Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 1: triptans, dihydroergotamine, and magnesium

Objective.— To review and analyze published reports on the acute treatment of migraine headache with triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), and magnesium in emergency department, urgent care, and headache clinic settings. Methods.— MEDLINE was searched using the terms “migraine” and “emergency,” and “therapy” or “treatment.” Reports from emergency department and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery were included. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Acute rescue treatment studies involving the triptans were available for injectable and nasal sumatriptan, as well as rizatriptan. Effectiveness varied widely, even when the pain‐free and pain‐relief statistics were evaluated separately. As these medications are known to work best early in the migraine, part of this variability may be attributed to the timing of triptan administration. Multiple studies compared triptans with anti‐emetics, dopamine antagonists, and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was roughly equivalent to that recorded with droperidol and prochlorperazine. Sumatriptan was equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were performed. While the data extracted suggest that magnesium may be effective in treating all symptoms in patients experiencing migraine with aura across all migraine patients, its effectiveness seems to be limited to treating only photophobia and phonophobia. Conclusions.— Although there are relatively few studies involving health‐care provider‐administered triptans or DHE for acute rescue, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. The relatively rare inclusion of a placebo arm and the frequent use of combination medications in active treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents with each other.     

Sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneous as an effective migraine treatment in patients with cutaneous allodynia who historically fail to respond to oral triptans

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of 6 mg subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan to treat migraine and the relationship between response of migraine and cutaneous allodynia in a population of migraine patients who historically failed to respond to oral triptan medications. This was an openlabel study consisting of patients with migraines who historically failed to respond to oral triptan medications. Forty-three patients were asked to treat three migraine attacks with 6 mg SC sumatriptan. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving relief of headache at 2 h. Ninetyone percent of the patients responded to a single dose of SC sumatriptan 6 mg. Fifty percent of all patients were pain-free by 2 h and over 30% had a 24-h sustained pain-free response. When administered within 90 min from the onset of migraine (i.e., during the developing phase of cutaneous allodynia), SC 6 mg sumatriptan proved to be effective despite the occurrence of allodynia in a group of patients, who historically had failed to respond to oral triptan medications. These findings suggest that the window of opportunity to treat allodynic patients with injectable triptans may be longer (up to 2 h) than with oral triptans (up to 1 h).     

Fixed-Dose Sumatriptan and Naproxen in Poor Responders to Triptans With a Short Half-Life

Objective.— To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a single, fixed‐dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan/naproxen sodium) vs placebo in migraineurs who had discontinued treatment with a short‐acting triptan because of poor response or intolerance. Background.— Triptan monotherapy is ineffective or poorly tolerated in 1 of 3 migraineurs and in 2 of 5 migraine attacks. In April, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration approved the combination therapy sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, developed specifically to target multiple migraine mechanisms. This combination product offers an alternative migraine therapy for patients who have reported poor response or intolerance to short‐acting triptans. Methods.— Two replicate, randomized, multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, 2‐attack crossover trials evaluated migraineurs who had discontinued a short‐acting triptan in the past year because of poor response or intolerance. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 hour and while pain was mild. Results.— Patients (n = 144 study 1; n = 139 study 2) had discontinued an average of 3.3 triptans before study entry. Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was superior (P < .001) to placebo for 2‐ through 24‐hour sustained pain‐free response (primary end point) (study 1, 26% vs 8%; study 2, 31% vs 8%) and pain‐free response 2 hours post dose (key secondary end point) (study 1, 40% vs 17%; study 2, 44% vs 14%). A similar pattern of results was observed for other end points that evaluated acute (2‐ or 4‐hour), intermediate (8‐hour), or 2‐ through 24‐hour sustained response for migraine (ie, pain and associated symptoms), photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea (with the exception of nausea 2 and 4 hours post dose). The percentage of patients with at least 1 adverse event (regardless of causality) was 11% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 4% with placebo in study 1 and 9% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 5% with placebo in study 2. Only 1 adverse event in 1 study was reported in ≥2% of patients after treatment with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium and reported more frequently with sumatriptan/naproxen than placebo: chest discomfort was reported in 2% of subjects in study 1, and no events met this threshold in study 2. No serious adverse events attributed to study medication were reported in either study. Conclusion.— In migraineurs who reported poor response to a short‐acting triptan, sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was generally well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in conferring initial, intermediate, and sustained efficacy for pain and migraine‐associated symptoms of photophobia and phonophobia.     

