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

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.

Efficacy of Ubrogepant in the Acute Treatment of Migraine With Mild Pain vs Moderate or Severe Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of ubrogepant in the treatment of migraine with mild vs moderate or severe pain.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, open-label, dose-blinded, 52-week extension trial. Adults with migraine were randomized 1:1:1 (usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg). Participants treated up to 8 migraine attacks of any pain intensity every 4 weeks. Efficacy outcomes (only collected for ubrogepant) included 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF), freedom from associated symptoms, and from disability. A generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and logit link function was used to assess the influence of baseline pain intensity on treatment outcomes in this post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Data for 19,291 attacks from 808 participants were included. 2hPF rates were higher for attacks treated when pain was mild vs moderate or severe: ubrogepant 50 mg (47.1% vs 23.6%; odds ratio [95% CI] 2.89 [2.57-3.24]) and ubrogepant 100 mg (55.2% vs 26.1%; 3.50 [3.12-3.92]; p < 0.0001 both doses). Rates of freedom from photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea 2 hours after treatment were also significantly higher following the treatment of mild vs moderate or severe pain (p < 0.001 all symptoms, both doses). At 2 hours, the proportion of attacks with normal function was more than double for both doses of ubrogepant (p < 0.001). The most common adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection (∼11% both doses). Serious adverse events were reported by 2% in ubrogepant 50 mg and 3% in ubrogepant 100 mg.

DISCUSSION

Relative to treatment of attacks with moderate or severe pain, treatment with ubrogepant during mild pain resulted in significantly higher rates of freedom from pain, freedom from associated symptoms, and achieving normal function 2 hours after administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02873221.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This trial provides Class III evidence that treatment of migraine with ubrogepant when pain is mild vs moderate or severe increases the likelihood of achieving pain freedom, absence of symptoms, and normal function within 2 hours postdose.

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.

Evaluation of 2-Hour Post-Dose Efficacy of Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Difficult-to-Treat Migraine Attacks

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors predicting response (2-hour headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom) to lasmiditan based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. Further, efficacy specifically in difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics or attack characteristics (ie, historically considered less responsive to certain acute therapies) subgroups was analyzed.

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of factors associated with a positive or negative response to acute treatment would be useful to practitioners prescribing acute treatments for migraine. Additionally, practitioners and patients would benefit from understanding the efficacy of lasmiditan specifically in subgroups of patients with migraine disease characteristics and migraine attack characteristics historically associated with decreased pain threshold, reduced efficacy of acute treatment, or increased burden of migraine.

METHODS

Pooled analyses were completed from 2 Phase 3 double-blind clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Data from baseline to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to assess efficacy based on patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. A total of 3981 patients comprising the intent-to-treat population were treated with placebo (N = 1130), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 598), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1133), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1120). Data were analyzed for the following efficacy measures at 2 hours: headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom.

RESULTS

None of the analyzed subgroups based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, or migraine attack characteristics predicted headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom response at 2 hours following lasmiditan treatment (interaction P ≥ .1). For the difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics subgroups (defined as those with ≥24 headache days in the past 3 months, duration of migraine history ≥20 years, severe disability [Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥21], obesity [≥30 kg/m2 ], and history of psychiatric disorder), single doses of lasmiditan (100 or 200 mg) were significantly more effective than placebo (P ≤ .002) in achieving both endpoints. Headache pain freedom response rates for higher doses of lasmiditan were numerically greater than for lower doses of lasmiditan. For the difficult-to-treat migraine attack subgroups, patients with severe headache, co-existent nausea at the time of treatment, or who delayed treatment for ≥2 hours from the time of headache onset, both endpoint response rates after lasmiditan 100 or 200 mg were significantly greater than after placebo. Among those who delayed treatment for ≥4 hours from the time of headache onset, headache pain freedom response rates for the 200 mg dose of lasmiditan met statistical significance vs placebo (32.4% vs 15.9%; odds ratio = 2.7 [1.17, 6.07]; P = .018). While the predictors of response interaction test showed similar efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo across subgroups defined by baseline functional disability (mild, moderate, or needs complete bed rest) at the time of treatment, analyses of lasmiditan efficacy within the subgroup "needs complete bed rest" appeared to show less efficacy (eg, in the 200 mg vs placebo group, 25.9% vs 18.5%; odds ratio = 1.56 [0.96, 2.53]; P = .070).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of lasmiditan 200 and 100 mg for headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 hours post-treatment was generally not influenced by the individual patient characteristics, migraine disease history, or migraine attack characteristics that were analyzed. In the analyses of difficult-to-treat subgroups, patients receiving lasmiditan achieved greater responses (2-hour headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom) vs placebo recipients.

