High efficacy and low frequency of headache recurrence after oral sumatriptan. The Oral Sumatriptan Italian Study Group

Variability in recurrence rates with acute treatments for migraine: why recurrence is not an appropriate outcome measure

BACKGROUND

Headache recurrence is a common feature of acute therapies, whether approved or still in development, and continues to be a significant problem for both the patient and the clinician. Further complicating this issue is lack of standardization in definitions of recurrence used in clinical trials, as well as disparity in patient characteristics, rendering a comparison of different acute medications challenging. Recurrence has serious clinical implications, which can include an increased risk for new-onset chronic migraine and/or development of medication overuse headache. The aim of this review is to illustrate variability of recurrence rates depending on prevailing definitions in the literature for widely used acute treatments for migraine and to emphasize sustained response as a clinically relevant endpoint for measuring prolonged efficacy. BODY: A literature search of PubMed for articles of approved acute therapies for migraine that reported recurrence rates was performed. Study drugs of interest included select triptans, gepants, lasmiditan, and dihydroergotamine mesylate. An unpublished post hoc analysis of an investigational dihydroergotamine mesylate product that evaluated recurrence rates using several different definitions of recurrence common in the literature is also included. Depending on the criteria established by the clinical trial and the definition of recurrence used, rates of recurrence vary considerably across different acute therapies for migraine, making it difficult to compare results of different trials to assess the sustained (i.e., over a single attack) and the prolonged (i.e., over multiple attacks) efficacy of a particular study medication.

CONCLUSION

A standardized definition of recurrence is necessary to help physicians evaluate recurrence rates of different abortive agents for migraine. Sustained pain relief or freedom may be more comprehensive efficacy outcome measures than recurrence. Future efficacy studies should be encouraged to use the recommended definition of sustained pain freedom set by the International Headache Society.

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.

Sumatriptan (oral route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one studies (37,250 participants) compared oral sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 50 mg and 100 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 50 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 6.1, 7.5, and 4.0 for pain-free at two hours and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. NNTs for sustained pain-free and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose were 9.5 and 6.0, respectively. For sumatriptan 100 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 6.8, 3.5, 6.5, and 5.2, respectively, for the same outcomes. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 50 mg dose, while sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than 50 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours, and for sustained pain-free during 24 hours. Treating early, during the mild pain phase, gave significantly better NNTs for pain-free at two hours and sustained pain-free during 24 hours than did treating established attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity.Relief of associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than with placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with the sumatriptan than with placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (25 mg to 100 mg).Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, paracetamol (acetaminophen), acetylsalicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and ergotamine combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

WITHDRAWN: Oral sumatriptan for acute migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of disabling headache, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and, in some patients, neurological aura symptoms. Sumatriptan is one of a class of selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT1B/1D) agonists (triptans) thought to relieve migraine attacks by several mechanisms, including cranial vasoconstriction and peripheral and central neural inhibition.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 through November 2001), and reference lists of articles and books.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind RCTs comparing oral sumatriptan (100 mg, 50 mg, 25 mg) with placebo, no intervention, other drug treatments, behavioral therapy, or physical therapy for the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in adults. Trials comparing different doses of sumatriptan or dosing regimens were also included. Outcomes considered were: 2-hour pain-free response, headache relief/headache intensity, and functional disability; headache recurrence; and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by one reviewer and over-read by the other. The two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Information on adverse events was collected from trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 16,200 participants were included. Methodological quality was generally good. Sixteen trials were placebo comparisons and showed that sumatriptan in doses of 100 mg (14 trials), 50 mg (five trials), and 25 mg (three trials) provided significantly better pain-free response (100 mg and 25 mg only), headache relief, and relief of disability at 2 hours. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for pain-free response at 2 hours were 5.1 (3.9 to 7.1) for the 100-mg dose (n = 2221) and 7.5 (2.7 to 142) for the 25-mg dose (n = 131); there was no significant difference between the 50-mg dose and placebo for this outcome (n = 127). For headache relief at 2 hours, NNTs were 3.4 (3.0 to 4.0), 3.2 (2.4 to 5.1), and 3.4 (2.3 to 6.6) for sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 2940), 50 mg (n = 420), and 25 mg (n = 226), respectively. Precise estimates of the efficacy of the 50- and 25-mg doses relative to the 100-mg dose could not be obtained.Adverse events were more common with sumatriptan 100 mg than with placebo (risk difference [RD] = 0.14 [0.09 to 0.20]; number-needed-to-harm [NNH] = 7.1 [5.0 to 11.1]; n = 3172). RDs for the 50- and 25-mg vs. placebo comparisons were not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan has been shown to be an effective drug for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine. It is well tolerated, though minor adverse events were not uncommon in the included trials. Other triptans were generally similar in efficacy and adverse events. Among non-triptan drugs, ergotamine + caffeine was significantly less effective than sumatriptan, and other drugs have been insufficiently studied to draw firm conclusions.