Treatment satisfaction and efficacy of the rapid release formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets utilising an early intervention paradigm in patients previously unsatisfied with sumatriptan

Aims: To evaluate treatment satisfaction, efficacy and functional ability of the rapid release formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets (sumatriptan RT 100 mg) in an early intervention paradigm in patients who were dissatisfied with low‐dose sumatriptan and not completely satisfied with their current migraine regimen. Methods: Experienced migraineurs who reported a mild migraine pain phase, dissatisfaction with the previous sumatriptan treatment and some dissatisfaction with their current treatment regimen had no experience with sumatriptan at the 100 mg dose were enrolled in an open‐label, single group study. Subjects were instructed to treat four migraine attacks within 30 min of the onset of mild pain. Treatment satisfaction was measured with the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire Revised version (PPMQ‐R) questionnaire. Results: More than half of the subjects were either very satisfied or satisfied with the efficacy of early intervention sumatriptan RT 100 mg after each attack and at the follow‐up study visit. The mean total PPMQ‐R score was 75.2 out of 100. Between 63% and 73% of subjects were pain‐free within 4 h of dosing. Between 79% and 90% of subjects reported an ability to function normally within 4 h of taking the study medication. Conclusion: Subjects who were previously unsatisfied with lower doses of sumatriptan and less than very satisfied with their current treatment regimen were more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied with sumatriptan RT 100 mg in an early intervention paradigm. Results were consistent across four migraine attacks and at a follow‐up visit. The treatment satisfaction results corresponded with positive results on efficacy measures and a functional status measure.     

Marketed oral triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review on efficacy and tolerability

BACKGROUND: In the current literature, there is neither a reported systematic review comparing the efficacy of triptans at 30 minutes and 1 hour after the migraine treatment, nor data related to efficacy of new marketed triptans. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of currently marketed oral, non-reencapsulated triptan formulations vs placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. METHODS: A systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials reporting data after a single migraine attack was conducted. Efficacy results are shown using relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: After reviewing 221 publications, 38 studies were included. All marketed triptans provided significant relief and/or absence of pain at 2 hours, and relief at 1 hour when compared with placebo. After 30 minutes, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg showed significant relief when compared to placebo, whereas the fast-dissolving formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg was the only oral triptan that was superior to placebo in meeting the pain-free endpoint. On the other hand, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg and eletriptan 40 mg showed a lower rate of recurrence than placebo, whereas rizatriptan 10 mg was the only triptan with a recurrence rate greater than that of placebo. Adverse events associated with treatment with tablet formulations of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan were significantly more frequent than those of the placebo group. The inclusion of trials with reencapsulated triptans in the analysis introduced minor specific changes in these results. CONCLUSION: This analysis updates the comparative data available for the 7 currently marketed oral triptans and clearly demonstrates their efficacy when compared to placebo, even with stricter endpoints, such as efficacy at 30 minutes. No triptan exhibited better tolerability than placebo. Results are diverse, depending on the triptan, which probably is a reflection of heterogeneous pharmacokinetics.     

