Benefits of Treating Highly Disabled Migraine Patients with Zolmitriptan while Pain is Mild

Acute Treatment of Migraine: Expert Consensus Statements from the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

INTRODUCTION

Migraine, characterized by recurrent headaches and often accompanied by other symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL) and daily functioning. The global burden of migraines is reflected not only in terms of reduced QoL but also in the form of increased healthcare costs and missed work or school days. While UAE (United Arab Emirates)-specific consensus-based recommendations for the effective use of preventive calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-based migraine therapies have been published previously, an absence of such regional guidance on the management of acute migraine represents a gap that needs to be urgently addressed.

METHODS

A task force of eight neurologists from the UAE with expertise in migraine management conducted a comprehensive literature search and developed a set of expert statements on the management of acute migraine that were specific to the UAE context. To ensure diverse perspectives are considered, a Delphi panel comprising 16 neurologists plus the task force members was set up. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi survey method. Consensus was predefined as a median rating of 7 or higher without discordance (if > 25% of the Delphi panelists rate an expert statement as 3 or lower on the Likert scale). Expert statements achieving consensus were adopted.

RESULTS

The Modified Delphi method was used successfully to achieve consensus on all nine expert statements drafted by the task force. These consensus statements aim to provide a comprehensive guide for UAE healthcare professionals in treating acute migraine. The statements cover all aspects of acute migraine treatment, including what goals to set, the timing of treatment, treatment strategy to use in case of inadequate response to triptans, safety aspects of combining gepants for acute attacks with preventive CGRP-based therapies, special population (pregnant and pediatric patients) considerations, and the management of the most bothersome symptoms (MBS).

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting these consensus statements on the treatment of acute migraine can help enhance patient care, improve outcomes, and standardize treatment practices in the UAE. The collaborative effort of experts with diverse experiences in developing these consensus statements will strengthen the credibility and applicability of these statements to various healthcare settings in the country.

Comparison between metamizole and triptans for migraine treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of metamizole and triptans for the treatment of migraine. MethodsRandomized controlled trials including people who received metamizole or triptan by multiple routes of administration and at all doses as treatment compared to subjects who received another treatment or placebo were included in the systematic review. The primary outcomes were freedom from pain at 2 hours; pain relief at 2 hours; sustained headache response at 24 hours; sustained freedom from pain at 24 hours. The statistical analysis of all interventions of interest were based on random effect models compared through a network meta-analysis. Results 209 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. Of these, 130 had data that could be analyzed statistically. Only 3.0% provided enough information and were judged to have a low overall risk of bias for all categories evaluated; approximately 50% of the studies presented a low risk of selection bias. More than 75% of the studies presented a low risk of performance bias, and around 75% showed a low risk of detection and attrition bias. ConclusionThere is no evidence of a difference between dipyrone and any triptan for pain freedom after 2 hours of medication. Our study suggests that metamizole may be equally effective as triptans in acute migraine treatment.

Effectiveness of paranasal air suction on acute migraine using portable air sucker - a randomized, double blind study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a primary headache disorder and is the most common disabling primary headache disorder that occurs in children and adolescents. A recent study showed that paranasal air suction can provide relief to migraine headache. However, in order to get the maximum benefit out of it, an easy to use effective air sucker should be available. Aiming to fulfil the above requirement, a randomized, double blind control clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of a recently developed low-pressure portable air sucker.

METHODS

Eighty-six Sri Lankan school children of age 16-19 years with migraine were enrolled for the study. They were randomly allocated into two groups, and one group was subjected to six intermittent ten-second paranasal air suctions using the portable air sucker for 120 s. The other group was subjected to placebo air suction (no paranasal air suction). The effect of suction using portable air sucker was the primary objective but side of headache, type of headache, and gender were also studied as source variables. The primary response studied was severity of headache. In addition, left and right supraorbital tenderness, photophobia, phonophobia, numbness over the face and scalp, nausea and generalized tiredness/weakness of the body were studied. The measurements on all those variables were made before and after suction, and the statistical analysis was performed based on before and after differences. As a follow-up, patients were monitored for 24-h period.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in the severity of headache pain (OR = 25.98, P < 0.0001), which was the primary outcome variable, and other migraine symptoms studied, tenderness (left) (OR = 289.69, P < 0.0001), tenderness (right) (OR > 267.17, P < 0.0001), photophobia (OR = 2115.6, P < 0.0001), phonophobia (OR > 12.62, P < 0.0001) nausea (OR > 515.59, P < 0.0001) and weakness (OR = 549.06, P < 0.0001) except for numbness (OR = 0.747, P = 0.67) in the treatment group compared to the control group 2 min after the suction. These symptoms did not recur within 24-h period and there were no significant side effects recorded during the 24-h observation period.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study showed that low-pressure portable air sucker is effective in paranasal air suction, and suction for 120 s using the sucker can provide an immediate relief which can last for more than 24-h period without any side effects.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Government Identification Number - 1548/2016. Ethical Clearance Granted Institute - Medical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka (No 38/2016). Sri Lanka Clinical Trial Registration No: SLCTR/2017/018 . Date of registration = 29/ 06/2017. Approval Granting Organization to use the device in the clinical trial- National Medicines Regulatory Authority Sri Lanka (16 Jan 2018), The device won award at Geneva international inventers exhibition in 2016 and President award in 2018 in Sri Lanka. It is a patented device in Sri Lanka and patent number was SLKP/1/18295. All methods were carried out in accordance with CONSORT 2010 guidelines.

Managing migraine with over-the-counter provision of triptans: the perspectives and readiness of Western Australian community pharmacists

Background

Down-scheduling one or more triptans to Schedule 3 (Pharmacist Only Medicine) from Schedule 4 (Prescription Only Medicine) has been debated in Australia for a decade. This study aimed to evaluate the perspectives and readiness of Western Australian (WA) community pharmacists to manage migraine including over-the-counter (OTC) provision of triptans.