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

BACKGROUND

In the current literature, there is neither a reported systematic review comparing the efficacy of triptans at 30 minutes and 1 hour after the migraine treatment, nor data related to efficacy of new marketed triptans.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of currently marketed oral, non-reencapsulated triptan formulations vs placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe migraine attacks.

METHODS

A systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials reporting data after a single migraine attack was conducted. Efficacy results are shown using relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

After reviewing 221 publications, 38 studies were included. All marketed triptans provided significant relief and/or absence of pain at 2 hours, and relief at 1 hour when compared with placebo. After 30 minutes, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg showed significant relief when compared to placebo, whereas the fast-dissolving formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg was the only oral triptan that was superior to placebo in meeting the pain-free endpoint. On the other hand, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg and eletriptan 40 mg showed a lower rate of recurrence than placebo, whereas rizatriptan 10 mg was the only triptan with a recurrence rate greater than that of placebo. Adverse events associated with treatment with tablet formulations of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan were significantly more frequent than those of the placebo group. The inclusion of trials with reencapsulated triptans in the analysis introduced minor specific changes in these results.

CONCLUSION

This analysis updates the comparative data available for the 7 currently marketed oral triptans and clearly demonstrates their efficacy when compared to placebo, even with stricter endpoints, such as efficacy at 30 minutes. No triptan exhibited better tolerability than placebo. Results are diverse, depending on the triptan, which probably is a reflection of heterogeneous pharmacokinetics.

A model-based approach to treatment comparison in acute migraine

AIMS

Currently, direct comparisons between 5-HT(1B/d) receptor agonists are used to assess differences and similarities in antimigraine response. Such comparisons depend on the selected sampling time and do not allow evaluation of entire response profiles. A thorough evaluation of drug properties requires that the time course of the response be taken into account. In this investigation we show the advantages of a model-based approach to compare the efficacy of two triptans (sumatriptan vs. naratriptan).

METHODS

A Markov model was used to describe the course of a migraine attack over three clinically identified stages. Drug effects were modelled as concentration-dependent increases in transition rates and were parameterised as potency (EC(50)) and maximum effect (E(max)). Parameters were estimated using headache measurements from efficacy studies. Model estimates were then used to compare the pharmacodynamics of the two drugs in a time-independent manner.

RESULTS

Efficacy parameters could be derived, allowing for comparison between compounds. The potency ratio (EC50(suma)/EC50(nara)) for headache relief was 3.3 (0.9, 12). The ratio of maximum effects (Emax(suma)/Emax(nara)) for this endpoint was 0.74 (0.55, 0.97). To interpret these efficacy measures and explore their value for the development of antimigraine drugs, results were evaluated against the reported in vitro potency at 5-HT(1B) and 5-HT(1D) receptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of the effects of two or more drugs based on preset sampling times does not allow proper assessment of the antimigraine properties in vivo. Disease dynamics must be considered to evaluate treatment response adequately and optimise the dosing regimen in migraine.

Multiple attack study on the available triptans in Italy versus placebo

The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the five triptans that are commercially available in Italy (zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, rizatriptan 10 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, almotriptan 12.5 mg and eletriptan 40 mg). The study was conducted in single-blind versus placebo and its duration was 18 months. At the Headache Centre of the 'Agostino Gemelli' Hospital in Rome we selected 42 patients, suffering from headache with and without aura (International Headache Society Committee on Headache Classification, 1988 Cephalalgia 8:1-96), whose headache frequency ranged between 1- and 4-monthly crises. For a total of 25 crises, for every five consecutive crises, a different triptan was taken. The end-points of the study were as follows: response at 2 h, 'pain free' at 2 h and 'sustained pain free' (at 24 h). The intra-patient consistency and the tolerability were also evaluated. Thirty patients completed the study and the statistical analysis was only applied to these patients. No substantial difference in terms of the efficacy of the triptans was noted; all triptans were well tolerated. These results suggest the possibility of testing different triptans in the same patient in order to identify the ideal drug for every patient.

