Skip to content

Study · Randomized controlled trial · 2012

2 results

Comparison of cosyntropin versus caffeine for post-dural puncture headaches: A randomized double-blind trial.

Zeger W, Younggren B, Smith L

World journal of emergency medicine1 Jan 2012Cited by 12 (Europe PMC)

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study2

2 results from studies that gave the peptide. 2 results from people.

  1. 01HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In adults with postdural puncture headache, cosyntropin was 56% effective (95% CI 33-79%) versus 80% for caffeine (95% CI 60-100%).

    In plain wordsIn adults with postdural puncture headache, cosyntropin was 56% effective versus 80% for caffeine.

    Outcome
    Direction not reportedTreatment effectiveness without rescue therapy
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Caffeine
    Outcome group
    Pain · Nervous system and cognition
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · intravenousAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    Effectiveness (no rescue therapy)
    56%
    cosyntropin
    95% CI
    33 to 79%
    cosyntropin effectiveness
    Effectiveness (no rescue therapy)
    80%
    caffeine
    95% CI
    60 to 100%
    caffeine effectiveness

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Caffeine was 80% (95% CI 60-100%) effective and cosyntropin was 56% (95% CI 33-79%) effective in treating post-dural puncture headaches.
    3 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Rescue therapy was documented on the study data forms. Its effectiveness was determined by the need for this therapy.
    Summary · context
    We performed an interim analysis of a prospective, double blinded, trial of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with a post-dural puncture headache. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous caffeine or intravenous cosyntropin.
    Summary · context
    Thirty-seven patients were included and four patients were excluded from the analysis because of protocol violations or incomplete data. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat.
  2. 02HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In adults with postdural puncture headache, cosyntropin VAS scores were 80, 40, and 33 mm versus caffeine's 80, 41, and 31 mm (P=0.66).

    In plain wordsIn adults with postdural puncture headache, pain scores did not differ between cosyntropin and caffeine.

    Outcome
    No significant changePain VAS over 120 minutes
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Caffeine
    Outcome group
    Pain · Nervous system and cognition
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated · intravenousAs given in this study (human).

    Measurements

    VAS
    80 mm
    cosyntropin, 0 minutes
    VAS
    40 mm
    cosyntropin, 60 minutes
    VAS
    33 mm
    cosyntropin, 120 minutes
    VAS
    80 mm
    caffeine, 0 minutes
    VAS
    41 mm
    caffeine, 60 minutes
    VAS
    31 mm
    caffeine, 120 minutes
    P
    0.66
    VAS scores, cosyntropin versus caffeine

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The group's VAS scores at 0, 60, and 120 minutes were 80 mm, 41 mm, 31 mm for caffeine and 80 mm, 40 mm, 33 mm for cosyntropin, respectively (P=0.66).
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We performed an interim analysis of a prospective, double blinded, trial of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with a post-dural puncture headache. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous caffeine or intravenous cosyntropin.
    Summary · context
    Thirty-seven patients were included and four patients were excluded from the analysis because of protocol violations or incomplete data. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 2Current

    28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    27 Oct 2026, 16:37 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.