A Randomized Controlled Trial of Prochlorperazine Versus Metoclopramide for Treatment of Acute Migraine
Study objective
We compare prochlorperazine 10 mg intravenously versus metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously for the emergency department (ED) treatment of acute migraine.
Methods
This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing 2 parenteral dopamine antagonists. Both drugs were administered during 15 minutes with 25 mg intravenous diphenhydramine. Pain scores on a numeric rating scale were assessed at baseline, every 30 minutes for 2 hours, and by telephone 24 hours after discharge. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 1 hour postbaseline. Secondary endpoints included mean differences in change in numeric rating scale at 2 and 24 hours, headache relief, adverse effects, and desire to receive the same treatment for future migraines.
Results
Of 152 patients screened, 97 were eligible and 77 were randomized. The mean change in numeric rating scale scores at 1 hour was 5.5 and 5.2 in subjects receiving prochlorperazine and metoclopramide, respectively (difference=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.0 to 1.6). Findings were similar at 2 hours and 24 hours. Forty-six percent (18/39) of prochlorperazine and 32% (12/38) of metoclopramide subjects reported adverse events (difference=15%; 95% CI –6% to 36%). Seventy-seven percent (26/34) of prochlorperazine and 73% (27/37) of metoclopramide subjects wanted to receive the same medication in future ED visits (difference=4%; 95% CI –16% to 24%).
Conclusion
Either prochlorperazine 10 mg intravenously or metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously, combined with diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously, is an efficacious treatment for ED patients with acute migraine. Three quarters of subjects in both arms would want the same medication for their next migraine.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Supervising editor: Knox H. Todd, MD, MPH
Author contributions: BWF, DE, CS, EC, MH, JP, PB, and EJG conceived the study and designed the trial. BWF, RBL, and EJG obtained research funding. BWF, ND, PG, RR, and TV supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. BWF, TV, ND, PG, and RR undertook recruitment of participating centers and patients. BWF, CC, and AA managed the data, including quality control. BWF, PB, RBL, and EJG provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. BWF drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. BWF takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. Dr. Friedman is supported through a career development award (1K23NS051409-01A1) from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Publication dates: Available online November 19, 2007.
Reprints not available from the authors.
PII: S0196-0644(07)01557-0
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.09.027
© 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
