Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 4: propranolol

The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 25, Article number: 119 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis.

Methods

We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

Results

Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30).

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Beta-blockers have a well-established history as prophylactic treatments for migraine, dating back to the late 1960s when propranolol was incidentally discovered to be effective in migraine prevention [1]. This discovery led to several clinical trials on the use of beta-blockers for migraine prophylaxis in the 1970s [2]. Beta-blockers have ever since become widely used treatment options and are still recommended as first-line treatments for migraine prophylaxis in all major treatment guidelines due to their established efficacy, safety profile, widespread availability and affordability [3,4,5].

Beta-blockers are antagonists of the β1(/2)-adrenoceptors, which are G-coupled protein receptors activated by catecholamines such as (nor)adrenaline. The most conspicuous mechanism of action is on the cardiovascular system, where blockade of β-adrenergic receptors leads via antagonism of the β1-adrenoceptor to a decrease in sympathetic activity, resulting in a decrease in heart rate and subsequent decrease in blood pressure [6, 7]. In addition, beta-blockers that also display affinity for the β2-adrenoceptor may induce a decrease in peripheral vasodilation [8].

Although the precise underlying mechanisms of the antimigraine effect of beta-blockers remain uncertain, several potential mechanisms of action have been proposed. One mechanism is the inhibition of the trigeminovascular system, as β1-adrenoceptor antagonism blocks trigeminovascular nociception in the ventroposteromedial nucleus of the thalamus. Moreover, propranolol can also block capsaicin-induced increases in trigeminally-innervated dermal blood flow unrelated to cardiovascular effects, possibly through agonism of presynaptic 5-HT1 receptors [9, 10]. Another potential mechanism involves the suppression of cortical spreading depression (CSD), as observed in a rat model [11], which may relate to altered neurotransmission in migraine pathways in the brain, thereby raising the attack threshold (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Potential mechanisms of action for the anti-migraine effect of the β1/2 receptor antagonist propranolol. By blocking β-adrenergic receptors, propranolol reduces blood pressure by decreasing sympathetic innervation [6, 7]. Furthermore, blockade of β1-adrenergic receptors in the thalamus may block the trigeminovascular pain pathway, however, there are contradicting findings on the importance of this potential pathway. Propranolol can block capsaicin-mediated vasodilation mediated by the trigeminal nerve, possibly through agonism of presynaptic 5-HT1 receptors [9]. Activation of 5-HT1 receptors can block release of CGRP, leading to reduced vasodilation and nociception

Full size image

Although beta-blockers are thought to be effective in migraine prophylaxis as a class, a meta-analysis has demonstrated that propranolol is the most efficacious, while metoprolol is likely effective. In contrast, atenolol, bisoprolol, and timolol had only weak evidence of benefit, and acebutolol, alprenolol, and nadolol were found to be ineffective [12]. Overall however, due to limited trial data for most beta-blockers particularly those studied in fewer than three trials, the conclusions regarding their efficacy are less certain [12]. The variability in effectiveness may also be attributed to differences in selectivity or competitiveness for β1/2-adrenoceptors, lipid solubility and ability to cross the BBB, affinities for 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin or 5-HT) 5-HT1, 5-HT2B and 5-HT2C r$eceptors, and/or propranolol’s ability to block inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) [13]. Most interestingly, some beta-blockers, including propranolol, have also been described to act as agonists at the 5-HT1B/1D receptor, and might thus have a presynaptic inhibiting effect on CGRP release, similar as the triptans have [14].

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of published trials to evaluate the efficacy of propranolol compared to placebo in the prophylactic management of migraine. This re-appraisal is part of a larger work initiated by the EHF where the same effort has already been done for flunarizine, amitriptyline and topiramate [15,16,17].

Methods

This work is the fourth study of the EHF series aiming to re-appraise different types of classic migraine preventive medications, so the methods for this review have been previously described in detail [15,16,17].

In summary, we report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) [18].

Search strategy

In consultation with an experienced research librarian, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022 for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis, without language restrictions. We supplemented our search by retrieving references of similar systematic reviews and meta-analyses [12].

