New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020.

METHODS

We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Goshuyuto Reduced the Monthly Intake of Anti-headache Drugs and Improved Pain Status in Patients with 20-Year History of Medication Overuse Headache in an Outpatient Setting

The management of medication overuse headache (MOH) is sometimes challenging, particularly for patients with a long disease duration. We observed that patients who used goshuyuto, a traditional Japanese medicine, exhibited a favorable clinical course. Two women who had a history of MOH for over 20 years were treated using 5.0-7.5 g/day goshuyuto in an outpatient setting. The treatment reduced their use of habitual drugs, including triptan (33-55%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (75-82%), as well as the headache impact test score-6 (16-23%) over 24 weeks. As goshuyuto has a protective effect on chronic headache and is reported not to lead to MOH, it is a good candidate for the treatment of patients with MOH in an outpatient setting, even for those with an over 20-year history of MOH.

Treatment pattern and response for cluster headache in Korea: A prospective multicenter observation study

BACKGROUND

Only limited data are available regarding the treatment status and response to cluster headache in an Asian population. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a real-world treatment pattern of cluster headache and the response rate of each treatment in an Asian population.

METHODS

Patients with cluster headache were recruited between September 2016 and January 2019 from 16 hospitals in Korea. At the baseline visit, we surveyed the patients about their previous experience of cluster headache treatment, and acute and/or preventive treatments were prescribed at the physician's discretion. Treatment response was prospectively evaluated using a structured case-report form at 2 ± 2 weeks after baseline visit and reassessed after three months.

RESULTS

Among 295 recruited patients, 262 experiencing active bouts were included. Only one-third of patients reported a previous experience of evidence-based treatment. At the baseline visit, oral triptans (73.4%), verapamil (68.3%), and systemic steroids (55.6%) were the three most common treatments prescribed by the investigators. Most treatments were given as combination. For acute treatment, oral triptans and oxygen were effective in 90.1% and 86.8% of the patients, respectively; for preventive treatment, evidence-based treatments, i.e. monotherapy or different combinations of verapamil, lithium, systemic steroids, and suboccipital steroid injection, helped 75.0% to 91.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Our data provide the first prospective analysis of treatment responses in an Asian population with cluster headache. The patients responded well to treatment despite the limited availability of treatment options, and this might be attributed at least in part by combination of medications. Most patients were previously undertreated, suggesting a need to raise awareness of cluster headache among primary physicians.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience.

METHODS

Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose.

RESULTS

In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Trends in the Management of Headache Disorders in US Emergency Departments: Analysis of 2007-2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Data

We examined trends in management of headache disorders in United States (US) emergency department (ED) visits. We conducted a cross-sectional study using 2007−2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. We included adult patient visits (≥18 years) with a primary ED discharge diagnosis of headache. We classified headache medications by pharmacological group: opioids, butalbital, ergot alkaloids/triptans, acetaminophen/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiemetics, diphenhydramine, corticosteroids, and intravenous fluids. To obtain reliable estimates, we aggregated data into three time periods: 2007−2010, 2011−2014, and 2015−2018. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined medication, neuroimaging, and outpatient referral trends, separately. Among headache-related ED visits, opioid use decreased from 54.1% in 2007−2010 to 28.3% in 2015−2018 (Ptrend < 0.001). There were statistically significant increasing trends in acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids use (all Ptrend < 0.001). Changes in butalbital (6.4%), ergot alkaloid/triptan (4.7%), antiemetic (59.2% in 2015−2018), and neuroimaging (37.3%) use over time were insignificant. Headache-related ED visits with outpatient referral for follow-up increased slightly from 73.3% in 2007−2010 to 79.7% in 2015−2018 (Ptrend = 0.02). Reflecting evidence-based guideline recommendations for headache management, opioid use substantially decreased from 2007 to 2018 among US headache-related ED visits. Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatment for headaches (e.g., sumatriptan, dexamethasone) and appropriate outpatient referral and reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs.

Geographic variation in the use of triptans and opioids for the acute treatment of migraine attacks

OBJECTIVE

To assess the geographic variations in triptan and opioid prescribing patterns for patients with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Numerous guidelines recommend triptans as the standard of care for migraine attacks, yet opioids are still widely used for migraine treatment. Variation in the use of opioids and triptans for the treatment of migraine by geographic location is not well known.

METHODS

Using a US claims database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with migraine between 2016 and 2018. We used a 12-month follow-up period to assess triptan and opioid utilization, stratified by the nine Census Bureau-designated divisions. To examine the geographic factors that affect triptan and opioid use among patients, we conducted two sets of multivariable analyses. First, we analyzed the odds of a patient being a triptan or opioid user in the follow-up period, defined as ≥1 triptan or opioid claim. We then analyzed the medication use rate among triptan or opioid users.

