Abstract
Background
Petasites hybridus is a plant from the Asteraceae family used in migraine prophylaxis. Petasins and isopetasins, one of its constituents, act through antinociceptive, anti-CGRP, anti-inflammatory mechanisms and on calcium channels.
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of Petasites hybridus in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).
Methods
This was a single-center, retrospective, observational, uncontrolled, descriptive, and real-world study with 120 consecutive patients with EM or CM treated with Petasites hybridus.
Results
One hundred and twenty patients (72 with EM and 48 with CM) were treated with Petasites hybridus, whose mean age was 35.4 ± 12.4 years, ranging from 18 to 60 years. Before treatment, the average frequency of headache for EM and CM was 6.0 ± 2.7 and 26.3 ± 5.1 days per month, respectively. After 12 weeks, there was a reduction in the number of days with headache, both in the EM and CM, respectively, to 2.6 ± 2.9 and 12.7 ± 8.6 (p < 0.0001). The reduction in headache attacks was greater than 50% in 59.2% of patients. There was a reduction in disability in both groups. Adverse events occurred in 28.3% of patients, including a bitter sensation in the mouth and/or eructation, lasting 6.4 ± 2.7 days and ranging from 2 to 14 days.
Conclusion
Petasites hybridus was well tolerated and reduced the number of headache days per month by ≥50% in 60% of migraine patients within the first 12 weeks, providing a reduction in the degree of disability. Furthermore, Petasites hybridus (Petamig®) is free of pyrrolizidine alkaloids, making it appropriate and safe for prescription to patients.
Keywords: disability, efficacy, migraine, Petasites hybridus, prophylactic treatment
Introduction
Migraine treatment is based on patient education and abortive and prophylactic treatment of headache attacks. In Brazil, prophylaxis is indicated for patients who experience ≥3 headache attacks per month that interfere with their quality of life or who require symptomatic medication (1). However, in Europe and the USA, there are other recommendations based on different frequencies of monthly headache attacks (2, 3). Patients who experience less than one headache per month, but whose headache interferes with their routine activities, should also begin prophylactic treatment (4, 5). There are several categories of medications used in migraine prophylaxis, including beta-blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, anticonvulsant neuromodulators, onabotulinumtoxinA, monoclonal antibodies, and herbal remedies such as Petasites hybridus (1).
Petasites hybridus is a plant from the Asteraceae family and has been used in traditional medicine for many centuries. However, in the last 25 years, it has been more commonly used in the prophylaxis of migraine, due to the action of petasins and isopetasins, one of its constituents (6, 7). It became a migraine prophylactic after several clinical studies proved its therapeutic efficacy (8–12).
Petasins and isopetasins act in migraine prophylaxis through four mechanisms of action. First, they have an antinociceptive effect by modulating the transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) and the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1), desensitizing TRP calcium channels (13, 14). Secondly, they exhibit an anti-CGRP effect, because by inhibiting the TRPA1 and TRPV1 ion channels, there is a reduction in the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in meningeal afferents during headache attacks (15). Third, there is an anti-inflammatory effect, through the inhibition of phospholipase A2, lipoxygenase, and cyclooxygenase-2 activity, decreasing the production of inflammatory mediators involved in migraine attacks (6). Fourth, there is an effect on calcium channels, through direct interaction with high-voltage L-type calcium channels, which are crucial for antinociception (16).
Although several clinical studies have already demonstrated that Petasites hybridus is effective in migraine prophylaxis (8–12), further clinical studies are needed. Therefore, this first real-world study aims to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of Petasites hybridus in the prophylaxis of both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).
Methods
Study design and patients
This was a single-center, retrospective, observational, uncontrolled, descriptive, and real-world study. The study population consisted of a non-random, convenience sample of consecutive patients diagnosed with EM or CM, treated at a headache clinic in Brazil for 2 years, who had been prescribed Petasites hybridus (Petamig®) in 50 mg capsules. There was no sample calculation. All patients were eligible according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data for this study were collected from October 2023 to September 2025.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patients over 18 years of age, regardless of gender, diagnosed with migraine with a frequency greater than four headache days per month, by a headache expert, according to the ICHD-3 criteria (17) and being in continuous use of Petasites hybridus, as monotherapy, for a period of ≥3 months were included. The study excluded patients diagnosed with migraine concomitantly with another primary headache; with any secondary headache, who underwent treatment with botulinum toxin or monoclonal antibodies in the last 6 months, who started another prophylaxis 4 weeks prior to the onset of Petasites hybridus, pregnant women; and patients with liver and kidney diseases.
