Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) and Migraine: What the Research Actually Shows, and What It Doesn’t

This article is educational and is not medical advice. It does not recommend or evaluate any specific product. Talk with your own neurologist or physician before starting, stopping, or changing any migraine treatment or supplement.

The short version. Riboflavin, or vitamin B2, at 400 mg a day has modest evidence, from a small and inconsistent set of trials, for reducing how often migraine attacks happen and how long they last, mainly in adults with episodic migraine. In the single placebo-controlled trial the idea rests on, 59% of people cut their headache days by at least half, compared with 15% on placebo — which also means roughly 41% did not respond.

Later meta-analyses find a real but small effect on attack frequency and duration, and no measurable effect on pain intensity. Riboflavin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and low-risk. It is not a cure, the neurology guideline that once endorsed it has since been retired, and “activated” forms offer no absorption advantage. It is best understood as one low-risk option among several, not a replacement for medical care.

One scoping note before we go further: nearly all of this evidence comes from trials in episodic migraine, meaning people with attacks on fewer than 15 days a month. If your migraine is chronic, the research below wasn’t done in your population, and that’s worth keeping in mind throughout.

Everything below is the longer, sourced version of those two paragraphs.

If you have migraine and you’ve gone looking for something beyond prescription drugs, you’ve almost certainly run into riboflavin. Usually at that 400 mg dose. Maybe your neurologist mentioned it. Maybe you found it yourself, in a forum or a study abstract, and brought it to your next appointment.

And if you’ve actually taken it for a few months and kept a headache diary, you may have run into something else: a result that’s real but underwhelming. Fewer headache days, but not the dramatic drop you read about. A partial response. The quiet worry that you’re doing it wrong, or that you’re one of the people it just doesn’t work for.

This article is an honest look at what the riboflavin research says, what it doesn’t say, and why a partial response is a completely ordinary outcome rather than a personal failure. No hype, no miracle framing. Just what the trials actually measured.

How does your body actually use riboflavin?

Riboflavin is a water-soluble B vitamin. On its own it doesn’t do much; your cells convert it into two active coenzyme forms, and those coenzymes are what your metabolism actually runs on.

The pathway is short. Riboflavin becomes flavin mononucleotide (FMN), then FMN becomes flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD). Both steps happen inside your cells, and both run on ATP and magnesium. The first, riboflavin to FMN, is handled by an enzyme called riboflavin kinase, which needs ATP and magnesium to work (Karthikeyan et al., 2003). The second, FMN to FAD, is handled by FAD synthase, which likewise depends on ATP and magnesium (Galluccio et al., 2007). That magnesium dependence is worth filing away, because it comes up again later.

FMN and FAD sit at the front door of your mitochondria’s energy machinery. In the electron transport chain, FMN is the flavin in Complex I and FAD is the flavin in Complex II, the two points where electrons first enter the chain (Ahmad et al., 2023). This is the biochemical reason riboflavin gets discussed in the context of migraine at all: a long-standing hypothesis holds that migraine-prone brains have a subtle shortfall in mitochondrial energy production, and riboflavin feeds the coenzymes those energy pathways depend on (Wang et al., 2023). It’s a plausible mechanism. It is not proof that topping up riboflavin fixes the shortfall in any given person.

What does the migraine research actually show?

The one trial everyone cites

Almost every riboflavin-for-migraine discussion traces back to one study: Schoenen, Jacquy, and Lenaerts, published in Neurology in 1998. It’s a small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial: 55 adults, 400 mg riboflavin daily versus placebo, over three months.

Here’s the number you’ve probably seen, stated precisely. In that trial, 59% of people on riboflavin were “responders,” meaning they had at least a 50% improvement in headache days, versus 15% on placebo (p = 0.002), with a number-needed-to-treat of 2.3. Riboflavin also beat placebo on attack frequency (p = 0.005) and on headache days (p = 0.012) in the intention-to-treat analysis (Schoenen et al., 1998). For attack frequency rather than headache days, the Canadian Headache Society’s reading of the same trial puts the responder split at 56% versus 19%, or about two fewer attacks a month (Pringsheim et al., 2012).