Zelrix™: A Novel Transdermal Formulation of Sumatriptan

Objective.— This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles of Zelrix? (NuPathe Inc., Conshohocken, PA, USA), the novel formulation of sumatriptan (formerly known as NP101). Background.— Migraine is an episodic headache disorder characterized by a combination of neurological, gastrointestinal, and autonomic symptoms. Gastrointestinal disturbances, including nausea, vomiting, and gastric stasis are common and can result in significant impact on treatment. Triptans are 5‐hydroxytriptanime_1B/1D agonists that work on the trigeminal nerve that is activated during migraine. All triptans approved for use in the US are currently available as oral formulations; however, this may not be the ideal route of administration for many migraineurs. Sumatriptan is also available as a nasal spray and subcutaneous (sc) injection. Therefore, the need to develop improved methods for noninvasive parenteral delivery of triptans remains high. Methods.— This was a Phase I, single‐center, open‐label, crossover study that assessed the pharmacokinetic properties of a single dose of sumatriptan delivered using an iontophoretic transdermal patch in comparison with oral, injection, and nasal delivery. Subjects were healthy male and female volunteers who received each of 5 treatments: sumatriptan 100 mg oral tablets, sumatriptan 6 mg sc, sumatriptan 20 mg nasal spray, Zelrix I (transdermal patch with 3 g of gel solution delivering 6 mg of sumatriptan transdermally), or Zelrix II (transdermal patch containing 2.6 g of gel solution delivering 6 mg of sumatriptan). Results.— The C_max for Zelrix was reduced to 30% and 28% of the sumatriptan sc dose, thereby reducing the risk of triptan‐like sensations associated with high peak plasma concentrations. Plasma concentrations for Zelrix I and Zelrix II were intermediate between those for oral and nasal sumatriptan doses tested. Transdermal patch delivery of sumatriptan to the systemic circulation reached plasma concentrations of 10 ng/mL within about 30 minutes. The mean drug delivery of Zelrix I and II was 6.11 mg (confidence intervals [CI] 5.33‐6.88) and 6.09 mg (CI 5.52‐6.66), respectively. The AUC_0‐inf was approximately 99% for the Zelrix I patch and 100% for the Zelrix II patch as compared with sumatriptan 6 mg sc dose. Both doses of sumatriptan transdermal patches were well tolerated. Skin reactions at the patch site were mild and erythema resolved in most subjects within 48‐72 hours. Conclusions.— The results from this study show that sumatriptan administration using a novel iontophoretic transdermal technology delivers plasma levels within the range for nasal spray, tablet, and injectable sumatriptan. Zelrix I and II were well tolerated and adverse events were mild and transient. Transdermal delivery of sumatriptan using the SmartRelief iontophoretic technology may prove beneficial for a large segment of the migraine population based upon fast, consistent delivery of drug and avoidance of common gastrointestinal disturbances associated with migraine.     

Predictors of Adherence to Triptans: Factors of Sustained vs Lapsed Users

Objective.— The present study was conducted to identify factors that predict adherence to triptans by migraine patients. Background.— Triptans have demonstrated efficacy for acute migraine yet many migraine sufferers discontinue their use. Design and Methods.— A survey study was conducted using 785 subjects (390 health maintenance organizations [HMO] and 395 non‐HMO). Of those, 586 were sustained users of triptans (defined by at least 1 refill within the past year), and 199 were classified as lapsed users (ie, individuals who had 0 refills in the past year). Groups were compared on a variety of measures including a comprehensive Migraine Survey that included items related to efficacy and adverse events associated with the patient's current medication, as well as the Headache Impact Test (HIT)‐6 and Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaires. Data were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance and stepwise multiple regression. Results.— Sustained users of triptans were significantly more satisfied with their medication, confident in the medication's ability to control headache, and reported control of migraine with fewer doses of medication. Sustained users also switched triptans products significantly less often than lapsed users, and reported greater benefit from triptan intervention in restoring normal daily functions, including improved cognitive ability, compared with lapsed users' ratings of their nontriptan medication. More lapsed users than sustained users reported adverse events associated with past triptan use. Results from multiple and logistic regression analyses correctly classified 95% of sustained users and identified the most significant predictors for sustained use as: satisfaction and belief in medication, reliability of response, effectiveness in rapidly restoring normal levels of productivity, and fewer doses of medication for resolving an attack. The HIT‐6 and MIDAS distinguished between sustained and lapsed triptan users on days unable to do household work and missed family and social events. Conclusions.— Predictors of adherence to triptans included satisfaction and confidence in triptans' ability to stop the migraine and associated symptoms and to return the individual to normal functioning. The findings suggest that lapsed users may not be receiving optimal treatment, and that if their past response to triptans was a consequence of inadequate education, they may benefit from additional education on proper use of triptans.     

