The Relative Efficacy of Meperidine for the Treatment of Acute Migraine: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

被引:25
|
作者
Friedman, Benjamin W. [1 ]
Kapoor, Alok [2 ]
Friedman, Matt S. [3 ]
Hochberg, Michael L.
Rowe, Brian H. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Montefiore Med Ctr, Dept Emergency Med, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
[2] Boston Univ, Hosp Med Unit, Gen Internal Med Sect, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[3] Mt Sinai Med Ctr, Dept Emergency Med, New York, NY 10029 USA
[4] Univ Alberta, Dept Emergency Med, Sch Publ Hlth, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[5] Univ Alberta, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Sch Publ Hlth, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.05.036
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Study objective: Despite guidelines recommending against opioids as first-line treatment for acute migraine, meperidine is the agent used most commonly in North American emergency departments. Clinical trials performed to date have been small and have not arrived at consistent conclusions about the efficacy of meperidine. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative efficacy and adverse effect profile of opioids compared with nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine. Methods: We searched multiple sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS, emergency and headache medicine conference proceedings) for randomized controlled trials comparing parenteral opioid and nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine headache. Our primary outcome was relief of headache. If this was unavailable, we accepted rescue medication use or we transformed visual analog scale change scores by using an established procedure. We grouped studies by comparator: a regimen containing dihydroergotamine, antiemetic alone, or ketorolac. For each study, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) of headache relief and then assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity for the group of studies. We then pooled the ORs of headache relief with a random-effects model. Results: From 899 citations, 19 clinical trials were identified, of which 11 were appropriate and had available data. Four trials involving, 254 patients compared meperidine to dihydroergotamine, 4 trials involving 248 patients compared meperidine to an antiemetic, and 3 trials involving 123 patients compared meperidine to ketorolac. Meperidine was less effective than dihydroergotamine at providing headache relief (OR=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.97) and trended toward less efficacy than the antiemetics (OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11); however, the efficacy of meperidine was similar to that of ketorolac (OR=1.75; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.61). Compared to dihydroergotamine, meperidine caused more sedation (OR=3.52; 95% CI 0.87 to 14.19) and dizziness (OR=8.67; 95% CI 2.66 to 28.23). Compared to the antiemetics, meperidine caused less akathisia (OR=0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57). Meperidine and ketorolac use resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR=1.27; 95% CI 0.31 to 5.15) and sedation (OR=1.70; 95% CI 0.23 to 12.72). Conclusion: Clinicians should consider alternatives to meperidine when treating acute migraine with injectable agents. [Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52:705-713.]
引用
收藏
页码:705 / 713
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Efficacy of Vitamin D Supplements in Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infection: A Meta-analysis for Randomized Controlled Trials
    Cho, Herim
    Myung, Seung-Kwon
    Cho, Hae-Eun
    NUTRIENTS, 2022, 14 (06)
  • [32] The efficacy and safety of olaparib in the treatment of cancers: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Guo, Xiao Xia
    Wu, Hong Li
    Shia, Hong Yun
    Su, Lei
    Zhang, Xi
    CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2018, 10 : 2553 - 2562
  • [33] Efficacy and Safety of Mipomersen in Treatment of Dyslipidemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Panta, Raju
    Dahal, Khagendra
    ENDOCRINE REVIEWS, 2014, 35 (03)
  • [34] Efficacy of dexmedetomidine for treatment of patients with sepsis A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Zhang, Wen-Qing
    Xu, Po
    Zhan, Xiao-Hong
    Zheng, Peng
    Yang, Wei
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (18)
  • [35] Efficacy of bevacizumab in the treatment of pterygium: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Zhang, Xin
    Jiang, Yaping
    Fu, Qiangqiang
    Zhang, Xiaoyan
    Chen, Yihui
    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY, 2021, 98
  • [36] Efficacy of pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Yin, Jun
    Pan, Yuanming
    Zeng, Zhenhua
    Guo, Jianguo
    Yang, Juan
    Feng, Zhiying
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (11): : 20693 - 20701
  • [37] Efficacy and safety of mipomersen in treatment of dyslipidemia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Panta, Raju
    Dahal, Khagendra
    Kunwar, Sumit
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LIPIDOLOGY, 2015, 9 (02) : 217 - 225
  • [38] The efficacy of metformin treatment for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Jiang, Jialing
    Luo, Yong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2019, 12 (09): : 11010 - 11017
  • [39] Acute treatment of paediatric migraine: A meta-analysis of efficacy
    Silver, Shawna
    Gano, Dawn
    Gerretsen, Philip
    JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH, 2008, 44 (1-2) : 3 - 9
  • [40] Different dosage regimens of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of randomized controlled trials
    Gui, Tiantian
    Li, Hao
    Zhu, Feng
    Wang, Quan
    Zhou, Xiaoling
    Xue, Qun
    HEADACHE, 2022, 62 (10): : 1281 - 1292