Screening and study eligibility

Following training and calibration exercises to ensure sufficient agreement, pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed titles and abstracts of search records and subsequently the full-text of records deemed potentially eligible at the title and abstract screening stage. Reviewers resolved discrepancies by discussion, or, when necessary, by adjudication with a third viewer. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. We excluded trials that investigated abortive rather than prophylactic interventions and trials that randomized children or adolescents. We excluded trials that randomized fewer than 25 participants. We anticipated that smaller trials may be unrepresentative and at higher risk of publication bias [19].

Data extraction

Following training and calibration exercises to ensure sufficient agreement, pairs of reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to collect data from eligible trials using a pilot-tested Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel 2019). Reviewers resolved discrepancies by discussion and if necessary, by adjudication with a third party. We extracted trial characteristics, patient characteristics, diagnostic criteria, type of migraine, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest at the longest reported follow-up time at which patients were still using the interventions being investigated. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the reduction of migraine days per month, the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation [20]. We prioritized extracting monthly migraine days when reported but also extracted monthly headache days or monthly migraine attacks when monthly migraine days were not reported. We acknowledge that there may be heterogeneity in how trials define migraine and headache days. For example, monthly migraine days may be averaged over a single month or extrapolated based on measurements of migraine days over several weeks. In such cases, we pooled results despite heterogeneity in outcome definitions. We anticipated that since both the intervention and comparator arm outcome would be measured similarly, the mean difference between them - the statistic meta-analyzed - would be consistent across trials. For all outcomes, we extracted results at the longest reported point of follow-up. We identified one crossover trial, which we treated as a parallel group trial in meta-analyses, an overall conservative approach to including data from crossover trials since it does not account for correlation within individuals and reduces the weight of the trial in the meta-analysis.

Risk of bias assessments

Following training and calibration to ensure sufficient agreement, reviewers working independently and in duplicate, assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool [21]. For each trial, we rated each outcome as either ‘low risk of bias’, ‘some concerns–probably low risk of bias’, ‘some concerns–probably high risk of bias’, and ‘high risk of bias’ across the following domains: bias arising from the randomization process, bias due to departures from the intended intervention, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome, and bias in the selection of the reported results. Reviewers resolved discrepancies by discussion and if necessary, by adjudication with a third reviewer.

Data synthesis and analysis

For all outcomes, we performed frequentist random-effects meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. We analyzed a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days as relative risks, the reduction in monthly migraine days as mean differences, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation as risk differences. To facilitate interpretation, we report dichotomous outcomes as number of events per 1,000 patients.

We summarize heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and interpret an I2 value of 0% to 40% as not important, 30% to 60% as moderate heterogeneity, 50% to 90% as substantial heterogeneity, and 75% to 100% as considerable heterogeneity [22].

We anticipated that the effects of treatments may vary based on the risk of bias, baseline monthly migraine days, and the proportion of patients that had previously used prophylactic therapy. To test for subgroup effects based on these factors, we performed pairwise meta-regressions comparing results rated at low versus high risk of bias and trials below versus above the median number of monthly migraine days or proportion of patients that had previously used prophylactic therapy.

Inferences of effect modification, also known as subgroup effects, often prove spurious. Such spurious claims may be attributed to testing many factors, leading to apparent but inaccurate evidence of effect modification due to chance, selective reporting, or improper statistical analysis. To avoid misleading claims of effect modification, we assessed the credibility of subgroup effects using the ICEMAN tool - the gold standard tool for evaluating effect modification [23].

We performed all analyses using the meta and metafor packages in R (version 4.1.2) [24].

Assessment of the certainty (quality) of evidence

We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach [25]. For each outcome, we rated the certainty of each comparison as either high, moderate, low, or very low based on the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. We made judgements of imprecision using the minimally contextualized approach [26]. The minimally contextualised approach considers only whether confidence intervals include the null effect and thus does not consider whether plausible effects, captured by confidence intervals, include both important and trivial effects. To evaluate the certainty of no effect, we used minimally important differences, sourced from the literature and by consensus from the authors. We considered a 15% increase in the proportion of patients who experienced a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, 2 monthly migraine days, and a 2% increase in patients who experienced adverse events leading to discontinuation as minimally important.

