Evidence Table 5Efficacy of Beta-Blockers1,2

StudyTreatment# of patients improved/N (%)Odds ratioMean ValuesEffect size or p-value
NBefore TreatmentAfter Treatment
COMPARISONS WITH PLACEBO
Propranolol
Ahuja and Verma, 1985Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 2 mos--26*-20.690.58 (0.02 to 1.1)
HI
Placebo-26*-38.00
Al-Qassab and Findley, 1993Propranolol (long-acting), 160 mg/day for 2 mos--30*-3.8 (median)n.s. (p > 0.96)
HF
Placebo-30*-3.2 (median)
Al-Qassab and Findley, 1993Propranolol (long-acting), 80 mg/day for 2 mos--30*-3.8 (median)n.s. (p > 0.63)
HF
Placebo-30*-3.2 (median)
Børgesen, Nielsen, and Møller, 1974Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 8 wks15/30 (50%)2.3 (0.81 to 6.7)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
30*1.771.030.44 (0.09 to 0.80)
HF
Placebo9/30 (30%)30*1.771.33
Dahlöf, 1987Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 1 mo--28*-3.20.52 (−0.01 to 1.1)
HF
Placebo-28*-4.3
Diamond and Medina, 1976Propranolol, 80– 160 mg/day for 4 – 8 wks (patients preference)--62*---
Placebo-62*--
Forssman, Henriksson, Johannsson, et al., 1976Propranolol, 240 mg/day (dosage gradually increased to this level) for 10 wks--32*5.143.000.56 (0.06 to 1.1)
HI
Placebo-32*5.144.77
Johnson, Hornabrook, and Lambie, 1986Propranolol, 240 mg/day for 3 mos--17*-13.80.45 (−0.23 to 1.1)
HF
Placebo-17*-20.1
Kuritzky and Hering, 1987Propranolol (long-acting), 160 mg/day for 1 mo--31*-3.23p=0.014 (propranolol better)
HF
Placebo-31*-5.56
Malvea, Gwon, and Graham, 1973Propranolol, dose N/S, for 6 wks--29*25.418.6-
HI
Placebo-29*25.423.3
Mikkelsen, Kjærsgaard-Pedersen, and Christiansen, 1986Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos--31*--0.52 (0.17 to 0.88)
HF
Placebo-31*--
Palferman, Gibberd, and Simmonds, 1983Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 2 mos--10*-47n.s. (p>0.05)
HI
Placebo-10*-52
Pita, Higueras, Bolaños, et al., 1977Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos--8*-2.251.1 (0.33 to 1.8)
HF
Placebo-8*-7.5
Pradalier, Serratrice, Collard, et al., 1989bPropranolol (long-acting), 160 mg/day for 12 wks--316.113.150.38 (−0.16 to 0.91)
HF
Placebo-246.006.41
Sargent, Solbach, Damasio, et al., 1985Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos--44-0.21 (difference from baseline)0.25 (−0.17 to 0.67)
HF
Placebo-43-−0.25 (difference from baseline)
Solomon, 1986Propranolol (long-acting), 120 mg/day for 2 mos--15*-4.5p<0.05 (propranolol better)
HF
Placebo-15*-6.0
Stensrud and Sjaastad, 1976bPropranolol (Inderal®), 160 mg/day for 4 wks--19*-7.470.61 (0.17 to 1.05)
HF
Placebo-19*-12.32
Stensrud and Sjaastad, 1980aPropranolol, 160 mg/day for 6 wks--28*--n.s. (no p-value reported)
HI
Placebo-28*--
Tfelt-Hansen, Standnes, Kangasniemi, et al., 1984Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 12 wks48/80* (60%)3.5 (1.8 to 6.7)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
80*-6.660.38 (0.07 to 0.70)
HI
Placebo24/80* (30%)80*-9.03
Weber and Reinmuth, 1972Propranolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos15/19 (79%)31.5 (5.1 to 195)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
19*---
Placebo2/19 (11%)19*--
Widerøe and Vigander, 1974Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos--26*3.00.41.1 (0.68 to 1.4)
HF
Placebo-26*3.01.7
Ziegler, Hurwitz, Hassanein, et al., 1987Propranolol, 80–240 mg/day for 2 mos--30*-404.6p<0.05 (propranolol better)
HI
Placebo-30*-510.8
CombinedTest for homogeneity: Chi-square =6.5, d.f.=2, p=0.04Test for homogeneity: Chi-square =15.0, d.f.=11, p=0.180.55 (0.43 to 0.68)
Metoprolol
Andersson, Dahl, Hansen, et al., 1983Metoprolol, 200 mg/day (controlled release) for 2 mos10/30 (33%)3.9 (1.1 to 14) ≥ 50% reduction in HI3017.6311.950.58 (0.08 to 1.1)