Methods

Data were collected using a self-administered paper-based questionnaire, posted to a random sample of 178 metropolitan and 97 regional pharmacies in WA. Respondent pharmacists were surveyed regarding: knowledge of optimal migraine treatment as per current guidelines, resources required to appropriately recommend triptans and attitudes and perspective toward down-scheduling. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis. Pharmacist/pharmacy characteristics influencing readiness were evaluated by assigning respondents a score based on responses to Likert scale questions. These questions were assigned to five domains based on an implementation model and these scores were used in a general linear model to identify demographic characteristics associated with readiness across each domain.

Results

A total of 114 of the 275 pharmacies returned useable questionnaires (response rate: 41.5%). The two most commonly recommended first line OTC agents were a combined paracetamol/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin (44/104; 42.3% and 22/104; 21.2%, respectively) which provided context to the respondents’ knowledge of optimal migraine treatment. Responses to questions in relation to triptans and the warning signs requiring referral were in line with current guidelines, demonstrating respondents’ knowledge in these areas. Nevertheless, most respondents demonstrated uncertainty in relation to the pathogenesis of migraine. If triptans were available OTC, 66/107 (61.7%) would recommend them first-line. The majority (107/113; 94.7%) agreed that down-scheduling would improve timely access to effective migraine medication and 105/113 (92.9%) agreed that if triptans were down-scheduled, pharmacists may be better able to assist people in the treatment of migraine. Most respondents agreed that additional training and resources, including a guideline for OTC supply of triptans and the management of first-time and repeat migraine would be necessary if triptans were down-scheduled. No single demographic characteristic influenced readiness across all five domains.

Discussion

Pharmacists were knowledgeable regarding triptans and recognised symptoms requiring referral; migraine knowledge could be improved. Pharmacists supported down-scheduling of one or more triptans in Australia, however they highlighted a need for further training and resources to support migraine diagnosis and provision of OTC triptans. Professional pharmacy bodies should consider these findings when recommending drugs suitable for down-scheduling for pharmacist recommendation.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of acute treatment of migraine attacks in adults: Fourth edition

The quality of clinical trials is an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. Scientific and clinical developments in headache medicine led to second and third editions in 2000 and 2012, respectively. The current, fourth edition of the Guidelines retains the structure and much content from previous editions. However, it also incorporates evidence from clinical trials published after the third edition as well as feedback from meetings with regulators, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and patient associations. Its final form reflects the collective expertise and judgement of the Committee. These updated recommendations and commentary are intended to meet the Society's continuing objective of providing a contemporary, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Network meta-analysis of migraine disorder treatment by NSAIDs and triptans

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder resulting in large socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) is designed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) and triptans.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches in database PubMed and Embase. Treatment effectiveness was compared by synthesizing direct and indirect evidences using NMA. The surface under curve ranking area (SUCRA) was created to rank those interventions.

Results

Eletriptan and rizatriptan are superior to sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, almotriptan, ibuprofen and aspirin with respect to pain-relief. When analyzing 2 h-nausea-absence, rizatriptan has a better efficacy than sumatriptan, while other treatments indicate no distinctive difference compared with placebo. Furthermore, sumatriptan demonstrates a higher incidence of all-adverse-event compared with diclofenac-potassium, ibuprofen and almotriptan.

Conclusion

This study suggests that eletriptan may be the most suitable therapy for migraine from a comprehensive point of view. In the meantime ibuprofen may also be a good choice for its excellent tolerability. Multi-component medication also attracts attention and may be a promising avenue for the next generation of migraine treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0703-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative tolerability of treatments for acute migraine: A network meta-analysis

Introduction

Migraine headache is a neurological disorder whose attacks are associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. Treatments for migraine aim to either prevent attacks before they have started or relieve attacks (abort) after onset of symptoms and range from complementary therapies to pharmacological interventions. A number of treatment-related adverse events such as somnolence, fatigue, and chest discomfort have previously been reported in association with triptans. The comparative tolerability of available agents for the abortive treatment of migraine attacks has not yet been systematically reviewed and quantified.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative tolerability of treatments for migraine. The literature search targeted all randomized controlled trials evaluating oral abortive treatments for acute migraine over a range of available doses in adults. The primary outcomes of interest were any adverse event, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting.

Results

Our search yielded 141 trials covering 15 distinct treatments. Of the triptans, sumatriptan, eletriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and the combination treatment of sumatriptan and naproxen were associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring compared with placebo. Of the non-triptans, only acetaminophen was associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of an adverse event occurring when compared with placebo. Overall, triptans were not associated with increased odds of serious adverse events occurring and the same was the case for non-triptans. For the secondary outcomes, with the exception of vomiting, all triptans except for almotriptan and frovatriptan were significantly associated with increased risk for all outcomes. Almotriptan was significantly associated with an increased risk of vomiting, whereas all other triptans yielded non-significant lower odds compared with placebo. Generally, the non-triptans were not associated with decreased tolerability for the secondary outcomes.

Discussion

In summary, triptans were associated with higher odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring when compared to placebo and non-triptans. Non-significant results for non-triptans indicate that these treatments are comparable with one another and placebo regarding tolerability outcomes.

Clinical-Biochemical Correlates of Migraine Attacks in Rizatriptan Responders and Non-Responders

The present study was aimed at verifying the clinical characteristics of a typical attack in 20 migraine patients, 10 responders and 10 non-responders to rizatriptan, and at investigating any differences in the levels of neuropeptides of the trigeminovascular or parasympathetic systems [calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), neurokinin A (NKA) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) measured by radio-immunoassay methods in external jugular blood] between responders and nonresponders. In all responders to rizatriptan, pain was unilateral, severe, and pulsating, and in five of them at least one sign suggestive of parasympathetic system activation was recorded. Five patients who were non-responders to rizatriptan referred bilateral and non-pulsating pain, even though severe in most of them. CGRP and NKA levels measured before rizatriptan administration were significantly higher in responders than in non-responders ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.002, respectively). In the five patients with autonomic signs among rizatriptan responders, detectable VIP levels were found at baseline. One hour after rizatriptan administration, a decrease in CGRP and NKA levels was evident in the external jugular venous blood of rizatriptan responders, and this corresponded to a significant pain relief and alleviation of accompanying symptoms. VIP levels were also significantly reduced at the same time in the five patients with autonomic signs. After rizatriptan administration, CGRP and NKA levels in non-responder patients showed less significant variations at all time points after rizatriptan administration compared with rizatriptan responders. The present study, although carried out on a limited number of patients, supports recent clinical evidence of increased trigeminal activation associated with a better triptan response in migraine patients accompanied by parasympathetic activation in a subgroup of patients with autonomic signs. In contrast, the poor response seems to be correlated with a lesser degree of trigeminal activation, lower variations of trigeminal neuropeptides after triptan administration, and no evidence of parasympathetic activation at baseline.

