Efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

Acute Treatment of Headache (Focus on Migraine)

Acute treatments for migraine and cluster headache are necessary to abort attacks, relieve pain and associated symptoms, and restore an individual's ability to function. Acute headache treatments consist of a variety of medication and nonmedication options. In this article, we discuss the approach to acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. We summarize the level of evidence to support each acute medication class according to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as guideline recommendations from the American Headache Society, American Academy of Neurology, and European Federation of Neurological Society.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

FINDINGS

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

Predicting the response to a triptan in migraine using deep attack phenotyping: A feasibility study

Background

Triptans, specific symptomatic medications for migraine, are not effective in a proportion of patients, or in all attacks, hence the importance of identifying predictors of response. Our aim was to investigate the association between the efficacy of oral frovatriptan 2.5 mg and clinical characteristics of migraine attacks.

Methods

We enrolled 29 consecutive patients affected by migraine without aura at the Headache Center of “Mondino” Institute of Pavia. Each patient was given a diary and asked to record prospectively the features of three consecutive migraine attacks while using frovatriptan. A generalized estimating equations approach was used to determine phenotypic features associated with the pain free response at 2 hours.

Results

Participants provided complete data for 85 attacks. Thirty of these (34%) patients reported being pain free 2 hours after taking frovatriptan 2.5 mg intake. Unilateral pain, presence of phonophobia, presence of one or more cranial autonomic symptoms and presence of one or more premonitory symptom were each associated with being pain free at 2 hours.

Conclusions

The response to frovatriptan was associated with particular features of the migraine attack, either before or during the pain phase of attacks. The data support larger studies to explore detailed attack phenotyping, with particular attention to early signs, to enable individualized treatment in migraine.

Spotlight on frovatriptan: a review of its efficacy in the treatment of migraine

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder, affecting millions of people worldwide. Current guidelines recommend triptans as first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. Frovatriptan is a second-generation triptan with a longer terminal elimination half-life in blood than other triptans (~26 hours). Three double-blind, randomized crossover preference studies have been recently conducted, assessing efficacy and safety of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and almotriptan, respectively. Frovatriptan showed favorable tolerability and sustained effect, with a significantly lower rate of relapse over 48 hours versus the other triptans. These findings were confirmed in a series of analyses of patient subsets from the three studies, including patients with menstrually related and oral contraceptive-induced migraine, hypertension, obesity, weekend migraine, as well as patients with migraine with aura. In all patient subsets analyzed, lower headache recurrence rates were observed versus the comparator triptans, indicating a more sustained pain-relieving effect on migraine symptoms. A further randomized, double-blind study demonstrated that frovatriptan given in combination with the fast-acting cyclooxygenase inhibitor dexketoprofen provided improved migraine pain-free activity at 2 hours, and gave more sustained pain-free activity at 24 hours, versus frovatriptan alone. These benefits were observed both when the combination was administered early (<1 hour after symptom onset) or late (>1 hour after onset). Different pharmacokinetic, but synergistic, properties between frovatriptan and dexketoprofen may make the combination of these agents particularly effective in migraine treatment, with rapid onset of action and sustained effect over 48 hours. These benefits, together with potential cost-effectiveness advantages versus other triptans could drive selection of the most appropriate treatment for acute migraine attacks.

Targeted Review: Medications for Acute Migraine Treatment

Objective:

To assess the evidence base for drugs used for acute treatment of episodic migraine (headache on < 14 days a month) in Canada.

Methods:

A detailed search strategy was employed to find relevant published clinical trials of drugs used in Canada for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Primarily meta-analyses and systematic reviews were included. Where these were not available for a drug or were out of date, individual clinical trial reports were utilized. Only double-blind randomized clinical trials with placebo or active drug controls were included in the analysis. Recommendations and levels of evidence were graded according to the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, using a consensus group.

Results:

Eighteen acute migraine medications and two adjunctive medications were evaluated. Twelve acute medications received a strong recommendation with supporting high quality evidence for use in acute migraine therapy (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, ASA, ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, diclofenac potassium, and acetaminophen). Four acute medications received a weak recommendation for use with low or moderate quality evidence (dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, codeine-containing combination analgesics, and tramadol-containing combination analgesics). Three of these medications were NOT recommended for routine use (ergotamine, and codeine- and tramadol-containing medications), and strong recommendations were made to avoid use of butorphanol and butalbital-containing medications. Both metoclopramide and domperidone received a strong recommendation for use with acute migraine attack medications where necessary.

