Melatonin for migraine prevention in children and adolescents: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial after single‐blind placebo lead‐in

Author:

Gelfand Amy A.12ORCID,Allen I. Elaine3ORCID,Grimes Barbara3,Irwin Samantha12ORCID,Qubty William4,Greene Kaitlin5,Waung Maggie2,Powers Scott W.678,Szperka Christina L.91011

Affiliation:

1. Child & Adolescent Headache Program University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA

2. Department of Neurology University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA

3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco San Francisco California USA

4. Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology Minneapolis Minnesota USA

5. Department of Pediatrics Oregon Health Sciences University Portland Oregon USA

6. Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA

7. Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology Cincinnati Children's Hospital Cincinnati Ohio USA

8. Headache Center Cincinnati Children's Hospital Cincinnati Ohio USA

9. Pediatric Headache Program Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

10. Department of Neurology Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

11. Department of Pediatrics Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMelatonin is effective for migraine prevention in adults. We hypothesized that melatonin would also be effective for migraine prevention in children and adolescents.MethodsThis was a randomized, double‐blind trial of melatonin (3 mg or 6 mg) versus placebo for migraine prevention in 10–17 year‐olds with 4–28/28 headache days at baseline. Participants were recruited from the UCSF Child & Adolescent Headache Program, UCSF child neurology clinic, and social media advertisements. Migraine diagnosis was confirmed by a headache specialist. Participants completed an 8‐week single‐blind placebo run‐in. Those meeting randomization criteria (≥4 headache days and ≥23/28 electronic diary entries during weeks 5–8) were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo:melatonin 3 mg:melatonin 6 mg nightly for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was migraine days in weeks 5–8 of randomized treatment between melatonin (combined 6 mg + 3 mg) versus placebo. We aimed to enroll n = 210.ResultsThe study closed early due to slow enrollment (n = 72). Two participants were in the single‐blind phase when the study closed, therefore the meaningful n = 70. Sixteen percent (11/70) were lost to follow‐up during the single‐blind phase. An additional 21% (15/70) did not meet randomization criteria (<4 headache days: n = 5, <23/28 diary days: n = 7, both: n = 3). Sixty‐three percent (44/70) were eligible to randomize, of whom 42 randomized (n = 14 per arm). Taking another preventive at enrollment (OR 8.3, 95% CI 1.01 to 68.9) was the only variable associated with meeting randomization criteria. Of those randomized, 91% (38/42) provided diary data in the final 4‐weeks. However, given the amount of missing data, only those with ≥21/28 diary days were analyzed—7/14 (50%) in the placebo group, and 20/28 (71%) in the melatonin groups combined. Median (IQR) migraine/migrainous days in weeks 5–8 of double‐blind treatment was 2 (1–7) in the placebo group versus 2 (1–12) in the melatonin groups combined; the difference in medians (95% CI for the difference) was 0 days (−9 to 3). There were no differences in adverse events between groups.ConclusionsWhen compared to recall at enrollment, headache days decreased across the single‐blind placebo phase and the double‐blind phase. There was no suggestion of superiority of melatonin; however, given the substantial portion of missing data, numerically higher in the placebo arm, and underpowering, this should not be interpreted as proof of inefficacy. Melatonin was generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events. Future migraine preventive trials in this age group may find this trial helpful for anticipating enrollment needs if using a single‐blind placebo run‐in. Enriching for those already on a migraine preventive may improve randomization rates in future trials, though would change the generalizability of results.

Funder

UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Neurology

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3