HI
Placebo4/35 (11%)3516.3316.51
Kangasniemi, Andersen, Andersson, et al., 1987Metoprolol, 200 mg/day (slow-release tabs) for 2 mos--73*3.8 (median)1.8 (median)p = 0.004 (metoprolol better)
HF
Placebo-73*3.8 (median)2.5 (median)
Langohr, Gerber, Koletzki, et al., 1985Metoprolol, 100 mg/day (max) for 1 mo9/21* (44%)2.1 (0.63 to 7.2)
>50% reduction in HF
21*--n.s. (no p-value reported)
HF
Placebo7/27* (26%)27*--
Steiner, Joseph, Hedman, et al., 1988Metoprolol, 100 mg/day for 2 mos--2811.28.20.16 (−0.36 to 0.67)
HI
Placebo-3110.89.4
Atenolol
Forssman, Lindblad, and Zbornikova, 1983Atenolol, 100 mg/day for 3 mos--20*-0.17-
HF
Placebo-20*-0.23
Johannsson, Nilsson, Widelius, et al., 1987Atenolol, 100 mg/day for 3 mos--63*--p=0.004 (atenolol better)
HI
Placebo-63*--
Stensrud and Sjaastad, 1980aAtenolol, 100 mg/day for 6 wks--28*--p<0.05 (atenolol better)
HI
Placebo-28*--
Nadolol
Freitag and Diamond, 1984Nadolol, 80, 160, or 240 mg/day for 4 mos (3 groups combined)7/22 (32%)26.6 (0.30 to 2395.0)
≥ 50% reduction in HI
24---
Placebo0/8 (0%)8--
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 240 mg/day for 3 mos--208.453.28-
HF
Placebo-206.94.25
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos--206.82.10-
HF
Placebo-206.94.25
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos--206.734.05-
HF
Placebo-206.94.25
Sudilovsky, Stern, and Meyer, 1986bNadolol, 240 mg/day or 160 mg/day or 80 mg/day (results not reported separately by dose)--(Total n=154)--p<0.05 (nadolol better)
HI
Placebo---
Timolol
Briggs and Millac, 1979Timolol, 20 mg/day for 3 mos--13*-4.40.93 (0.39 to 1.5)
HF
Placebo-13*-6.8
Stellar, Ahrens, Meibohm, et al., 984Timolol, 20–30 mg/day for 2 mos40/94* (43%)2.0 (1.1 to 3.8) ≥ 50% reduction in HF94*6.84.3p<0.01 (timolol better)
HF
Placebo25/94* (27%)94*6.85.0
Tfelt-Hansen, Standnes, Kangasniemi, et al., 1984Timolol, 20 mg/day for 12 wks44/80* (55%)2.9 (1.5 to 5.5)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
80*-5.710.54 (0.22 to 0.85) HI
Placebo24/80* (30%)80*-9.03
Pindolol
Ekbom and Lundberg, 1972Pindolol, 15 mg/day for 1 mo--9--n.s. (no p-value reported) HI
Placebo-10--
Ekbom and Lundberg, 1972Pindolol, 7.5 mg/day for 1 mo--7--n.s. (no p-value reported) HI
Placebo-10--
Sjaastad and Stensrud, 1972Pindolol, 7.5 or 15 mg/day for 1 mo (results not reported separately by dose)--24*--0.024 (−0.38 to 0.43) HI
Placebo-24*--
Other beta-blockers
Nanda, Johnson, Gray, et al., 1978Acebutolol, 800 mg/day for 3 mos--33*--n.s. (no p-value reported) HF
Placebo-33*--
Ekbom, 1975Alprenolol, 400 mg/day for 6 wks--28*-4.0−0.05 (−0.58 to 0.47) HI
Placebo-28*-3.8
Ekbom and Zetterman, 1977Oxprenolol, 240 mg/day for 2 mos--30*-30.90.15 (−0.36 to 0.65) HI
Placebo-30*-33.9
DOSING STUDIES
Propranolol
Al-Qassab and Findley, 1993Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos--30*-3.8 (median)n.s. (p> 0.75) HF
Propranolol, 80 mg/day for 2 mos-30*-3.8 (median)
Carroll, Reidy, Savundra, et al., 1990Propranolol (long-acting), 160 mg/day for 12 wks--37*6.10 (median)3.4 (median)p =0.03 (propranolol LA 160 mg better) HF
Propranolol (long-acting), 80 mg/day for 12 wks-37*6.10 (median)3.70 (median)
Havanka-Kanniainen, Hokkanen, and Myllylä, 1988Propranolol (long-acting), 160 mg/day for 3 mos17/21 (81%)0.71 (0.14 to 3.6)
≥ 50% reduction in HF (no. of attacks)
215.44.4−0.16 (−0.76 to 0.45) HF (no. of HA days)
Propranolol (long-acting), 80 mg/day for 3 mos18/21 (86%)216.25.2
Nadolol
Ryan, 1984Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos--1610.435.83-
HI
Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos-1512.734.84
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 240 mg/day for 3 mos--208.453.28-
HF
Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos-206.82.10
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 240 mg/day for 3 mos--208.453.28-
HF
Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos-206.734.05
Ryan, Ryan, and Sudilovsky, 1983Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos--206.82.10-
HF
Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos-206.734.05
Sudilovsky, Elkind, Ryan, et al., 1987Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos21/33 (64%)3.5 (1.3 to 9.6) ≥ 50% reduction in HI----
Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 2 mos11/33 (33%)---
Pindolol
Ekbom and Lundberg, 1972Pindolol, 15 mg/day for 1 mo--9--n.s. (no p-value reported) HI
Pindolol, 7.5 mg/day for 1 mo-7--
COMPARISONS AMONG BETA-BLOCKERS
Nadolol vs. propranolol
Olerud, Gustavsson, and Furberg, 1986Nadolol, 40–160 mg/day for 6 mos5/13 (38%)0.47 (0.10 to 2.2) HF135.6 (median)2.7 (median)-
HF
Propranolol, 80–160 mg/day for 6 mos81/4 (57%)143.6 (median)1.9 (median)
Ryan, 1984Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos--1610.435.83-
HI
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 3 mos-1414.718.01
Ryan, 1984Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 3 mos--1512.734.84-
HI
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for mos-1414.718.01
Sudilovsky, Elkind, Ryan, et al., 1987Nadolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos21/33 (64%)3.0 (1.04 to 8.5)
≥ 50% reduction in HI
----
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos10/27 (37%)---
Sudilovsky, Elkind, Ryan, et al., 1987Nadolol, 80 mg/day for 2 mos11/33 (33%)0.85 (0.29 to 2.5)
≥ 50% reduction in HI
----
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 2 mos10/27 (37%)---
Metoprolol vs. propranolol
Gerber, Diener, Scholz, et al., 1991Metoprolol, 50–200 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos--22?--p>0.05 (n.s) HF
Propranolol, 40–160 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos-19?--
Kangasniemi and Hedman, 1984Metoprolol (controlled-release), 200 mg/day for 8 wks17/34* (50%)1.2 (0.46 to 3.1) HI34*9.74.90.15 (−0.33 to 0.63) HI
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 8 wks15/33* (45%)33*9.75.4
Olsson, Behring, Forssman, et al., 1984Metoprolol, 100 mg/day for 8 wks21/56* (37%)1.4 (0.62 to 3.1) HI56*---
Propranolol, 80mg/day for 8 wks16/53* (30%)53*--
Steardo, Bonuso, Di Stasio, et al., 1982Metoprolol, 300 mg/day for 6 mos1/16 (6%)0.03 (0.004 to 0.29)
≥50% reduction in HF
16-16.13−1.3 (−2.0 to 0.62) HF
Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 6 mos16/24 (67%)24-7.67
Atenolol vs. propranolol
Stensrud and Sjaastad, 1980aAtenolol, 100 mg/day for 6 wks--28*--n.s. (no p-value reported) HI
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 6 wks-28*--
Timolol vs. propranolol
Tfelt-Hansen, Standnes, Kangasniemi, et al., 1984Timolol, 20 mg/day for 12 wks44/80* (55%)0.81 (0.43 to 1.5)
≥50% reduction in HF
80*-5.710.15 (−0.16 to 0.46)
HI
Propranolol, 160 mg/day for 12 wks48/80* (60%)80*-6.66
Bisoprolol vs. metoprolol
Wörz, Reinhardt- Benmalek, Foeh, et al., 1992Bisoprolol, 5 mg/day for 3 mos41/78* (53%)1.05 (0.56 to 2.0)
≥50% reduction in HF
78*4.02.05−0.04 (−0.35 to 0.28)
HF
Metoprolol, 100 mg/day for 3 mos40/78* (51%)78*4.01.99
COMPARISONS WITH CALCIUM ANTAGONISTS
Propranolol vs. flunarizine
Gawel, Kreeft, Nelson, et al., 1992Propranolol, 160 mg/day (max) for 4 mos--45-−0.20 (difference from baseline)0.064 (−0.35 to 0.48)
HS
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 4 mos-44-−0.02 (difference from baseline)
Lücking, Oestreich, Schmidt, et al., 1988 (Study 1)Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 4 mos--170640 (−0.21 to 0.21)
HF
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 4 mos-16664
Lücking, Oestreich, Schmidt, et al., 1988 (Study 2)Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 4 mos--3453−0.13 (−0.60 to 0.34)
HF
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 4 mos-3564
Ludin, 1989Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 4 mos--32121.466.90.16 (−0.68 to 1.0)
HI
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 4 mos-2792.993.0
Shimell, Fritz, and Levien, 1990Propranolol, 180 mg/day for 4 mos--295.711.17n.s. (no p-value reported)
HF
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 4 mos-284.571.35
Propranolol vs. nifedipine
Albers, Simon, Hamik, et al., 1989Propranolol, 120–180 mg/day for 6 mos--126.12.20.68 (−0.27 to 1.64)
HF
Nifedipine, 60–90 mg/day for 6 mos-73.61.5
Gerber, Diener, Scholz, et al., 1991Propranolol, 40–160 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos--19?--p>0.05 (n.s.)
HF
Nifedipine, 10–40 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos-17?--
Propranolol vs. cyclandelate
Gerber, Schellenberg, Thom, et al., 1995Propranolol, 120–160 mg/day (see ET 1) for 4 mos18/34 (53%)0.45 (0.16 to 1.3)
≥50% reduction in HF
345.73.1n.s. (no p-value reported)
HF
Cyclandelate, 1200–1600 mg/day (see ET 1) for 4 mos20/28 (71%)286.32.7
Propranolol vs. nimodipine
Formisano, Falaschi, Cerbo, et al., 1991Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 4 mos--85.02.60.13 (−0.78 to 1.0)
HF
Nimodipine, 120 mg/day for 4 mos-114.02.9
Propranolol vs. verapamil
Solomon, 1986Propranolol (long-acting), 120 mg/day for 2 mos--15*-4.5n.s. (no p-value reported)
HF
Verapamil, 240 mg/day for 2 mos-15*-5.0
Metoprolol vs. flunarizine
Grotemeyer, Schlake, Husstedt, et al., 1987Metoprolol, 200 mg/day for 3 mos12/24* (50%)2.4 (0.74 to 8.0)
≥50% reduction in HF
----
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 3 mos7/24* (29%)---
Sørensen, Larsen, Rasmussen, et al., 1991Metoprolol, 200 mg/day for 5 mos--69-−1.5 (change from baseline)−0.22 (−0.57 to 0.13)
HF
Flunarizine, 10 mg/day for 5 mos-58-−2.2 (change from baseline)
Metoprolol vs. nifedipine
Gerber, Diener, Scholz, et al., 1991Metoprolol, 50–200 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos--22?--p<0.05 (metoprolol better)
HF
Nifedipine, 10–40 mg/day (see ET 1) for 6 mos-17?--
COMPARISONS WITH ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Propranolol vs. amitriptyline
Mathew, 1981 (Migraine-only)Propranolol, 60–160 mg/day for 6 mos--384.121.570.15 (−0.32 to 0.62)
HI
Amitriptyline, 25–75 mg/day for 6 mos-323.932.28
Mathew, 1981 (Mixed HA)Propranolol, 60–160 mg/day for 6 mos--386.703.24−0.0016 (−0.49 to 0.46)
HI
Amitriptyline, 25–75 mg/day for 6 mos-317.783.12
Ziegler, Hurwitz, Hassanein, et al., 1987Propranolol, 80–240 mg/day for 2 mos10/30* (33%)0.75 (0.26 to 2.2)
≥50% reduction in HI compared to placebo
30*-404.6p>0.05 (n.s.)
HI
Amitriptyline, 50–150 mg/day for 2 mos12/30* (40%)30*-429.4
Propranolol vs. femoxetine
Andersson and Petersen, 1981Propranolol, 80–160 mg/day for 3 mos10/28* (36%)2.0 (0.62 to 6.7)
>50% reduction in HI
28*24.516.00.17 (−0.35 to 0.70)
HI
Femoxetine, 200–400 mg/day for 3 mos6/28* (21%)28*24.517.9
Kangasniemi, Nyrke, Lang, et al., 1983Propranolol, 80–160 mg/day for 3 mos--24*10.307.070.34 (−0.23 to 0.91)
HI
Femoxetine, 200–400 mg/day for 3 mos-24*10.309.68
Metoprolol vs. clomipramine
Langohr, Gerber, Koletzki, et al., 1985Metoprolol, 100 mg/day (max) for 1 mo9/21* (44%)2.2 (0.59 to 8.5)
>50% reduction in HF
21*--p<0.05 (metoprolol better)
HF
Clomipramine, 100 mg/day (max) for 1 mo5/20* (24%)20*--
COMPARISONS WITH NSAIDs
Metoprolol vs. aspirin
Grotemeyer, Scharafinski, Schlake, et al., 1990Metoprolol, 200 mg/day for 3 mos14/21* (67%)12 (2.6 to 54) >