Development of a novel zolmitriptan intracutaneous microneedle system (Qtrypta™) for the acute treatment of migraine

M207 is an investigational intracutaneous microneedle therapeutic system for nonoral zolmitriptan delivery. In a Phase I trial, M207 provided faster absorption with a higher 2 h exposure than oral zolmitriptan. In the pivotal trial evaluating efficacy, tolerability and safety in moderate-to-severe migraine attacks, M207 3.8 mg was superior to placebo in providing freedom from headache pain (42 vs 14%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom (68 vs 43%) 2 h post-dose. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and transient and most commonly concerned the application site. In post hoc analyses: pain freedom was sustained in approximately 1/3 of patients; efficacy was observed in migraine headaches that are typically more difficult to treat.

Update on noninvasive neuromodulation for migraine treatment-Vagus nerve stimulation

Noninvasive neurostimulation methods are particularly suited for migraine treatment thanks to their most favorable adverse event profile. Among them, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has raised great hope because of the role the vagus nerve is known to play in pain modulation, inflammation and brain excitability. We will critically review the clinical studies performed for migraine attack treatment and migraine prevention with the GammaCore® device, which allows cervical vagus nerve stimulation. nVNS is effective for the abortive treatment of migraine attacks, although the effect size is modest and numbers-to-treat appear not superior to those of other noninvasive neurostimulation methods, and inferior to those of oral triptans. The effect of nVNS with the GammaCore® in migraine prevention is not superior to sham stimulation, except possibly in patients with high adherence to the treatment. Both in acute and preventive trials, nVNS was characterized by an outstanding tolerance and safety profile, like the other noninvasive neurostimulation techniques. In physiological animal and human studies, cervical nVNS was shown to generate somatosensory evoked responses, to modulate pain perception and several areas of the cerebral pain network, and to inhibit experimental cortical spreading depression, which are relevant effects for migraine therapy.

Almotriptan: a review of 20 years' clinical experience

Introduction: Almotriptan (ALT), a serotonin 5-HT_1B/1D agonist has been used in the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura for 20 years, accumulating data on more than 15,000 patients in studies and from an estimated >150 million treated migraine attacks in daily clinical practice. The last major review of ALT was written almost 10 years ago. The current narrative review provides an overview of the experience gained with almotriptan over that time, and highlights data published in the last decade. Areas covered: Randomized clinical trials, observational studies, postmarketing studies and meta-analyses involving ALT for the treatment of acute migraine identified through a systematic literature search. Expert opinion: Triptans are a mainstay of anti-migraine treatment. Findings with ALT over the last 10 years have reinforced the positive efficacy and tolerability results that were reported during the first 10 years following its introduction. In particular, more recent clinical results have confirmed its efficacy in women with menstrual migraine, the usefulness of early intervention, long-term benefit in adults, and also its efficacy and safety in adolescents. Overall, ALT can be considered an optimal choice for managing acute migraine resistant to first-line drugs.

Efficacy of ADAM Zolmitriptan for the Acute Treatment of Difficult-to-Treat Migraine Headaches

Objective

To understand the efficacy of zolmitriptan applied with Adhesive Dermally Applied Microarray (ADAM) in treating types of migraine (those with severe headache pain, the presence of nausea, treatment ≥2 hours after migraine onset, or migraine present upon awakening) that are historically considered to be less responsive to oral medications.

Background

ADAM is an investigational system for intracutaneous drug administration. In a pivotal Phase 2b/3 study (ZOTRIP, N = 321 in the modified intention‐to‐treat population), ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg provided superior pain freedom and freedom from patients’ usual most bothersome associated symptom (MBS), compared with placebo at 2 hours post‐dose. We undertook a post hoc analysis of data from the ZOTRIP trial to examine these same outcomes in subsets of patients whose migraine characteristics have been associated with poorer outcomes when treated with oral medications.

Methods

The ZOTRIP trial was a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel group Phase 2b/3 study conducted at 36 sites in the United States. Presented here are post hoc subgroup analyses of patients with nausea (n = 110) or severe pain (n = 72) at baseline, those whose treatment was delayed 2 or more hours after onset (n = 75), and those who awoke with migraine (n = 80). The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to assess whether patients in the ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg group had superior treatment outcomes compared with placebo.

Results

In patients with nausea, 2‐hour pain freedom was achieved in 44% (26/59) in the ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg group and 14% (7/51) in the placebo group (P = .005) (odds ratio = 5.11, 95% CI: 1.96–13.30), and 2‐hour MBS freedom was achieved in 68% (40/59) in the active treatment group and 45% (23/51) of those receiving placebo (P = .009) (odds ratio = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.28–6.43). For those with severe pain, corresponding pain‐free values were 26% (10/39) and 15% (5/33) (P = .249) (odds ratio = 2.14, 95% CI: 0.60–7.62), and MBS‐free values were 64% (25/39) and 42% (14/33) (P = .038) (odds ratio = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.05–7.79). Among participants who awoke with migraine, 44% (16/36) and 16% (7/44) were pain‐free in the ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg and placebo groups, respectively (P = .006) (odds ratio = 4.29, 95% CI: 1.50–12.31), and 72% (26/36) vs 39% (17/44) were MBS‐free, respectively (P = .003) (odds ratio = 4.40, 95% CI: 1.61–12.05). In those whose treatment was delayed ≥2 hours, pain freedom in the active treatment group and placebo group were 33% (12/36) and 10% (4/39), respectively (P = .017) (odds ratio = 4.33, 95% CI: 1.24–15.10), and MBS freedom was achieved in 69% (25/36) and 41% (16/39), respectively, in the delayed treatment group (P = .014) (odds ratio = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.27–8.95). No significant effects (overall interaction P = .353) were observed in logistical regression models of treatment by subgroup interaction.

