SYNOPSIS The potential prophylactic value of a daily dose of 10 mg flunarizine, a calcium antagonist with anti‐vasospastic properties was studied in a 3‐month double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial in 58 migraineurs. With an almost perfect mutual correlation, both the patients' overall appreciation of the treatment and the reduction of migraine attacks proved flunarizine to be effective (p<0.001). Half of the flunarizine‐patients considered the treatment certainly beneficial in contrast to none of the placebo‐patients. In 21 of the 29 flunarizine‐patients the attack rate was lower than expected in 20 of the 29 controls it was not. Younger patients appeared to respond better to the treatment. Flunarizine displayed a gradually increasing effect; during the third month 83% of the treated patients were completely attack‐free. The drug did not appear to influence the severity and duration of attacks, however. Treatment was very well tolerated. Flunarizine, therefore, appears to be a very suitable agent for migraine prophylaxis but it should be given for more than two months in order to obtain full effectiveness with this dosage.

In this double-blind, randomized multicenter study involving 75 patients, the calcium-entry blocker flunarizine (10 mg nocte) was compared with pizotifen (2-3 mg per day in three administrations). Duration of treatment was four months. The results suggest that, in the dosage used, flunarizine is at least as effective as pizotifen in both classical and common migraine as regards effect on attack frequency. Flunarizine might tend to more markedly suppress severity of the attack, though. The weight gain seen with both drugs might be slightly less with flunarizine. A practical advantage of flunarizine is its simple dosage schedule (one intake per day).

Background: Headache is a highly prevalent disorder. Irrespective of the headache diagnosis it is often accompanied with neck pain and -stiffness. Due to this common combination of headache and neck pain, physical treatments of the cervical spine are often considered. The additional value of these treatments to standard medical care or usual care (UC) is insufficiently documented.

Digital rectal examination and the interpretation of prostate biopsy are not accurate clinical tools for defining the location and extent of prostatic carcinoma. Bilateral positive biopsy may be useful as an adjunct to the current clinical staging system.

Early treatment and combining a triptan with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) are thought to improve outcome during migraine attacks, possibly by counteracting the negative influence of cutaneous allodynia. The aim of this multicentre, double-blind pilot study was to evaluate the prevalence of brush allodynia and its relative influence on the efficacy of a triptan-NSAID combination compared with headache intensity at the time of treatment. In a randomized, cross-over design, 112 migraineurs treated two moderate or severe attacks with almotriptan 12.5 mg combined with either aceclofenac 100 mg or placebo. Patients used a 2-cm brush to assess cutaneous allodynia. Allodynia was reported in 34.4% of attacks. The almotriptan-aceclofenac combination was numerically superior to triptan-placebo on 2-24-h sustained pain-free (P = 0.07), 2-h pain-free (P = 0.07) and headache recurrence (P = 0.05) rates, but not on 1-h headache relief. Allodynia numerically reduced treatment success overall, but this effect was not significant for the primary outcome measures. Headache intensity had a significant negative influence on 1-h relief in both attacks (P = 0.0001 and 0.0008, chi(2)) and on 2-24-h sustained pain-free rates in triptan-placebo-treated attacks (P = 0.013). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that headache intensity at treatment intake, rather than allodynia, significantly influenced most outcome measures, predominantly so in attacks treated with almotriptan and aceclofenac. In the latter, severe compared with moderate headache intensity reduced the likelihood of achieving the primary efficacy end-points [odds ratios (OR) 0.12 and 0.33], whereas allodynia was not a significant explanatory variable (OR 0.76 and 0.65). The results apply to the protocol used here and need to be confirmed in larger studies using quantitative sensory testing.