Share this Article
Loo CY, Tan HJ, Teh HS, Raymond AA
Correspondence: Dr Loo Chee Yean, firstname.lastname@example.org
Introduction Migraine is a common disabling condition that results in considerable socioeconomic loss. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in acute migraine has been well-established. We compared the efficacy of the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib with the NSAID, naproxen sodium, in the treatment of acute migraine.
Methods This was a randomised, open label, controlled trial. We selected patients with a diagnosis of migraine, based on the International Headache Society revised criteria. 60 patients were randomised to either celecoxib 400 mg (30 patients) or naproxen sodium 550 mg (30 patients). Patients took the study medicine for the first acute migraine episode that occurred during the study period and reported the headache reduction based on a visual analogue score (VAS). Patients were reviewed after a month to check on VAS at one and two hours, compared to the baseline. Any side effects of the medication were also recorded.
Results Of the 52 patients who completed the study, eight did not experience any headaches. The mean VAS in the celecoxib group improved significantly from baseline (6.48 +/- 1.53) to one hour (4.28 +/- 2.11) and two hours (2.24 +/- 2.57) (p-value is less than 0.0005). The mean VAS in the naproxen sodium group also improved significantly from baseline (7.30 +/- 1.66) to one hour (4.81 +/- 2.50) and two hours (2.63 +/- 2.65) (p-value is less than 0.0005). However, there was no significant difference between the magnitudes of improvement between the treatment groups. The incidence of gastric pain was significantly higher in the naproxen sodium group (p-value is equal to 0.029).
Conclusion In comparison with naproxen sodium, celecoxib was equally effective in relieving pain in acute migraine and caused significantly less gastric pain.
Keywords: acute migraine, celecoxib, drug side-effects, gastric pain, migraine, naproxen sodium, visual analogue score
Singapore Med J 2007; 48(9): 834–839