Frequent migraine headaches can have a significant impact on disability, prompting the need for early recognition and treatment. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of topiramate and sodium valproate for the prevention of pediatric migraine, retrospectively. Mean monthly migraine frequency, intensity, and duration in the 28 patients treated with topiramate decreased from 15.3 ± 10.1 to 4.4 ± 5.5 episode, from 6.8 ± 1 to 3.2 ± 1, and from 10.2 ± 9.4 to 2.4 ± 3.1 hours, respectively. Headache disability improved with a reduction of Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment score from 36 ± 29.5 to 4.6 ± 6.5 (P < .05). Similarly, mean monthly headache frequency, headache intensity, headache duration, and Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment score in the 20 patients treated with sodium valproate decreased from 20.1 ± 10.2 to 6.6 ± 8.6, from 7.1 ± 1 to 3.4 ± 2.1, from 7 ± 12 to 1.4 ± 2.5 hours, and from 20.5 ± 16.1 to 5.5 ± 9.2, respectively (P < .05). In conclusion, valproate and topiramate seem to be able to manage successfully childhood migraine without substantial differences in efficacy.
Abu-Arafeh I. , Russell G.Prevalence of headache and migraine in schoolchildren . BMJ. 1994;309:765-769.
2.
Split W., Neuman W.Epidemiology of migraine among students from randomly selected secondary schools in Lodz. Headache. 1999;39:494-501.
3.
Cady RK, Schreiber CPSinus headache or migraine? Considerations in making a differential diagnosis . Neurology. 2002;58(suppl 6):10S-14S.
4.
Lee LH, Olness KNClinical and demographic characteristics of migraine in urban children . Headache. 1997;37:269-276.
5.
Hershey AD, Powers SW, Vockell AL, et al. PedMIDAS: development of a questionnaire to assess disability of migraines in children. Neurology. 2001;57:2034-2039.
6.
Stang PE, Osterhaus JTImpact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache. 1993;33:29-35.
7.
Hershey AD, Powers SWAbortive therapy for migraine. In: Maria BL, ed. Current Management in Child Neurology. 2nd ed. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2002:65-69.
8.
Powers SW, Hershey ADBiofeedback for childhood migraine. In: Maria BL, ed. Current Management in Child Neurology. 2nd ed. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2002:83-85.
9.
Lewis DW, Winner P.The pharmacological treatment options for pediatric migraine: an evidence-based appraisal. NeuroRx. 2006;3:181-191.
10.
Serdaroglu G., Erhan E., Tekgul H., et al. Sodium valproate prophylaxis in childhood migraine. Headache. 2002;42:819-822.
11.
Hershey AD, Winner PKPediatric migraine: recognition and treatment. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2005;105(suppl 2):2S-8S.
12.
Lakshmi CV, Singhi P., Malhi P., Ray M.Topiramate in the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Child Neurol. 2007;22:829-835.
13.
D'Amico D.Antiepileptic drugs in the prophylaxis of migraine, chronic headache forms and cluster headache: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Neurol Sci. 2007;28(suppl 2):188S-197S.
14.
Campistol J. , Campos J., Casas C., Herranz JLTopiramate in the prophylactic treatment of migraine in children. J Child Neurol. 2005 ;20:251-253.
15.
Silberstein SD, Neto W., Schmitt J., Jacobs D.; MIGR-001 Study Group . Topiramate in migraine prevention: results of a large controlled trial. Arch Neurol. 2004;61:490-495.
16.
Eiland LS, Jenkins LS, Durham SHPediatric migraine: pharmacologic agents for prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2007; 41:1181-1190.
17.
Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society.The International Classification of Headache Disorders. 2nd ed. Cephalalgia. 2004;24:1-50.
18.
Kaniecki RGA comparison of divalproex with propranalol and placebo for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura. Arch Neurol. 1997;54:1141-1145.
19.
Havanka-Kanniainen H., Hokkanen E., Myllylä VVEfficacy of nimodipine in comparison with pizotifen in the prophylaxis of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1987;7:7-13.
20.
Bordini CA, Arruda MA, Ciciarelli MC, Speciali JGPropranolol vs flunarizine vs flunarizine plus propranolol in migraine without aura prophylaxis: a double-blind trial. Arq Neuropsiquiatr . 1997;55:536-541.
21.
Diener HC, Matias-Guiu J., Hartung E., et al. Efficacy and tolerability in migraine prophylaxis of flunarizine in reduced doses: a comparison with propranolol 160 mg daily. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:209-221.
22.
Gawel MJ, Kreeft J., Nelson RF, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of flunarizine to propranolol in the prophylaxis of migraine. Can J Neurol Sci. 1992;19:340-345.
23.
Shaygannejad V., Janghorbani M., Ghorbani A., et al. Comparison of the effect of topiramate and sodium valporate in migraine prevention: a randomized blinded crossover study. Headache. 2006;46:642-648.
24.
Bartolini M. , Silvestrini M., Taffi R., et al. Efficacy of topiramate and valproate in chronic migraine. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2005;28:277-279.
25.
Hershey AD, Powers SW, Vockell AL, et al. Effectiveness of topiramate in the prevention of childhood headaches . Headache. 2002;42:810-818.
26.
Winner P., Pearlman E., Linder S., et al. Topiramate for the prevention of migraines in children and adolescence: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Headache . 2004;44:481.
27.
Landmark CJAntiepileptic drugs in non-epilepsy disorders: relations between mechanisms of action and clinical efficacy. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:27-47.
28.
Pakalnis A. , Greenberg G., Drake MEJrPaolichi, J.Pediatric migraine prophylaxis with divalproex . J Child Neurol. 2001;16:731-734.
29.
Caruso JM, Brown WD, Exil G., Gascon GGThe efficacy of divalproex sodium in the prophylactic treatment of children with migraine. Headache. 2000;40:672-676.
30.
Ashrafi MR, Shabanian R., Zamani GR, Mahfelati F.Sodium valproate versus propranolol in paediatric migraine prophylaxis . Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2005;9:333-338.
31.
Ramadan NMCurrent trends in migraine prophylaxis. Headache. 2007;47(suppl 1):52S-57S.
32.
Philips TM, Bates SRD, Rudnicki SAProphylaxis of pediatric headache with topiramate [abstract]. Neurology. 2003;60 (suppl 1):A444.
33.
Younkin DPTopiramate in the treatment of pediatric migraine [abstract]. Headache. 2002;42:456.