Data collection
During the initial consultation, patients underwent a detailed medical history regarding the clinical characteristics of their headache, a neurological examination, determination of anthropometric indices (weight, height, and body mass index—BMI) using a standardized protocol, and hematological (blood count) and biochemical (blood glucose, lipid profile, renal and hepatic function) tests. Next, they answered the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) questionnaires to measure the degree of disability caused by migraine.
During the initial consultation, preventive treatment with Petasites hybridus was prescribed at a dose of 50 mg twice daily. Everyone received a headache diary to fill out, which included headache characteristics and detailed information about the use of symptomatic medications.
During headache attacks, patients were instructed to use a triptan in combination with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, with a maximum frequency of 2 days per week. Those who reported excessive use of symptomatic medications in the past 3 months, both chronic migraine and episodic migraine with frequent headache attacks, characterized by taking two or more tablets per week, were instructed to abruptly discontinue the symptomatic medications they were using. They underwent a 5-day bridging course of prednisone at a dose of 40 mg/day.
Evaluation of the use of Petasites hybridus
After 12 weeks of treatment with Petasites hybridus, patients were reassessed through a new medical history and headache diary to determine therapeutic effectiveness, a new response to the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires to ascertain the improvement in the degree of disability and quality of life, reports of the presence or absence of adverse effects to determine the good tolerability of the medication, and repetition of hematological (blood count) and biochemical (blood glucose, lipid profile, renal and hepatic function) tests to assess the safety of the medication.
Treatment adherence was confirmed by telephone contact with patients 4 and 8 weeks after the prescription of Petasites hybridus. After 12 weeks, they returned for reassessment. Most improved with the 50 mg dose twice daily, but 15% (19/125) of patients showed no improvement after 8 weeks and were advised to increase the dose of Petasites hybridus to 50 mg three times daily.
The primary outcome of this study was the change from baseline over 12 weeks in the average number of headache days per month. Secondary outcomes included a 50% or greater reduction in the average number of headache days per month and a reduction in disability caused by migraine.
Statistical analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 18.2.2 was used for statistical analysis. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values, while qualitative variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies with 95% confidence intervals. The chi-square test with Yates correction, the Mann–Whitney test, and the Student’s t-test were used to compare the difference in means of paired samples. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05 for rejection of the null hypothesis.
Results
One hundred and twenty-five patients (102 women and 23 men) were included in the study. After receiving a prescription for Petasites hybridus, five patients (four women and one man) did not return for their second medical appointment. They were excluded from the study. The sample studied consisted of 120 patients, with 60% (72/120) having EM and 40% (48/120) having CM. The mean age of the patients was 35.4 ± 12.4 years (95% CI 33.2–37.6), ranging from 18 to 60 years, of which 98 (81.7%) were women and 22 (18.3%) were men, which corresponded to a sex ratio of 4.5:1 female/male. Only four patients used a 5-day course of prednisone, but they were not excluded from the study because, although it could be a confounding factor, their exclusion did not change the significance of the study. BMI in patients with EM and CM was 23.4 ± 2.9 kg/m2 (95% CI 22.7–24.1) and 25.5 ± 3.8 kg/m2 (95% CI 24.4–26.6), respectively (p = 0.002) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Distribution of sex and age according to diagnosis of 72 patients with episodic migraine and 48 with chronic migraine.
| Variables | Comparison groups | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Episodic migraine | Chronic migraine | ||
| Sex | 0.885a | ||
| Female (n; %) | 58 (80.6) | 40 (83.3) | |
| Male (n; %) | 14 (19.4) | 8 (16.7) | |
| Age (years) | 0.309b | ||
| Average | 34.4 (12.9) | 36.9 (11.4) | |
| 95% CI | 31.4–37.4 | 33.4–40.1 | |
| Variation | 18–57 | 18–60 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.002b | ||
| Average | 23.4 (2.9) | 25.5 (3.8) | |
| 95% CI | 22.7–24.1 | 24.4–26.6 | |
| Variation | 18.1–30.4 | 19.8–39.3 | |
CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.
p-value based on the chi-square test.
p-value obtained using the Mann–Whitney test for the difference of means from unpaired samples.
Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of the 120 patients with migraine treated with Petasites hybridus are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.
Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of 120 patients with migraine treated with Petasites hybridus.
| Pain characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis (years; SD; variation) | 35.4 ± 12.4 (18–60) |
| Latency to diagnosis (years; SD; variation) | 15.8 ± 8.6 (2–25) |
| Time with headache >15 days/month (years; SD; variation) | 6.1 ± 2.9 (1–8) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2; SD; variation) | 24.2 ± 3.4 (18.1–39.3) |
| Headache days per month in the last 3 months (days/month; SD; variation) | 13.9 ± 10.7 (4–30) |
| Episodic migraine | 60.0 |
| Chronic migraine | 40.0 |
| Quality of pain (%) | |
| Pulsatile | 88.4 |
| Dull/pressure | 11.6 |
| Pain intensity (%) | |
| Mild (VAS 1–4) | 7.5 |
| Moderate (VAS 5–7) | 52.5 |
| Severe (VAS 8–9) | 22.5 |
| Very severe (VAS 10) | 17.5 |
| Location of pain (%) | |
| Unilateral (65.7% on the left; and 34.3% on the right) | 58.3 |
| Bilateral | 29.2 |
| Holocranial/diffuse | 12.5 |
| Concomitant symptoms (%) | |
| Nausea and/or vomiting | 65.0 |
| Nausea and photophobia | 19.2 |
| Photophobia and phonophobia | 10.0 |
| Nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia | 5.8 |
| Aura symptoms (%) | |
| Presence | 0.0 |
| Absence | 100.0 |
| Trigeminal autonomic characteristics (%) | |
| Absent | 88.3 |
| Present (57.1% lacrimation; and 21.4% conjunctival hyperemia) | 11.7 |
| Medication overuse (%) | |
| Yes | 23.3 |
| No | 76.7 |
| Number of previous preventive treatments (%) | |
| None | 32.5 |
| One | 12.5 |
| Two | 11.7 |
| Three | 22.5 |
| >Four | 20.8 |
SD, standard deviation; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale. Data are presented as percentages (%) and/or arithmetic mean ± standard deviation (range in parentheses).
The average frequency of headaches in the 3 months prior to treatment for EM and CM was 6.0 ± 2.7 (95% CI 5.38–6.62) and 26.3 ± 5.1 (95% CI 24.86–27.74) days per month, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment, there was a reduction in the number of headache days per month, for both EM and CM, to 2.6 ± 2.9 (95% CI 1.93–3.27) and 12.7 ± 8.6 (95% CI 10.27–15.13), respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no change in BMI. The disability assessment instruments (MIDAS and HIT-6) demonstrated a reduction in all scores when compared to baseline, for both EM and CM, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Comparison between baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment with Petasites hybridus in 120 patients with migraine.
| Variables | Comparison groups | p-value* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| At baseline | After 12 weeks | ||
| Episodic migraine (mean; SD; CI) | |||
| Frequency of headache attacks (days per month) | 6.0 ± 2.7 (5.38–6.62) | 2.6 ± 2.9 (1.93–3.27) | <0.0001 |
| Body mass index | 23.4 ± 2.9 (22.73–24.07) | 23.3 ± 2.8 (22.65–23.95) | 0.530 |
| MIDAS | 14.4 ± 6.5 (12.90–15.90) | 3.5 ± 2.4 (2.95–4.05) | <0.0001 |
| HIT-6 | 57.1 ± 8.6 (55.11–59.09) | 38.2 ± 6.6 (36.55–39.85) | <0.0001 |
| Chronic migraine (mean; SD; CI) | |||
| Frequency of headache attacks (days per month) | 26.3 ± 5.1 (24.86–27.74) | 12.7 ± 8.6 (10.27–15.13) | <0.0001 |
| Body mass index | 25.5 ± 3.8 (22.42–24.58) | 25.5 ± 3.8 (22.42–24.58) | 0.183 |
| MIDAS | 21.8 ± 4.3 (20.58–23.02) | 8.0 ± 2.5 (7.24–8.76) | <0.0001 |
| HIT-6 | 57.5 ± 8.4 (55.12–59.88) | 39.8 ± 8.4 (37.26–42.34) | <0.0001 |
SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; MIDAS, Migraine Disability Assessment Score; HIT-6, Headache Impact Test. *p-value calculated using the Student’s t-test.