We report results using GRADE simple language summaries (i.e., describing high certainty evidence with declarative statements, moderate certainty evidence with ‘probably’, low certainty evidence with ‘may’ and very low indicated by ‘very uncertain’) [27].

Results

Data synthesis and analysis

Our search yielded 10,826 records. Fifty-nine trials were identified that investigated propranolol for migraine. Thirty-seven were excluded because they did not include a placebo arm or randomized fewer than 25 patients and two were excluded because they were not randomized. Twenty trials met the inclusion criteria and were used for quantitative analysis, covering a period from 1972 to 2014 [2, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Figure 2 presents details about study selection. Among the trials that were included, 10 of them used the definition of migraine from the Ad hoc committee on the classification of headache [46], while only 6 used the International Classification of Headache Disorders [47]. The remaining trials did not provide information on migraine diagnostic criteria. Most trials were single center studies (n = 13, 65%) and were conducted in the USA (6), Scandinavia (5), the UK (1) and New Zealand (1). Out of the seven multicenter trials, only two were international, while the other multicenter trials were conducted in Scandinavia (2), the USA (2), and France (1).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Selection of studies for the systematic review

Full size image

In total, 1291 participants, with an average age of 38.6 years, were included in these studies, with females comprising 78.9% of the sample. Propranolol daily dosages varied between 60 and 320 mg and the study duration varied between 4 and 24 months. The risk of bias of the eligible trials is presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias assessment

Full size image

Monthly migraine days

Twelve trials, including 642 patients, reported on the reduction in monthly migraine days [2, 31, 33, 35, 37,38,39,40, 42, 43, 48]. We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol reduces monthly migraine days with a mean difference of 1.27 days (95% CI 0.3 to 2.25) compared to placebo. Only three of these trials were considered as (probably) low risk of bias [31, 33, 43] (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1).

Table 1 Propranolol compared to placebo for migraine prophylaxis
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of analysis comparing propranolol with placebo for the reduction in monthly migraine days

Full size image

50% responder rate

Seven trials reported on 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days comprising a total of 592 patients [30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43]. Overall, we found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol probably increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (Fig. 5). The certainty of evidence was downgraded by one level due to concerns about the risk of bias (Fig. 3). Across eligible trials, the relative effect of propranolol compared to placebo was 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93) (Table 1).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of analysis comparing propranolol with placebo for 50% responder rate

Full size image

Adverse events leading to discontinuation

Adverse events leading to discontinuation could be assessed in 15 trials involving 893 subjects, with a higher incidence observed in those receiving propranolol compared to those receiving placebo, with a risk difference of 20 per 1000 (Fig. 6, Table 1). Only 5 trials were considered as (probably) low risk of bias (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, this lesser tolerance of propranolol received a high level of certainty GRADE rating. In the propranolol group, 70 patients (8%, versus 4% with placebo) discontinued treatment due to side effects. Out of these, four were considered serious adverse events (SAEs), being one case of hepatitis and three cases of incident pregnancies. The most commonly reported adverse events were tiredness/reduced physical capacity (32.1% of reported AEs), nausea/vomiting (11.4%), insomnia/sleep disturbances including nightmares or vivid dreams (9.1%), dizziness (6.7%), bodily, neck, or low back pain (6.5%), and numbness (5.7%). Other adverse events reported included symptoms related to the gastric tract (heartburn or unspecified pain, diarrhea/constipation), cardiovascular symptoms (low heart rate, low blood pressure or palpitations), depression, somnolence, malaise, appetite changes (increased/decreased), weight changes (gain/loss), cognitive symptoms related to attention and memory and to a lesser extent Raynaud phenomenon and bronchospasm.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot of analysis comparing propranolol with placebo for adverse events leading to discontinuation