Conclusion

Severe pain, delayed treatment, awakening with a headache, and the presence of nausea are factors that predict a poorer response to acute migraine treatment. In these post hoc analyses of subgroups of patients with each of these characteristics in the ZOTRIP trial, participants receiving ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg displayed nearly uniformly better headache responses (2‐hour headache freedom and 2‐hour MBS freedom) compared with those who received placebo.

Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial

BACKGROUND

The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication.

METHODS

Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation.

RESULTS

A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

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.

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.

Managing migraine by patient profile: role of frovatriptan

For the last quarter of a century, triptans have been available for acute treatment of migraine but with little guidance on which of the different triptan products to use for which patient or which attack of migraine. In this article, we propose a structured approach to analysis of individual migraine attacks and patient characteristics as a means of defining and optimizing acute intervention. Assessment of patient and attack profiles includes the "5-Ps": pattern, phenotype, patient, pharmacology, and precipitants. Attending to these five components of information can assist in developing an individualized behavioral, pharmacological, and nonpharmacological comprehensive treatment plan for most migraine patients. This clinical approach is then focused on frovatriptan because of its unique molecular signature and potential novel clinical applications. Frovatriptan like all triptans is indicated for acute treatment of migraine but its role has been explored in management of several unique migraine phenotypes. Frovatriptan has the longest half-life of any triptan and consequently is often promoted for acute treatment of migraine of longer duration. It has also been studied as a short-term preventive treatment in women with menstrual-related migraine. Given that 60% of female migraineurs suffer from menstrual-related migraine, this population is the obvious group for continued study. Small studies have also explored frovatriptan's use in treating migraine predicted by premonitory symptoms as a preventive for the headache phase of migraine. By identifying patient and attack profiles, clinicians may effectively determine the viability of frovatriptan as an effective pharmacological intervention for migraine.

The pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy of AVP-825: a potential advancement for acute treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Oral triptans have dominated the prescription market for acute treatment of migraine for nearly 25 years. Today, patients often express dissatisfaction with prescribed acute treatment in part because they do not have confidence that the therapy will provide consistent efficacy over time. Major limitations to sustained successful use of oral triptans are their relatively slow onset of meaningful clinical benefit and variable absorption/efficacy due to impaired gastrointestinal function during migraine. AVP-825, a new intranasal delivery system for sumatriptan , may be an effective alternative to oral triptans.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews AVP-825, which deposits low-dose sumatriptan powder deep into the vascular mucosa of the posterior nose, allowing rapid absorption of drug into the systemic circulation. Studies suggest that AVP-825 is a highly effective, well-tolerated acute treatment for episodic migraine.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral triptans are limited in providing effective patient-centered outcomes to migraine patients. Failed or suboptimal abortive treatment of migraine is a major driver of migraine chronification and increases in healthcare costs. AVP-825 is an easy to use, novel, breath-powered intranasal delivery system that provides early onset of efficacy with low systemic drug exposure and few triptan-associated adverse events. AVP-825 will be a welcomed therapeutic tool for the acute treatment of migraine.

The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies

The study aims to provide an updated assessment of the evidence for individual pharmacological therapies for acute migraine treatment. Pharmacological therapy is frequently required for acutely treating migraine attacks. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines published in 2000 summarized the available evidence relating to the efficacy of acute migraine medications. This review, conducted by the members of the Guidelines Section of the American Headache Society, is an updated assessment of evidence for the migraine acute medications. A standardized literature search was performed to identify articles related to acute migraine treatment that were published between 1998 and 2013. The American Academy of Neurology Guidelines Development procedures were followed. Two authors reviewed each abstract resulting from the search and determined whether the full manuscript qualified for review. Two reviewers studied each qualifying full manuscript for its level of evidence. Level A evidence requires at least 2 Class I studies, and Level B evidence requires 1 Class I or 2 Class II studies. The specific medications - triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan [oral, nasal spray, injectable, transcutaneous patch], zolmitriptan [oral and nasal spray]) and dihydroergotamine (nasal spray, inhaler) are effective (Level A). Ergotamine and other forms of dihydroergotamine are probably effective (Level B). Effective nonspecific medications include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen), opioids (butorphanol nasal spray), sumatriptan/naproxen, and the combination of acetaminophen/aspirin/caffeine (Level A). Ketoprofen, intravenous and intramuscular ketorolac, flurbiprofen, intravenous magnesium (in migraine with aura), and the combination of isometheptene compounds, codeine/acetaminophen and tramadol/acetaminophen are probably effective (Level B). The antiemetics prochlorperazine, droperidol, chlorpromazine, and metoclopramide are probably effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence for butalbital and butalbital combinations, phenazone, intravenous tramadol, methadone, butorphanol or meperidine injections, intranasal lidocaine, and corticosteroids, including dexamethasone (Level C). Octreotide is probably not effective (Level B). There is inadequate evidence to refute the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray, intravenous acetaminophen, chlorpromazine injection, and intravenous granisetron (Level C). There are many acute migraine treatments for which evidence supports efficacy. Clinicians must consider medication efficacy, potential side effects, and potential medication-related adverse events when prescribing acute medications for migraine. Although opioids, such as butorphanol, codeine/acetaminophen, and tramadol/acetaminophen, are probably effective, they are not recommended for regular use.