After 12 weeks of treatment with Petasites hybridus, there was a reduction in headache attacks of ≥50% in 59.2% (71/120) of patients. In patients with EM and CM, this reduction was 63.9 and 52.1%, respectively, with no statistical difference (Table 4).
Table 4.
Reduction ≥50% in headache attacks in migraine patients after 3 months of treatment with Petasites hybridus.
| Variables | Patients with migraine (n; %) | Comparison groups | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Episodic migraine (n; %) | Chronic migraine (n; %) | |||
| Reduction in headache attacks ≥50% after 3 months | 0.272 | |||
| Yes | 71 (59.2) | 46 (63.9) | 25 (52.1) | |
| No | 49 (40.8) | 26 (36.1) | 23 (47.9) | |
Adverse effects possibly related to the use of Petasites hybridus occurred in 28.3% of patients and were the following gastrointestinal disorders: bitter taste in the mouth and belching (15%), bitter taste in the mouth or belching (10%), nausea (1.7%), abdominal pain (0.8%) and diarrhea (0.8%), with a mean duration of 6.4 ± 2.7 days and ranging from 2 to 14 days (Table 5).
Table 5.
Adverse effects considered possibly related to the use of Petasites hybridus and their duration in 120 patients with migraine.
| Adverse effects | Frequency (n; %) | Duration (days; SD; variation) |
|---|---|---|
| Absence | 86 (71.7) | — |
| Presence | 34 (28.3) | 6.4 ± 2.7 (2–14) |
| A bitter sensation in the mouth and eructation | 18 (15.0) | 7.1 ± 2.5 |
| A bitter sensation in the mouth | 8 (6.7) | 6.6 ± 2.5 |
| Eructation | 4 (3.3) | 6.3 ± 2.5 |
| Nausea | 2 (1.7) | 4.0 ± 1.0 |
| Diarrhea | 1 (0.8) | 3.0 ± 0.0 |
| Abdominal pain | 1 (0.8) | 2.0 ± 0.0 |
SD, standard deviation.
The hematological (blood count) and biochemical (blood glucose, lipid profile, renal and hepatic function) tests performed during the initial consultation and after 12 weeks were all normal.
Discussion
Migraine is a chronic neurological disease that affects millions of people worldwide, both during the ictal and interictal phases. It is one of the main causes of disability and impacts quality of life (18, 19). For this reason, prophylactic treatment is necessary to reduce headache attacks and associated symptoms, improve quality of life, and prevent progression to CM (20). There are several treatments available for migraine prophylaxis that, despite proven efficacy, are not always well tolerated or have a high cost, restricting access to their use (21). Many studies have already shown the efficacy and safety profile of various migraine prophylaxis agents (22), including Petasites hybridus (8–12).
In this first real-world study, patients treated with Petasites hybridus experienced a reduction in the number of headache days per month, for both EM and CM. There is no other real-world study to compare with our study. There are only double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that have demonstrated the efficacy of Petasites hybridus in migraine prophylaxis (8–10), as summarized in Table 6.
Table 6.
Analysis of three clinical studies in adult patients with migraine who were treated with Petasites hybridus.
| Variables | Published studies | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Grossman and Schmidramsl (8) | Diener et al. (9) | Lipton et al. (10) | |
| Type of study | Double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled | Double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled | Randomized, parallel groups and placebo controlled |
| Number of patients | 60 | 60 | 202 |
| Intervention | 50 mg twice a day vs. placebo for 12 weeks | 50 mg twice a day vs. placebo for 12 weeks | 75 mg twice a day vs. 50 mg twice a day vs. placebo twice a day for 16 weeks |
| Results | The migraine group reduced the number of headache days from 3.3 to 1.7 (p < 0.05), an improvement of 60% | The migraine group reduced the number of headache days from 3.4 to 1.8 (p = 0.002); and in placebo, from 2.9 to 2.6 (ns) | Reduction in the number of headache days by 48% with the 75 mg twice-daily dose (p = 0.001); by 36% with the 50 mg twice-daily dose (p = 0.127); and by 26% with placebo |
| Conclusions | Patients with migraine may benefit from prophylaxis with Petasites hybridus | Petasites hybridus was well tolerated and proved to be effective in migraine prophylaxis | Petasites hybridus 75 mg twice a day is more effective than placebo and is well tolerated in migraine prophylaxis |
As in previous studies, in our study there was also a reduction in headache attacks >50% in 60% of patients after 12 weeks of treatment with Petasites hybridus as monotherapy, especially in patients with EM (10). This reduction in headache attacks was similar to clinical studies conducted in patients who used monoclonal antibodies (23). Furthermore, a randomized, double-blind, controlled study showed that Petasites hybridus had comparable efficacy to propranolol and topiramate (24).
