Emergency Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Pharmacy Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Headache. 2021 Apr;61(4):603-611. doi: 10.1111/head.14091. Epub 2021 Apr 1.
To compare the efficacy of intravenous chlorpromazine versus intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of acute migraine in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED).
Migraine is a common, incapacitating neurological condition. Although chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are known to be safe, efficacious treatments for migraine, they have never been directly compared.
We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Adults aged 18-65 years, who presented with migraine, were eligible for recruitment. Sixty-six patients were randomized to either chlorpromazine 12.5 mg or prochlorperazine 12.5 mg, both infused in 500 ml of sodium chloride 0.9% over 30 min. Headache severity score, nausea severity score, and the presence of photophobia and phonophobia were assessed at 0, 30, 60, and 120 min. Adverse effects and the need for rescue therapy were recorded. The primary outcome was a reduction in headache severity score from baseline at 60 min post-commencement of the study medicine infusion.
Sixty-five patients were included in the analysis. There was a median reduction in headache severity score at 60 min of 3.0 (interquartile range 1.0-4.0) in the chlorpromazine arm versus 2.0 (1.0-4.0) in the prochlorperazine arm (median difference -0.5 (95% confidence interval, -1.9 to 0.9)). We saw no evidence of a difference in secondary outcomes at 30, 60, or 120 min. Side effects were reported in 16/32 (50%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 7/33 (21%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.020). Rescue therapy was required in 7/32 (22%) patients in the chlorpromazine group versus 12/33 (36%) in the prochlorperazine group (p = 0.277).
Both chlorpromazine and prochlorperazine are efficacious treatments for acute migraine in adult patients presenting to the ED. This trial found no evidence of superiority of either agent over the other. Caution should be used when prescribing these medicines in the borderline hypotensive patient; in that circumstance, prochlorperazine should be preferentially used.
比较静脉注射氯丙嗪与丙氯拉嗪治疗成人急诊科就诊急性偏头痛的疗效。
偏头痛是一种常见的使人丧失能力的神经系统疾病。虽然氯丙嗪和丙氯拉嗪已知是安全有效的偏头痛治疗药物,但它们从未被直接比较过。
我们在澳大利亚墨尔本的一家三级医院进行了一项前瞻性、随机、双盲临床试验。年龄在 18-65 岁之间,出现偏头痛症状的成年人有资格入组。66 名患者被随机分为氯丙嗪 12.5mg 组或丙氯拉嗪 12.5mg 组,均在 30 分钟内输注 500ml 氯化钠 0.9%。在 0、30、60 和 120 分钟时评估头痛严重程度评分、恶心严重程度评分以及畏光和畏声的存在情况。记录不良反应和需要抢救治疗的情况。主要结局是研究药物输注开始后 60 分钟时头痛严重程度评分从基线的降低。
65 名患者纳入分析。氯丙嗪组在 60 分钟时头痛严重程度评分中位数降低 3.0(四分位距 1.0-4.0),丙氯拉嗪组降低 2.0(1.0-4.0)(中位数差异-0.5(95%置信区间-1.9 至 0.9))。在 30、60 或 120 分钟时,我们没有发现次要结局有差异。氯丙嗪组 16/32(50%)患者和丙氯拉嗪组 7/33(21%)患者报告有副作用(p=0.020)。氯丙嗪组 7/32(22%)患者和丙氯拉嗪组 12/33(36%)患者需要抢救治疗(p=0.277)。
氯丙嗪和丙氯拉嗪均为成人急诊科就诊急性偏头痛的有效治疗药物。本试验未发现两种药物之间存在优势。在低血压临界患者中使用这些药物时应谨慎;在这种情况下,应优先使用丙氯拉嗪。