Two things usually get lost when that “59%” gets repeated. First, the responder figure is specifically about headache days, not a blanket “59% of migraines vanished.” Second, and this is the part that matters if you feel like a failure: roughly 4 in 10 people in the same trial did not reach that responder threshold. Non-response and partial response were built into the results from the very study the whole idea rests on.

What do the newer meta-analyses add?

Since 1998, most of what’s accumulated is meta-analyses pooling older trials rather than large new ones. They point in a consistent direction on some outcomes and a null direction on others, and the honest version keeps both.

A 2026 systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences pooled 12 trials and 749 participants. It found that riboflavin reduced migraine frequency by about 1.4 attacks (weighted mean difference −1.39, 95% CI −2.52 to −0.25) and shortened duration (−1.36, 95% CI −2.69 to −0.03) (Amini et al., 2026). Notice how close both of those intervals come to zero. Separately, the same paper found that the effect increased steadily with dose up toward 400 mg/day, with no clear plateau (p < 0.001). Two more caveats belong right next to that: the statistical heterogeneity between trials was very high (I² around 91%, meaning the studies disagreed with each other a lot), and the analysis found no significant effect on migraine severity. Riboflavin, on this evidence, looks more like something that changes how often and how long, not how much it hurts.

A separate meta-analysis pooling nine studies and 673 participants reported significant effects on migraine days, duration, frequency, and pain score (Chen et al., 2022). It’s a useful independent look, though it mixes adult and pediatric trials, reports p-values rather than pooled effect sizes, and carries the same high between-study heterogeneity.

The only one of these to grade the certainty of the evidence formally, using the GRADE system, reported a riboflavin effect on frequency of roughly −1.3 attacks per month, alongside larger effects for magnesium (Talandashti et al., 2025). Formal certainty grading is a real methodological strength, and it still lands at “modest.”

And one systematic review that set out to pool the vitamin and mineral trials couldn’t include riboflavin at all: the published trials didn’t report their data in enough detail to combine (Okoli et al., 2019). That’s a quieter kind of limitation than a negative result, and an important one. Part of why the riboflavin picture stays fuzzy is that the underlying trials are small and unevenly reported.

There’s also a real split by age. A qualitative systematic review found a fairly consistent positive effect in adult trials, a mixed picture in children and adolescents, and no benefit in the combination-therapy trials it looked at (Thompson & Saluja, 2017). If you’re an adult, the adult data are the relevant data, and they’re the more encouraging subset.

One thing you will not find, and should be suspicious of anyone who implies otherwise: there has been no new placebo-controlled trial of riboflavin on its own in adults since 1998, and the 1998 trial itself enrolled just 55 people. Newer adult studies tend to be open-label or compare riboflavin against an active drug rather than placebo. There is no Cochrane review of riboflavin for migraine. That thin top layer of evidence is exactly why formal guidance has always said “probably” rather than “definitely.”

Did a neurology guideline endorse riboflavin for migraine?

A lot of riboflavin write-ups cite a 2012 guideline from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society that rated riboflavin 400 mg/day “Level B, probably effective” for episodic migraine prevention (Holland et al., 2012). That rating was real, and it rested on one strong (Class I) trial and one weaker (Class II) one.

Here’s what almost none of those write-ups mention: the AAN retired that guideline on September 16, 2015, over safety concerns about butterbur, another supplement the same guideline had recommended. The AAN’s own position is blunt: the recommendations in retired guidelines are “considered no longer valid and no longer supported by the AAN.” The document is kept online for reference only.

So if you’ve been carrying around “the AAN says riboflavin is probably effective” as your anchor, the accurate version is: the AAN said that in 2012, then withdrew the whole guideline in 2015, and it is not a current recommendation. That doesn’t erase the underlying trial data, which still exist and still show what they showed. It just means the “official endorsement” framing you may have absorbed is out of date.