Subcutaneous Sumatriptan Provides Symptomatic Relief at any Pain Intensity or Time During the Migraine Attack

Over the years the paradigm of treating early during the migraine attack has become well established in clinical practice. It is also recommended that the 5-HT1B/1D agonists be administered early during the migraine attack for efficacy. This is because it has been proposed that most migraineurs are less responsive to delayed treatment, owing to the development of central sensitization of the pain transmission. The main objective of this prospective, cross-over study at a specialist clinic was to evaluate if these recommendations should also apply to the subcutaneous formulation of sumatriptan. Results are based on 20 adult International Headache Society migraineurs. Two attacks ( n = 40) were treated with 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan as early as possible after the onset of migraine headache and two attacks ( n = 40) as late as the patients could bear. The median intra-individual difference between the two strategies in time from first occurrence of pain to injection was 5.7 h and the median intra-individual difference in pain intensity at the time of injection was 29 visual analogue units. No significant differences were found in time to freedom from pain, pain severity at 1 and 2 h, area under the curves from injection to pain free or in headache recurrence after injection. At the end of the study, most of the patients claimed that their medication was as effective when given early as when given late in the course of the attack. The discrepancy between our present findings and retrospective analyses of trials on oral triptans probably has more to do with the less disturbed pharmacokinetics early during the migraine attack than with central sensitization. Consequently, we recommend nonoral formulations of triptans, which do not necessarily have to be administered early during the migraine attack to provide efficacy. In conclusion, it is reassuring for migraineurs that it is worthwhile taking their medication in an appropriate formulation even if they have not been able to do so early in the course of the attack.

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.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Zolmitriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. These medicines work in a different way to analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with three online databases (www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and apps.who.int/trialsearch) for studies to 12 March 2014. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using zolmitriptan to treat a migraine headache episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (20,162 participants) compared zolmitriptan with placebo or an active comparator. The evidence from placebo-controlled studies was of high quality for all outcomes except 24 hour outcomes and serious adverse events where only limited data were available. The majority of included studies were at a low risk of performance, detection and attrition biases, but did not adequately describe methods of randomisation and concealment.Most of the data were for the 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses compared with placebo, for treatment of moderate to severe pain. For all efficacy outcomes, zolmitriptan surpassed placebo. For oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg versus placebo, the NNTs were 5.0, 3.2, 7.7, and 4.1 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, sustained pain-free during the 24 hours postdose, and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, respectively. Results for the oral 5 mg dose were similar to the 2.5 mg dose, while zolmitriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than 5 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours. For headache relief at one and two hours and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, but not pain-free at two hours, zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray was significantly more effective than the 5 mg oral tablet.For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with zolmitriptan than placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (1 mg to 10 mg).High quality evidence from two studies showed that oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg provided headache relief at two hours to the same proportion of people as oral sumatriptan 50 mg (66%, 67%, and 68% respectively), although not necessarily the same individuals. There was no significant difference in numbers experiencing adverse events. Single studies reported on other active treatment comparisons but are not described further because of the small amount of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zolmitriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks for some people, but is associated with increased adverse events compared to placebo. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg benefited the same proportion of people as sumatriptan 50 mg, although not necessarily the same individuals, for headache relief at two hours.

Migraine headache is present in the aura phase: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Migraine aura is commonly considered to be a distinct phase of a migraine attack that precedes headache. The objective of the study was to examine a large number of prospectively recorded attacks of migraine with aura and determine the timing of headache and other migraine symptoms relative to aura.

METHODS

As part of a clinical trial we collected prospective data on the time course of headache and other symptoms relative to the aura. Patients (n = 267) were enrolled from 16 centers, and asked to keep a headache diary for 1 month (phase I). They were asked to record headache symptoms as soon as possible after aura began and always within 1 hour of aura onset. A total of 456 attacks were reported during phase I by 201 patients. These patients were then randomized and included in phase II, during which a total of 405 attacks were reported in 164 patients. In total, we present data from 861 attacks of migraine with aura from 201 patients.

RESULTS

During the aura phase, the majority of attacks (73%) were associated with headache. Other migraine symptoms were also frequently reported during the aura: nausea (51%), photophobia (88%), and photophobia (73%). During the first 15 minutes within the onset of aura, 54% of patients reported headache fulfilling the criteria for migraine.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that headaches as well as associated migraine symptoms are present early, during the aura phase of the migraine attack in the majority of patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus non-early intervention in acute migraine based on evidence from the 'Act when Mild' study

BACKGROUND

In spite of the important progress made in the abortive treatment of acute migraine episodes since the introduction of triptans, reduction of pain and associated symptoms is in many cases still not as effective nor as fast as would be desirable. Recent research pays more attention to the timing of the treatment, and taking triptans early in the course of an attack when pain is still mild has been found more efficacious than the usual strategy of waiting for the attack to develop to a higher pain intensity level.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost effectiveness of early versus non-early intervention with almotriptan in acute migraine.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted from the perspectives of French society and the French public health system based on patient-level data collected in the AwM (Act when Mild) study, a placebo-controlled trial that compared the response to early and non-early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined in terms of QALYs, migraine hours and productive time lost. Costs were expressed in Euros (year 2010 values). Bootstrapping was used to derive cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

Early treatment has shown to lead to shorter attack duration, less productive time lost, better quality of life, and is, with 92% probability, overall cost saving from a societal point of view. In terms of drug costs only, however, non-early treatment is less expensive. From the public health system perspective, the (bootstrap) mean ICER of early treatment amounts to €0.38 per migraine hour avoided, €1.29 per hour of productive time lost avoided, and €14,296 per QALY gained. Considering willingness-to-pay values of approximately €1 to avoid an hour of migraine, €10 to avoid the loss of a productive hour, or €30,000 to gain one QALY, the approximate probability that early treatment is cost effective is 90%, 90% and 70%, respectively. These results remain robust in different scenarios for the major elements of the economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with non-early treatment, a strategy of early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan when pain is still mild is, with high probability, cost saving from the French societal perspective and can be considered cost effective from the public health system point of view.