Effect of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation on acute migraine: An open-label pilot study

Background

We sought to assess a novel, noninvasive, portable vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) for acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

Participants with migraine with or without aura were eligible for an open-label, single-arm, multiple-attack study. Up to four migraine attacks were treated with two 90-second doses, at 15-minute intervals delivered to the right cervical branch of the vagus nerve within a six-week time period. Subjects were asked to self-treat at moderate or severe pain, or after 20 minutes of mild pain.

Results

Of 30 enrolled patients (25 females, five males, median age 39), two treated no attacks, and one treated aura only, leaving a Full Analysis Set of 27 treating 80 attacks with pain. An adverse event was reported in 13 patients, notably: neck twitching ( n = 1), raspy voice ( n = 1) and redness at the device site ( n = 1). No unanticipated, serious or severe adverse events were reported. The pain-free rate at two hours was four of 19 (21%) for the first treated attack with a moderate or severe headache at baseline. For all moderate or severe attacks at baseline, the pain-free rate was 12/54 (22%).

Conclusions

nVNS may be an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine in certain patients.

A qualitative review of the psychometric properties and feasibility of electronic headache diaries for children and adults: where we are and where we need to go

BACKGROUND

While paper headache pain diaries have been used to determine the effectiveness of headache treatments in clinical trials, recent advances in information and communication technologies have resulted in the burgeoning use of electronic diaries (e-diaries) for headache pain.

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively review headache e-diaries, assess their measurement properties, examine measurement components and compare these components with recommended reporting guidelines.

METHODS

The databases Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsychInfo, the Education Resources Information Centre and ISI Web of Science were searched for self-report headache e-diaries for children and adults. A total of 21 publications that involved e-diaries were found; five articles reported on the development of an e-diary and 16 used an e-diary as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials or observational studies. The diary measures' components, features and psychometric properties, as well as the quality of evidence of their psychometric properties, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Five headache e-diaries met the a priori criteria and were included in the final analysis. None of these e-diaries had well-developed evidence of reliability and validity. Three e-diaries showed evidence of feasibility. E-diaries with ad hoc measures developed by the study investigators were most common, with little to no supportive evidence of reliability and⁄or validity. Compliance with the reporting guidelines was variable, with only one-half of the e-diaries measuring the recommended primary outcome of headache frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific recommendations regarding the development (including essential components) and testing of headache e-diaries are discussed. Further research is needed to strengthen the measurement of headache pain in clinical trials using headache e-diaries.

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.

Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine headaches in the workplace: implementing evidence-based interventions

The impact of migraine headaches on worker productivity and quality of life is significant. A medical center employee health department implemented an evidence-based, multicomponent intervention to manage migraine headaches for a population of more than 3,500 employees. The intervention consisted of education to identify and avoid headache triggers, coaching on dietary and lifestyle changes, and prescriptions for medications to prevent and treat headaches. This article presents preliminary data on the feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention. The frequency and severity of headaches were measured at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline using the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire. At 12 months, 28 participants who completed testing reported that the frequency of headaches had decreased by 76.1%, severity by 31.3%, and perception of disability by 66.5%. This pilot study used a convenience sample and no control group. However, results are promising and recommendations are made for future studies.

The impact of allodynia on the efficacy of almotriptan when given early in migraine: data from the "Act when mild" study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of allodynia on treatment outcomes in the patients with acute migraine treated in the "Act when Mild" (AwM) study. AwM, a randomized placebo-controlled trial, studied almotriptan 12.5 mg in the early treatment (within 1 hr) of acute migraine when the pain was still mild, and investigated clinical outcomes in the presence or absence of allodynia, which was prospectively recorded using patient questionnaires. Of the total population, 39% (n = 404) reported allodynia that did not alter the efficacy of almotriptan administered for early/mild pain in terms of 2-hr pain-free rates (53.9% for allodynic patients vs. 52.5% for nonallodynic patients). Similarly, sustained pain-free rates were 47.2% versus 45.5%, and migraine duration 1.40 versus 1.54 hr, respectively. However, allodynia impaired the effectiveness of almotriptan in the patients with moderate/severe pain in terms of longer migraine duration, fewer patients achieving pain-free status, and more requiring rescue medication. In conclusion, the lack of effect of allodynia on the efficacy of almotriptan given for early/mild migraine pain might help explain the improved outcomes associated with the early-treatment strategy in AwM. Moreover, the data suggest that pain intensity is the main driver of triptan response, and not the presence or absence of allodynia.