Full size image

Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis confirm the efficacy of propranolol for the prevention of migraine based on both monthly migraine days and 50% responder rate, both outcomes graded with a moderate certainty GRADE evidence. Comparing the results to a previously performed meta-analysis performed by Jackson et al. we can conclude that the magnitude of effect is in line with the present findings [12]. Small difference could be related to the fact that the former meta-analysis looked at beta-blockers as a class and, moreover, a slightly different endpoint was used (headaches/month). Putting results in a larger perspective, both the magnitude of clinical efficacy and its adverse events leading to discontinuation of propranolol are in line with results found with current CGRP-based preventive treatments [49]. The latter however are only available at a significantly higher cost or, worse, are not even affordable by a public health system. Based on the above, the prominent place of propranolol in most guidelines where it is generally considered as one of or even the first line prophylactic agent in migraine seems justified. The latter is reinforced by the fact that propranolol was the first agent providing evidence for prophylaxis in migraine, its ease of use, global availability and its low cost. This ease of use and global availability at a low cost is critical given the enormous challenges that lie ahead of us related to the global headache burden [50]. In light of this global burden, one should indeed be aware of the fact that the large majority not receiving preventive therapy for migraine originate from low-to-medium-income countries [51, 52].

With 15 randomized controlled trials providing efficacy data for propranolol, this agent largely outnumbers all other prophylactic agents in migraine concerning the number of trials. However, one needs to be aware of the fact that most of these trials are small, prone to several risks of bias and were not performed in line with recent guidelines on drug trials in migraine prevention [53]. Also, most if not all evidence in migraine prophylaxis is gathered in episodic migraine. Only one recent study evaluated the efficacy of propranolol versus topiramate in chronic migraine where both yielded similar efficacy results [54]. This lack of evidence in chronic migraine is true for almost all conventional prophylactic drugs except partly for topiramate. The primary reason for this is the relatively recent recognition of chronic migraine as a distinct condition, with its current diagnostic criteria incorporated into the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) as recently as 2013 [55].

The effectiveness of propranolol in migraine is further substantiated by efficacy data of several other beta-blocking agents either based on randomized placebo-controlled trials or comparative studies. Indeed, also metoprolol and to a lesser extent atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol, nadolol, nebivolol and pindolol are therefore often used in the prophylaxis of migraine. In fact, it is generally considered that all beta-blockers have prophylactic potential in migraine except most probably those with intrinsic sympathetic activity like acebutolol. However, this assumption is only partly substantiated by evidence based on randomized controlled clinical trials [56, 57].

The present meta-analysis concluded with high certainty that propranolol leads to more discontinuations due to side-effects compared to placebo. The magnitude of this effect seems small however, certainly when compared to other oral drugs used in migraine prevention like topiramate, amitriptyline and valproate [58, 59]. Moreover, no SAEs were reported in any of the eligible trials. All this reflects clinical practice where propranolol is overall well tolerated on average and serious side-effects are almost non-existent. The different characteristics of other beta-blockers can even be used in case of side-effects without losing efficacy e.g. switching to a cardioselective beta-blocker like metoprolol in case of (a history of) asthmatic disease and to a lesser extent obstructive pulmonary disease [60]. Similarly, atenolol can be used in case of sleep disturbances since its lower lipophilicity results in limited BBB penetrance, although other mechanisms might be involved in central nervous system side effects as well [61]. Finally, nebivolol is unlikely to cause Raynaud’s phenomenon due to its vasodilating capacity [62].

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis confirms that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, although the trials providing evidence for this vary widely in terms of quality and are often prone to bias. Furthermore, propranolol demonstrates a favorable safety profile. Considering also its extensive history of use and widespread availability at a low cost, its placement as a first-line therapeutic agent in migraine prophylaxis seems justified.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

AEs:

Adverse events

BBB:

Blood brain barrier

Ca2+ :

Calcium cations

CGRP:

Calcitonin gene-related peptide

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

CSD:

Cortical spreading depression

ICHD:

International Classification of Headache Disorders

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews

COSMIG:

Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine

RCT:

Randomised Controlled Trial

SAE:

