Sumatriptan/Naproxen Sodium for Migraine: Efficacy, Health Related Quality of Life, and Satisfaction Outcomes

Headache in multiple sclerosis - pharmacological aspects

For decades, headache was not considered a typical symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) and was construed as a "red flag" for important differential diagnoses such as cerebral vasculitis. Meanwhile, several studies have demonstrated an increased prevalence of headache in MS compared to the general population. This is due to the heterogeneity of headache genesis with frequent occurrence of both primary and secondary headaches in MS. On the one hand, MS and migraine are often comorbid. On the other hand, secondary headaches occur frequently, especially in the course of MS relapses. These are often migraine-like headaches caused by inflammation, which can improve as a result of MS-specific therapy. Headaches are particularly common in the early stages of chronic inflammatory CNS disease, where inflammatory activity is greatest. In addition, headache can also occur as a side effect of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs). Headache can occur with most DMDs and is most frequently described with interferon-beta therapy. The aim of this work is to present the prevalence of headache and describe the heterogeneity of possible causes of headache in MS. In addition, important therapeutic aspects in the treatment of MS patients in general will be presented as well as different approaches to the treatment of headache in MS depending on the etiological classification.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in October 2013 on 'Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults'.Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. It affects two to three times more women than men, and is most common in the age range 30 to 50 years. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) to 28 October 2015, MEDLINE (via Ovid) from 1946 to 28 October 2015, and EMBASE (via Ovid) from 1974 to 28 October 2015, and two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov). 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 sumatriptan plus naproxen 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 ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new study (43 participants), but it did not contribute any data for analysis. The review included 13 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity. Twelve studies contributed data for analyses: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. We judged only one small study to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated; it did not contribute to any analyses.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of pain-free and headache relief at two hours. The NNT for pain-free at two hours was 3.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.5) when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 (4.3 to 5.7) when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo (moderate quality evidence).Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than with sumatriptan (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review were not changed. Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone were not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.

Migraine-related healthcare resource use and costs for subjects prescribed fixed-dose combination sumatriptan/naproxen sodium vs. single-entity oral triptans in a managed care population in the USA

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the efficacy of a fixed-dose single-tablet combination containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium (S/NS) was greater than either of its individual components. Simplifying drug regimens (e.g., via a fixed-dose combination) has been shown to improve "real-world" outcomes by reducing pill burden and treatment regimen complexity, improving adherence, and reducing healthcare resource use and associated costs; however, no studies assessing such outcomes have been conducted to date for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To assess migraine-related healthcare resource use and associated costs for subjects prescribed S/NS vs. subjects prescribed single-entity oral triptans (SOTs) within a managed care population in the USA.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 (IMS LifeLink), subjects meeting the following criteria were selected: one or more pharmacy claim(s) for either S/NS or SOT (index date), aged 18-64 years; at least one migraine diagnosis, and continuous enrollment in the 6 months prior to and post the index date. The study population was subsequently stratified for two analyses: triptan-naïve (triptan naïve in the 6-month period prior to the index date) and triptan-switch (triptan user in the 6-month period prior to the index date and switching to another triptan). Subjects prescribed S/NS were propensity-score matched with subjects prescribed SOT (triptan-naïve analysis: 1:3; triptan-switch analysis: 1:1) to assess differences in healthcare resource use and associated costs (2009 US$) between the S/NS and SOT groups.

RESULTS

Results from the triptan-naïve and triptan-switch analyses suggest that subjects prescribed S/NS are likely to have similar healthcare resource use patterns as those either newly initiated on an SOT or switching SOTs, as measured by migraine medication use, migraine-related healthcare resource use, and all-cause healthcare resource use. One exception was the observed increased use of opioids in the SOT group compared with the S/NS group (change in mean number of tablets pre-index vs. post-index, S/NS vs. SOT; triptan-naïve analysis: 8.6 vs.18.3, p = 0.045; triptan-switch analysis: -8.2 vs. 17.7; p = 0.120). Total costs from the triptan-naïve analysis indicated that the S/NS group had lower migraine-related (US$744 vs. US$820; p = 0.067) and all-cause healthcare costs (US$4,391 vs. US$4,870; p = 0.040) when compared with the SOT group, driven by savings in medical costs (migraine-related: US$252 vs. US$380; p = 0.001; all-cause: US$3,023 vs. US$3,599; p = 0.014). However, no significant differences were observed for total costs from the triptan-switch analysis (migraine-related healthcare costs, S/NS vs. SOT: US$1,159 vs. US$1,117; p = 0.929; all-cause healthcare costs: US$5,128 vs. US$4,788; p = 0.381).