Satisfaction with current migraine therapy: experience from 3 centers in US and Sweden

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of satisfaction and determinants of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of patients presenting in tertiary care, in regard to their usual care (UC) for the acute treatment of migraine. DESIGN/METHODS: Patients seen in 3 headache centers were assessed by means of 21 attributes related to their UC. Questions covered satisfaction with efficacy (including onset of relief, degree of relief, consistency of action, ease of use), tolerability (lack of side effects overall, CNS side effects, other side effects), and willingness to continue using the same medication and to change to another medication. All questions were answered on a 5-point scale (where 1 was strongly agree, 2 was agree, 3 was neutral, 4 was disagree, and 5 was strongly disagree). RESULTS: We assessed 183 subjects (74.8% women, mean age = 39.3 years). UC consisted, as a single drug or combination, of: triptan conventional tablets--62%; triptan disintegrating tablets--8%; sumatriptan nasal spray 9%; sumatriptan injection, 9%; nontriptans--19.6%. Most (54%) had no benefit within the first hour of treatment. The maximum benefit took more than 1 hour to be reached in 69%, and more than 2 hours in 36%. After the maximum benefit had been reached, pain worsened in 61%. Although 58% were satisfied with the degree of relief, 37% were dissatisfied with the speed of effect, 50% with the recurrence of pain, and 42% with the need for a second dose. Most were satisfied with the tolerability (56%). Finally, most (79.7%) said they were willing to try another acute medication. CONCLUSIONS: An important subset of patients, including a large subgroup of patients using triptans, is dissatisfied with their UC. Clinical trials assessing patients' preference should be conducted to complement the information from clinical trials.     

Treatment satisfaction, functional status, and health-related quality of life of migraine patients treated with almotriptan or sumatriptan

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes, such as treatment satisfaction, functional status, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are essential components of migraine research. Almotriptan is a new selective serotonin 1B/1D agonist triptan migraine treatment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study was to compare treatment satisfaction, functional status, and HRQOL of patients treated with oral almotriptan versus sumatriptan, the leading triptan on the market. METHODS: Migraine patients, aged 18 to 71 years, took equivalent oral doses of 12.5 mg almotriptan or 50 mg sumatriptan for the abortive treatment of a migraine headache. Treatment satisfaction differences between study groups were assessed using a 6-item measure to determine patients' satisfaction with pain relief and satisfaction with side effects 48 hours after drug administration. Functional status was assessed by analyzing the change in patients' ability to perform normal activities during the course of the migraine. HRQOL was compared between treatment groups at 24 hours using the Migraine Quality of Life Questionnaire. End points were assessed using entries from patients' 48-hour diaries. RESULTS: A total of 1173 patients were treated with almotriptan or sumatriptan. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in terms of satisfaction with pain relief; however, patients in the almotriptan group were significantly more satisfied (less bothered) with side effects than those receiving sumatriptan (P = 0.016). Functional status and HRQOL outcomes were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, migraine patients treated with almotriptan were significantly more satisfied with the side-effect profile of the drug than patients treated with sumatriptan. The results of this study may help inform practicing physicians and neurologists about the potential treatment satisfaction advantages of almotriptan.     