Conclusion:

Our targeted review formulated recommendations for the available acute medications for migraine treatment according to the GRADE method. This should be helpful for practitioners who prescribe medications for acute migraine treatment.

Efficacy of frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of menstrual migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter studies

The objective of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS criteria) through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. Subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, patients had to switch to the next treatment for other 3 months. 346 subjects formed intention-to-treat population of the main study; 280 of them were of a female gender, 256 had regular menses and 187 were included in the menstrual migraine subgroup analysis. Rate of pain free at 2, 4 and 24 h was 23, 52 and 67 % with F and 30, 61 and 66 % with comparators (P = NS). Pain relief episodes at 2, 4 and 24 h were 37, 60 and 66 % for F and 43, 55 and 61 % for comparators (P = NS). Rate of recurrence was significantly (P < 0.05) lower under F either at 24 h (11 vs. 24 % comparators) or at 48 h (15 vs. 26 % comparators). Number of menstrual migraine attacks associated with drug-related adverse events was equally low (P = NS) between F (5 %) and comparators (4 %).

A review of the use of frovatriptan in the treatment of menstrually related migraine

Menstrual migraine (MM) is a highly prevalent condition associated with considerable disability. Migraine attacks occur exclusively around the menstrual period in approximately 10% of women with migraine, that is, pure menstrual migraine, while at least 50% of them also experience migraine at other times of the month, that is, menstrually related migraine (MRM). The therapeutic approach to patients with MRM is based on treatment of the attack, or prophylactic strategies. Triptans are recommended as first-line treatments for moderate to severe migraine attacks, including MM. Frovatriptan is one of the newest triptans. Its high affinity for 5-HT1B/1D receptors and long half-life contribute to its distinctive clinical effect, characterized by a more sustained and prolonged effect than other triptans. Indeed, frovatriptan proved to be effective in treating the acute attack, but was particularly effective in the short-term preventive therapy of MM. In addition, frovatriptan is one of the safest triptans, with the lowest risk of treatment-emergent adverse events. Following extensive evidence from randomized pharmacological trials, frovatriptan has now gained a grade A recommendation from the guidelines for short-term prophylaxis of MM. Recent post-hoc analyses of direct comparative trials also suggest that frovatriptan might have an important role in the acute treatment of MRM. In these studies, frovatriptan showed pain relief and pain-free rates similar to those of zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, and almotriptan, but with significantly lower recurrence rates. More well-designed, randomized, prospective studies, specifically enrolling women with MM, will be needed in the near future to confirm the efficacy of frovatriptan in this migraine subtype.

Taking the negative view of current migraine treatments: the unmet needs

Acute migraine treatment is given to abolish ongoing attacks, while prophylactic migraine treatment is given on a daily basis to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks as far as possible. The majority of migraine patients do not use the specific acute anti-migraine drugs, the triptans. Thus, only 10% (Denmark) to 35% (France) of migraine patients use triptans. This is most likely due to relatively low efficacy. Thus, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pain freedom after 2 hours ranges from 12% (frovatriptan 2.5 mg) to 40% (rizatriptan 10 mg). For prophylactic treatment (propranolol, valproate, topiramate) a response (at least a 50% reduction in migraine frequency) is observed in 40-50%. In addition, prophylactic treatment is hampered by adverse events and withdrawals. There is a need for new acute anti-migraine drugs and targets are already available and there are more to come. It has been estimated that approximately 2% of the adult population need prophylactic treatment because of frequent migraine attacks. For prophylactic migraine drugs there is an even greater need for new drugs than for acute drug treatment.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of frovatriptan

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is the most common painful neurological disorder, affecting 13% of the general population. Triptans represent a powerful pharmacological tool in acute migraine treatment, however, a significant portion of treated patients cannot have access to this class due to possible adverse affects. Today, a total of seven triptan molecules are available, representing a commonly prescribed migraine treatment. Although there is a need of extensive use of triptans, only 25% of migraine patients are using triptans.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes triptans and evidence for the use of frovatriptan. A systematic approach is used to discuss the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of frovatriptan, considering the emerging data on the clinical efficacy of frovatriptan in the treatment of migraine and cluster headaches. The data were obtained by searching the following key words in MEDLINE: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, triptans, frovatriptan, migraine, menstrual migraine, relatively to the period 1988 - 2011.