CONCLUSION

Study results suggest similar healthcare resource use patterns and associated costs when comparing S/NS and SOT across a triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced population. While the current study focuses on direct medical costs, future studies should extend beyond such a perspective to explore functional status, productivity, and health-related quality of life and satisfaction, attributes not captured in administrative claims data, but nonetheless important treatment goals.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen (administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet) compared with placebo and other active interventions for the acute treatment of migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, together with two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) for studies to 2 August 2013. We also searched the reference list 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 sumatriptan plus naproxen 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 ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. No studies were considered to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for pain-free and headache relief responses. At two hours, the NNT for pain-free response was 3.1 when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (RR 3.65 (95% CI 3.0 to 4.5); high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo.Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than sumatriptan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone are not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.

Naproxen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Naproxen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); its efficacy in acute migraine has not been established by systematic reviews. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of naproxen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) and reference lists, for studies to 22 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using naproxen alone or with an antiemetic 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 (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies using naproxen 275 mg, 500 mg, or 825 mg to treat attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity. Overall, 1241 participants took naproxen (275 mg to 825 mg), 229 took sumatriptan 50 mg, 173 took naratriptan 2.5 mg, and 1092 took placebo. No studies combined naproxen with an antiemetic. Studies using naproxen 275 mg provided no useable data for analysis.Naproxen (500 mg and 825 mg) was better than placebo for pain-free response and headache relief. At two hours, the NNT for pain-free response was 11 (17% response with naproxen, 8% with placebo; risk ratio 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.6), moderate quality) and for headache relief was 6.0 (45% response with naproxen, 29% with placebo; risk ratio 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8), moderate quality). The NNT for sustained pain-free response during the 24 hours post dose was 19 (12% response with naproxen, 6.7% with placebo), and for sustained headache relief during the 24 hours post dose was 8.3 (30% response with naproxen, 18% with placebo). Analysing only the lower dose of 500 mg of naproxen did not significantly change the results. Adverse events, which were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal, were more common with naproxen than with placebo when the 500 mg and 825 mg doses were considered together, but not when the 500 mg dose was analysed alone.There were insufficient data for analysis of naproxen compared with sumatriptan, and no data suitable for analysis of naproxen compared with naratriptan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 11 for pain-free response at two hours suggests that it is not a clinically useful treatment. Cochrane reviews examining other commonly used analgesics for acute migraine have reported better (lower) NNT results for the same outcome. Naproxen is not clinically useful as a stand-alone analgesic in acute migraine, as it is effective in fewer than 2 people in 10.

Consistency of return to normal function, productivity, and satisfaction following migraine attacks treated with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination

OBJECTIVES

To assess the consistency of improved functioning, productivity, and medication satisfaction in migraines treated with a single tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (S/NS) using an early intervention approach.

METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover, multi-attack, multi-center, outpatient studies of moderate to severe adult migraineurs were conducted to compare S/NS with placebo. Participants recorded outcome assessments in a diary during the 24 hours following study medication. Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population who treated at least 1 attack. Statistical significance between treatment groups used analysis of variance repeated measures models and the intent-to-treat population. There were no corrections for multiplicity.

RESULTS

Almost half (48.5%) of migraineurs treated with S/NS returned to normal functioning at 2 hours and 73.3% at 4 hours postdose, compared with 28.7% (2 hours) and 43.3% (4 hours) of placebo-treated attacks. Total productivity loss over the 24 hours postdose was significantly reduced following S/NS treatment (2.5 hours on average) compared with placebo (4.0 hours). Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment resulted in significantly higher medication satisfaction scores on the efficacy, functionality, and total efficacy subscales compared with placebo in all attacks in both studies. Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment also provided significantly greater ease of use in 7 of the 8 attacks. Although tolerability was high in both treatment groups (over 90%), the placebo group was significantly less bothered by side effects in 6 of 8 attacks.

CONCLUSION

Results from these 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-attack, crossover studies demonstrated the rapid and consistent restoration of patients' functioning, the consistent reduction in productivity loss, and high satisfaction ratings from patients treating multiple migraine attacks with S/NS using an early intervention approach.