Sumatriptan-naproxen migraine efficacy in allodynic patients: early intervention

Objective.— This study evaluated the effectiveness of a single fixed‐dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan–naproxen) using a very early treatment paradigm in migraine patients whose attacks were historically accompanied by cutaneous allodynia. Background.— Evidence suggests that allodynic migraineurs may demonstrate a better response when treated prior to developing central sensitization, and that these patients are treated more effectively with a compound of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium than either drug alone. This study targeted patients who have accompanying allodynia using a very early treatment paradigm where treatment was initiated while symptoms were still mild. Methods.— This was an open‐label prospective, outpatient study of adult migraineurs who had screened positive for cutaneous allodynia and typically experienced moderate to severe pain preceded by an identifiable mild pain phase. Patients were treated with sumatriptan–naproxen using a very early intervention paradigm in 4 test migraines over 12 weeks where dosage occurred within 30 minutes of symptom onset. Data from diaries and questionnaires were used to evaluate the primary endpoints of sustained pain‐free response at 24 hours post dose (using no second dose of study drug and no other rescue drugs), and overall satisfaction with sumatriptan–naproxen. Results.— Forty allodynic migraineurs enrolled in this study and reported a total of 160 migraines. Of these migraines, 78 (49%) achieved sustained pain‐free at 24 hours and 94 (59%) were reported as pain‐free at 2 hours. The number of patients who rated their Overall Satisfaction following treatment with sumatriptan–naproxen as “Satisfied” (satisfied or very satisfied) was 32 (80%) after the first migraine and 25 (63%) after 3 or more migraines. Conclusions.— In this open‐label study, allodynic patients reported that their migraine attacks responded well and they achieved a high degree of satisfaction following treatment with a fixed‐dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg administered in a very early treatment paradigm.     

Naratriptan: an alternative for migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the literature regarding naratriptan's clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and indications. DATA SOURCE: A MEDLINE search was conducted for the period from January 1990 to June 1998. Key words used included naratriptan, triptan, serotonin agonists, migraine, and migraine therapy. In addition, pertinent references cited in articles obtained from MEDLINE and product information for triptans were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All original and review articles and abstracts pertaining to naratriptan were reviewed, as were product information extracts. Clinical trials of naratriptan were critically reviewed and compared with pertinent clinical trials of other oral triptans. DATA SYNTHESIS: The treatment of migraine has been dramatically improved with the use of sumatriptan, other triptans, and serotonin-receptor subtype 1B and 1D agonists. Drawbacks to these medications, however, have included poorly tolerated adverse effects and the recurrence of the migraine. Naratriptan has been recently approved for acute oral migraine therapy. In two Phase III trials of naratriptan compared with placebo, relief at four hours was obtained in 60% and 68% of patients using the 2.5-mg dose, with recurrence of headache in 24 hours in 27% and 28% of patients. The data on migraine recurrence were similar to those of other oral triptans; the efficacy of naratriptan at two hours was not specifically analyzed. Adverse effects of naratriptan were similar to placebo, and its tolerability seemed superior compared with studies of other oral triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan is a promising new oral therapy for acute migraine; it may successfully treat patients who poorly tolerate other triptan therapies or have longer duration migraine headaches.     

