Clinical and vascular responses to propranolol and candesartan in migraine patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Q3 Medicine
Aros Dlawer Barzenje, K. Gjesdal, B. Winsvold, M. Småstuen, L. Stovner, G. Gravdahl, K. Nilsen
{"title":"Clinical and vascular responses to propranolol and candesartan in migraine patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial","authors":"Aros Dlawer Barzenje, K. Gjesdal, B. Winsvold, M. Småstuen, L. Stovner, G. Gravdahl, K. Nilsen","doi":"10.1177/2515816320946491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Both propranolol and candesartan are prophylactic drugs for migraine, but with unknown mechanisms of action. The objectives of the present study were to investigate these drugs’ effects on arterial wall dynamics and the potential relation between their vascular and clinical effect. Methods: The study was based on data from a previously published randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, double crossover clinical trial comparing the prophylactic effects of candesartan and propranolol in 72 patients. Finapres noninvasive blood pressure curves were analyzed. On the descending limb of the pulse curve, a notch is produced by pulse wave reflection, and its relative height compared to the top of the curve (the notch ratio) was used as a marker of arterial wall stiffness. Results: Candesartan decreased the notch ratio from baseline (p = 0.005), reflecting more compliant arteries and vasodilation, whereas propranolol increased the notch ratio (p = 0.005), reflecting less compliant arteries and vasoconstriction. There was no difference in baseline notch ratio between clinical responders and nonresponders. Conclusion: The drugs are both efficient prophylactic medications, yet they have opposite effects on arterial wall dynamics. This suggests that drug effects other than those on arterial compliance must be responsible for their prophylactic effect in migraine.","PeriodicalId":9702,"journal":{"name":"Cephalalgia Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2515816320946491","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cephalalgia Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2515816320946491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Both propranolol and candesartan are prophylactic drugs for migraine, but with unknown mechanisms of action. The objectives of the present study were to investigate these drugs’ effects on arterial wall dynamics and the potential relation between their vascular and clinical effect. Methods: The study was based on data from a previously published randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, double crossover clinical trial comparing the prophylactic effects of candesartan and propranolol in 72 patients. Finapres noninvasive blood pressure curves were analyzed. On the descending limb of the pulse curve, a notch is produced by pulse wave reflection, and its relative height compared to the top of the curve (the notch ratio) was used as a marker of arterial wall stiffness. Results: Candesartan decreased the notch ratio from baseline (p = 0.005), reflecting more compliant arteries and vasodilation, whereas propranolol increased the notch ratio (p = 0.005), reflecting less compliant arteries and vasoconstriction. There was no difference in baseline notch ratio between clinical responders and nonresponders. Conclusion: The drugs are both efficient prophylactic medications, yet they have opposite effects on arterial wall dynamics. This suggests that drug effects other than those on arterial compliance must be responsible for their prophylactic effect in migraine.
普萘洛尔和坎地沙坦对偏头痛患者的临床和血管反应:一项随机对照临床试验
背景:普萘洛尔和坎地沙坦都是偏头痛的预防药物,但作用机制尚不清楚。本研究的目的是研究这些药物对动脉壁动力学的影响,以及它们的血管和临床效果之间的潜在关系。方法:该研究基于先前发表的一项随机、安慰剂对照、三盲、双交叉临床试验的数据,该试验比较了坎地沙坦和普萘洛尔对72名患者的预防效果。分析Finapres无创血压曲线。在脉搏曲线的下行肢体上,脉搏波反射产生一个缺口,其与曲线顶部的相对高度(缺口比)被用作动脉壁硬度的标志。结果:坎地沙坦较基线时降低了切迹比(p=0.005),反映了更顺应性的动脉和血管舒张,而普萘洛尔增加了切迹率(p=0.0005),反映出更不顺应性的血管和血管收缩。临床应答者和无应答者的基线缺口比没有差异。结论:这两种药物都是有效的预防药物,但对动脉壁动力学有相反的影响。这表明,除对动脉顺应性的药物作用外,其他药物作用必须对其对偏头痛的预防作用负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cephalalgia Reports
Cephalalgia Reports Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信