Serious adverse event

References

  1. Rabkin R, Stables DP, Levin NW, Suzman MM (1966) The prophylactic value of propranolol in angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 18(3):370–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wideroe TE, Vigander T (1974) Propranolol in the treatment of migraine. Br Med J 2(5921):699–701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS, Board of Directors of the American Headache S (2021) The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 61(7):1021–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Steiner TJ, Jensen R, Katsarava Z, Linde M, MacGregor EA, Osipova V et al (2019) Aids to management of headache disorders in primary care (2nd edition): on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. J Headache Pain 20(1):57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Evers S, Afra J, Frese A, Goadsby PJ, Linde M, May A et al (2009) EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine–revised report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol 16(9):968–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Takeda K, Bunag RD (1980) Chronic propranolol treatment inhibits sympathetic nerve activity and keeps blood pressure from rising in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2(2):228–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis P (1976) The essential action of propranolol in hypertension. Am J Med 60(6):837–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Majed AA, Bakheit AHH, Abdel Aziz HA, Alajmi FM, AlRabiah H (2017) Propranolol. Profiles Drug Subst Excip Relat Methodol 42:287–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rubio-Beltran E, Schoon RM, van den Berg J, Schuiling-Veninga CCM, Koch BCP, Villalon CM et al (2022) Trigeminovascular effects of propranolol in men and women, role for sex steroids. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 9(9):1405–1416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shields KG, Goadsby PJ (2005) Propranolol modulates trigeminovascular responses in thalamic ventroposteromedial nucleus: a role in migraine? Brain 128(Pt 1):86–97

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ayata C, Jin H, Kudo C, Dalkara T, Moskowitz MA (2006) Suppression of cortical spreading depression in migraine prophylaxis. Ann Neurol 59(4):652–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Kuwatsuka Y, Nickoloff S, Storch D, Jackson W et al (2019) Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 14(3):e0212785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fumagalli C, Maurizi N, Marchionni N, Fornasari D (2020) beta-blockers: Their new life from hypertension to cancer and migraine. Pharmacol Res 151:104587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Adham N, Ellerbrock B, Hartig P, Weinshank RL, Branchek T (1993) Receptor reserve masks partial agonist activity of drugs in a cloned rat 5-hydroxytryptamine1B receptor expression system. Mol Pharmacol 43(3):427–433

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Raffaelli B, Garcia-Azorin D, Boucherie DM, Amin FM, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R et al (2023) European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate. J Headache Pain 24(1):134

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lampl C, Versijpt J, Amin FM, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Jassal T et al (2023) European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline. J Headache Pain 24(1):39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Deligianni CI, Sacco S, Ekizoglu E, Uluduz D, Gil-Gouveia R, MaassenVanDenBrink A et al (2023) European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine. J Headache Pain 24(1):128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dickersin K, Min YI (1993) Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:135–46. discussion 46–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haywood K, Potter R, Froud R, Pearce G, Box B, Muldoon L et al (2021) Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG): an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative. BMJ Open 11(11):e043242

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Siemieniuk RA, Bartoszko JJ, Zeraatkar D, Kum E, Qasim A, Martinez JPD et al (2020) Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 370:m2980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, Schmid CH, Devasenapathy N, Hayward RA et al (2020) Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ 192(32):E901–E906

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22(4):153–160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, Siemieniuk RAC, Santesso N, Traversy G et al (2021) GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 137:163–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, Garner P, Akl EA, Alper B et al (2020) GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 119:126–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Al-Qassab HK, Findley LJ. Comparison of propranolol LA 80 mg and propranolol LA 160 mg in migraine prophylaxis: a placebo controlled study. Cephalalgia. 1993;13(2):128–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Diamond S, Medina JL (1976) Double blind study of propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Headache 16(1):24–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Diener HC, Foh M, Iaccarino C, Wessely P, Isler H, Strenge H et al (1996) Cyclandelate in the prophylaxis of migraine: a randomized, parallel, double-blind study in comparison with placebo and propranolol. The Study group Cephalalgia 16(6):441–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Diener HC, Tfelt-Hansen P, Dahlof C, Lainez MJ, Sandrini G, Wang SJ et al (2004) Topiramate in migraine prophylaxis–results from a placebo-controlled trial with propranolol as an active control. J Neurol 251(8):943–950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Forssman B, Henriksson KG, Johannsson V, Lindvall L, Lundin H (1976) Propranolol for migraine prophylaxis. Headache 16(5):238–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Holroyd KA, Cottrell CK, O’Donnell FJ, Cordingley GE, Drew JB, Carlson BW et al (2010) Effect of preventive (beta blocker) treatment, behavioural migraine management, or their combination on outcomes of optimised acute treatment in frequent migraine: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341:c4871