Early dosing and efficacy of triptans in acute migraine treatment: the TEMPO study

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of early or late triptan intake in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

METHODS

The TEMPO study was a French prospective, multicentre, two-phase study conducted in neurological practice. Two-hundred-and-ten migraine patients who were regular triptan users were enrolled. In the first phase, patients treated three attacks as they usually did. In the second phase, those who initially practiced late dosing ( ≥ 1 hour after headache onset) were instructed to change to early dosing ( < 1 hour).

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients completed the first phase. Seventy-nine patients constituted the 'early dosers' group and 65 patients the 'late dosers' group. In this phase, early dosing produced higher rates (n  =  38; 52.8%) of freedom from pain at 2 hours in at least two of three attacks compared with late dosing (n  =  19; 30.2%; p  <  0.01). In the second phase, switching from late to early dosing following the physician's instruction (n  =  42 patients) also improved the rates of freedom from pain at 2 hours (from 38.1% (n  =  16) to 53.7% (n  =  22); p  <  0.05).

CONCLUSION

This suggests that advising patients on the importance of early triptan intake after headache onset may help improve the efficacy of acute migraine treatments.

Will (or can) people pay for headache care in a poor country?

We asked whether attempts to introduce headache services in poor countries would be futile on grounds of cost and unsustainability. Using data from a population-based survey in the Republic of Georgia, an exemplary poor country with limited health care, and against the background of headache-attributed burden, we report on willingness to pay (WTP) for effective headache treatment. Consecutive households were visited in areas of Tbilisi (urban) and Kakheti (rural), together representative of Georgian habitation. Biologically unrelated adults were interviewed by medical residents using a structured ICHD-II-based diagnostic questionnaire, the MIDAS questionnaire and SF-36. The bidding-game method was employed to assess WTP. Of 1,145 respondents, 50.0% had episodic headache (migraine and/or tension-type headache) and 7.6% had headache on ≥15 days/month, which was not further diagnosed. MIDAS scores were higher in people with headache on ≥15 days/month (mean 11.2) than in those with episodic headache (mean 7.0; P = 0.004). People with headache had worse scores in all SF-36 sub-scales than those without, but no differences were found between headache types. Almost all (93%) respondents with headache reported WTP averaging USD 8 per month for effective headache treatment. WTP did not correlate with headache type or frequency, or with MIDAS or SF-36 scores. Headache is common and headache-attributed burden is high in Georgia, with a profound impact on HRQoL. Even those less affected indicated WTP for effective treatment, if it were available, that would on average cover costs, which locally are low. Headache services in a poor country are potentially sustainable.

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.

Sustained pain freedom and no adverse events as an endpoint in clinical trials of acute migraine treatments: Application to patient-level data from a trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan

Background: Endpoints used to evaluate the efficacy of acute anti-migraine drugs do not measure the tolerability. Sustained pain-free response with no adverse events has been recommended as a composite endpoint which measures the efficacy and tolerability attributes that patients desire.

Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate new composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints based on a post-hoc analysis of patient-level data from a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Endpoints were 2–24-hour sustained pain freedom and no adverse events from 0–24 hours (SPF24NAE), 2–24 hour sustained pain relief and no adverse events from 0–24 hours (SPR24NAE), pain freedom at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0–24 hours (PF2NAE), and pain relief at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0–24 hours (PR2NAE).

Results: Compared with placebo, both telcagepant 300 mg and 150 mg achieved nominal superiority ( p values <.05) for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE, PF2NAE and PR2NAE. Zolmitriptan 5 mg showed nominal superiority versus placebo for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE and PF2NAE, but not PR2NAE. Telcagepant 300 mg showed nominal superiority versus zolmitriptan for SPF24NAE, SPR24NA and PR2NAE.

Conclusion: Composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints may be useful for facilitating comparisons between treatments.

Are the current IHS guidelines for migraine drug trials being followed?

In 2000, the Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) published the second edition of its guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. The purpose of this publication was to improve the quality of such trials by increasing the awareness amongst investigators of the methodological issues specific to this particular illness. Until now the adherence to these guidelines has not been systematically assessed. We reviewed all published controlled trials of drugs in migraine from 2002 to 2008. Eligible trials were scored for compliance with the IHS guidelines by using grading scales based on the most essential recommendations of the guidelines. The primary efficacy measure of each trial was also recorded. A total of 145 trials of acute treatment and 52 trials of prophylactic treatment were eligible for review. Of the randomized, double-blind trials, acute trials scored an average of 4.7 out of 7 while prophylactic trials scored an average of 5.6 out of 9 for compliance. Thirty-one percent of acute trials and 72% of prophylactic trials used the recommended primary efficacy measure. Fourteen percent of the reviewed trials were either not randomized or not double-blinded. Adherence to international guidelines like these of IHS is important to ensure that only high-quality trials are performed, and to provide the consensus that is required for meta analyses. The primary efficacy measure for trials of acute treatment should be “pain free” and not “headache relief”. Open-label or non-randomized trials generally have no place in the study of migraine drugs.

Early treatment of acute migraine: new evidence of benefits

The current management approach to migraine headaches advocates use of triptan medications early in the course of an attack while pain is still mild, rather than waiting to treat the pain when it has progressed to moderate-severe. Recently, strong new evidence for the benefits of early intervention has become available. The AEGIS, AIMS and AwM studies of almotriptan in patients with migraine indicate that earlier treatment initiation and lower pain intensity at the time of treatment are important predictors of enhanced therapeutic outcomes. The opportunity to treat early exists for about 50% of all migraine attacks, which offers considerable scope for improving migraine management. Importantly, treating pain early and before it has progressed beyond 'mild' meets many of the expectations patients have of their migraine treatment. It is believed that consistent, positive outcomes may assist in overcoming the various physician- and patient-perceived barriers to adoption of this beneficial treatment strategy.