EXPERT OPINION

Frovatriptan has been developed in order to improve safety and efficacy of triptans. It shows a favorable tolerability and efficacy profile, limited to 24/48-h headache recurrence, when compared with other triptans. Preclinical data suggest that the pharmacokinetic profile of frovatriptan may differ from other available triptans. In fact, among triptans, frovatriptan showed the highest potency at the 5-HT1B receptor (8.2) and the longer half-life (26 h). These parameters determine the clinical properties of frovatriptan; in particular the lowest rate of headache recurrence in comparison with other triptans.

Frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian studies

The objective of the study is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. 414 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F 2.5 mg or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting not more than 3 months. The number of pain free (PF) and pain relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and the number of sustained pain free (SPF) and recurrent episodes within the 48 h were the efficacy endpoints. 346 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 30% with F and 34% with comparators (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 55% for F and 59% for comparators (p = NS). SPF episodes at 48 h were also similar between the two groups (22% F vs. 21% comparators). Rate of recurrence was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under F (27 vs. 40% comparators). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F, particularly cardiovascular symptoms. Our systematic analysis of individual studies suggests that F has a similar immediate efficacy, but a more sustained effect and a better tolerability than R, Z and A.

The Migraine Intervention Score - a tool to improve efficacy of triptans in acute migraine therapy: the ALADIN study

BACKGROUND

The 'Migraine Intervention Score' (MIS) is a new self-administered scale that can be used to quantify the severity of specific migraine symptoms. The objective of this study was to determine if MIS could be used to improve the efficacy of frovatriptan 2.5 mg in the early treatment of migraine attacks for clinical practice.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, patients suffering from migraines with or without aura were enrolled and permitted to choose the time of self-medication with frovatriptan 2.5 mg. At the time of intake of medication, patients evaluated the severity of individual migraine symptoms using MIS. The scores for each symptom were then totalled to provide an overall level of symptom severity. A total of 1620 patients completed the treatment of three migraine attacks with frovatriptan. A total of 1518 patients could be analysed with respect to the documented efficacy parameters of the third attack. Patients initiating treatment at low symptom severity levels were compared with those initiating treatment at high symptom severity levels.

RESULTS

Time to the achievement of the primary endpoint (headache response) was significantly lower in patients who initiated treatment at low vs. high symptom severity levels (42.06 ± 32.33 vs. 49.25 ± 34.92 min; p = 0.0023). Likewise, patients who initiated treatment at low symptom severity levels achieved complete headache relief more rapidly (79.37 ± 65.33 vs. 96.05 ± 100.85 min; p = 0.0109) and required escape medication less frequently (3.88% vs. 13.73%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The initiation of attack treatment with frovatriptan at low severity of migraine symptoms is more effective than starting therapy at higher symptom levels. Together with the low recurrence headache rate, the decreased necessity for escape medication and the low number of tablets needed, these data demonstrate that operationalised intervention with frovatriptan 2.5 mg is a valuable method for improving the treatment of migraine attacks.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment.

Treatment response and tolerability of frovatriptan in patients reporting short- or long-duration migraines at baseline

OBJECTIVES

Compare migraine duration with frovatriptan (versus baseline) in migraineurs reporting long- (24-72 h) or short-duration (<24 h) migraines at baseline.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of two postmarketing surveillance studies of migraineurs in German primary care clinics using frovatriptan (2.5 mg) to treat a single migraine attack. Using case-report forms, physicians recorded migraine characteristics at baseline (aura, duration, frequency, severity) and with frovatriptan (duration, severity, and recurrence). Patients and physicians rated frovatriptan effectiveness and tolerability versus previous therapy; physicians recorded adverse reactions. The primary analysis was change in migraine duration with frovatriptan versus baseline.

RESULTS

At baseline, 44.2% (7178/16 253) and 55.8% (9075/16 253) of patients reported short- and long-duration migraines, respectively; long-duration migraines were more often frequent (> or =3/months; 55.5% [4893/8811] vs. 30.6% [2132/6973]; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 23.5-26.5%), severe (61.7% [5584/9047] vs. 33.9% [2427/7156]; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 26.3-29.3%), and accompanied by aura (46.8% [4199/8977] vs. 31.3% [2215/7088]; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 14.0-17.0%). Mean (SD) onset of frovatriptan effect was <1 h; 72.3% (11 592/16 040) of patients required only one frovatriptan tablet. With frovatriptan, patients were 26.8-fold more likely to experience decreased versus increased headache duration (p < 0.001; 95% CI, 23.5-30.2) and 76.5% of patients reporting long-duration migraines at baseline experienced short-duration migraines. Most patients (87-90%) and physicians (70-75%) rated frovatriptan more effective and tolerable than previous therapies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with more severe migraine characteristics at baseline were more likely to have attacks lasting > or =24 h. When using frovatriptan, patients were 26.8-fold more likely to experience decreased versus increased headache duration. Frovatriptan might be a good option for patients with long-duration or recurrent migraine attacks. The post hoc design and analysis of a single migraine attack are possible study limitations.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1-3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9±1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2±1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p<0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p=NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