A systematic review of the psychosocial difficulties relevant to patients with migraine

Migraine is a common disease which causes significant burden to individuals, in terms of personal suffering and activity reduction, and to societies, in terms of disease cost. The purpose of this study is to identify the most relevant psychosocial difficulties related to migraine, the variables associated with them and the most relevant determinants of their evolution over time. MEDLINE and PsychINFO were searched for studies published in English between 2000 and 2010 that examined psychosocial difficulties in persons with migraine with and without aura, from clinical trials and observational studies. Information on the description of each difficulty, its determinants of onset and change over time and associated variables were extracted and categorized at a higher level. In total, 34 difficulties have been collected from 51 papers: the most frequent were reduced vitality and fatigue, emotional problems, pain, difficulties at work, general physical and mental health, social functioning and global disability. Evidence exists that pharmacological treatments have an impact toward improvement in patients’ difficulties, in particular emotional problems, physical and mental health, difficulties with employment and global disability. Migraine treatments and decreased headaches frequency are the major determinants of improvements in psychosocial difficulties, while no information is available for determinants of worsening; understanding the role of such factors is of primary public health relevance, given the high prevalence and the relevant personal and societal costs of migraine.

[Influence of treatments for migraine on quality of life: literature integrative review]

This study aimed to identify the impact of the main treatments for migraine on the quality of life (QOL) as affected people and the instruments used to assess the QOL. It consists of an integrative review of the literature, in which the databases PubMed, BIREME and The Cochrane Library were used, considering articles from 2000 to 2009. We selected 42 articles for analysis, which were fully read. The articles were classified into three categories: pharmacological treatments for the crisis, prophylactic drug treatments and alternative treatments for migraine. In most studies, the tools used to assess QOL were validated and the most commonly used were the Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire 36 - Item Short Form Health Survey (SF 36), the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). We conclude that, in general, the treatments seem to be positive on the QOL of individuals with migraine.

Randomized trial of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium combination in adolescent migraine

BACKGROUND

Treatment of adolescent migraine remains a significant unmet medical need. We compared the efficacy and safety of 3 doses of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium (suma/nap) combination tablets to placebo in the acute treatment of adolescent migraine.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel group study in 12 to 17 year olds required 2 to 8 migraines per month (typically lasting >3 hours untreated) for ≥ 6 months. Subjects entered a 12-week run-in phase, treating 1 moderate-to-severe migraine (attack 1) with single-blind placebo. Subjects reporting headache pain 2 hours after dosing were randomly assigned into a 12-week double-blind phase, treating 1 moderate-to-severe migraine (attack 2) with placebo (n = 145), suma/nap 10/60 mg (n = 96), 30/180 mg (n = 97), or 85/500 mg (n = 152). The primary end point was the percentage of subjects pain-free at 2 hours.

RESULTS

The attack 2 adjusted (age; baseline pain severity) 2-hour pain-free rates were higher with suma/nap 10/60 mg (29%; adjusted P = .003), 30/180 mg (27%; adjusted P = .003), and 85/500 mg (24%; adjusted P = .003) versus placebo (10%). Posthoc primary end-point analyses did not demonstrate differences among the 3 doses or an age-by-treatment interaction. Statistically significant differences were found for 85/500 mg versus placebo for sustained pain-free 2 to 24 hours (23% vs 9%; adjusted P = .008), 2-hour photophobia-free (59% vs 41%; adjusted P = .008), and 2-hour phonophobia-free (60% vs 42%; adjusted P = .008). Analyses of other pain, associated symptoms, rescue medication use, and health outcome end points supported higher efficacy for active doses versus placebo. All active doses were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

All doses of suma/nap were well tolerated, providing similarly effective acute treatment of adolescent migraine pain and associated symptoms, as compared with placebo.

Topiramate plus nortriptyline in the preventive treatment of migraine: a controlled study for nonresponders

A sizeable proportion of migraineurs in need of preventive therapy do not significantly benefit from monotherapy. The objective of the study is to conduct a randomized controlled trial testing whether combination therapy of topiramate and nortriptyline is useful in patients who had less than 50% decrease in headache frequency with the use of the single agents. Patients with episodic migraine were enrolled if they had less than 50% reduction in headache frequency after 8 weeks of using topiramate (TPM) (100 mg/day) or nortriptyline (NTP) (30 mg/day). They were randomized (blinded fashion) to have placebo added to their regimen, or to receive the second medication (combination therapy). Primary endpoint was decrease in number of headache days at 6 weeks, relative to baseline, comparing both groups. Secondary endpoint was proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in headache frequency at 6 weeks relative to baseline. A total of 38 patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, while 30 continued on monotherapy (with placebo) (six drop outs in the combination group and three for each single drug group). For the primary endpoint, mean and standard deviation (SD) of reduction in headache frequency were 4.6 (1.9) for those in polytherapy, relative to 3.5 (2.3) for those in monotherapy. Differences were significant (p < 0.05]. Similarly, 78.3% of patients randomized to receive polytherapy had at least 50% headache reduction, as compared to 37% in monotherapy (p < 0.04). Finally we conclude that combination therapy (of TPM and NTP) is effective in patients with incomplete benefit using these agents in monotherapy.

Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for menstrual migraine and dysmenorrhea: satisfaction, productivity, and functional disability outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination tablet on patient satisfaction, productivity, and functional disability in menstrual migraine treated during the mild pain phase of a single menstrual migraine attack associated with dysmenorrhea.

BACKGROUND

Menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea represent a unique patient population not previously studied. When health outcomes end points are analyzed alongside traditional efficacy end points in migraine studies, a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the many factors that may influence patients' choice of and adherence to pharmacological treatments for migraine is observed.

METHODS

In 2 replicate, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, participants with menstrual migraine and dysmenorrhea treated a single menstrual migraine attack with a single fixed-dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg formulated with RT Technology™ and naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan-naproxen sodium) or placebo.

RESULTS

Participants randomized to sumatriptan-naproxen sodium were significantly more satisfied than those randomized to placebo at 24 hours post dose, as demonstrated by higher satisfaction subscale scores for efficacy (P < .001 for both studies), functionality (P = .003 for study 1; P < .001 for study 2), and ease of use (P = .027 for study 1; P = .011 for study 2). There was little bothersomeness of side effects associated with either treatment. Use of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was also associated with lower reported "lost-time equivalents" in work and leisure time (pooled analysis, P = .003) and lower rates of functional disability (P = .05, study 1; P < .001, study 2) compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

A fixed-dose combination tablet containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium significantly improved patient satisfaction, productivity, and restoration of normal functioning in menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea.

Assessing the impact of migraine onset on work productivity

OBJECTIVE

Examine the impact of migraine on work productivity, and particularly the association between time of migraine onset and lost productivity as measured by absenteeism and presenteeism.

METHODS

A total of 509 people with migraine completed one online baseline survey and a diary survey after each of their next three migraines. All subjects were 18 or older and employed full time.

RESULTS

Sixty-four percent of migraines occurred on a workday. Of these, 68% resulted in some work productivity impact in the form of absenteeism or presenteeism. Migraines occurring during usual sleeping hours or prior to the start of work had the greatest impact on productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that absenteeism and presenteeism are both substantial contributors to work productivity loss. Primary factors associated with lost productivity include pain severity, migraine symptoms, and sleep disturbance.

Migraine and patent foramen ovale: state of the science

Migraine is a prominent cause of recurrent pain, affecting 12% of the population. In several case series, approximately 50% of migraineurs with aura were found to have patent foramen ovale (PFO). The pathophysiological mechanism is speculated to be passage of microemboli and vasoactive chemicals through the PFO, thereby evading pulmonary filtration and triggering migraine symptoms. This article presents the results of retrospective and prospective research studies documenting the effects of PFO closure on migraine symptoms and presents emerging theories on possible pathologic mechanisms that may partially explain the increased risk of ischemic stroke in the migraine population. Finally, evidence-based recommendations are presented for health care providers for managing patients who have migraine and PFO.

Sumatriptan-naproxen fixed combination for acute treatment of migraine: a critical appraisal

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including naproxen and naproxen sodium, are effective yet nonspecific analgesic and anti-inflammatory drugs, which work for a variety of pain and inflammatory syndromes, including migraine. In migraine, their analgesic effect helps relieve the headache, while their anti-inflammatory effect decreases the neurogenic inflammation in the trigeminal ganglion. This is the hypothesized mechanism by which they prevent the development of central sensitization. Triptans, including sumatriptan, work early in the migraine process at the trigeminovascular unit as agonists of the serotonin receptors (5-HT receptors) 1B and 1D. They block vasoconstriction and block transmission of signals to the trigeminal nucleus and thus prevent peripheral sensitization. Therefore, combining these two drugs is an attractive modality for the abortive treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan-naproxen fixed combination tablet (Treximet [sumatriptan-naproxen]) proves to be an effective and well tolerated drug that combines these two mechanisms; yet is far from being the ultimate in migraine abortive therapy, and further research remains essential.