Review of comorbidities and risk factors for the development of migraine complications (infarct and chronic migraine)

A number of comorbid disorders, behavioural traits and associated risk factors in patients with migraine are known to increase the risk of complications such as ischaemic vascular events and chronic migraine, a syndrome that is more disabling and resistant to treatment with acute and preventative medications than episodic migraine. Reduction of cardiovascular risk factors, smoking cessation and use of non-oestrogen-containing oral contraceptives in female patients are beneficial strategies to reduce the risk of ischaemic events in patients with migraine (especially those with aura). Attack frequency, acute medication overuse, obesity and coexisting depression and anxiety disorders are particularly strong but potentially modifiable independent risk factors for progression to chronic migraine. Identifying and managing comorbidities and associated risk factors for complications of migraine are likely to require an integrated disease management strategy involving several disciplines and allied health services. Such a disease-oriented model of care may potentially interrupt the cycle of progression and disability and improve quality of life for patients with migraine.

Treat-early and treat-mild: role of fast vs. slow escalation of headaches

This prospective, multi-center, observational study aimed to examine patients' early treatment decision process. Specifically, we assessed if the association between mild headache pain at treatment initiation and early treatment differed by the speed of headache escalation. Patients (n = 168) were instructed to collect information on their headache experience during the study period via an electronic diary over 30 consecutive days after enrollment. At the time of treatment, patients who treated early were 2.3 times as likely to experience mild headache pain as those who treated late. Controlling for the effect of escalation of headache, patients who treated early were three times as likely to report mild headache pain at dosing as those who treated late. The interaction between fast escalation of headache and mild pain was not statistically significant. Early treatment is associated with mild pain, regardless of the speed of headache escalation.

The 'Act when Mild' (AwM) study: a step forward in our understanding of early treatment in acute migraine

An important issue in the management of migraine is the advice given to patients as to when to take their treatment in the course of the attack. While it seems common sense almost to take treatment early in the attack, the evidence base for that advice is not as robust as could be expected. The 'Act when Mild' (AwM) Study was a randomized, four-arm, multicentre, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan (12.5 mg) to compare outcomes after administration of treatment when pain intensity was mild and within 1 h of headache onset (mild/early) with outcomes when pain had become moderate or severe. Of 491 migraineurs enrolled, 403 were evaluable with an intention-to-treat population (ITT) of 404. At the primary end-point, 2 h pain free, on the ITT analysis 49% of patients in the almotriptan 12.5 mg treat early/mild group and 40% in the treat moderate/severe group had responded (P = 0.21). Of these patients, 43 did not take medication according to their randomly allocated baseline pain intensity (mild or moderate/severe) and were subsequently reassigned, prior to study unblinding, to the appropriate group (AwM population) for re-analysis of the primary outcome measure: 2-h pain-free rates. In the almotriptan arms, 53% of the mild/early group and 37.5% of the moderate/severe group were pain free at 2 h (P = 0.02; AwM population). The corresponding proportions in the placebo groups were 24.7% and 17.5% (significantly lower than the respective almotriptan arms; P </= 0.01). Considering the ITT population, secondary end-points were also significantly in favour of treatment with almotriptan in the mild/early vs. the moderate/severe stage, including: sustained pain-free, 45.6% vs. 30.5% (P = 0.02); headache recurrence at 24 h, 6% vs. 24% (P = 0.0124). Adverse events were reported in < 5% of patients, with no significant differences between almotriptan and placebo and no serious events in any group. Treatment with almotriptan while migraine pain is still mild and within 1 h of onset provides statistically significant and clinically relevant enhancements in efficacy compared with waiting until pain has reached higher severity levels.

Cutaneous allodynia and migraine: another view

The paradigm of early treatment of the migraine attack at mild pain intensity has become one alternative to circumventing the problem of compromised oral absorption of symptomatic drugs due to migraine-induced gastrointestinal dysmotility. Early treatment also has been proposed to be advantageous because most migraineurs could be less responsive to delayed treatment, owing to the development of central sensitization of the trigeminal pain transmission. Ranking the underlying principles, it seems that the improved response to an oral triptan formulation at mild migraine symptom intensity has more to do with less impaired gastrointestinal absorption in the early stage of the attack than decreasing the time and preventing chances for central sensitization and development of cutaneous allodynia. Furthermore, parenteral administration of a triptan is always more likely to provide relief of symptoms than conventional tablets, even when it is used later in the course of the migraine attack. Individually tailored use of the available triptan formulations will increase, without any doubt, the within-migraineur consistency of response. It also will reduce the overall proportion of migraine attacks or migraineurs not responding to triptan treatment. Notwithstanding, the recommendation of early treatment during the migraine attack when the pain is mild remains valid.

Is migraine a neuropathic pain syndrome?

The understanding of migraine pathophysiology has evolved from the belief that migraine is a vascular disorder, to evidence that better defines migraine as a neurogenic disorder associated with secondary changes in brain perfusion. There is evidence to suggest that the early phase of migraine pain results from neurogenic inflammation affecting cranial blood vessels and dura. Allodynia, hyperalgesia, and expansion of nociceptive fields occur during most well-established migraine attacks. These clinical features of migraine are evocative of those traditionally associated with neuropathic pain. A hypothesis that defines migraine pain as a unique neuropathic pain disorder can imply the potential for neural plasticity and may provide insight into the mechanisms that underlie the transformation of episodic to chronic forms of migraine. The neuropathic pain model of migraine pathophysiology not only paves the way for mechanism-based treatment strategies that can improve the acute and preventive management of migraine attacks, but also opens the door for the discovery of novel therapeutic targets. It also lends momentum to an understanding of clinically intriguing topics such as opiate-induced hyperalgesia and medication-overuse headache (rebound headache), opioid resistance in the treatment of chronic headache, and disease modification in defending against the potential for migraine transformation.

Early Treatment in Migraine: How Strong is the Current Evidence?