At baseline in our study, migraine patients had a moderate to severe degree of disability. These data are consistent with previously published data that showed migraine to be the second most disabling condition in the world, especially chronic migraine (CM), which is associated with greater disability (19). After 12 weeks of treatment with Petasites hybridus, in addition to a reduction in headache days per month, there was also a reduction in the degree of disability, characterized by a reduction in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores, for both CM and EM (p < 0.0001). Possibly, the therapeutic efficacy of Petasites hybridus in migraine prophylaxis demonstrated in this study may contribute to preventing the progression from EM to CM, which occurs in approximately 2.5% of people with migraine (19, 20).
Based on findings from previously conducted randomized clinical trials, the guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society considered Petasites hybridus effective in preventing migraine, with a level A evidence for the prophylactic treatment of EM. Surprisingly, among the drugs recommended for migraine prevention, Petasites hybridus was the only herbal medicine with “level A” evidence of efficacy and safety (25, 26).
The choice of migraine prophylaxis should be individualized, taking into account the potential for adverse effects, drug interactions, and comorbidities of each patient (27). Oral medications available for the prophylactic treatment of migraine have robust clinical efficacy, but numerous adverse reactions have been reported (28, 29), which represent one of the main reasons for patients to discontinue preventive treatment (30, 31).
In this study, all patients required prophylactic treatment. The decision-making process regarding medication choice was shared with the patient, who was able to express their preferences about the treatment process. The various categories of migraine prophylaxis, especially oral medications, were presented to the patients, highlighting their effectiveness, cost, and adverse effects. Most patients preferred a herbal remedy, due to the belief that this treatment is non-pharmacological. Similarly, recent studies have highlighted the preference of migraine patients for treatments formulated in tablet or non-pharmacological form (32, 33).
In previous studies, Petasites hybridus was well tolerated, and adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity without any clinical relevance, with gastrointestinal disturbances predominating, especially eructation. They occurred at comparable frequencies in all groups (8–10). In this study, the adverse effects related to the use of Petasites hybridus were only gastrointestinal, of mild intensity, transient, and did not cause any patient to discontinue their treatment. Petasites hybridus did not interfere with appetite, as the mean BMI at baseline and after 12 weeks did not change (Table 5).
Plants in the Asteraceae family produce pyrrolizidine alkaloids that have hepatotoxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects (6, 34). Therefore, it is recommended that patients use Petasites hybridus that are certified and labeled as free of these alkaloids. In our study, the treatment was carried out with Petasites hybridus (Petamig®), whose standardized extract used in its production is obtained by supercritical CO2 extraction (35). Due to this extraction method, Petamig® is free of pyrrolizidine alkaloids, with less than 0.08 ppm of the alkaloid in the nutraceutical (36) and is appropriate and safe to prescribe to patients (36–38).
In this study, liver and kidney function were monitored, as recommended by some authors (39). All patients presented normal renal and hepatic function before and after treatment with Petasites hybridus. Similarly, a narrative review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies investigated the safety of Petasites hybridus in migraine prevention and found no relevant alteration in liver function. Liver function tests were performed on primary human hepatocyte cultures and did not show hepatotoxicity with therapeutic doses of Petasites hybridus and with concomitant migraine medications (14).
Study limitations
This study had some limitations, such as a retrospective design; not being double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled; potential selection bias due to the sample being a convenience sample from a single center; relatively small sample size; lack of control for the potential confounding effect of prednisolone use; a follow-up period of only 12 weeks; and a scarcity of previous clinical studies or systematic reviews. However, we believe that the aforementioned limitations did not interfere with the generalizability of the results. On the other hand, the same neurologist was responsible for the initial assessment and the reassessment after 12 weeks, which is a strong point of the study.