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.

Almotriptan for menstrually related migraine

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of migrainous women associate their headache temporally to menses. Menstrually related migraine (MRM) is a disabling form of migraine characterized by attacks that are generally longer, more severe and less drug-responsive than nonmenstrual ones. Since MRM may be difficult to treat, it is important to find an appropriate treatment option for women suffering from this condition.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides an overview of the clinical features of MRM, with special attention on the use of almotriptan for its treatment. Four studies on almotriptan in the treatment of MRM are present in the medical literature. Two report post hoc analyses of data derived from larger studies on the use of almotriptan for migraine treatment. One reports the results from a study specifically dedicated to MRM and one illustrates a subanalysis on the accompanying symptomatology.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence demonstrates that almotriptan is a molecule with a high efficacy in the treatment of MRM and with an excellent tolerability profile when compared with other triptans. Moreover, it shows a proven ability to control migraine-associated symptoms. All these qualities play a decidedly positive role in making almotriptan a product of choice for the treatment of MRM.

Almotriptan: a review of 10 years' clinical experience

Almotriptan, a serotonin 5-HT 1B/1D agonist, was developed for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and has been available for 10 years. This article evaluates the wealth of experience that has been obtained with almotriptan, including large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and post-marketing studies that more closely reflect everyday clinical practice. Initial RCTs required patients to take almotriptan when migraine pain was of moderate or severe intensity, and found that 12.5 mg provided optimal outcomes for both pain relief and tolerability. Almotriptan effectively improved 2-h pain-relief, reduced migraine-associated symptoms and demonstrated low recurrence rates. These findings were also shown in patient subgroups, such as adolescents and menstrual migraineurs. A secondary finding in these trials was that patients who took almotriptan early, when the pain was still mild, achieved better outcomes. This prompted the initiation of studies designed to assess the effect of almotriptan in early intervention. Open-label trials reported improvements in pain-free end points (2 h, 24 h), and subsequent RCTs confirmed these findings. Pharmacovigilance data from more than 100 million tablets dispensed worldwide have confirmed that almotriptan is associated with a low occurrence of adverse effects, which, in clinical trials, has been shown to be similar to that observed with placebo. The clinical evidence obtained and comparisons made over a decade of use have demonstrated that almotriptan is one of the more effective and fast-acting triptans available, with a placebo-like tolerability profile. This suggests that almotriptan is an excellent choice for patients requiring specific acute migraine treatment.

Improved patient satisfaction and pain evolution with almotriptan in migraine: a primary care study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The START study was a large general practice observational study involving 400 patients with migraine. Given the large sample size, a sub-analysis was planned to ascertain whether any patient characteristics/behaviors might help predict/explain the responses observed in this study, which demonstrated that almotriptan administered early when pain was mild significantly improved pain-related outcomes compared with non-early/non-mild treatment.

METHODS

This pre-planned sub-analysis assessed the impact of predictors of patient satisfaction, medication history, delayed drug intake, etc. on the primary pain endpoints of the START study.

RESULTS

Patients had previously tried an average of 2.5 drugs for migraine relief and were currently taking a mean of 1.4 drugs. Almotriptan had been tried by 21% of the sample and was still being used by 83% of this sub-group. Treatment satisfaction was higher in the subset of patients taking almotriptan than in almotriptan-naїve individuals (p < 0.001) and this may explain why this group had the highest continuation rate of all drugs evaluated. On completion of the study, patient satisfaction was higher in the early/mild treatment group than the non-early/non-mild group (p = 0.049). Many patients delayed taking almotriptan, despite being instructed otherwise. Patients reported that this was primarily because they believed that they should only take the medication in the case of a severe migraine attack and/or to ensure that the symptoms were definitely due to migraine headache. The limitations of the trial include its open, observational design, and the small number of individuals who managed to treat their migraine attack within 1 hour when it was still mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Almotriptan was associated with increased patient satisfaction, particularly when taken early. Further action is required to increase patient compliance with early treatment regimens to improve clinical outcomes.

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.

Almotriptan 12.5 mg in menstrually related migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Menstrually related migraine (MRM) affects more than half of female migraineurs. Because such migraines are often predictable, they provide a suitable target for treatment in the mild pain phase. The present study was designed to provide prospective data on the efficacy of almotriptan for treatment of MRM.

METHODS

Premenopausal women with MRM were randomized to almotriptan (N = 74) or placebo (N = 73), taken at onset of the first perimenstrual migraine. Patients crossed over to the other treatment for the first perimenstrual migraine of their second cycle, followed by a two-month open-label almotriptan treatment period.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients were pain-free at two hours (risk ratio [RR] = 1.81; p = .0008), pain-free from 2-24 hours with no rescue medication (RR = 1.99; p = .0022), and pain-free from 2-24 hours with no rescue medication or adverse events (RR = 1.94; p = .0061) with almotriptan versus placebo. Nausea (p = .0007) and photophobia (p = .0083) at two hours were significantly less frequent with almotriptan. Almotriptan efficacy was consistent between three attacks, with 56.2% of patients pain-free at two hours at least twice. Adverse events were similar with almotriptan and placebo.

