Meta Analysis Of Efficacy And Safty Of Calcium Antagonists’ Preventive Treatment To Migraine

Background and Objective: igraine is a common clinical recurrentdisease which decline patients’ work efficacy and life quality. Migrainealso causes the problem of public medical resources waste and drug abusewhile it suffers the patients. With the development of society peoplerequire more and more with health problem, migraine’s preventivetreatment has been paid more and more attention. Migraine’s preventivetreatment includes preventive drugs such as adrenergic blockers, calciumantagonist, antiepileptic drugs, antidepressants,5-HT receptor antagonist.Calcium antagonist is a common and front-line clinical preventive drug.In this study, we use the meta analysis method to analyze3kind ofcalcium antagonists’ efficacy and safety to evaluate their therapeuticeffect, and to provide a reference for migraine’s preventive treatment.Material and Metheds: All clinical studies were searched fromCochrane Library, EMbase, Medline, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang,and other literature was manual searched. The literature’s search time wasfrom their created time to June2012. All literature was filtered with strictand unified inclusion criteria, and the quality of the included documentswas evaluated by risk of bias assessing toll in the Cochrane Reviewer’sHandbook5.1.0. Revman5.1software was used for meta analysis andforest plots and funnel plot drawing.Results:1. Flunarizine’s result:11English and47Chinesedocuments were found by initial screening, and finally1English and7 Chinese documents met the inclusion criteria. Efficacy: With thesubgroup analysis of different doses,5mg’s Flunarizine’s preventivetreatment efficiency was higher than positive control group’s(P<0.00001),10mg’s Flunarizine’s preventive treatment efficiency washigher than positive control group’s (P=0.005). Side effect:2researchesreported all the side effects. Analysis showed that there is no statisticalsignificance (P=0.52) between Flunarizine and positive control group.2.Nimodipine’s analysis results:(1)26documents were found by initialscreening, and finally8met the inclusion criteria that all of them wereChinese. Efficacy:5enumeration data documents’ analysis showed thatNimodipine’s preventive treatment efficiency was higher than positivecontrol group’s (P<0.00001).(2)2measurement data documents’analysis showed that4,8,12weeks’ headache days and index showed nostatistical significance (P>0.05). Side effects:4researches reported allsite effects and the result showed no statistical significance (P>0.05)between Nimodipine and positive control group.3. Lomerizine’s result:3documents were found by initial screening, and2of them was used inmeta analysis. Heterogeneity test showed statistic heterogeneity. Wethink that the risk of bias could be very big, and it is really hard definitethe bias reason, so we didn’t do the meta analysis.Conclusion: Flunarizine’s therapy effect was better than positivecontrol group, and the safety was similar. Nimodipine’s therapy effectwas better than positive control group, and the safety was similar.