The Canadian Headache Society is often cited alongside it. Its 2012 guideline did give riboflavin 400 mg/day a “strong recommendation,” but based on low-quality evidence, and its own authors added a candid line that clinical experience with riboflavin in their hands had been “generally disappointing” (Pringsheim et al., 2012). An updated Canadian guideline followed in 2025 (Medrea et al., 2025). Quoting the “strong recommendation” without the “low-quality evidence” attached to it overstates the case.

None of this means riboflavin is useless. It means the marketing shorthand of “guideline-endorsed” oversells a modest, honestly-graded body of evidence.

Why is a partial response the expected outcome, not your failure?

If you take one thing from this article, take this: partial and absent responses are what the research predicts, and they say nothing about whether you did it right.

Start with the arithmetic from the trial itself. A 59% responder rate means about 41% of people didn’t clear the bar, under ideal study conditions, with good adherence. Migraine is not one disease with one cause; it’s a final common pathway for a lot of different triggers and biology, and no single lever moves it for everyone. Riboflavin is one lever.

The biochemistry offers a second, more speculative reason response might vary. Riboflavin only helps as its coenzyme forms, and the conversion depends on magnesium and ATP. People differ in magnesium status and in the activity of the enzymes that run the conversion, so in principle two people can take the identical 400 mg and end up with different amounts of usable coenzyme downstream. It’s worth being honest that this is a plausible explanation rather than a demonstrated one. Thompson and Saluja’s review specifically calls for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenomic work that would actually test it (Thompson & Saluja, 2017).

Does the form of riboflavin matter? Mostly, no

You’ll see supplements sold as “activated” riboflavin, usually riboflavin-5′-phosphate (R5P), with the pitch that it skips a conversion step and gets to your cells “pre-activated.” It’s a good story. The absorption science doesn’t really support it.

When you swallow R5P, your gut largely dephosphorylates it back to plain riboflavin before it’s absorbed, and your cells re-phosphorylate it afterward. In human absorption work from the 1960s, urinary riboflavin recovery after R5P doses of 5 to 30 mg averaged 63%, essentially the same as the 62% measured for plain riboflavin (Jusko & Levy, 1967). That was a historical rather than a head-to-head comparison, but NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplements reaches the same conclusion: the bioavailability of free riboflavin is similar to that of FAD and FMN (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, 2022). On the available absorption data, no form appears to bypass that step in a way that changes how much usable coenzyme you end up with.

There’s a second reason form matters less than the label implies: riboflavin absorption is saturable. Your body takes up little additional riboflavin from a single dose beyond roughly 27 mg (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, 2022). A 400 mg dose is far above that ceiling, and most of the excess is simply excreted, which is also why the safety margin is so wide. At doses that high, the practical difference between forms is small. The dose is the part the evidence is actually built on.

If your riboflavin isn’t doing much, the answer is very unlikely to be “switch to a fancier form.” It’s more honest to say the vitamin either helps your particular migraine or it doesn’t, and to give a fair trial at the studied dose before drawing conclusions.

What else has evidence for migraine prevention?

Riboflavin isn’t the only option, and it isn’t the strongest one. If you’re building a picture of what’s out there, here’s the honest landscape, from the other supplements people ask about to the prescription options that have far more evidence behind them. A useful recent summary of the supplement side is Tepper and Tepper’s 2025 clinical review in Current Pain and Headache Reports, titled “Nutraceuticals and Headache 2024,” which is worth reading in full if this is your area (Tepper & Tepper, 2025).

Magnesium

Magnesium comes up constantly, partly because it’s the cofactor riboflavin’s conversion to FAD depends on, and partly because magnesium has migraine mechanisms of its own, including roles in nerve excitability and vascular tone. Tepper and Tepper list magnesium as recommended for prevention, with the main downside being gastrointestinal tolerability, loose stools at the doses used.

