[Comparative study of the effectiveness of topiramate and nadolol in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in independent series of patients].
BACKGROUND
Topiramate and nadolol with levels A and C of scientific evidence, respectively, would be indicated as preventive treatments of migraine. To date only one study of satisfaction has been carried out to compare the two pharmaceuticals.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness parameters in independent groups of patients treated preventively with one of the pharmaceuticals from the study.


METHODS
From a database of 700 patients with migraine, those with episodic migraine and who had followed a course of preventive treatment, for the first time, with topiramate or nadolol were selected for the study. The effectiveness variables (reduction in the number of crises at four months of preventive treatment and responder rates) were analysed.


RESULTS
Altogether 208 patients with were included for treatment: 140 with topiramate (77.8% females; mean age, 37.9) and 68 with nadolol (69% females; mean age, 36.9). The mean number of crises in the month prior to treatment was: topiramate group, 6.3 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 5.3 +/- 2.0 (p = 0.0066). At four months after starting treatment: topiramate group, 2.69 +/- 2.6; nadolol group 2.6 +/- 2.2 (NS). The percentage of reduction in the number of migraines was 56.6% with topiramate and 51.6% with nadolol (NS). The responder rate (reduction in the frequency of crises by at least 50%) was 71.3% with topiramate versus 69% with nadolol (NS). The excellent response rate (reduction in crises by at least 75%) was 53.3% with topiramate versus 32.2% with nadolol (p = 0.0077). Adverse side effects were reported by 54% of patients treated with topiramate versus 30.8% of those treated with nadolol (p = 0.0015). The rate of satisfaction was 61% for the topiramate group and 71% for the group with nadolol (NS).


CONCLUSIONS
Both topiramate and nadolol proved to be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Topiramate was found to be more effective than nadolol, although it was used in patients with a higher frequency of crises, and was not tolerated so well.
Gracia-Naya
Manuel
M
Servicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España. gracia.naya@meditex.es
Huerta-Villanueva
Mariano
M
Ríos-Gómez
Consuelo
C
Latorre-Jiménez
Ana M
AM
Sánchez-Valiente
Sara
S
Santos-Lasaosa
Sonia
S
Mauri-Llerda
José Angel
JA
García-Gómara
M José
MJ
Artal-Roy
Jorge
J
D000319:Adrenergic beta-Antagonists / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005632:Fructose / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008881:Migraine Disorders / Q000517:prevention & control*; D009248:Nadolol / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000077236:Topiramate
D000319:Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; D000077236:Topiramate; D005632:Fructose; D009248:Nadolol