CONCLUSION

Almotriptan was significantly more effective than placebo in women with MRM attacks, with consistent efficacy in longer-term follow-up.

Almotriptan for the treatment of acute migraine: a review of early intervention trials

Almotriptan is a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine)(1B/1D) receptor agonist (triptan) that has shown consistent efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine with excellent tolerability. It is an effective, well-tolerated and cost-effective triptan, as demonstrated by improvement in rigorous, patient-orientated end points, such as 'sustained pain-free without adverse events'. Results from post hoc analyses, observational studies and well-controlled, prospective clinical trials have shown that significant improvements can be achieved if almotriptan 12.5 mg is administered within an hour of migraine onset, particularly when pain is mild, rather than waiting until pain is moderate-to-severe. Benefits were also achieved with early treatment of moderate-to-severe pain. Time-to-treatment was the best predictor of headache duration, whereas initial headache intensity best predicted most other efficacy outcomes. Early administration of almotriptan 12.5 mg not only produced rapid symptomatic relief, it also improved the patient's quality of life and ability to resume normal daily functioning. Furthermore, the efficacy of almotriptan is not significantly affected by allodynia (purported to reduce the efficacy of triptans). Thus, the excellent efficacy and tolerability profile of almotriptan administered early in a migraine attack indicate that it may be a first-line treatment option in this common, underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder.

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.

Clinical aspects of perimenstrual headaches

Menstrual migraine (MM) is either pure, if attacks are limited solely during the perimenstrual window (PMW), or menstrually related (MRM), if two of three PMWs are associated with attacks with additional migraine events outside the PMW. Acute migraine specific therapy is equally effective in MM and non-MM. Although the International Classification of Headache Disorders-II classifies MM without aura, data suggest this needs revision. The studies on extended-cycle oral contraceptives suggest benefits for headache-prone individuals. Triptan mini-prophylaxis outcomes are positive, but a conclusion of "minimal net benefit compared to placebo" is not entirely unwarranted. In a 2008 evidence-based review, grade B recommendations exist for sumatriptan (50 and 100 mg), mefenamic acid (500 mg), and riza-triptan (10 mg) for the acute treatment of MRM. For the preventive mini-prophylactic treatment of MRM, grade B recommendations are provided for transcutaneous estrogen (1.5 mg), frovatriptan (2.5 mg twice daily), and naratriptan (1 mg twice daily).

Fixed-dose sumatriptan and naproxen in poor responders to triptans with a short half-life

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a single, fixed-dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan/naproxen sodium) vs placebo in migraineurs who had discontinued treatment with a short-acting triptan because of poor response or intolerance.

BACKGROUND

Triptan monotherapy is ineffective or poorly tolerated in 1 of 3 migraineurs and in 2 of 5 migraine attacks. In April, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration approved the combination therapy sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, developed specifically to target multiple migraine mechanisms. This combination product offers an alternative migraine therapy for patients who have reported poor response or intolerance to short-acting triptans.

METHODS

Two replicate, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-attack crossover trials evaluated migraineurs who had discontinued a short-acting triptan in the past year because of poor response or intolerance. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 hour and while pain was mild.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 144 study 1; n = 139 study 2) had discontinued an average of 3.3 triptans before study entry. Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was superior (P < .001) to placebo for 2- through 24-hour sustained pain-free response (primary end point) (study 1, 26% vs 8%; study 2, 31% vs 8%) and pain-free response 2 hours post dose (key secondary end point) (study 1, 40% vs 17%; study 2, 44% vs 14%). A similar pattern of results was observed for other end points that evaluated acute (2- or 4-hour), intermediate (8-hour), or 2- through 24-hour sustained response for migraine (ie, pain and associated symptoms), photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea (with the exception of nausea 2 and 4 hours post dose). The percentage of patients with at least 1 adverse event (regardless of causality) was 11% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 4% with placebo in study 1 and 9% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 5% with placebo in study 2. Only 1 adverse event in 1 study was reported in > or =2% of patients after treatment with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium and reported more frequently with sumatriptan/naproxen than placebo: chest discomfort was reported in 2% of subjects in study 1, and no events met this threshold in study 2. No serious adverse events attributed to study medication were reported in either study.

CONCLUSION

In migraineurs who reported poor response to a short-acting triptan, sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was generally well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in conferring initial, intermediate, and sustained efficacy for pain and migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia and phonophobia.