The trial record is genuinely mixed, and it’s worth seeing both halves. One placebo-controlled trial found oral magnesium (600 mg/day) cut attack frequency meaningfully, roughly a 42% drop versus about 16% on placebo (Peikert et al., 1996). A second trial the same year was stopped early for futility and reported a lot of gastrointestinal upset (Pfaffenrath et al., 1996). A later systematic review couldn’t confirm a magnesium benefit on severity (Okoli et al., 2019). So reasonable clinicians land in different places on magnesium, because the studies themselves do. Two practical notes if you explore it: the trials used high doses, around 600 mg/day, far above the amounts in most combination products, and the form matters mostly for how gently it sits with your gut rather than for some dramatic absorption edge (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, 2026).

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10)

CoQ10 is the other “mitochondrial” supplement usually mentioned in the same breath as riboflavin, and for the same reason: it plays a role in the same cellular energy pathways. The evidence is modest, graded around “Level C” by Tepper and Tepper, with a good tolerability record. A small open-label add-on trial, meaning neither patients nor investigators were blinded, which tends to inflate benefit, found that 100 mg daily on top of existing prevention reduced attack frequency and severity in the 73 patients analyzed, with a number-needed-to-treat of 1.6 for a 50% cut in attacks (Shoeibi et al., 2017). Treat that number as encouraging rather than established; an unblinded trial can’t support an NNT the way a placebo-controlled one can. Like riboflavin, CoQ10 is low-risk and worth a fair trial, without expecting miracles.

Melatonin

Melatonin has drawn interest, especially for people whose migraines tangle up with poor sleep. One randomized trial of 196 people found 3 mg at bedtime cut headache days more than placebo and was not statistically distinguishable from amitriptyline, a standard preventive (Gonçalves et al., 2016). A pooled analysis of nine trials, though, found melatonin generally less effective than amitriptyline even while being better tolerated (Abouelmagd et al., 2026), and a trial of a 2 mg prolonged-release form found no benefit over placebo at all (Alstadhaug et al., 2010). Tepper and Tepper rate the certainty of the melatonin evidence as very low, recommend it only weakly and mainly for those with sleep problems, and flag that the purity of melatonin sold in the US is poor, which makes any dose on a label uncertain. If disrupted sleep is part of your pattern, it’s a reasonable thing to raise with your clinician.

Feverfew and butterbur

Feverfew, a herb, may help some people, but Tepper and Tepper flag real caveats: inconsistent preparations, uncertain dosing, and thin safety data.

Butterbur is the cautionary tale of this whole category. It genuinely reduced migraine frequency in randomized trials. A 245-patient trial found a 48% drop in attack frequency at 75 mg twice daily versus 26% on placebo (Lipton et al., 2004), with a smaller trial pointing the same way (Diener et al., 2004), which is why it was recommended in the first place. But the raw plant contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids. NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health states that these can damage the liver and lungs and may cause cancer, and that only butterbur products processed to remove them and labeled or certified as PA-free should be considered, while also noting rare liver-injury reports even with products described as PA-free (NCCIH, 2024). This is not a “try it and see” supplement; it’s a talk-to-your-doctor-first one.

How do the prescription options compare?

This matters for perspective: the drugs have substantially more evidence than any supplement here, and for frequent or disabling migraine they’re often the more effective path.

The long-established oral preventives, the ones with the strongest track record, were mostly borrowed from other conditions: the anti-seizure drugs topiramate and valproate, and the blood-pressure drugs propranolol, metoprolol, and timolol. These carry the top evidence grade in the American Academy of Neurology’s pharmacologic guideline, which, unlike the retired supplement guideline, remains active (Silberstein et al., 2012; reaffirmed by the AAN on October 18, 2025, with an update in progress). The same top tier also includes frovatriptan for menstrual migraine specifically, and, usefully, a finding that lamotrigine does not work for migraine prevention. Strong evidence cuts both ways. Their catch is tolerability, the side effects that made some readers of this article stop in the first place.

The newer development is a class of migraine-specific drugs that target CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide), a molecule central to how migraines happen. These include injectable monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab) and oral “gepants” (atogepant and rimegepant, the latter indicated for both acute treatment and prevention). In March 2024 the American Headache Society moved CGRP-targeting therapies to a first-line option, meaning patients no longer have to fail older drugs before trying them. The Society’s own position is that the evidence for these drugs “vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach” (Charles et al., 2024), a strong statement from the body that recommends them, and one the updated Canadian guideline does not go as far as endorsing. They’re expensive, and access varies.

None of this is a recommendation for or against any of these. The point is that riboflavin sits at the gentle, low-risk, modest-evidence end of a long shelf. That’s a perfectly reasonable place to start, especially if your migraines are infrequent or you want to avoid drug side effects, as long as you know the rest of the shelf exists and you don’t wait years on a supplement when a stronger option would serve you better.

Is riboflavin safe at 400 mg a day?

For most people, riboflavin has a wide safety margin. The Food and Nutrition Board did not set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level for it, because no adverse effects have been reported from high intakes, including 400 mg/day for at least three months. The Board also adds a caution worth repeating: the limited data on riboflavin’s adverse effects do not mean high intakes have no adverse effects, and the Board “urges people to be cautious about consuming excessive amounts of riboflavin” (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, 2022).

A few practical notes. Bright yellow-green urine is normal and harmless; it’s just the excess riboflavin leaving. Some people get mild gastrointestinal effects; in the 1998 trial, diarrhea and increased urination were the only adverse events recorded in the riboflavin group (Schoenen et al., 1998). Riboflavin is not known to have clinically relevant interactions with medications (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, 2022), but that’s still worth confirming with your own pharmacist given your specific prescriptions. Pregnancy and breastfeeding raise riboflavin requirements, with the RDA rising from around 1.1 mg/day to 1.4 mg in pregnancy and 1.6 mg in lactation, but high-dose supplementation in those situations is a decision for your obstetrician or midwife, not a website.

When is a headache an emergency?

Some headaches need same-day medical attention rather than a supplement plan. Get urgent care, not a headache diary, for any of the following:

• A sudden, severe “worst headache of your life”
• A headache with fever and a stiff neck
• Weakness, numbness, trouble speaking or seeing, or confusion
• A headache after a head injury
• A clear change from your usual headache pattern
• When in doubt, treat a new or dramatically different headache as urgent.

How do you test whether riboflavin works for you?

This part is general, and it applies to almost any preventive you might try, supplement or drug. Running a fair test on yourself is harder than it sounds, mostly because migraine is noisy and the mind is hopeful. A few principles make the read more honest.

Get a baseline first. If you can, track a month before you change anything. You can’t measure improvement against a number you never wrote down, and “it feels a bit better” is exactly the kind of impression that turns out to be wrong when you check the diary.

Give it a real trial. The studies ran two to three months, and coenzyme pools depend on steady daily intake, so a week or two tells you nothing. Take it consistently, every day, not reactively when you feel one coming on.

Track the same things the studies did. A simple headache diary is enough: how many days you had migraine, how long each lasted, rough intensity on a 1 to 10 scale, any acute medication you used, and anything that looks like a trigger. Frequency, the number of migraine days a month, is usually the cleanest signal, because it’s the outcome the research is strongest on and the easiest to count without fooling yourself.

Decide what “working” means before you start. In the trials, a responder cut migraine days by at least half. You might set a lower personal bar, but set it in advance. Deciding after the fact whether a fuzzy result counts is how people talk themselves into keeping something that isn’t doing much.

Change one thing at a time. If you start riboflavin, magnesium, and a new sleep routine in the same week, you’ll have no idea which one, if any, mattered. Stagger them.

Respect regression to the mean. Migraine frequency naturally rises and falls. People often start a new supplement during a bad stretch, precisely because they’re motivated, and then improve partly because a bad stretch was always going to ease. One good month isn’t proof. A sustained change across the full window is more convincing.

Know when to stop or escalate. The trials ran two to three months, so that’s a reasonable window to judge by. If nothing has changed by then, that’s worth raising with your clinician rather than quietly continuing. And if your migraines are frequent or disabling, that’s a signal to talk about the stronger options, not a reason to keep experimenting on your own.

And loop in your neurologist throughout, not as a formality. They can tell you how a supplement fits with the rest of your plan, what to watch for alongside your other medications, and when it’s time to try something with more behind it. Riboflavin being available without a prescription doesn’t make it a substitute for that conversation.

The bottom line

For episodic migraine in adults, riboflavin at 400 mg/day is a low-cost, low-risk option with genuinely modest evidence. It may reduce how often and how long attacks happen, and probably does not change their intensity. The famous “59%” is real, and so is the 41% who didn’t respond in the same study. The old guideline “endorsement” is out of date. The fancy-form upgrade is mostly marketing. A partial response is the normal shape of this, not a sign you failed.

If that’s where you’ve landed, you haven’t done anything wrong. You’ve correctly read a body of evidence that is genuinely modest, and you’re weighing a genuinely modest tool. That’s what good self-advocacy actually looks like.

Scientific references and citations

Statements in this article are supported by peer-reviewed research and by regulatory and government health sources. Each source is independently verifiable through the link or identifier provided.

Abouelmagd, M. E., Aldemerdash, M. A., Khatatbeh, A. A., Osman, A. S. A., Abbas, A., Allam, S., AlEdani, E. M., Aldemerdash, A., & Monteith, T. S. (2026). Efficacy and safety of melatonin in migraine prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 30(1), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-025-01461-5

Ahmad, M., Wolberg, A., & Kahwaji, C. I. (2023). Biochemistry, electron transport chain. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526105/

Alstadhaug, K. B., Odeh, F., Salvesen, R., & Bekkelund, S. I. (2010). Prophylaxis of migraine with melatonin: A randomized controlled trial. Neurology, 75(17), 1527–1532. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f9618c

Amini, S., Heidari, Z., Clark, C. C. T., & Bagherniya, M. (2026). The effect of riboflavin on the mean attack frequency, severity, and duration of migraine headaches: A systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of clinical trials. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 31, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.jrms_547_24

Charles, A. C., Digre, K. B., Goadsby, P. J., Robbins, M. S., & Hershey, A. (2024). Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 64(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14692

Chen, Y.-S., Lee, H.-F., Tsai, C.-H., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Fang, C.-J. (2022). Effect of vitamin B2 supplementation on migraine prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutritional Neuroscience, 25(9), 1801–1812. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028415X.2021.1904542

Diener, H. C., Rahlfs, V. W., & Danesch, U. (2004). The first placebo-controlled trial of a special butterbur root extract for the prevention of migraine: Reanalysis of efficacy criteria. European Neurology, 51(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076535

Galluccio, M., Brizio, C., Torchetti, E. M., Ferranti, P., Gianazza, E., Indiveri, C., & Barile, M. (2007). Over-expression in Escherichia coli, purification and characterization of isoform 2 of human FAD synthetase. Protein Expression and Purification, 52, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pep.2006.09.002 (Human FAD synthetase shown to have a strict requirement for MgCl₂.)

Gonçalves, A. L., Ferreira, A. M., Ribeiro, R. T., Zukerman, E., Cipolla-Neto, J., & Peres, M. F. P. (2016). Randomised clinical trial comparing melatonin 3 mg, amitriptyline 25 mg and placebo for migraine prevention. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 87(10), 1127–1132. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2016-313458

Holland, S., Silberstein, S. D., Freitag, F., Dodick, D. W., Argoff, C., & Ashman, E. (2012). 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, 78(17), 1346–1353. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d0c (Retired by the American Academy of Neurology on September 16, 2015; the AAN considers its recommendations no longer valid.)

