English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: The aim of this prospective cross sectional observational clinical trial is to determine the sociodemographic properties, rate of major depressive disorder and quality of life and relationships of migrainous patients who were treated with propranolol (beta blocker) or flunarizine (calcium canal blocker) therapy as a prophylaxic therapy for migraine. We compared the propranolol versus flunarizine prophylaxis efficacy in migraine on sociodemographic properties, rate of major depressive disorder and quality of life. The different number of headache were determined by international headache society (IHS). All patients were grouped using the latest classification scale of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Methods: Forty five migraine sufferers with or without aura were included in this clinical trial using this study’s inclusion and exclusion criterias. Their ages were between nineteen and forty-eight. Twenty-three migraine sufferers treated with 10 mg per day flunarizine treatment and twenty two migraine sufferers treated with 80 mg per day propranolol treatment were included in this crosssectional observational study. All of the patient details were assesed for the availability criteria of this study. All had undergone psychiatric investigation and classified using the DSM-IV TR for major depressive disorder criteria. Short form-36 (Quality of Life Questionnaire scores) were used to determine their quality of life. Each patient was evaluated using the migrainous patient questionnaire form. Their sociodemographic details and medical disorder knowledge were determined. The major clinical parameters evaluated were the frequency of headache attacks, the frequency of use of drugs for the acute management of migraine, the patients’ opinion of treatment and the Hamilton anxiety and depression rating scales. Results: There was no statistical differencies between the two groups in terms of age, gender, education and marital status (p>0.05). We estabilished that major depressive disorder in 13.3% of the patient using the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for assesment of depression. There was no statistical differencies between the two groups in terms of rate of depression and SF-36 quality of life scale assesment (p>0.05). Conclusion: We aimed to emphasis that the efficiency of 10 mg per day flunarizine and 80 mg per day propranolol as preventative therapy in migraine sufferers showed no differencies. Flunarizine and propranolol’s beneficial effects on migranous headache had been shown. These results suggest that both drugs are effective and safe in migraine prophylaxis. They have similar effects on attack frequency, VAS level, major depressive disorder frequency and quality of life. (JAREM 2011; 1: 33-7)

Rate of Major Depressive Disorder and Life Quality of Migrainous Patients Treated with Propranolol or Flunarizine