RESULTS

Overall, we had a final study population of 113,921 patients. In the follow-up period, 52.9% (60,247/113,921) [range: 48.0%-56.3%] of patients were triptan users and 41.0% (46,708/113,921) [range: 28.9%-48.4%] of patients were opioid users with significant differences across census divisions (p < 0.001). Triptan users had a mean (SD) of 4.8 (4.7) triptan claims annually with no significant differences across divisions (p = 0.188). Opioid users had a mean (SD) of 5.4 (6.8) opioid claims annually with significant differences across divisions (p < 0.001). The observed variation in opioid use stemmed from the proportion of patients using opioids in each region and not from the number of opioid prescriptions per user.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant geographic variation in the use of opioids and to a lesser degree the use of triptans. The widespread use of opioids and the large variation in use other than triptans as the standard of care suggest that improvements could be made in the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

An Evaluation of Medication Prescribing Patterns for Acute Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

Migraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and patients with acute migraine frequently present to emergency departments (ED). The current literature suggests that ED treatment of migraine headache varies across institutions. Considering this, we conducted a scoping review to summarize trends in medication prescribing patterns for acute migraine treatment in the ED setting. Trends were evaluated for factors influencing treatment choices, with particular attention placed on opioids and migraine specific therapy. This scoping review was based on the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework and included studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 May 2020. 14 publications met the inclusion criteria. The most common classes of medication prescribed were anti-emetics or Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), but rates varied between studies. There was a concerning trend towards an underutilization of triptans and overutilization of opiates. The use of specific clinical treatment goals (e.g., two-hour pain free freedom response) was also not evident. Additionally, 88% (n = 8) of the nine studies commenting on adherence to hospital or evidence-based guidelines stated that practices were non-adherent. Overall, the reviewed literature reveals treatment practices for acute migraine in the ED are heterogeneous and deviate from established international recommendations.

Twenty-five years of triptans - a nationwide population study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of triptans as the main acute treatment strategy for migraine headache at the population-wide level needs to be understood to inform clinical decision-making. We summarise key trends in triptan use using more than 25 years of Danish nationwide data.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study based on all Danish residents with access to public healthcare between 1 January 1994 and 31 October 2019 and summarise informative trends of all purchases of triptans in Denmark in the same period. Complete purchase records of Sumatriptan, Naratriptan, Zolmitriptan, Rizatriptan, Almotriptan, Eletriptan, and Frovatriptan were used.

FINDINGS

Over a 25-year period, triptan use increased from 345 to 945 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per year and the yearly prevalence of triptan use increased from 5.17 to 14.57 per 1000 inhabitants. Between 2014 and 2019, 12.3% of the Danish migraine population purchased a triptan. Following their initial purchase, 43% of patients had not repurchased triptans within 5 years. At most, 10% of patients indicating triptan discontinuation tried more than one triptan. The prevalence of triptan overuse, defined as having purchased at least 20 DDDs of triptans per month for 3 consecutive months, increased in parallel with the prevalence of triptan use, prevalent in 56 of every 1000 triptan users every year between 2014 and 2019.

INTERPRETATION

In a cohort with access to free clinical consultations and low medication costs, we observed low rates of triptan adherence, likely due to disappointing efficacy and/or unpleasant side effects rather than economic considerations. Triptan success continues to be hindered by poor implementation of clinical guidelines and high rates of treatment discontinuance.

Triptanophobia in migraine: A case-control study on the causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine patients

Background: Triptanophobia is the excessive and inadequately justified concern about potential risks of triptans. We evaluated causes and consequences of nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine (CM) Methods: Case-control study. We included CM patients firstly referred to aheadache unit. Patients were cases or controls depending on whether they were triptan naïve, or not. We analyzed if nonuse of triptans was justified by formal contraindications or adverse events. We assessed if triptan naïve patients had higher frequency of vascular risk factors (VRF), contraceptive drugs or older age. Results: We included 941 patients, 247 (26.2%) triptan users. Triptans had been discontinued due to tolerability in 116 patients (12.3%), being 578 patients (61.4%) triptan naïve. Formal contraindications were found in 23 patients (2.4%). Frequency of VRF, contraceptive drugs or age did not differ between the groups (p > 0.1). Triptan users consumed symptomatic medications fewer days/month (13.9 vs 17.1, p < 0.001), were under prophylactic treatment more frequently (79.4% vs 34.8%, p < 0.001) and had medication overuse headache less frequently (55.1% vs. 63.0%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Triptans were not used by three-quartersof CM patients. Nonuse of triptans was not justified by tolerability, frequency of contraindications, or frequency of VRF. Expert opinion: In the present study, we evaluated causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in CM sufferers. We analyzed frequency of triptan use in CM patients. We compared, between triptan users and triptan naïve patients, the presence of contraindications, frequency of vascular risk factors, and differences in management prior to the referral to a headache unit.

