IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0212785.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey L Jackson
  • Akira Kuriyama
  • Yachiyo Kuwatsuka
  • Sarah Nickoloff
  • Derek Storch
  • Wilkins Jackson
  • Zhi-Jiang Zhang
  • Yasuaki Hayashino

Abstract

Background: Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study’s purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache. Methods: Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Science, clinical trial registries, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP were searched through 21 August 2018, for randomized trials in which at least one comparison was a beta-blocker for the prevention of migraine or tension-type headache in adults. The primary outcome, headache frequency per month, was extracted in duplicate and pooled using random effects models. Data synthesis: This study included 108 randomized controlled trials, 50 placebo-controlled and 58 comparative effectiveness trials. Compared to placebo, propranolol reduced episodic migraine headaches by 1.5 headaches/month at 8 weeks (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.65) and was more likely to reduce headaches by 50% (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) found that these outcomes were unlikely to be due to a Type I error. A network analysis suggested that beta-blocker’s benefit for episodic migraines may be a class effect. Trials comparing beta-blockers to other interventions were largely single, underpowered trials. Propranolol was comparable to other medications known to be effective including flunarizine, topiramate and valproate. For chronic migraine, propranolol was more likely to reduce headaches by at least 50% (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0–4.3). There was only one trial of beta-blockers for tension-type headache. Conclusions: There is high quality evidence that propranolol is better than placebo for episodic migraine headache. Other comparisons were underpowered, rated as low-quality based on only including single trials, making definitive conclusions about comparative effectiveness impossible. There were few trials examining beta-blocker effectiveness for chronic migraine or tension-type headache though there was limited evidence of benefit. Registration: Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey L Jackson & Akira Kuriyama & Yachiyo Kuwatsuka & Sarah Nickoloff & Derek Storch & Wilkins Jackson & Zhi-Jiang Zhang & Yasuaki Hayashino, 2019. "Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-38, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212785
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212785
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212785&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0212785?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian R. White, 2009. "Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 40-56, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xavier Armoiry & Martin Connock & Alexander Tsertsvadze & Ewen Cummins & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Pam Royle & Aileen Clarke, 2018. "Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1073-1081, September.
    2. Elena Kulinskaya & Stephan Morgenthaler & Robert G. Staudte, 2014. "Combining Statistical Evidence," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(2), pages 214-242, August.
    3. Caroline S Clarke & Rachael M Hunter & Ian Shemilt & Victoria Serra-Sastre, 2017. "Multi-arm Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) comparing different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer, from the English NHS payer perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Ian R. White, 2011. "Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 255-270, June.
    5. Evangelos Kontopantelis & David Reeves, 2010. "metaan: Random-effects meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(3), pages 395-407, September.
    6. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.
    7. James B Kirkbride & Antonia Errazuriz & Tim J Croudace & Craig Morgan & Daniel Jackson & Jane Boydell & Robin M Murray & Peter B Jones, 2012. "Incidence of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses in England, 1950–2009: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-1, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212785. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.