Conclusion
Petasites hybridus was well tolerated and reduced the number of headache days per month by ≥50% in 60% of migraine patients within the first 12 weeks, providing a reduction in the degree of disability. Furthermore, Petasites hybridus (Petamig®) is free of pyrrolizidine alkaloids, making it appropriate and safe for prescription to patients.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Footnotes
Edited by: Michail Vikelis, Mediterraneo Hospital, Greece
Reviewed by: Dimitrios Rikos, 404 General Military Hospital of Larissa, Greece
Karen Williams, KDW Health Management LLC, United States
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics in Research Involving Human Subjects Committee at the Federal University of the Parnaíba Delta, Brazil (Protocol Number: 7.905.116). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
RPSN: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
- 1.Melhado EM, Santos PSF, Kaup AO, Costa ATNM, Roesler CAP, Piovesan EJ, et al. Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine: part I. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. (2022) 80:845–61. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1756441, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pozo-Rosich P, Caronna E, Sacco S, Peres MFP, Ashin S, Özge A, et al. Early treatment in migraine—a call to shift prevention from attacks to disease progression: a position statement from the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia. (2025) 45:3331024251387721. doi: 10.1177/03331024251387721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS. The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. (2021) 61:1021–39. doi: 10.1111/head.14153, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eigenbrodt AK, Ashina H, Khan S, Diener HC, Mitsikostas DD, Sinclair AJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. (2021) 17:501–14. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00509-5, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lipton RB, Bigal ME. Migraine: epidemiology, impact and risk factors for progression. Headache. (2005) 45:3–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.4501001.x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thomet OA, Wiesmann UN, Schapowal A, Bizer C, Simon HU. Role of petasin in the potential anti-inflammatory activity of a plant extract of Petasites hybridus. Biochem Pharmacol. (2001) 61:1041–7. doi: 10.1016/s0006-2952(01)00552-4, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bickel D, Roder T, Bestmann HJ, Brune K. Identification and characterization of inhibitors of peptide-leukotriene-synthesis from Petasites hybridus. Planta Med. (1994) 60:318–22. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-959492, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Grossmann M, Schmidramsl H. An extract of Petasites hybridus is effective in the prophylaxis of migraine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. (2000) 38:430–5. doi: 10.5414/CPP38430, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Diener HC, Rahlfs VW, Danesch U. The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: reanalysis of efficacy criteria. Eur Neurol. (2004) 51:89–97. doi: 10.1159/000076535, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lipton RB, Göbel H, Einhäupl KM, Wilks K, Mauskop A. Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology. (2004) 63:2240–4. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000147290.68260.11, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pothmann R, Danesch U. Migraine prevention in children and adolescents: results of an open study with a special butterbur root extract. Headache. (2005) 45:196–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05044.x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Oelkers-Ax R, Leins A, Parzer P, Hillecke T, Bolav HV, Fischer J, et al. Butterbur root extract and music therapy in the prevention of childhood migraine: an explorative study. Eur J Pain. (2008) 12:301–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Benemei S, De Logu F, Puma SL, Marone IM, Coppi E, Ugolini F, et al. The anti-migraine component of butterbur extracts, isopetasin, desensitizes peptidergic nociceptors by acting on TRPA1 cation channel. Br J Pharmacol. (2017) 174:2897–911. doi: 10.1111/bph.13917, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Borlak J, Diener HC, Kleeberg-Hartmann J, Messlinger K, Silberstein S. Petasites for migraine prevention: new data on mode of action, pharmacology and safety. A narrative review. Front Neurol. (2022) 13:864689. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.864689, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kleeberg-Hartmann J, Vogler B, Messlinger K. Petasin and isopetasin reduce CGRP release from trigeminal afferents indicating an inhibitory effect on TRPA1 and TRPV1 receptor channels. J Headache Pain. (2021) 22:23–5. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01235-5, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wang GJ, Lin YL, Chen CH, Wu XC, Liao JF, Ren J. Cellular calcium regulatory machinery of vasorelaxation elicited by petasina. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. (2010) 37:309–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2009.05283.x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. (2018) 38:1–211. doi: 10.1177/0333102417738202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dong L, Dong W, Jin Y, Jiang Y, Li Z, Yu D. The global burden of migraine: a 30-year trend review and future projections by age, sex, country, and region. Pain Ther. (2024) 14:297–315. doi: 10.1007/s40122-024-00690-7, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine: epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. (2019) 37:631–49. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ha H, Gonzelez A. Migraine headache prophylaxis. Am Fam Physician. (2019) 99:17–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Siddiqui M, Shah PV, Balani P, Lopez AR, Nobleza CMN, Khan S. Comparing the efficacy, safety, and superiority of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and botox in preventing and treating migraines. Cureus. (2021) 13:e13002. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13002, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lampl C, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Jassal T, Sanchez-Del-Rio M, et al. The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain. (2023) 24:56. doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Krymchantowski A, Silva-Néto RP, Jevoux C, Krymchantowski AG. Brazilian descriptive study of 104 consecutive real-world migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies. Postgrad Med. (2022) 134:598–602. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2022.2080381, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Diener HC, Danesch U. Effectiveness of chemical, herbal and dietetic migraine prophylactic. An overview of randomized controlled double-blind studies. MMW Fortschr Med. (2009) 151:42–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Loder E, Burch R, Rizzoli P. The 2012 AHS/AAN guidelines for prevention of episodic migraine: a summary and comparison with other recent clinical practice guidelines. Headache. (2012) 52:930–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02185.x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Holland S, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, Dodick DW, Argoff C, Ashman E, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: NSAIDs and other complementary treatments for episodic migraine prevention in adults report of the quality standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. (2012) 78:1346–53. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d0c, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jenkins B. Migraine management. Aust Prescr. (2020) 43:148–51. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2020.047, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kakunje A, Prabhu A, Priva ESS, Karkal R, Kumar P, Gupta N, et al. Valproate: it’s effects on hair. Int J Trichology. (2018) 10:150–3. doi: 10.4103/ijt.ijt_10_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Karsan N, Palethorpe D, Rattanawong W, Marin JC, Bhola R, Goadsby PJ. Flunarizine in migraine-related headache prevention: results from 200 patients treated in the UK. Eur J Neurol. (2018) 25:811–7. doi: 10.1111/ene.13621, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. (2015) 35:478–88. doi: 10.1177/0333102414547138, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Blumenfeld AM, Bloudek LM, Becker WJ, Buse DC, Varon SF, Maglinte GA, et al. Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II). Headache. (2013) 53:644–55. doi: 10.1111/head.12055, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Urtecho M, Wagner B, Wang Z, VanderPluym JH, Singh RBH, Noves J, et al. A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes. Headache. (2023) 63:185–201. doi: 10.1111/head.14430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Vikelis M, Rikos D, Argyriou AA, Papachristou P, Rallis D, Karapanayiotides T, et al. Preferences and perceptions of 617 migraine patients on acute and preventive migraine treatment attributes and clinical trial endpoints. Expert Rev Neurother. (2024) 24:815–26. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2024.2365312, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Fu PP, Yang YC, Xia Q, Chou MW. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids-tumorigenic components in Chinese herbal medicines and dietary supplements. J Food Drug Anal. (2002) 10:198–211. doi: 10.38212/2224-6614.2743 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Prieto JM. Update on the efficacy and safety of Petadolex®, a butterbur extract for migraine prophylaxis. Bot Targets Ther. (2014) 4:1–9. doi: 10.2147/BTAT.S54023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Danesch U, Rittinghausen R. Safety of a patented special butterbur root extract for migraine prevention. Headache. (2003) 43:76–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2003.03015.x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Giles M, Ulbricht C, Khalsa KP, Kirkwood CD, Park C, Basch E. Butterbur: an evidence-based systematic review by the natural standard research collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother. (2005) 5:119–43. doi: 10.1080/J157v05n03_12, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Utterback G, Zacharias R, Timraz S, Mershman D. Butterbur extract: prophylactic treatment for childhood migraines. Complement Ther Clin Pract. (2014) 20:61–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2012.04.003, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Daniel O, Mauskop A. Nutraceuticals in acute and prophylactic treatment of migraine. Curr Treat Options Neurol. (2016) 18:14. doi: 10.1007/s11940-016-0398-1, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.