Oral sumatriptan for acute migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of disabling headache, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and, in some patients, neurological aura symptoms. Sumatriptan is one of a class of selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT1B/1D) agonists (triptans) thought to relieve migraine attacks by several mechanisms, including cranial vasoconstriction and peripheral and central neural inhibition.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 through November 2001), and reference lists of articles and books.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind RCTs comparing oral sumatriptan (100 mg, 50 mg, 25 mg) with placebo, no intervention, other drug treatments, behavioral therapy, or physical therapy for the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in adults. Trials comparing different doses of sumatriptan or dosing regimens were also included. Outcomes considered were: 2-hour pain-free response, headache relief/headache intensity, and functional disability; headache recurrence; and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted by one reviewer and over-read by the other. The two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Information on adverse events was collected from trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 16,200 participants were included. Methodological quality was generally good. Sixteen trials were placebo comparisons and showed that sumatriptan in doses of 100 mg (14 trials), 50 mg (five trials), and 25 mg (three trials) provided significantly better pain-free response (100 mg and 25 mg only), headache relief, and relief of disability at 2 hours. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for pain-free response at 2 hours were 5.1 (3.9 to 7.1) for the 100-mg dose (n = 2221) and 7.5 (2.7 to 142) for the 25-mg dose (n = 131); there was no significant difference between the 50-mg dose and placebo for this outcome (n = 127). For headache relief at 2 hours, NNTs were 3.4 (3.0 to 4.0), 3.2 (2.4 to 5.1), and 3.4 (2.3 to 6.6) for sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 2940), 50 mg (n = 420), and 25 mg (n = 226), respectively. Precise estimates of the efficacy of the 50- and 25-mg doses relative to the 100-mg dose could not be obtained. Adverse events were more common with sumatriptan 100 mg than with placebo (risk difference [RD] = 0.14 [0.09 to 0.20]; number-needed-to-harm [NNH] = 7.1 [5.0 to 11.1]; n = 3172). RDs for the 50- and 25-mg vs. placebo comparisons were not statistically significant.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan has been shown to be an effective drug for the treatment of a single acute attack of migraine. It is well tolerated, though minor adverse events were not uncommon in the included trials. Other triptans were generally similar in efficacy and adverse events. Among non-triptan drugs, ergotamine + caffeine was significantly less effective than sumatriptan, and other drugs have been insufficiently studied to draw firm conclusions.

Triptans (serotonin, 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in migraine: detailed results and methods of a meta-analysis of 53 trials

The triptans, selective serotonin 5-HT1B/1D agonists, are very effective acute migraine drugs. Soon, seven different triptans will be clinically available at 13 different oral doses, making evidence-based selection guidelines necessary. Triptan trials have similar designs, facilitating meta-analysis. We wished to provide an evidence-based foundation for using triptans in clinical practice, and to review the methodological issues surrounding triptan trials. We asked pharmaceutical companies and the principal investigators of company-independent trials for the 'raw patient data' of all double-blind, randomized, controlled, clinical trials with oral triptans in migraine. All data were cross-checked with published or presented data. We calculated summary estimates across studies for important efficacy and tolerability parameters, and compared these with those from direct, head-to-head, comparator trials. Out of 76 eligible clinical trials, 53 (12 not yet published) involving 24089 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Mean results (and 95% confidence intervals) for sumatriptan 100 mg, the first available and most widely prescribed oral triptan, are 59% (57-60) for 2 h headache response (improvement from moderate or severe to mild or no pain); 29% (27-30) for 2 h pain free (improvement to no pain); 20% (18-21) for sustained pain free (pain free by 2 h and no headache recurrence or use of rescue medication 2-24 h post-dose), and 67% (63-70) for consistency (response in at least two out of three treated attacks); placebo-subtracted proportions for patients with at least one adverse event (AE) are 13% (8-18), for at least one central nervous system AE 6% (3-9), and for at least one chest AE 1.9% (1.0-2.7). Compared with these data: rizatriptan 10 mg shows better efficacy and consistency, and similar tolerability; eletriptan 80 mg shows better efficacy, similar consistency, but lower tolerability; almotriptan 12.5 mg shows similar efficacy at 2 h but better sustained pain-free response, consistency, and tolerability; sumatriptan 25 mg, naratriptan 2.5 mg and eletriptan 20 mg show lower efficacy and better tolerability; zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, and rizatriptan 5 mg show very similar results. The results of the 22 trials that directly compared triptans show the same overall pattern. We received no data on frovatriptan, but publicly available data suggest substantially lower efficacy. The major methodological issues involve the choice of the primary endpoint, consistency over multiple attacks, how to evaluate headache recurrence, use of placebo-subtracted proportions to control for across-study differences, and the difference between tolerability and safety. In addition, there are a number of methodological issues specific for direct comparator trials, including encapsulation and patient selection. At marketed doses, all oral triptans are effective and well tolerated. Differences among them are in general relatively small, but clinically relevant for individual patients. Rizatriptan 10 mg, eletriptan 80 mg and almotriptan 12.5 mg provide the highest likelihood of consistent success. Sumatriptan features the longest clinical experience and the widest range of formulations. All triptans are contra-indicated in the presence of cardiovascular disease.