Migraine Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Contraindications: An Analysis of Real-World Claims Data

Introduction:

Triptans, the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine attacks are, per FDA labeling, contraindicated in cardiovascular (CV) disease patients and have warnings and precautions for those with CV risk factors.

Methods:

Headache specialists, cardiologists, and health economics and outcomes researchers convened to identify diagnostic codes for: (1) CV diseases contraindicating triptans based on FDA labeling; (2) conditions comprising “other significant underlying CV disease”; and (3) CV risk factors included as warnings and precautions for triptans. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured adult US migraine patients in the 2017 Optum^® Clinformatics^® Data Mart (CDM) and the 2017 IBM^® Watson Health MarketScan^® Commercial Claims database was used to estimate the proportion of migraine patients with CV contraindications and warnings and precautions to triptans.

Results:

Of the 56,662 migraine patients analyzed from Optum CDM, 13.5% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in triptan labeling and an additional 8.5% had ≥1 “other CV disease” judged by the panel to constitute a “significant underlying CV disease” (total: 22.0% migraine patients). Of 176 724 migraine patients analyzed from MarketScan, 12.2% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in the labeling and an additional 8.0% had ≥1 “other significant underlying CV disease” (total: 20.2% of migraine patients). An additional 25.4% and 25.1% of migraine patients had ≥2 CV risk factors in Optum CDM and MarketScan. In total, 47.4% and 45.3% of migraine patients in both databases had a CV disease specified as a contraindication, an “other CV disease” endorsed as significant, or ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

Conclusions:

Analyses of more than 230,000 people with migraine showed that ≥20% of commercially insured US migraine patients have a CV condition that specifically contraindicates triptan treatment, and an additional 25% have ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Death in Migraine Patients Treated with Triptans

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to determine the strength of association between treatment with triptans and acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death.

BACKGROUND

Case reports in the literature have raised concerns over an association between treatment of migraine headaches with triptans and cardiovascular events. This study aims to systematically evaluate this association in a contemporary population-based cohort. We hypothesized that triptan exposure is not associated with increased cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted within an integrated healthcare delivery system in Southern California. From January 2009 to December 2018, 189,684 patients age ≥18 years had a diagnosis of migraine. In this group, 130,656 were exposed to triptans. Patients treated with triptans were matched 1:1 to those not exposed to triptans by using a propensity score. The primary outcome was acute myocardial infarction; secondary outcomes were heart failure, all-cause death, and combined acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of acute myocardial infarction was 0.67 per 1000 person-year in triptan-exposed vs 1.44 per 1000 person-year in not exposed patients. In propensity-matched analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio for triptan exposure was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.08) for acute myocardial infarction; 1.00 (95% CI 0.93-1.08) for all-cause death; 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-1.08) for heart failure; and 0.99 (95% CI 0.93-1.06) for a composite of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or death. Sensitivity analyses focusing on stratified subgroups based on age, gender, ethnicity, and several cardiac risk factors also revealed no significant association between triptan exposure and cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

No association was found between exposure to triptans and an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These data provide reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of utilizing triptans for the medical management of migraine headaches.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Cluster headache not responsive to sumatriptan: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous sumatriptan, a 5HT_1B/1D agonist, is the most effective drug in cluster headache acute treatment. About 25% of the patients do not respond to subcutaneous sumatriptan; the reasons for this are unknown. In this study, we compare clinical characteristics of cluster headache patients responding and non-responding to subcutaneous sumatriptan.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the clinical records of 277 cluster headache patients. Patients reporting repeated satisfactory response to subcutaneous sumatriptan within 15 minutes were considered responders.

RESULTS

Of 206 cluster headache patients who had used subcutaneous sumatriptan (mean age 45.6, 16% females, 48% chronic), 91% were responders, and 9% non-responders. Compared to responders, non-responders had longer and more frequent attacks: 60 (median; IQR 38-90) vs. 100 (60-120) minutes (p = 0.028), 4 (2.5-5) vs. 3 (2-4) attacks/day (p = 0.024). No other difference was found.

CONCLUSIONS

In cluster headache attacks with long duration and high frequency, pain mechanisms not involving 5HT_1B/1D receptors may play a more relevant role.

Clinical Features and Burden Scores in Japanese Pediatric Migraines With Brainstem Aura, Hemiplegic Migraine, and Retinal Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraines are a broad spectrum of disorders classified by the type of aura with some requiring attentive treatment. Vasoconstrictors, including triptans, should be avoided in the acute phase of migraines with brainstem aura, in hemiplegic migraine, and in retinal migraine. This study investigated the characteristics and burden of these migraines.