Fixed-dose Sumatriptan/Naproxen Sodium Compared with each Monotherapy Utilizing the Novel Composite Endpoint of Sustained Pain-free/no Adverse Events

A novel composite endpoint, sustained pain-free/no adverse events, was recently proposed as a more rigorous means of capturing in a single measure the attributes of migraine pharmacotherapy that patients consider most important: rapid and sustained pain-free response with no side-effects. Using pooled data from two replicate randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies, this post hoc analysis compared the fixed-dose combination tablet sumatriptan/naproxen sodium (n = 726) with sumatriptan monotherapy (n = 723), naproxen sodium monotherapy (n = 720), and placebo (n = 742) with respect to sustained pain-free/no adverse events and closely related composite measures. Sustained pain-free/no adverse events was defined as having both a sustained pain-free response from 2 through 24 hours post-dose with no use of rescue medication and having no adverse events within up to 5 days after dosing with study medication. The percentage of patients with sustained pain-free/no adverse events was 16% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 11%, 9% and 7% for sumatriptan, naproxen sodium and placebo, respectively (p<0.01 sumatriptan/naproxen sodium versus each other treatment). Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was also significantly more effective than sumatriptan, naproxen sodium, and placebo for other composite endpoints including the percentages of patients with (1) sustained pain-free/no adverse events within 1 day; (2) sustained pain-free/no drug-related adverse events within up to 5 days; (3) sustained pain-free/no drug-related adverse events within 1 day; (4) sustained pain relief/no adverse events within up to 5 days; and (5) sustained pain relief/no adverse events within 1 day. The results demonstrate the superiority of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium to sumatriptan monotherapy, naproxen sodium monotherapy and placebo with respect to the rigorous and clinically relevant endpoint of sustained pain-free/no adverse events and reinforce the usefulness of utilizing this new composite endpoint.

Barriers to satisfactory migraine outcomes. What have we learned, where do we stand?

Barriers to optimal migraine care have traditionally been divided into a number of categories: under-recognition and underconsultation by migraine sufferers; underdiagnosis and undertreatment by health care professionals; lack of follow-up and treatment optimization. These "traditional" barriers have been recognized and addressed for at least 15 years. Epidemiologic studies suggest that consultation, diagnosis, and treatment rates for migraine have improved although many migraine sufferers still do not get optimal treatment. Herein, we revisit the problem, review areas of progress, and expand the discussion of barriers to migraine care. We hypothesize that the subjective nature of pain and difficulty in communicating it contributes to clinical and societal barriers to care. We then revisit some of the traditional barriers to care, contrasting rates of recognition, diagnosis, and treatment over the past 15 years. We follow by addressing new barriers to migraine care that have emerged as a function of the knowledge gained in this process.

Allodynia-associated symptoms, pain intensity and time to treatment: predicting treatment response in acute migraine intervention

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between treatment outcomes and allodynia-associated symptoms (AAS) at the time of treatment with almotriptan.

METHODS

Analyses were performed with data collected prospectively from patients in 2 recently completed early intervention trials, AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS) and AXERT 12.5 mg time vs Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS): 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief (AEGIS only), sustained pain free (SPF), use of rescue medication, and median headache duration (AIMS only), in the presence and absence of pretreatment AAS, which was determined by responses to a questionnaire. Analyses were conducted to evaluate possible prognostic variables.

RESULTS

The presence of pretreatment AAS did not have a significant effect on 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief or SPF rates, use of rescue medication, or headache duration. Significant factors for most favorable outcomes (greater 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief and SPF rates, less use of rescue medication, and shorter headache duration) included treatment with almotriptan 12.5 mg, treatment of mild or moderate headache pain, and treatment within 1 hour of headache onset.

CONCLUSION

Almotriptan 12.5 mg was efficacious in providing 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief, SPF, and reducing rescue medication use irrespective of the presence of AAS at the time of treatment. The most optimal efficacy outcomes occurred when patients treated migraine attacks early and before the onset of severe pain. The presence of AAS, which may indicate an early phase of allodynia, did not influence the efficacy of almotriptan therapy.

Almotriptan and Its Combination with Aceclofenac For Migraine Attacks: A Study of Efficacy and The Influence of Auto-Evaluated Brush Allodynia

Early treatment and combining a triptan with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) are thought to improve outcome during migraine attacks, possibly by counteracting the negative influence of cutaneous allodynia. The aim of this multicentre, double-blind pilot study was to evaluate the prevalence of brush allodynia and its relative influence on the efficacy of a triptan-NSAID combination compared with headache intensity at the time of treatment. In a randomized, cross-over design, 112 migraineurs treated two moderate or severe attacks with almotriptan 12.5 mg combined with either aceclofenac 100 mg or placebo. Patients used a 2-cm brush to assess cutaneous allodynia. Allodynia was reported in 34.4± of attacks. The almotriptan-aceclofenac combination was numerically superior to triptan-placebo on 2-24-h sustained pain-free ( P = 0.07), 2-h pain-free ( P = 0.07) and headache recurrence ( P = 0.05) rates, but not on 1-h headache relief. Allodynia numerically reduced treatment success overall, but this effect was not significant for the primary outcome measures. Headache intensity had a significant negative influence on 1-h relief in both attacks ( P = 0.0001 and 0.0008, X2) and on 2-24-h sustained pain-free rates in triptanplacebo-treated attacks ( P = 0.013). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that headache intensity at treatment intake, rather than allodynia, significantly influenced most outcome measures, predominantly so in attacks treated with almotriptan and aceclofenac. In the latter, severe compared with moderate headache intensity reduced the likelihood of achieving the primary efficacy end-points [odds ratios (OR) 0.12 and 0.33], whereas allodynia was not a significant explanatory variable (OR 0.76 and 0.65). The results apply to the protocol used here and need to be confirmed in larger studies using quantitative sensory testing.