Long-term evaluation of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents

Objectives.— To evaluate the long‐term safety, tolerability, effectiveness, impact on quality of life, and medication satisfaction of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in the acute treatment of migraine headache in adolescents. Methods.— This 12‐month, multicenter, open‐label, safety study was conducted in adolescents (aged 12‐17 years) with an average of 2‐8 migraines/month typically lasting >2 hours untreated for >6 months prior to initiation. Subjects were instructed to treat migraines as early as possible and were allowed to rescue 2 hours post dose with a single dose of a naproxen‐containing product, over‐the‐counter pain reliever, or anti‐emetics. Subjects were advised not to take a second tablet of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium without at least a 24‐hour headache‐free period. Safety evaluations included adverse events, laboratory tests, and vital signs and electrocardiogram evaluation. Other evaluations included freedom from pain, quality of life, and medication satisfaction. Results.— Of the 656 subjects enrolled, 622 (95%) treated at least 1 migraine with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, of which 435 (70%) and 363 (58%) completed 6 and 12 months of the study, respectively. Overall, there were 12,927 exposures to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium: on average 2.5 tablets were taken per month per subject. The most common treatment‐related adverse events were nausea (7%), dizziness (3%), muscle tightness (3%), and chest discomfort (3%). There were no deaths; 4 subjects had 5 serious adverse events (suicide attempt, hemolytic anemia and syncope, suicidal ideation, spontaneous abortion) unrelated to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium and resolved without sequelae. Seven percent of subjects discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event; 5% of subjects discontinued due to lack of efficacy. Overall, 42% of the migraine attacks were pain‐free within 2 hours of treatment with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, subjects reported improvements from baseline in 2 of 3 quality of life domains over time, and were generally satisfied with the efficacy and overall treatment at the end of the study. Conclusion.— In adolescent migraineurs, after up to 12 months and over 12,000 exposures to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, there were no new or clinically significant findings in the safety parameters, including the frequency and nature of adverse events, as compared to the individual components or to the adverse event profile in adults. In addition, sumatriptan/naproxen sodium provided freedom from pain over time, improvements in quality of life and medication satisfaction.     

Satisfaction with and confidence in needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan in patients currently treated with triptans

(Headache 2011;51:1202‐1211) Objective.— To evaluate patient satisfaction with and confidence in Sumavel^® DosePro^® (needle‐free subcutaneous sumatriptan) among current triptan users administering Sumavel DosePro for up to 4 migraine attacks. Background.— Sumavel DosePro is a needle‐free, single‐use device that facilitates subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan 6 mg and confers relief as early as 10 minutes after dosing. Design/Methods.— In this open‐label, multicenter study, Sumavel DosePro was self‐administered for ≤4 migraine attacks (over a ≤60‐day period) involving moderate or severe baseline pain by adult migraineurs who currently were using triptans (any form, any dosage) and reported being less than very satisfied with their current therapy (ie, baseline satisfaction ranging from satisfied to very dissatisfied). Treatment satisfaction was measured via the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire, revised (PPMQ‐R). Results.— Among the 212 patients using Sumavel DosePro to treat ≥1 migraine attack, PPMQ‐R Overall Satisfaction (primary endpoint) increased significantly from baseline to the end of treatment (mean ± SD 65.7 ± 19.8 vs 73.7 ± 29.1, P = .0007), an improvement that met the criterion for clinical significance. From baseline to the end of treatment, PPMQ‐R scores also improved significantly for Efficacy (62.2 ± 17.6 vs 76.2 ± 23.7, P < .0001), Functionality (59.0 ± 22.3 vs 73.8 ± 25.3, P < .0001), and Tolerability (83.9 ± 13.1 vs 86.4 ± 15.0, P = .02), but declined for Ease of Use (82.6 ± 15.3 vs 67.8 ± 27.6, P < .0001). For all global satisfaction domains, the percentage of patients satisfied or very satisfied increased from baseline to the end of treatment (Overall Satisfaction 36.3% vs 64.0%, Satisfaction with Medication Effectiveness 40.1% vs 68.2%, Satisfaction with Side Effects 48.6% vs 67.3%). The percentage of patients who were confident or very confident in treating repeated migraine attacks also increased (baseline: 41.0%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 35.4, 46.9 vs end of treatment: 66.5%, 90% CI 58.9, 70.1). The efficacy results (pain relief, pain‐free response, sustained 24‐hour pain relief and pain‐free response) were consistent with those previously observed with needle‐based sumatriptan. Conclusion.— Patients currently treated with triptans and less than very satisfied with their acute migraine therapy experienced a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in satisfaction with therapy and enhanced confidence in treatment after use of Sumavel DosePro for up to 4 migraine attacks.     