Over the last 10 years, triptans (serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists) have proved to be efficacious in treating migraine pain. However, recent evidence suggests that patients are still not receiving optimal pain management, particularly in clinical trials, where triptan treatment is generally not initiated until pain has reached moderate intensity. Pathophysiological evidence indicates that if treatment is initiated at an early stage, while pain is still mild and before the onset of central sensitization, outcomes for patients may be improved. In addition, a small number of clinical trials have been reported in which triptans were taken early (within 1 h of pain onset) or while pain was still mild; although constraints of trial design and data analysis limit definite conclusions, overall the results suggest that this early/mild approach results in more rapid and sustained pain relief. New studies are therefore needed to clarify the clinical benefits of early treatment, whilst taking into account potential risks, such as medication overuse. Ultimately, migraine treatment strategies require optimization in order to meet patient expectations and to reduce the current burden of migraine-associated disability.

Early vs. Non-Early Intervention in Acute Migraine — ‘Act When Mild (AwM)’. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Almotriptan

The study was designed to compare the response to almotriptan in migraine patients who take medication early in the course of the attack with that when medication is taken after pain has become moderate or severe. A randomized, four-arm, multicentre, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan (12.5 mg) comparing treatment administration when pain intensity was mild and within 1 h of headache onset vs. pain that had become moderate or severe was conducted. Of 491 migraineurs enrolled, 403 were evaluable [intention-to-treat population (ITT)]. Their mean age was 38 years, 84% were female and they had a mean of 3.7 attacks/month. Of these patients, 10% did not take medication according to their randomly allocated basal pain intensity (mild or moderate/severe) and were subsequently reassigned to that group for this analysis —'Act when Mild (AwM)' group. In the almotriptan arms, 53% of mild basal pain and 38% of moderate/severe basal pain patients were pain free at 2 h ( P = 0.03; primary end-point). Corresponding proportions in the placebo groups were 25% and 17% (statistically significant vs. respective almotriptan arms). Secondary end-points (ITT) were also significantly in favour of early intervention with almotriptan, both between and across treatment groups, such as sustained pain free: 45.6% vs. 30.5% ( P = 0.02). Adverse events were reported in < 5% of treated patients in all groups (NS), with no serious events. Treatment with almotriptan while migraine pain is still mild provides statistically significant and clinically relevant enhancements in efficacy compared with treatment when pain has reached higher severity levels.

Pharmacogenomics and migraine: possible implications

Pharmacogenomics is the science about how inherited factors influence the effects of drugs. Drug response is always a result of mutually interacting genes with important modifications from environmental and constitutional factors. Based on the genetic variability of pharmacokinetic and in some cases pharmacodynamic variability we mention possible implications for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Pharmacogenomics will most likely in the future be one part of our therapeutic armamentarium and will provide a stronger scientific basis for optimizing drug therapy on the basis of each patient’s genetic constitution.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of zolmitriptan in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND

Zolmitriptan is a second-generation triptan developed for the treatment of migraine. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to compare different dosages and formulations of zolmitriptan against other treatments for acute migraine.

METHODS

Random effects meta-analysis of 24 RCTs, including 15,408 patients suffering from acute migraine attacks. Subgroup analyses compared differences in response between different dosages and formulations of zolmitriptan, and other triptan comparators.

RESULTS

Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was found to be as effective as almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg and more effective than naratriptan 2.5 mg in terms of 2-hour pain-free rates. Likewise, zolmitriptan 5 mg tablet was as effective as sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg in 2-hour pain-free rates. Compared against zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet, eletriptan 80 mg was more effective in achieving headache relief, pain-free and sustained pain-free responses, and rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective in terms of sustained pain-free rates. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was associated with a lower risk of adverse events than eletriptan 80 mg but higher risk than naratriptan 2.5 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg. Zolmitriptan 5 mg tablet was superior to zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet in achieving 1- and 2-hour pain-free response. There were no significant differences in 1- and 2-hour headache relief and adverse event rates between the different formulations of zolmitriptan 2.5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet is an effective treatment for acute attacks of migraine showing similar efficacy to almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, and sumatriptan 50 mg, and being more effective than naratriptan 2.5 mg in terms of pain-free response at 2 hours post dose. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was also as effective as rizatriptan 10 mg in terms of headache relief and pain-free response but less effective in terms of sustained pain-free response.

Predictors of Acute Treatment Response Among Patients With Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND

Oxygen and triptans are drugs of first choice to abort cluster headache attacks. However, clinical predictors of treatment response are unavailable.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify predictors of acute treatment response among patients with cluster headache.

METHODS

We investigated 246 cluster headache patients with available information on personal, headache, and lifestyle characteristics as well as effectiveness of acute medication use. We used logistic regression models to identify potential predictors of triptan and oxygen response.

RESULTS

Triptans were effective in 137 of the 191 users and oxygen in 134 of the 175 users. We only identified increasing age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99; P= .013) as a negative predictor for triptan response, while nausea/vomiting (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.91; P= .029) and restlessness (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.66; P= .019) were negative predictors of oxygen response.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinical features seem to predict treatment nonresponse in cluster headache. More refined studies aiming at physiological and genetic characteristics seem promising in the future.

Can Migraineurs Accurately Identify Their Headaches as "Migraine" at Attack Onset?

BACKGROUND

While treating migraine early when the headache is mild is believed to link to improved treatment outcomes, it is not clear whether patients can correctly self-identify a headache as a migraine at onset in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the likelihood that patients can correctly self-identify a headache as a migraine at onset, and to evaluate cues that patients use to correctly identify migraine attacks.

METHODS

Adult migraineurs were recruited from 14 headache clinics across the United States. Patients recorded their headache experiences via an electronic diary daily over a period of 30 days. On days when they experienced headaches, patients were asked to recall the types of headache they experienced at both onset and peak. Patients also identified cues for deciding whether the headache was a migraine or not. Using identification of migraine at headache peak as the criterion, we examined the sensitivity and specificity of migraine identification at onset. We employed generalized estimating equation (GEE) to evaluate factors identified at headache onset that predicted migraine identified at headache peak.

RESULTS

Of the 192 enrolled patients, 182 patients recorded a total of 1197 headache episodes over 30 days. At headache onset, 888 episodes were deemed by patients as migraine and 309 episodes not migraine; a majority (92%) of these early migraine identifications were confirmed at headache peak. Sensitivity and specificity of self-identification of migraine at onset were 91% and 97%, respectively. A number of factors at headache onset were predictive of a migraine identified at peak: sensitivity to light (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.9-5.0), headache severity (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.8), nausea symptoms (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5-4.5), and visual disturbance (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1-4.9). Patients who ruled out tension-type headache at onset were twice (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.5-2.8) as likely to conclude a migraine at peak.

