Introduction: Seglor® capsules, a unique modified-release formulation of dihydroergotamine mesilate, have long been in clinical use in France for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of the PROMISE (PROphylaxis of Migraine with SEglor®) study was to establish the efficacy and tolerability of Seglor® in the prevention of migraine in a general practice setting.
Methods: The PROMISE study was a double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study carried out in primary care practice. It included 363 migraine patients treated with Seglor® or placebo for 5 months after a 1-month placebo run-in phase.
Results: Migraine attack frequency (primary efficacy criterion) decreased markedly in the two treatment groups so that the difference in favour of Seglor® did not reach statistical significance. However, most secondary outcome measures (duration of single attack, total duration of attacks over 1 month, consumption of mild opiate analgesics, subjective improvement) improved to a significantly greater degree in patients receiving Seglor® than in those receiving placebo. In the 84.5% of patients who had impaired quality of life at entry, the percentage of reduction in attack frequency and most other efficacy measures showed significant improvement with Seglor®. The safety profile for Seglor® was comparable to that of placebo.
Conclusion: These results support the effectiveness of Seglor® in patients with migraine-related quality-of-life impairment. The findings of the PROMISE study also suggest that patients’ quality of life should be assessed systematically before initiating a preventive treatment for migraine.
This study was supported by an educational grant from Schwarz Pharma. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to this study.
Dahlöf CG, Dimenas E. Migraine patients experience poorer subjective well-being/quality of life even between attacks. Cephalalgia 1995; 15: 31–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhaus JT, Townsend RJ, Gandek B, et al. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache 1994; 34: 337–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard A, Henry P, Chazot G, et al. Quality of life and migraine: validation of the QVM questionnaire in hospital consultation and in general medicine [in French]. Therapie 1993; 48: 89–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD, Tijhuis M, et al. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology 2000; 55: 624–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathew NT, Kurman R, Perez F. Drug induced refractory headache: clinical features and management. Headache 1990; 30: 634–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agence Nationale d’Accréditation et d’Evaluation en Santé (ANAES). Diagnostic and therapeutic management of migrainein adults and children. Clinical and economic aspects: recommendations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.anaes.fr [Accessed 2002 Oct]
Lantéri-Minet M, Alchaar H, Besson G, et al. Prophylaxis for migraine headache: a pharmacoepidemiological study of practices used by primary care physicians and neurologists in France. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2000; 156: 1106–12Google Scholar
Langohr HD, Reinecke M, Gerber WD, et al. Dihydroergotamine and flunarizine in the prevention of migraine: a comparative double-blind study. Fortschr Med 1988; 106: 65–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
Martucci N, Manna V, Mattesi P, et al. Ergot derivatives in the prophylaxis of migraine: a multicentric study with a timed-release dihydroergotamine formulation. Cephalalgia 1983; 3Suppl. 1: 151–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
Neuman M, Demarez JP, Harmey JL, et al. Prevention of migraine attacks through the use of dihydroergotamine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1986; 6: 11–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pradalier A, Dry J, Loisy B, et al. Comparative study of indoramin versus dihydroergotamine in the preventive treatment of migraine. Therapie 1988; 43: 293–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aylward M, Davies DE, Maddock J, et al. On the treatment of migraine: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships for a programmed release formulation of dihydroergotamine administered orally in the human. Cephalalgia 1983; 3Suppl. 1: 146–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
International Headache Society Clinical Trials Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 765–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgia, and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988; 8Suppl. 7: 1–96Google Scholar
Ventafridda V, Saita L, Ripamonti C, et al. WHO guidelines for the use of analgesics in cancer pain. Int J Tissue React 1985; 7: 93–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
Jhingran P, Osterhaus JT, Miller DW, et al. Development and validation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire. Headache 1998; 38: 295–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner TJ, Ahmed F, Findley LJ, et al. S-fluoxetine in the prophylaxis of migraine: a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1998; 18: 283–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silberstein SD. The pharmacology of ergotamine and dihydroergotamine. Headache 1997; 37Suppl. 1: 15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lance JW. Current concepts of migraine pathogenesis. Neurology 1993; 43Suppl. 3: 11–5Google Scholar
Newman-Tancredi A, Conte C, Chaput C, et al. Agonist activity of antimigraine drugs at recombinant human 5-HT1a receptors: potential implications for prophylactic and acute therapy. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 1997; 355: 682–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanoun N, Saurini F, Lanfumey L, et al. Dihydroergotamine and its metabolite, 8′-hydroxy-dihydroergotamine, as 5-HT1a receptor agonists in the rat brain. Br J Pharmacol 2003; 139: 424–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamon M, Maroteaux L, Lanfumey L, et al. 5-HT1a and 5-HT2B/2C serotonin receptors: potential targets for the preventive treatment of migraine. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2002; 158Suppl. 2: 190Google Scholar
Schaerlinger B, Hickel P, Etienne N, et al. Agonist actions of dihydroergotamine at 5-HT2B and 5-HT2C receptors and their possible relevance to antimigraine efficacy. Br J Pharmacol 2003; 140: 277–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radat F. Psychopathology and headache. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2000; 156Suppl. 4: 62–7Google Scholar
Stewart W, Breslau N, Keck PE. Comorbidity of migraine and panic disorder. Neurology 1994; 44Suppl. 7: 23–7Google Scholar
Diener HC, Föh M, Iaccarino C, et al. Cyclandelate in the prophylaxis of migraine: a randomized, parallel, double-blind study in comparison with placebo and propranolol. Cephalalgia 1996; 16: 441–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaniecki RG. A comparison of divalproex with propranolol and placebo for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura. Arch Neurol 1997; 54: 1141–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Ven LLM, Franke CL, Koehler PJ. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with bisoprolol: a placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 596–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 1998; 50: 466–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaffenrath V, Diener HC, Fischer M, et al. The efficacy and safety of Tanacetum parthenium (feverfew) in migraine prophylaxis: a double-blind, multicentre, randomized placebo-controlled dose-response study. Cephalalgia 2002; 22: 523–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migraine-Nimodipine European Study Group (MINES). European multicenter trial of nimodipine in the prophylaxis of common migraine (migraine without aura). Headache 1989; 29: 633–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migraine-Nimodipine European Study Group (MINES). European multicenter trial of nimodipine in the prophylaxis of classic migraine (migraine with aura). Headache 1989; 29: 639–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar