University of Oklahoma Medical School, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA.
Headache. 2011 Jan;51(1):33-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01800.x. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used medications in migraine prophylaxis. There have been relatively few placebo-controlled studies of amitriptyline in migraine prophylaxis or in treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). This report deals with a large placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline vs placebo of 20 weeks duration that included subjects with intermittent migraine (IM) as well as CDH. The study was carried out between 1976 and 1979; however, results have never been fully reported.
Patients with a history of migraine as defined by the 1962 Ad Hoc Committee report were recruited for this study. Subjects had at least 2 headaches per month, and no limit was placed on the number of headaches per month that could be experienced. The study format included a 4-week baseline period (Period A) in which all subjects received placebo in a dose of 2 pills per day for one week, 3 pills per day for one week and then 4 pills per day for 2 weeks. Subjects with at least 2 migraine headaches in this period were then entered into Period B and randomized into either amitriptyline or placebo tracks. Medication consisted of identical tablets containing either 25 mg amitriptyline or placebo. Period B was 4 weeks in duration with dose titration identical to Period A. The dose could be reduced if necessary to reduce side effects. The minimum dose was one pill per day. Period C was a 12-week maintenance or stabilization period in which the patient continued the dose established by week 8 with visits at weeks 12, 16, and 20. Patients kept a headache calendar that was used for data collection. Headache frequency (per month), severity, and duration (hours) were the primary measurement parameters employed for data analysis.
For the entire group, 391 subjects were entered into Period A, 338 were randomized into Period B, 317 (81%) subjects completed the first post-randomization visit (8 weeks), 255 (65%) completed week 12, 210 (54%) completed week 16, and 186 (48%) completed week 20. Using headache frequency and evaluating parameters of (a) improvement, (b) no change, or (c) worsening relative to baseline, there was a significant improvement in headache frequency for amitriptyline over placebo at 8 weeks (P = .018) but not at 12, 16, or 20 weeks. When amitriptyline and placebo patients were compared for headache frequency at 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks to their own placebo stabilization period at 4 weeks, statistically significant improvement vs worsening was seen in headache frequency at each evaluation point for both amitriptyline and placebo groups (P ≤ .01) reaching 50% reporting a decrease in frequency in each group and approximately 10% reporting worsening by week 20. There were no significant differences in headache severity or duration between amitriptyline and placebo groups at anytime during the study. Within the study sample, there were 36 amitriptyline and 22 placebo subjects who had headaches ≥ 17 days/month that fit the current definition of CDH by the Silberstein-Lipton criteria. These were analyzed separately as a subgroup for comparison of amitriptyline vs placebo using a metric of (1) no change or worsening; (2) up to a 50% improvement; and (3) ≥ 50% improvement in headache frequency. Amitriptyline was superior to placebo in number with improvement in frequency of ≥ 50% at 8 weeks (25% vs 5% [P = .031]) and at 16 weeks (46% vs 9% [P = .043]). There was a trend for amitriptyline to be superior to placebo at 12 and 20 weeks but this did not reach significance.
In this study, using headache frequency as the primary metric, for the entire group, amitriptyline was superior to placebo in migraine prophylaxis at 8 weeks but, because of a robust placebo response, not at subsequent time points. For the subgroup with CDH, amitriptyline was statistically significantly superior to placebo at 8 weeks and 16 weeks with a similar but nonsignificant trend at 12 and 20 weeks. Compared with placebo amitriptyline is effective in CDH. Amitriptyline was also significantly effective in IM compared intragroup to its own baseline; however, placebo was equally effective in the same analysis. The reason for the robust placebo response in the IM group is not clear, but has been occasionally reported.
阿米替林是偏头痛预防中最常用的药物之一。偏头痛预防或慢性每日头痛(CDH)的治疗中,相对较少有安慰剂对照的阿米替林研究。本报告涉及一项为期 20 周的大型安慰剂对照试验,该试验包括间歇性偏头痛(IM)和 CDH 患者。该研究于 1976 年至 1979 年进行;然而,结果从未得到充分报告。
根据 1962 年临时委员会报告,招募了偏头痛病史的患者参加本研究。受试者每月至少有 2 次头痛,且每月头痛次数不受限制。研究格式包括 4 周的基线期(A 期),在此期间,所有受试者均接受安慰剂治疗,剂量为每天 2 片,持续 1 周,每天 3 片,持续 1 周,然后每天 4 片,持续 2 周。在此期间至少有 2 次偏头痛发作的受试者随后进入 B 期,并随机分为阿米替林或安慰剂组。药物由含有 25 毫克阿米替林或安慰剂的相同片剂组成。B 期持续 4 周,剂量滴定与 A 期相同。如果需要减少剂量以减少副作用。最低剂量为每天 1 片。C 期为 12 周的维持或稳定期,在此期间,患者在第 8 周确定剂量后继续服用,并在第 12、16 和 20 周进行随访。患者保留头痛日历,用于数据收集。头痛频率(每月)、严重程度和持续时间(小时)是用于数据分析的主要测量参数。
对于整个组,391 名患者进入 A 期,338 名患者随机进入 B 期,317 名(81%)患者完成了第一次随机后访视(8 周),255 名(65%)完成了第 12 周,210 名(54%)完成了第 16 周,186 名(48%)完成了第 20 周。使用头痛频率并评估(a)改善、(b)无变化或(c)恶化相对于基线的参数,在第 8 周时,阿米替林组的头痛频率显著优于安慰剂组(P =.018),但在第 12、16 和 20 周时则不然。当比较阿米替林和安慰剂患者在第 8、12、16 和 20 周时的头痛频率与他们在第 4 周时的安慰剂稳定期相比时,在每个评估点,头痛频率均有统计学意义的改善或恶化,两组的头痛频率均显著改善(P ≤.01),每组约有 50%的患者报告头痛频率下降,约有 10%的患者在第 20 周时报告头痛恶化。在研究期间的任何时候,头痛严重程度或持续时间在阿米替林组和安慰剂组之间均无显著差异。在研究样本中,有 36 名阿米替林和 22 名安慰剂患者每月头痛≥17 天,符合当前 Silberstein-Lipton 标准的 CDH 定义。将这些患者作为亚组单独分析,以比较阿米替林与安慰剂的(1)无变化或恶化;(2)改善 50%或以上;(3)头痛频率改善≥50%的指标。在第 8 周(25%比 5%[P =.031])和第 16 周(46%比 9%[P =.043])时,阿米替林组的改善频率≥50%的患者比例明显高于安慰剂组。在第 12 和 20 周时,阿米替林组优于安慰剂组,但这并未达到统计学意义。
在这项研究中,使用头痛频率作为主要指标,对于整个组,阿米替林在偏头痛预防中优于安慰剂,在第 8 周时,但由于强大的安慰剂反应,在随后的时间点则不然。对于 CDH 亚组,阿米替林在第 8 周和第 16 周时与安慰剂相比具有统计学意义上的优越性,在第 12 周和第 20 周时也有类似但不显著的趋势。与安慰剂相比,阿米替林在 CDH 中有效。与自身基线相比,阿米替林在 IM 中也明显有效;然而,安慰剂在同一分析中同样有效。在 IM 组中出现如此强大的安慰剂反应的原因尚不清楚,但偶尔有报道。