CONCLUSIONS

Most migraineurs in tertiary care settings can correctly self-identify a headache as a migraine at onset. Factors such as headache severity, presence of nausea, visual disturbance, sensitivity to light, and no tension-type headache, appeared to augment the correct identification.

Effect of Pain Intensity and Time to Administration on Responsiveness to Almotriptan: Results from AXERT® 12.5 mg Time Versus Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS)

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether time-based early treatment, independent of pain intensity, is superior to a pain intensity-based treatment, where patients are asked to treat at least moderate intensity headaches, resulting in a reduction of overall migraine headache duration.

BACKGROUND

Retrospective and prospective trials have reported improved outcomes when triptans were used early or to treat mild migraine headache pain. However, tolerability as well as efficacy may be 2 of several key issues that have prevented this new treatment paradigm from becoming universally accepted.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, cluster-randomized study, patients with IHS-defined migraine were instructed to treat 2 sequential migraine headaches with almotriptan 12.5 mg using either Early Treatment (ET, ie, treat at earliest onset of headache pain, within 1 hour) or Standard Treatment (ST, ie, treat when headache pain intensity is moderate or severe). The novel trial design uses total migraine headache pain duration as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Results are presented for the first headache and include an ITT population of 757 ET and 693 ST patients. Median headache duration (time from onset of headache pain until no pain) was significantly shorter in ET patients compared to ST patients (3.18 vs 5.53 hours, P < .001). An analysis of the ET subgroup treating headache pain within 1 hour of onset revealed pain intensity, ie, treating mild or moderate versus severe pain, was significantly correlated with treatment outcomes defined by total headache duration, 2-hour pain free, sustained pain free, and use of rescue medication. Multivariate analyses comparing ST subgroups that treated within 1 hour versus greater than 1 hour after headache onset, demonstrate that both pain intensity, ie, treating moderate versus severe headache pain, and treating early versus late, were significantly correlated with total headache duration, 2-hour pain free, sustained pain free, and use of rescue medication. The overall incidence of adverse events was low; nausea and dizziness were the only adverse events with an incidence > or =1% in either treatment group (nausea: 2.5% and 1.7% and dizziness 1.1% and 0.7%, in the ET and ST groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Total headache duration was significantly shorter in the early treatment group compared to the standard treatment group. Considering time to treatment within a relatively early range of 1 hour or less, efficacy results when treating mild versus moderate pain were similar and both were associated with better outcomes than treatment of severe pain. When considering the prognostic variables of time to treatment and headache pain intensity (limited to moderate vs severe), both were independent predictors, with time to treatment a better predictor of headache duration and rescue medication use, and pain intensity a better predictor of 2-hour pain free and sustained pain free.

Early Intervention With Almotriptan: Results of the AEGIS Trial (AXERT�Early Migraine Intervention Study)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prospectively the efficacy and safety of almotriptan 12.5 mg as compared to placebo when administered within 1 hour of headache pain onset for the acute treatment of 3 migraine headaches.

BACKGROUND

Although clinical trials have reported improved outcomes when triptans were used early or to treat mild pain, acceptance of this treatment strategy has been hampered by both efficacy and tolerability issues.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, patients with IHS-migraine were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treat 3 consecutive migraine attacks with either almotriptan 12.5 mg or placebo. Patients were instructed to take their study medication at the first sign of headache pain of any intensity, within 1 hour of onset, and to record their symptoms at multiple time points during their headaches using a personal digital assistant. Clinical trial efficacy results for the first study headache and safety data for the entire study are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 378 patients were randomized, 189 to each group; 162 almotriptan-treated patients, and 155 placebo-treated patients were evaluable for efficacy. Almotriptan treatment, compared to placebo, resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving 2-hour pain free (37.0% vs 23.9%, P= .010), 2-hour pain relief (72.3% vs 48.4%, P < .001) and sustained pain free (24.7% vs 16.1%, P= .040). Significant differences in pain free (P= .026) and pain relief (P= .019) between almotriptan and placebo also were observed at 1 hour. At 2 to 4 hours and 4 to 24 hours after treatment, the mean intensity of phonophobia and photophobia were significantly lower in the patients treated with almotriptan compared to the placebo-treated patients. A greater proportion of patients treating with almotriptan versus placebo reported normal functionality within 2 hours postdose (54.4% vs 38.1%, P= .007) and 4 hours postdose (74.5% vs 54.3%, P < .001). The percentage of patients experiencing 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was 9.8% for almotriptan and 6.4% for placebo. The only treatment-emergent AEs that occurred with a frequency of at least 1% (equivalent to 2 or more patients) in the almotriptan and placebo groups, respectively, were somnolence (1.1% and 2.3%), nausea (1.1% and 1.7%), vomiting (1.1% and 0.6%), and fatigue (1.1% and 0%).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with almotriptan within 1 hour of migraine onset resulted in significantly better clinical outcomes than placebo and tolerability similar to placebo. Acute medications, such as almotriptan, that are both effective and well tolerated may encourage patients to access acute treatment earlier.

Almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To compare almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

This multicentre, double-blind trial randomized adult migraineurs to almotriptan 12.5 mg (n = 532) or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (n = 530) for the treatment of a single migraine attack. The primary end point was sustained pain free plus no adverse events (SNAE); other end points included pain relief and pain free at several time points, sustained pain free, headache recurrence, use of rescue medication, functional impairment, time lost because of migraine, treatment acceptability, and overall treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

No significant difference was seen in SNAE (almotriptan 29.2% vs zolmitriptan 31.8%) or the other efficacy end points measured. The incidence of triptan-associated AEs and triptan-associated central nervous system AEs was significantly lower for patients receiving almotriptan compared to zolmitriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Almotriptan and zolmitriptan were associated with similar efficacy and overall tolerability in the treatment of acute migraine. Almotriptan was associated with a significantly lower rate of triptan-associated AEs.