Headache Recurrence and Treatment

The definition of recurrence includes the following: any headache occurring after a headache-free state at 2 hours and within 24 hours after intake of drug; a headache that has never been studied systematically; a headache that may not be an outcome of drug treatment; a headache that may be due to the inherent nature of migraine and individual patient characteristics such as duration of attack; and headache for which effective treatment may be a re-dose of the initial medication or addition of steroidal or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications.

Migraine: a comprehensive review of new treatment options

Headaches are among the most common complaints reported to health care professionals and are classified by the International Headache Society as migraine, tension-type, or cluster, with additional subtypes. Classification and etiology of headache should be determined after thorough review of the patient's history. Once diagnosed, migraine can be treated by preventive or abortive measures. Recent developments add new options, including availability of drugs for intranasal administration (sumatriptan, dihydroergotamine) and 5-HT1B/1D agonists (rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, eletriptan). Although placebo-controlled trials are available, few comparative clinical trials of these agents have been conducted; however, important pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and clinical differences exist among the drugs.

Sumatriptan treatment for migraine in a health maintenance organization: economic, humanistic, and clinical outcomes

This study was undertaken to assess the impact of 12 months of sumatriptan therapy (6 mg subcutaneously) for migraine on health care use, health-related quality of life, productivity, patient satisfaction with the medication, and clinical efficacy in a health maintenance organization (HMO). One hundred forty-eight patients received open-label sumatriptan for 12 months for the treatment of migraine. Medical records were reviewed to obtain information on the frequency of migraine-related health care use during the 12 months before and during sumatriptan treatment. Patients completed questionnaires on their productivity at work, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with medication at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months of sumatriptan treatment. For each migraine, patients recorded pain severity scores before and after taking sumatriptan and the time between dosing and onset of meaningful relief. Sumatriptan was associated with significant reductions in migraine-related use of general outpatient services, telephone calls, urgent care services, and emergency department visits (P < 0.05); a significant increase in the use of pharmacy services (P < 0.05); and significant and sustained improvements in health-related quality-of-life scores compared with baseline (P < 0.001). Patients lost significantly less time from work and were significantly more satisfied with sumatriptan compared with their usual therapy (P < 0.05). Two hours after dosing, 81% of patients experienced reduction of moderate or severe pain to mild or no pain, and 90% of all patients experienced meaningful relief of pain. The use of sumatriptan for 12 months in an HMO was associated with reductions in health care use and improved health-related quality of life, productivity, and patient satisfaction with medication.

Efficacy and adverse events of subcutaneous, oral, and intranasal sumatriptan used for migraine treatment: a systematic review based on number needed to treat

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, speed of onset, and adverse events of 6 mg subcutaneous, 100 mg oral, and 20 mg intranasal sumatriptan in the treatment of migraine attacks.

DESIGN

Systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Thirty trials up to April 1997 retrieved from a systematic literature search (Medline, review papers, handsearching of journals, congress proceedings, manufacturer's database); no restriction on language.

OUTCOME PARAMETERS

Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for relief of headache and for adverse events (when data were available). Therapeutic gain was used to evaluate speed of onset of action.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous sumatriptan was more efficacious, combined number needed to treat 2.0 at 1 h, than oral (3.0 at 2 h) and intranasal sumatriptan (3.1 at 2 h). For adverse events, the NNT was 3.0 for subcutaneous and 8.3 for oral sumatriptan. Only limited data on adverse events for intranasal sumatriptan were available. Therapeutic gain analysis during the first 2 h showed that subcutaneous sumatriptan was the fastest-acting form of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous sumatriptan in a dose of 6 mg is significantly more efficacious than 100 mg of oral sumatriptan, but causes more adverse events than oral sumatriptan. Subcutaneous sumatriptan is the form with the quickest onset of action. Intranasal sumatriptan has the same efficacy as oral sumatriptan and a quicker onset of action than the oral form, but with a limited therapeutic effect for the first 30 min after administration.