SSRIs are less efficacious than tricyclic antidepressants. In comparison with SSRIs, the burden of adverse events in patients receiving tricyclics was greater. These results are based on short-term trials and may not generalise to longer-term treatment.