Non-oral formulations of triptans and their use in acute migraine

The introduction of triptans (5-HT (1B/1D) agonists) into clinical practice has expanded the therapeutic options for doctors treating migraine sufferers. The triptans are available in several different formulations such as conventional oral tablets, orally disintegrating wafers, subcutaneous injections, nasal sprays, and suppositories, which provide an excellent opportunity to tailor therapy to individual patients' needs. Although the oral formulations are the most popular with patients, they are not the most appropriate route of administration for drug delivery during the migraine attack. Due to gastrointestinal dysmotility, the intestinal absorption of any triptan administered orally may be impaired and treatment effects become inconsistent. For this reason, triptans preferably should be prescribed in a non-oral formulation (injection, nasal spray, or suppository). Parenteral administration of a triptan is more likely to provide relief of symptoms, even when it is used later in the course of the migraine attack.

Early treatment of migraine attacks with triptans: a strategy to enhance outcomes and patient satisfaction?

Treating migraine attacks early with triptans may be more effective than late triptan administration. However, in published studies, the definition of 'early' varied (in terms of time, pain intensity or presence of allodynia) or was unclear. Therefore, clear clinical indications have not been established. Appropriately designed trials to address this issue remain a priority. Early triptan treatment may also have disadvantages, including inadvertent treatment of tension-type headaches and danger of medication overuse. At present, only those migraineurs with rapid pain worsening, high pain recurrence rate and clinical indications of allodynia should be encouraged to take triptans as quickly as possible. This recommendation implies a requirement for patient education and the need to carefully tailor treatment to individual needs.

The effect of early intervention with sumatriptan tablets on migraine-associated productivity loss

OBJECTIVE

Impaired performance, which can considerably impact employee output, occurs when employees attempt to continue work with inadequate treatment while experiencing a migraine episode. This analysis examined productivity loss as a result of migraine after treatment with sumatriptan tablets and patients' usual non-triptan therapy when pain was mild (early intervention) versus when pain was moderate/severe.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of data on 6803 migraine days reported by 251 subjects who participated in a clinical trial.

RESULTS

Although early intervention significantly reduced productivity loss compared with treatment when pain was moderate/severe for both sumatriptan and non-triptan therapy, productivity loss was consistently lower for sumatriptan than non-triptan therapy for all predose pain intensity levels.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the pharmaco-economic benefits of early intervention with sumatriptan tablets, like the clinical benefits, exceed those of delayed intervention.

Migraine treatment throughout the lifecycle

The treatment of migraine headache is often suboptimal despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of migraine. Children, adolescents, women and the elderly are particularly at risk of receiving inadequate or inappropriate therapy. In this review, the reader is brought up-to-date with changes to the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine. The pathophysiology of migraine is also reviewed, with a special emphasis on the evolving concept of central sensitization and cutaneous allodynia since this concept has led to a paradigm shift in the way migraines are managed. A review of the evidence supporting the benefits of early treatment before pain becomes moderate-to-severe is provided. Recommendations for acute and prophylactic treatments throughout the lifecycle are made in light of clinical practice guidelines and more recent evidence. Lastly, the current optimal treatment of migraine is provided and the potential role of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in the future is discussed.

Review of clinical trials using early acute intervention with oral triptans for migraine management

Most of the data on triptan use are from clinical trials in which patients were instructed to wait until migraine headache pain was moderate/severe in intensity. In the real world, patients may hesitate to use a triptan until headache pain is moderate/severe because of the cost of these agents or limited supply allowed by their health service organisation. However, accumulating data indicate that early intervention with an oral triptan when headache pain is still mild may be the most effective acute treatment strategy. Economic analyses also support early triptan intervention in migraine attacks. Tolerability is expected to be particularly important in early intervention, as patients treating mild migraine pain may be more reluctant to risk adverse events. Thus, an agent selected for use as early intervention should have both a demonstrated efficacy in treating mild migraine headache and placebo-like tolerability. This article reviews retrospective and prospective clinical trials which investigated the use of triptans for early acute migraine therapy.

Efficacy of Rizatriptan 10 mg Administered Early in a Migraine Attack

OBJECTIVE

To determine if administration of rizatriptan 10 mg is superior to placebo for the early treatment of acute migraine, while the pain is mild.

BACKGROUND

Past studies have suggested that treatment outcomes can be improved if a triptan is administered early in the time course of a migraine attack.

METHODS

Two randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. TAME (Treat A Migraine Early)1 was conducted at 46 centers in the United States; TAME2, at 48 centers in the United States. Totally, 1030 adult patients with at least a 6-month history of migraine were studied. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 hour of migraine onset, while pain was mild. Patients maintained a headache diary in which they rated their levels of pain and disability, and recorded other symptoms of migraine. Primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 hours and sustained pain freedom at 24 hours post-dose.

RESULTS

In TAME1, 57.3% versus 31.1% of patients reported pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose and 42.6% versus 23.2% reported 24-hour sustained pain freedom with rizatriptan versus placebo, respectively (P < .001 for both). In TAME2, 58.9% versus 31.1% of patients reported pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose and 48.0% versus 24.6% reported 24-hour sustained pain freedom with rizatriptan versus placebo, respectively (P < .001 for both). All other efficacy endpoints favored rizatriptan. Repeat doses of the medicine were not allowed; patients may have delayed treatment; non-migraine headaches may have been treated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rizatriptan 10 mg was superior to placebo when treating migraine early, while pain is mild, as measured by pain freedom at 2 hours and 24-hour sustained pain freedom.

Pain free efficacy of sumatriptan in the early treatment of migraine

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that headache response rates may be higher if triptans are used early when a migraine attack is still mild, as compared to when it is treated after pain has reached moderate or severe intensity.

METHODS

In this randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group clinical trial, 361 patients took either placebo, sumatriptan 50 mg, or sumatriptan 100 mg in a single attack study. The primary outcome measure was pain-free status at two hours.

RESULTS

In the intention to treat group, two hour pain free rates were 16%, 40%, and 50% in the placebo group, sumatriptan 50 mg group, and the sumatriptan 100 mg group respectively (p < 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Both sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg were significantly superior to placebo for the pain-free end point at two hours. The pain-free response rates in this trial where sumatriptan was taken while the headache was still mild were generally higher than in older clinical trials where headache was treated after reaching a moderate or severe intensity.