Clinical and economic comparison of frovatriptan versus other oral triptans in the treatment of acute migraine in the real-world setting

Triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists) such as frovatriptan have been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with acute migraine. However, the large number of available triptans has led to the issue of how best to decide which triptan should be prescribed at an individual patient level. This review focuses on frovatriptan and highlights parameters that affect oral triptan choice, discusses the results of several open-label clinical and post-marketing surveillance studies of frovatriptan, and compares these naturalistic data with those from similar studies of other oral triptans. Efficacy data obtained from these trials are used to compare costs of treating migraine with frovatriptan and other oral triptans in four European countries. Studies of triptans in migraine have used several outcomes deemed important to patients, including complete pain relief, absence of recurrence, rapid onset of action, no side effects, restoration of functional ability, improvements in quality of life, and cost. In contrast to indirect evidence from some individual randomized, double-blind studies, results from open-label naturalistic studies and a meta-analysis of 31 placebo-controlled efficacy studies suggest that frovatriptan is associated with a lower rate of migraine recurrence than with other triptans in a real-world clinical setting (17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg vs 23-40% for other triptans in the meta-analysis). It is likely that this may be due to the terminal elimination half-life of this agent (about 26 hours), which is longer than that of other triptans. Naturalistic studies indicate that the long duration of action of frovatriptan appears to confer other benefits such as greater patient satisfaction, with over 90% of patients and doctors rating frovatriptan therapy as 'very good' or 'good'. The cost of treatment with different triptans based on the number of tablets required per episode varies widely in each of the four countries analysed (Great Britain Pound 4.95-7.98 in France, Great Britain Pound 6.78-12.58 in Germany, Great Britain Pound 4.32-9.73 in the UK and Great Britain Pound 6.69-10.36 in Italy, based on lowest possible costs for branded versions in 2008) due to differences in both the acquisition costs of these agents and in the headache recurrence rates. Frovatriptan compares favourably with other available triptans with regard to cost per migraine attack on this basis, although head-to-head studies are required to confirm these data. The low rate of headache recurrence with frovatriptan compared with other oral triptans, and the associated lower treatment costs, deserve consideration when choosing an oral triptan for the treatment of patients with acute migraine.

The triptans

The migraine-specific triptans have revolutionized the treatment of migraine and are currently the drugs of choice to treat a migraine attack in progress. Over the past 15 years, triptans were released in rapid succession, with each one demonstrating some specific pharmacokinetic properties that may be translated into clinical advantages. Triptans share many similarities, but also have important differences from one another. Accordingly, herein we discuss the class of the triptans. We first define the trigeminovascular system and its importance in migraine pain, then discuss the mechanism of action of the triptans and contrast the evidence supporting the use of different triptans. We close with our view of the future and hopes for the next generation of antimigraine therapies.

Oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine. Clinical aspects and response to frovatriptan

Oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine (OCMM) is a poorly defined migraine subtype mainly triggered by the cyclic pill suspension. In this pilot, open-label trial we describe its clinical features and evaluate the efficacy of frovatriptan in the treatment of its acute attack. During the first 3 months of the study 20 women (mean age 32.2+/-7.0, range 22-46) with a 6-month history of pure OCMM recorded, in monthly diary cards, clinical information about their migraine. During the 4th menstrual cycle they treated an OCMM attack with frovatriptan 2.5 mg. The majority of attacks were moderate/severe and lasted 25-72 h or more, in the presence of usual treatment. Generally an OCMM attack appeared within the first 5 days after the pill suspension, but in 15% of cases it started later. After frovatriptan administration, headache intensity progressively decreased (2.4 at onset, 1.6 after 2 h, 1.1 after 4 h and 0.8 after 24 h; p=0.0001). In 55% of patients pain relief was reported after 2 h. Ten percent of subjects were pain-free subjects after 2 h, 35% after 4 h and 60% after 24 h (p=0.003 for trend); 36% relapsed within 24 h. Rescue medication was needed by 35% of patients; 50% of frovatriptan-treated required a second dose. Concomitant nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia decreased significantly after drug intake. OCMM is a severe form of migraine; actually its clinical features are not always exactly identified by the ICHD-II classification. However, treatment with frovatriptan 2.5 mg might be effective in its management.