50% reduction in HF
21*2.01.6−0.33 (−0.94 to 0.28)
HS
Aspirin, 1500 mg/day3/21* (14%)21*2.0104
Propranolol vs. tolfenamic acid
Kjærsgård- Rasmussen, Holt- Larsen, Borg, et al., 1994Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos--29-−6.9 (difference from baseline)0.24 (−0.76 to 0.29)
HI
Tolfenamic acid, 300 mg/day for 3 mos-27-−15.7 (difference from baseline)
Mikkelsen, Kjærsgaard-Pedersen, and Christiansen, 1986Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos--31*--0.05 (−0.30 to 0040)
HF
Tolfenamic acid, 300 mg/day for 3 mos-31*--
Propranolol vs. aspirin
Baldrati, Cortelli, Procaccianti, et al., 1983Propranolol, approx. 120 mg/day (avg) for 3 mos9/12* (75%)1.0 (0.16 to 6.3)
> 50% reduction in HI
12*--0.01 (−0.55 to 0.58)
HI
Aspirin, approx. 975 mg/day (avg) for 3 mos9/12* (75%)12*--
Propranolol vs. mefenamic acid
Johnson, Hornabrook, and Lambie, 1986Propranolol,240 mg/day for 3 mos--17*-13.8−0.06 (−0.74 to 0.61)
HF
Mefenamic acid, 1500 mg/day for 3 mos-17*-12.9
Propranolol vs. naproxen sodium
Sargent, Solbach, Damasio, et al., 1985Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos--44-0.21 (difference from baseline)0.37 (−0.05 to 0.80)
HF
Naproxen sodium, 1100 mg/day for 3 mos-42-−0.48 (difference from baseline)
COMPARISONS WITH ANTICONVULSANTS
Propranolol vs. divalproex sodium
Klapper, 1994Propranolol, 140 mg/day (avg) for 2 mos--12*-20.4-
HF
Divalproex sodium, 1100 mg/day (avg) for 2 mos-12*-10.9
Prindolol vs. carbamazepine
Anthony, Lance, and Somerville, 1972Prindolol, 10 mg/day for 1 mo21/33 (64%)3.5 (1.2 to 9.9)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
----
Carbamazepine, 600 mg/day for 1 mo10/30 (33%)---
COMPARISONS WITH METHYSERGIDE
Propranolol vs. methysergide
Behan and Reid, 1980Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 3 mos19/36* (53%)1.7 (0.68 to 4.3)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
----
Methysergide, 3 mg/day for 3 mos15/38* (39%)---
Steardo, Bonuso, Di Stasio, et al., 1982Propranolol, 120 mg/day for 6 mos16/24 (67%)1.6 (0.49 to 5.0)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
24-7.670.51 (−0.06 to 1.1)
HF
Methysergide, 6–10 mg/day for 6 mos14/25 (56%)25-10.92
Metoprolol vs. methysergide
Steardo, Bonuso, Di Stasio, et al., 1982Metoprolol, 300 mg/day for 6 mos1/16 (6%)0.05 (0.01 to 0.45)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
16-16.13−0.81 (−1.5 to −0.16)
HF
Methysergide, 6–10 mg/day for 6 mos14/25 (56%)25-10.92
COMPARISONS WITH ALPHA 2 AGONISTS
Metoprolol vs. clonidine
Louis, Schoenen, and Hedman, 1985aMetoprolol, 100 mg/day for 8 wks10/27* (37%)1.5 (0.50 to 4.8)
>50% reduction in HF
31*11.2 (median)8.4 (median)p<0.05 (metoprolol better)
HI
Clonidine, 100 μg/day for 8 wks8/29* (28%)31*11.2 (median)10.2 (median)
Practolol vs. clonidine
Kallanranta, Hakkarainen, Hokkanen, et al., 1977 (Study 2)Practolol, 150 mg/day for 8 wks--50*4.02.49−0.21 (−0.60 to 0.19)
HF
Clonidine 150 μg/day for 8 wks-50*4.01.88
Prindolol vs. clonidine
Anthony, Lance, and Somerville, 1972Prindolol, 10 mg/day for 1 mo21/33 (64%)1.5 (0.56 to 4.2)
≥ 50% reduction in HF
----
Clonidine, 225 μg/day for 1 mo16/30 (53%)---
Propranolol vs. clonidine
Kåss and Nestvold, 1980Propranolol (Inderal®), 160 mg/day for 4 mos13/21* (62%)2.6 (0.76 to 9.2)
>50% reduction in HF
21*--n.s. (no p-value reported)
HF
Clonidine (Catapresan®), 100 mg/day for 4 mos8/21* (38%)21*--
COMPARISONS WITH SEROTONIN ANTAGONISTS
Metoprolol vs. pizotifen
Vilming, Standnes, and Hedman, 1985Metoprolol, 100 mg/day for 8 wks10/34* (29%)0.57 (0.21 to 1.6)
≥ 50% reduction in HI
30*13.0 (median)8.6 (median)n.s. (p>0.05) HI
Pizotifen, 0.5 mg/day, gradually increased to 1.5 mg/day for 8 wks14/33* (42%)30*13.0 (median)7.1 (median)
1