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.

Characteristics of migraine attacks and responses to almotriptan treatment: a comparison of menstrually related and nonmenstrually related migraines

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical characteristics of menstrually related migraines (MRMs) and nonmenstrually related migraines (nonMRMs) and to investigate the efficacy of almotriptan in the treatment of these migraine subtypes.

DESIGN/METHODS

These are post hoc analyses of data from the AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS), a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial that evaluated adults with IHS-defined migraine with and without aura. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treat 3 consecutive headaches with almotriptan 12.5 mg or matching placebo at the first sign of headache typical of their usual migraine, at any level of pain intensity but within 1 hour of onset. MRMs were defined as those occurring +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow. Post hoc analyses to describe headache characteristics pooled all migraine attacks experienced by patients who reported > or = 1 menses during the study regardless of assigned treatment group. The post hoc efficacy analyses included outcomes of almotriptan treatment compared with placebo treatment for all migraines in patients with a menstrual record.

RESULTS

Of the 275 women in the AEGIS intent-to-treat population, 190 (69.1%; 97 almotriptan, 93 placebo; aged 18-54 years) reported > or = 1 menses during the trial. Of the 506 migraines reported by these patients, 95 (18.8%) occurred +/-2 days of the first day of menstrual flow and were defined as MRM. Aura was associated with 11.7% of MRM and 15.0% of nonMRM. Allodynia-associated symptoms were present with 62.8% of MRM and 57.0% of nonMRM. Prior to treatment, 19.1% of MRM were associated with normal functional ability, 68.1% with disturbed functional ability, and 12.8% required bed rest compared with 18.9%, 68.8%, and 12.3%, respectively, of nonMRM. Pretreatment pain intensity was mild in 40.0%, moderate in 47.4%, and severe in 12.6% of MRM compared with 43.6%, 47.2%, and 9.2%, respectively, of nonMRM. Almotriptan treatment efficacy outcomes for MRM vs nonMRM, respectively, were: 2-hour pain relief, 77.4% vs 68.3%; 2-hour pain free, 35.4% vs 35.9%; and sustained pain free, 22.9% vs 23.8%. Almotriptan was similarly effective in relieving migraine-associated symptoms and improving functional disability associated with both MRM and nonMRM.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to treatment, the presence of migraine-associated characteristics including aura, allodynia-associated symptoms, photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea were similar for both MRM and nonMRM attacks. The pretreatment levels of pain intensity and functional disability were likewise similar across the migraine subtypes. Almotriptan was equally effective in the treatment of both MRM and nonMRM attacks and was associated with an adverse event profile that was similar to placebo treatment.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of oral almotriptan in treating acute migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND

Almotriptan is an oral selective sertonin(1B/1D) receptor agonist (triptan) with a high bioavailability and short half-life, developed for the treatment of migraine. In recent years, a number of randomized controlled trials have been published examining the efficacy and safety of almotriptan in the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for the proportions of patients achieving headache relief and pain-free responses at 1 or 2 hours post-dose, sustained pain-free response at 2-24 hours post-dose, and safety outcomes (proportions of patients experiencing any adverse events, dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, and chest tightness) comparing almotriptan against placebo, other triptans, and different dosages of almotriptan. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) for 2-hour headache relief, pain free, and sustained pain free responses between almotriptan and placebo were also calculated.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 4995 patients were included in the analysis. Almotriptan 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for all efficacy outcomes (RRs ranged from 1.47 to 2.15; ARDs ranged from 0.01 to 0.28) and there were no significant differences in any of the safety outcomes. There were also no significant differences in efficacy outcomes comparing almotriptan 12.5 mg against sumatriptan 100 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, but almotriptan 12.5 mg was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than sumatriptan 100 mg (RR: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.67). However, there was no significant difference between almotriptan and sumatriptan in terms of clinically important adverse effects, such as dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, and chest tightness. Almotriptan 12.5 mg was significantly less effective than almotriptan 25 mg for 1-hour pain-free response (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.95), but associated with significantly fewer patients experiencing adverse events (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.41, 0.91) than almotriptan 25 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Almotriptan 12.5 mg is an effective treatment for acute attacks of migraine, in particular, it has been found to be as effective as sumatriptan 100 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg. The risk of adverse events associated with almotriptan 12.5 mg was similar to placebo and significantly lower than sumatriptan 100 mg. Further research is required to assess the comparative efficacy of almotriptan against other triptans.