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Malvea BP, Gwon N, Graham JR (1973) Propranolol prophylaxis of migraine. Headache 12(4):163–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mikkelsen B, Pedersen KK, Christiansen LV (1986) Prophylactic treatment of migraine with tolfenamic acid, propranolol and placebo. Acta Neurol Scand 73(4):423–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nadelmann JW, Phil M, Stevens J, Saper JR (1986) Propranolol in the prophylaxis of migraine. Headache 26(4):175–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pradalier A, Serratrice G, Collard M, Hirsch E, Feve J, Masson M et al (1989) Long-acting propranolol in migraine prophylaxis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia 9(4):247–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sargent J, Solbach P, Damasio H, Baumel B, Corbett J, Eisner L et al (1985) A comparison of naproxen sodium to propranolol hydrochloride and a placebo control for the prophylaxis of migraine headache. Headache 25(6):320–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Lindblad AS, Holroyd K, Harrington M, Mathew NT et al (2012) Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of propranolol added to topiramate in chronic migraine. Neurology 78(13):976–984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Standnes B (1982) The prophylactic effect of timolol versus propranolol and placebo in common migraine: beta-blockers in migraine. Cephalalgia 2(3):165–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stensrud P, Sjaastad O (1980) Comparative trial of Tenormin (atenolol) and Inderal (propranolol) in migraine. Headache 20(4):204–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Stovner LJ, Linde M, Gravdahl GB, Tronvik E, Aamodt AH, Sand T et al (2014) A comparative study of candesartan versus propranolol for migraine prophylaxis: A randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, double cross-over study. Cephalalgia 34(7):523–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tfelt-Hansen P, Standnes B, Kangasneimi P, Hakkarainen H, Olesen J (1984) Timolol vs propranolol vs placebo in common migraine prophylaxis: a double-blind multicenter trial. Acta Neurol Scand 69(1):1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weber RB, Reinmuth OM (1972) The treatment of migraine with propranolol. Neurology 22(4):366–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ziegler DK, Hurwitz A, Preskorn S, Hassanein R, Seim J (1993) Propranolol and amitriptyline in prophylaxis of migraine. Pharmacokinetic and therapeutic effects Arch Neurol 50(8):825–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nappi G, Agnoli A, Manzoni GC, Nattero G, Sicuteri F (1989) Classification and diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders (Ad Hoc Committee IHS, 1988). Funct Neurol 4(1):65–71

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(1):1–211.

  48. Johnson RH, Hornabrook RW, Lambie DG (1986) Comparison of mefenamic acid and propranolol with placebo in migraine prophylaxis. Acta Neurol Scand 73(5):490–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lampl C, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Jassal T, Sanchez-Del-Rio M et al (2023) The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 24(1):56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Martelletti P, Leonardi M, Ashina M, Burstein R, Cho SJ, Charway-Felli A et al (2023) Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030. J Headache Pain 24(1):140

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Leonardi M, Martelletti P, Burstein R, Fornari A, Grazzi L, Guekht A et al (2024) The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders. J Headache Pain 25(1):4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Raggi A, Leonardi M, Martelletti P (2024) A proposal of actions for stakeholders and policy makers to address the global burden of headache disorders by 2030: why is this important for global health? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 24(4):459–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Diener HC, Tassorelli C, Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Ashina M et al (2020) Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of migraine attacks in episodic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia 40(10):1026–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chowdhury D, Bansal L, Duggal A, Datta D, Mundra A, Krishnan A, et al (2021) TOP-PRO study: a randomized double-blind controlled trial of topiramate versus propranolol for prevention of chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 42(4-5):396–408.