Jusko, W. J., & Levy, G. (1967). Absorption, metabolism, and excretion of riboflavin-5′-phosphate in man. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 56(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600560112

Karthikeyan, S., Zhou, Q., Osterman, A. L., & Zhang, H. (2003). Ligand binding-induced conformational changes in riboflavin kinase: Structural basis for the ordered mechanism. Biochemistry, 42(43), 12532–12538. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi035450t

Lipton, R. B., Göbel, H., Einhäupl, K. M., Wilks, K., & Mauskop, A. (2004). Petasites hybridus root (butterbur) is an effective preventive treatment for migraine. Neurology, 63(12), 2240–2244. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000147290.68260.11

Medrea, I., Cooper, P., Lagman-Bartolome, A. M., Sandoe, C. H., Amoozegar, F., Hussain, W. M., Bradi, A. C., Dawe, J., Guay, M., Perreault, F., Reid, S., Todd, C., Skidmore, B., & Christie, S. N. (2025). Updated Canadian Headache Society migraine prevention guideline with systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 52(3), 450–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.285 (An erratum, 2025, corrected an author name and several reference entries. A corrigendum was published August 22, 2025: https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2025.10381)

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2024). Butterbur. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/butterbur

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. (2022). Riboflavin: Fact sheet for health professionals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Riboflavin-HealthProfessional/

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. (2026). Magnesium: Fact sheet for health professionals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-HealthProfessional/

Okoli, G. N., Rabbani, R., Kashani, H. H., Wierzbowski, A. K., Neilson, C., Mansouri, B., Zarychanski, R., & Abou-Setta, A. M. (2019). Vitamins and minerals for migraine prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 46(2), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2018.394

Peikert, A., Wilimzig, C., & Köhne-Volland, R. (1996). Prophylaxis of migraine with oral magnesium: Results from a prospective, multi-center, placebo-controlled and double-blind randomized study. Cephalalgia, 16(4), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1996.1604257.x

Pfaffenrath, V., Wessely, P., Meyer, C., Isler, H. R., Evers, S., Grotemeyer, K. H., Taneri, Z., Soyka, D., Göbel, H., & Fischer, M. (1996). Magnesium in the prophylaxis of migraine: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia, 16(6), 436–440. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1996.1606436.x

Pringsheim, T., Davenport, W. J., Mackie, G., Worthington, I., Aubé, M., Christie, S. N., Gladstone, J., & Becker, W. J. (2012). Canadian Headache Society guideline for migraine prophylaxis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 39(2, Suppl. 2), S1–S59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22683887/

Schoenen, J., Jacquy, J., & Lenaerts, M. (1998). Effectiveness of high-dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis: A randomized controlled trial. Neurology, 50(2), 466–470. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.50.2.466

Shoeibi, A., Olfati, N., Soltani Sabi, M., Salehi, M., Mali, S., & Akbari Oryani, M. (2017). Effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in prophylactic treatment of migraine headache: An open-label, add-on, controlled trial. Acta Neurologica Belgica, 117(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-016-0697-z

Silberstein, S. D., Holland, S., Freitag, F., Dodick, D. W., Argoff, C., & Ashman, E. (2012). Evidence-based guideline update: Pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology, 78(17), 1337–1345. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d20 (Erratum in Neurology, 2013, 80(9), 871. Reaffirmed by the American Academy of Neurology on October 18, 2025; an update is in progress.)

Talandashti, M. K., Shahinfar, H., Delgarm, P., & Jazayeri, S. (2025). Effects of selected dietary supplements on migraine prophylaxis: A systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurological Sciences, 46(2), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07794-0

Tepper, S. J., & Tepper, K. (2025). Nutraceuticals and headache 2024: Riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, feverfew, magnesium, melatonin, and butterbur. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 29(1), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-025-01358-3

Thompson, D. F., & Saluja, H. S. (2017). Prophylaxis of migraine headaches with riboflavin: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 42(4), 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12548

Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Yue, G., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Energy metabolism disturbance in migraine: From a mitochondrial point of view. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, Article 1133528. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1133528