4.5 Article

Evaluation of body composition in patients with migraine on prophylactic treatment with topiramate

期刊

HELIYON
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06865

关键词

Migraine; Chronic migraine; Topiramate; Body composition; Fat free mass

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001, AUXPE 561/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study indicates that topiramate is effective in treating chronic migraine patients by reducing pain and weight, and increasing fat-free mass. This effect is more prominent in obese patients, suggesting potential benefits in managing chronic migraine for this population.
Migraine is a primary headache with high prevalence in the general population but is considered a disabling medical condition. It is suggested that obesity is a risk factor for chronic migraine. Thus treatment with drugs, such as topiramate, which reduces pain and weight, is ideal for obese patients with migraine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of topiramate on body composition in patients with chronic migraine and to verify whether these effects could be related to nutritional status. We studied 26 female patients with age ranging from 18 to 45 years with prophylactic treatment with topiramate (50 mg/day) for three months. Body composition indexes (body mass index, BMI; body fat, BF; fat-free mass, FFM) were obtained through anthropometric assessment. After treatment, topiramate reduced BMI (0,82 kg/m(2)) and in BF (3.3 %), but increased FFM (1.1 kg). When considering nutritional status, FFM was increased only in obese patients. In conclusion, our main finding is that besides the reduction in BMI and BF, topiramate led to an increase in FFM in overweight and obese patients. Our results open new perspectives for future studies on the relationship between body composition and migraine, indicating that more studies on this body compartment are needed, especially in patients with chronic migraine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据