Patterns of use of triptans and reasons for switching them in a tertiary care migraine population

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reasons for switching triptans within migraine patients presenting to a specialty clinic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed data of migraineurs who (1) were currently using a triptan as acute treatment medication for migraine, and (2) had previously used at least one other triptan, or a different triptan formulation. All subjects were followed for at least 1 year. For every triptan/formulation used, the reasons for discontinuation were obtained. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 386 patients, 339 of whom (87.8%) were females. Sumatriptan was first used by 349 (90.4%); zolmitriptan, by 238 (61.5%); rizatriptan, by 195 (50.5%); naratriptan, by 137 (35.4%); and almotriptan, by 31 (8.0%). Almotriptan was excluded from this analysis because of our small sample. We found significant differences among those who wanted to try another triptan to see if it would be better in those who first used sumatriptan 25 mg, compared to those first using sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .01), sumatriptan 100 mg (P < .001), sumatriptan nasal spray (NS) (P < .001), sumatriptan subcutaneous (SC) (P < .001), zolmitriptan 5 mg (P < .001), rizatriptan 10 mg (P < .001), and naratriptan (P = .001). Patients using rizatriptan, sumatriptan NS, and sumatriptan SC had significantly lower rates of reporting this answer. Subjects first using naratriptan were less likely to report recurrence than those using sumatriptan 25 mg (P = .004), sumatriptan 50 mg (P = .0005), sumatriptan 100 mg (P = .003), zolmitriptan (P = .02), and rizatriptan (P = .006). Incomplete relief was more frequently reported by those first using sumatriptan 25 mg and naratriptan. Inconsistency was a reason for switching in those initially using sumatriptan NS, sumatriptan 25 mg, and naratriptan and less frequently reported in those using zolmitriptan and sumatriptan SC. Side effects were major factors for those first using sumatriptan 100 mg, NS, and SC, and less for those using naratriptan and sumatriptan 25 mg. From those subjects that initially used sumatriptan SC and were switched to a different triptan or formulation, 19.5% returned to sumatriptan SC; for the other triptans/formulations, the percentages were: sumatriptan 25 mg, 7.8%; sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg, 42.3%; sumatriptan NS, 17.7%; zolmitriptan, 17.6%; rizatriptan, 16.5%; naratriptan, 9.4%. For those who used more than three triptans/formulations, the last triptan used was: sumatriptan, 29.5%; zolmitriptan, 31.8%; rizatriptan, 25.0%; naratriptan, 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of treatment attributes are important in determining the reasons involved in switching a triptan. To assess this attributes can provide additional information to supplement the traditional tests of efficacy provided by randomized clinical trials.     

Switching patients with migraine from sumatriptan to other triptans increases primary care costs

Treatment of migraine with triptans is highly effective, although cost considerations may prompt a change in therapy. This retrospective database analysis of 3196 patients with migraine, established on sumatriptan therapy, found that 54% of the 292 experiencing a triptan switch returned to sumatriptan within 15 months, suggesting that the alternative was less acceptable. Excluding patients with unusually high use of triptans (> or = 208 tablets/year), switching therapy resulted in a significant increase of pounds sterling 53/patient in total costs, compared with patients continuing on sumatriptan (p = 0.014). Cost savings (pounds sterling 17/patient over 15 months) were observed only among the 41% of patients in whom the initial switch was successful and did not result in a further switch or return to sumatriptan. Among patients who were relatively low cost initially, switching resulted in increased costs, irrespective of the outcome. This study suggests that there is no economic justification for switching from sumatriptan to another triptan.     

Triptans versus analgesics

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively assess patient preferences between triptans and analgesics in treating migraine headache. METHODS: The study assessed patient preferences for triptans versus commonly used migraine analgesic preparations. Over a 3-month period, 663 patients with migraine between the ages of 17 and 62 years completed an office-based survey. RESULTS: Most patients preferred a treatment regimen that included either a triptan alone (52%) or a triptan with an analgesic medication within 1 hour (18%). Overall, 70% of patients who had been given triptans in the past chose to continue to use them, either alone or with an analgesic. Patients who preferred analgesics alone comprised 21% of the total. Nine percent preferred not to take either triptans or analgesic medications. Among the patients who preferred triptans, 62% stated that increased efficacy was the primary reason for their preference. Thirty percent cited both efficacy and decreased adverse events. The remaining 8% believed that decreased adverse events was the basis for their preference. CONCLUSIONS: Despite cost and other limitations of triptans, most patients prefer them over nontriptan medications. Enhanced efficacy was the main reason for choosing triptans over analgesics.     