  55. Schwedt TJ (2014) Chronic migraine. BMJ 348:g1416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Limmroth V, Michel MC (2001) The prevention of migraine: a critical review with special emphasis on beta-adrenoceptor blockers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 52(3):237–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Nanda RN, Johnson RH, Gray J, Keogh HJ, Melville ID (1978) A double blind trial of acebutolol for migraine prophylaxis. Headache 18(1):20–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vandervorst F, Van Deun L, Van Dycke A, Paemeleire K, Reuter U, Schoenen J et al (2021) CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs. J Headache Pain 22(1):128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB (2015) Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 35(6):478–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Baker JG (2005) The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists at the human beta1, beta2 and beta3 adrenoceptors. Br J Pharmacol 144(3):317–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Laurens C, Abot A, Delarue A, Knauf C (2019) Central effects of beta-blockers may be due to nitric oxide and hydrogen peroxide release independently of their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Front Neurosci 13:33

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Schellenberg R, Lichtenthal A, Wohling H, Graf C, Brixius K (2008) Nebivolol and metoprolol for treating migraine: an advance on beta-blocker treatment? Headache 48(1):118–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Figure 1 was designed using Servier Medical Art by Servier (smart.servier.com), licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. We also thank Sarah Kirsh and Jordan Pepper for their valuable contribution to the statistical analysis.

Funding

This paper was funded by the European Headache Federation (EHF).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jan Versijpt, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, Christian Lampl and Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium

    Jan Versijpt

  2. Department of Neurology, Athens Naval Hospital, Athens, Greece

    Christina Deligianni

  3. Department of Anesthesia and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Muizz Hussain & Dena Zeraatkar

  4. Department of Neurology, Danish Headache Center, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Faisal Amin

  5. Department of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Uwe Reuter

  6. Department of Neurology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain

    Margarita Sanchez-del-Rio

  7. Department of Neurology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Derya Uluduz

  8. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Erasmus MC Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Deirdre Boucherie & Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink

  9. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L´Aquila, Rome, Italy

    Simona Sacco

  10. Department of Neurology and Stroke Unit Konventhospital Barmherzige Brüder Linz, Linz, Austria

    Christian Lampl

  11. Neurology Department, Hospital da Luz Headache Center, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Raquel Gil-Gouveia

Authors
  1. Jan Versijpt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Deligianni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muizz Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Faisal Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Uwe Reuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Margarita Sanchez-del-Rio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Derya Uluduz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Deirdre Boucherie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dena Zeraatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Simona Sacco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Christian Lampl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Raquel Gil-Gouveia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JV and RG initiated the review drafting and revision of the article. All authors contributed with a critical review and revision of the article. Statistical analyses were performed by DZ and MH. AMvdB, DB, and DZ prepared figures and tables. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Versijpt.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

NA.

Consent for publication

NA.

Competing interests

FA reports personal fees for lecturing and/or participating in advisory board for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva. RGG reports honoraria for lectures/presentations from AbbVie/Allergan, Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva, Organon, Pfizer; participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Amgen, Novartis and Lundbeck; received research grants from Novartis. CD has received IHS research fellowship grant and Hellenic Society of Neurology scholarship. AMvdB received honoraria, research and/or travel grants from Allergan/Abbvie, Amgen/Novartis, Eli Lilly, Satsuma and Teva as principal investigator. JV received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Teva, personal fees from Novartis and Lundbeck, and grants and nonfinancial support from Allergan/AbbVie. SS reports personal fees as speaker or advisor for Abbott, Allergan-Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, Teva; research grants from Novartis and Uriach; fees for CME/education from Medscape and Neurodiem Ology Medical Education; Intellectual as president elect European Stroke Organisation, second vice president of the European Headache Federation, specialty chief editor in Headache and Neurogenic Pain for Frontiers in Neurology, associate editor for The Journal of Headache and Pain, assistant editor for Stroke. CL has received consulting fees and honoraria for lectures/presentations from AbbVie/Allergan, Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva. CL participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Eli Lilly. Intellectual as president of the European Headache Federation, associate editor for The Journal of Headache and Pain.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Versijpt, J., Deligianni, C., Hussain, M. et al. European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 4: propranolol. J Headache Pain 25, 119 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01826-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01826-y

The Journal of Headache and Pain

ISSN: 1129-2377

Contact us