Postmarketing migraine survey of frovatriptan: effectiveness and tolerability vs previous triptans, NSAIDs or a combination

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness and tolerability of current therapy with frovatriptan 2.5-mg tablets (in 1-3 migraines) in patients with migraine previously using other triptans, analgesics/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or triptans and NSAIDs (T+NSAIDs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subanalysis of a postmarketing survey study in patients with migraine managed at primary care facilities in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A total of 5025 patients rated the effectiveness and tolerability of previous therapy (triptans; T+NSAIDs; NSAIDs) and current therapy with frovatriptan; physicians rated only frovatriptan effectiveness and tolerability (1 = Very Good, 2 = Good, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Poor).

RESULTS

Of 7107 patients initially surveyed, 5025 were identified for this subanalysis as previously using NSAIDs (n = 2890), triptans (n = 1418) or T + NSAIDs (n = 717). The mean (SD) age was 42.3 (11.9) years. At baseline, patients who previously used NSAIDs reported significantly fewer migraines per month, lower migraine severity, shorter migraine duration, and poorer ratings for effectiveness and tolerability versus responses from patients previously using triptans or T + NSAIDs (P < 0. 001 for each). Patient effectiveness ratings of Very Good or Good for previous therapy occurred in 49% (n = 691 of 1411) of patients using triptans, 27% (n = 195 of 716) of patients using T + NSAIDs, and 11% (n = 303 of 2866) of patients using NSAIDs (P < 0.04 between each group). Most patients rated current therapy with frovatriptan as Very Good or Good for effectiveness (86%, triptans; 83%, T + NSAIDs; 94%, NSAIDs) and tolerability (95%; 95%; 97%). Most physicians rated frovatriptan as Very Good or Good for effectiveness (87%; 86%; 95%) and tolerability (96%; 96%; 98%). Within-patient comparisons confirmed that frovatriptan had improved effectiveness (P < 0.001) and tolerability ratings (P < 0.001) in all three groups versus previous therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrapatient comparisons showed that most patients with migraine reported significantly improved effectiveness and tolerability ratings with frovatriptan versus previous acute therapies.

Applying the benefits of the AwM Study in the clinic

The Act when Mild (AwM) Study has illustrated the benefits to migraineurs of taking triptan medication when their migraine pain is still mild and within 1 h of the onset of symptoms. Yet many patients wait until the attack has fully developed before taking their medication, with potentially inferior outcomes. In order to reproduce the benefits of early intervention using the AwM paradigm in daily practice, a number of key barriers need to be addressed at both the physician and patient level. Notable physician-related barriers to be overcome, particularly at the primary care level, include accuracy of an early diagnosis of migraine in newly presenting patients, communication skills that generate a therapeutic engagement with migraine patients and enhance patient confidence, the application of knowledge about up-to-date strategies to optimize treatment outcomes, and the setting of achievable goals to avoid unrealistic expectations. Patient-related obstacles that need to be identified and overcome encompass patient attitude, expectations, and behaviour. Migraine patients may be reluctant to consult their physician, and, of those who do, many stop consulting because they perceive that physicians can do little to improve their situation. For this reason, migraine patients need to be counselled about the most appropriate medication for their level of symptoms. Moreover, patients need to be confident before they will adhere routinely to the advice they receive, and high in the priority of advice is the use of medication, particularly triptans, at the first sign of a migraine attack, rather than waiting until their attack has progressed to moderate or severe intensity. Patients who adhere to this advice are likely to experience a notable reduction in the pain, disability and time lost that they would otherwise suffer. The beneficial effects of early triptan intervention illustrated in the AwM Study can therefore be best reproduced in the clinic if the correct advice given to patients is not only accepted and applied by them, but also followed up by their physician.

Sumatriptan Succinate/Naproxen Sodium

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing inservices. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and are also available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The August 2008 monograph topics are on alvimopan, tolvaptan, liraglutide, iclaprim injection, and alogliptin. The DUE is on alvimopan.