Infrequent or non-response to oral sumatriptan does not predict response to other triptans--review of four trials

A migraineur can claim to be an infrequent responder ('non-responder') to an oral triptan independent of which triptan he or she is presently using. Four trials of an alternative triptan (zolmitriptan/rizatriptan; eletriptan; naratriptan; almotriptan) in patients with a history of infrequent response to oral sumatriptan were compared and contrasted in terms of study design, patient characteristics, and efficacy and tolerability of the triptan under investigation. Unfortunately, none of the reported studies used an appropriate parallel design, which would have had the non-responding triptan (oral sumatriptan) in one arm and without encapsulation. While the four trials differed in terms of study design (open-label vs. placebo-controlled), definition of sumatriptan 'non-responder' (retrospective vs. prospective) and pain intensity at baseline (30% severe to 70% severe), all four demonstrated that lack of response to sumatriptan did not predict lack of response to an alternative triptan. Changing triptans resulted in 2-h pain-relief rates of 25-81% in patients with a history of poor response to sumatriptan. It can be concluded that migraine patients who respond infrequently to sumatriptan should be switched to a different triptan, as lack of response to one triptan does not predict likelihood of responsiveness to another. A review of the available evidence suggests that almotriptan may be one of the most appropriate choices for an alternative triptan.     

Examining the utility of in-clinic "rescue" therapy for acute migraine

Background.— Management options currently are limited for patients with acute migraine whose symptoms prove refractory to self‐administered therapy. Objective.— To evaluate the clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness of a management program offering in‐clinic “rescue” treatment for patients with acute migraine. Methods.— Two hundred consecutive migraine patients presenting to a university‐based headache clinic were randomized to receive either optimal self‐administered medical therapy for acute migraine (“standard therapy”) or similar therapy plus the option of in‐clinic parenteral drug administration should self‐administered therapy prove ineffective (“rescue therapy”). Patients randomized to the latter group were restricted to a maximum of 2 “rescue visits” per month, and all patients were followed for one year. Patients “rescued” in clinic were contacted by telephone 24 hours following treatment to evaluate their treatment response. The primary analysis involved a comparison of the number of emergency department (ED) visits for headache recorded within each group over the one‐year period of study. For all ED visits in the rescue group and for a randomly selected and equal number of ED visits within the standard group, the direct costs associated with those visits were assessed, and the direct costs of all in‐clinic rescue visits also were recorded and analyzed. Results.— The 2 groups studied were similar in terms of age, gender ratio, migraine subtype, migraine‐related disability status at baseline and type/extent of medical insurance coverage. Over the one‐year study period, the rescue group recorded 423 in‐clinic rescue visits and reported 27 ED visits for headache treatment. The standard therapy group reported 73 ED visits (27 vs 73 visits; P < .01). The total direct costs associated with ED visits were $45,330 for the rescue group (mean $1690 per ED visit) and (by extrapolation from the sample selected) $147,971 for the standard therapy group (mean $2027 per ED visit). The total direct cost of the 423 “rescue visits” was $33,647 (mean $80 per visit). In 79% of the 423 rescue encounters, the patients involved reported no residual functional disability 24 hours following treatment. Of those in the rescue group who sought in‐clinic rescue, 89% reported themselves “very satisfied” with such management. Conclusion.— Providing the alternative of in‐clinic “rescue” for acute migraine refractory to self‐administered therapy offers an attractive alternative for patients and appears to substantially lower use of an ED for headache treatment and the cost associated with that use.