Key to abbreviations: avg = average; d.f. = degrees of freedom; ET = Evidence Table; HA = headache; HF = headache frequency; HI = headache index; HS = headache severity; LA = long-acting; mg = milligram; mo = month; N = population studied (n = sample size); n.s. = not (statistically) significant; N/S = not specified; wk = week; μg = microgram

2

An asterisk denotes a crossover trial.

Effect size calculations are based on the assumption that the data reported in the article (unlabeled) represent mean ± standard error of the mean. Under the assumption that the reported figures are standard deviations, the resulting effect size of 2.75 (95% CI: 2.1 to 3.4) makes this study an outlier.

Effect size calculations are based upon the assumption that the data reported as standard deviations actually represent mean ± standard error of the mean. Under the assumption that the reported figures are standard deviations, the resulting effect size of 1.9 (1.2 to 2.55) makes this study an outlier.

Key to abbreviations: avg = average; d.f. = degrees of freedom; ET = Evidence Table; HA = headache; HF = headache frequency; HI = headache index; HS = headache severity; LA = long-acting; mg = milligram; mo = month; N = population studied (n = sample size); n.s. = not (statistically) significant; N/S = not specified; wk = week; μg = microgram

An asterisk denotes a crossover trial.

Effect size calculations are based on the assumption that the data reported in the article (unlabeled) represent mean ± standard error of the mean. Under the assumption that the reported figures are standard deviations, the resulting effect size of 2.75 (95% CI: 2.1 to 3.4) makes this study an outlier.

Effect size calculations are based upon the assumption that the data reported as standard deviations actually represent mean ± standard error of the mean. Under the assumption that the reported figures are standard deviations, the resulting effect size of 1.9 (1.2 to 2.55) makes this study an outlier.

From: Evidence Tables

Cover of Drug Treatments for the Prevention of Migraine Headache
Drug Treatments for the Prevention of Migraine Headache.
Technical Reviews, No. 2.3.
Gray RN, Goslin RE, McCrory DC, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.