CNS Drugs

, Volume 18, Issue 15, pp 1149–1163 | Cite as

The PROMISE Study: PROphylaxis of Migraine with SEglor® (Dihydroergotamine Mesilate) in French Primary Care

  • André Pradalier
  • Michel Lantéri-Minet
  • Gilles Géraud
  • Hervé Attain
  • Christian Lucas
  • Antonio Delgado
Original Research Article

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Dahlöf CG, Dimenas E. Migraine patients experience poorer subjective well-being/quality of life even between attacks. Cephalalgia 1995; 15: 31–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Mathew NT, Kurman R, Perez F. Drug induced refractory headache: clinical features and management. Headache 1990; 30: 634–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rapoport AM. Pharmacological prevention of migraine. Clin Neurosci 1998; 5: 55–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lantéri-Minet M. Analgesic-induced chronic headaches. Pathol Biol 2000; 48: 707–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silberstein SD. Preventive treatment of migraine: an overview. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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]
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    International Headache Society Clinical Trials Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 765–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Silberstein SD. The pharmacology of ergotamine and dihydroergotamine. Headache 1997; 37Suppl. 1: 15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lance JW. Current concepts of migraine pathogenesis. Neurology 1993; 43Suppl. 3: 11–5Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Merikangas KR. Association between psychopathology and headache syndromes. Curr Opin Neurol 1995; 8: 248–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Radat F. Psychopathology and headache. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2000; 156Suppl. 4: 62–7Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stewart W, Breslau N, Keck PE. Comorbidity of migraine and panic disorder. Neurology 1994; 44Suppl. 7: 23–7Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Kaniecki RG. A comparison of divalproex with propranolol and placebo for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura. Arch Neurol 1997; 54: 1141–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klapper J. Divalproex sodium in migraine prophylaxis: a dose-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 103–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van de Ven LLM, Franke CL, Koehler PJ. Prophylactic treatment of migraine with bisoprolol: a placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 596–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 1998; 50: 466–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    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
  37. 37.
    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

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Pradalier
    • 1
  • Michel Lantéri-Minet
    • 2
  • Gilles Géraud
    • 3
  • Hervé Attain
    • 4
  • Christian Lucas
    • 5
  • Antonio Delgado
    • 6
  1. 1.Service de Médecine Interne 4, Centre Migraines et CéphaléesHôpital Louis MourierColombesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Evaluation and Treatment of PainPasteur HospitalNiceFrance
  3. 3.Rangueil University Teaching HospitalToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Pontchaillou HospitalRennesFrance
  5. 5.Neurological ClinicSalengro HospitalLilleFrance
  6. 6.Schwarz Pharma FranceBoulogne-BillancourtFrance

Personalised recommendations