METHODS

Medical charts of 278 Japanese pediatric patients with migraines were retrospectively reviewed. Migraine burden of migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, and retinal migraine was assessed using the Headache Impact Test-6™ (HIT-6) and the Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment scale (PedMIDAS).

RESULTS

Of 278 patients screened, 12 (4.3%) patients with migraines with brainstem aura (n = 5), hemiplegic migraines (n = 2), and retinal migraine (n = 5) were enrolled in the study. All patients had migraine with/without typical aura, whereas some patients had coexisting migraine with another type of headache (chronic tension-type headache in 3 patients, and 1 each with frequent episodic tension-type headache, headache owing to medication overuse, and chronic migraine). Migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, and retinal migraine patients with coexisting headaches had higher HIT-6 or PedMIDAS scores, whereas migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, and retinal migraine patients without coexisting headache did not show high HIT-6 or PedMIDAS scores.

CONCLUSION

All migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, and retinal migraine patients experienced migraine with or without typical aura, and some patients having other coexisting headaches also had high PedMIDAS and HIT-6 scores. PedMIDAS and HIT-6 should not be considered diagnostic indicators of migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, or retinal migraine. In clinical practice for headaches in children, careful history taking and proactive assessment of the aura are needed for accurate diagnosis of migraines with brainstem aura, hemiplegic migraines, and retinal migraine.

Baseline tear fluid CGRP is elevated in active cluster headache patients as long as they have not taken attack abortive medication

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays a key role in cluster headache pathophysiology. It is released from the trigeminal nerve, which also innervates the eye. In this study, we tested if tear fluid calcitonin gene-related peptide measurement detects elevated calcitonin gene-related peptide levels in cluster headache patients compared to controls.

METHODS

Calcitonin gene-related peptide concentration in tear fluid and plasma of 16 active episodic and 11 chronic cluster headache patients (all outside acute attacks) and 60 controls were assessed using ELISA.

RESULTS

Cluster headache patients without use of attack abortive medication in the last 48 h showed significantly elevated tear fluid calcitonin gene-related peptide levels (1.78 ± 1.57 ng/ml, n = 17) compared to healthy controls (0.79 ± 0.74 ng/ml, p = 0.003) and compared to cluster headache patients who had used attack abortive medication in the last 48 h (0.84 ± 1.40 ng/ml, n = 10, p = 0.022). High calcitonin gene-related peptide levels in cluster headache patients were independent of the occurrence of a cluster headache attack in the last 48 hours (no attack: 1.95 ± 1.65 ng/ml, n = 8; attack: 1.63 ± 1.59 ng/ml, n = 9, p = 0.82) as long as no acute medication was used. No significant difference in tear fluid calcitonin gene-related peptide levels between episodic (1.48 ± 1.34 ng/ml) and chronic cluster headache patients (2.21 ± 1.88 ng/ml, p = 0.364) was detected. In contrast to these results in tear fluid, there were no significant group differences in plasma calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that active cluster headache patients have increased calcitonin gene-related peptide levels in tear fluid compared to healthy subjects, which are reduced to control levels after intake of attack abortive medication. Calcitonin gene-related peptide measurement in tear fluid is non-invasive, and has the advantage of allowing direct access to calcitonin gene-related peptide released from the trigeminal nerve.

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.

Lasmiditan Is a New Option for Acute Migraine Treatment

Lasmiditan is a new oral medication for treatment of acute migraine. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2019 and is marketed under the brand name Reyvow (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN). It is the first of its kind in a new drug class called ditans. Lasmiditan has been studied as monotherapy for acute migraine treatment and as an abortive therapy for adults taking chronic migraine preventive medication. Lasmiditan may be an option for individuals who have had no relief with triptans or other acute migraine treatment agents or who are unable to use other migraine treatments because of contraindications.

Pharmaceutically treated comorbidities and associated healthcare costs among triptan users in Switzerland: A pharmacoepidemiological study from a nationwide health insurance database

PURPOSE

In course of the new migraine drug development on the global market it is important to quantify the current burden of migraine medication. This study aimed to estimate the comorbidity burden and its relation to healthcare costs in patients using triptans in Switzerland by analyzing a large population-based database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was based on Swiss health insurance claims data (2015/2016). The study sample comprised adult patients with ≥1 triptan prescription in 2015. We evaluated pharmaceutically treated comorbid conditions (CCs) and costs (12 months after index prescription) of patients using triptan. Multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed outcomes were performed to identify the factors related to healthcare costs.

RESULTS

From a total of 749 092, we identified 10,090 patients using triptans (1-year prevalence of 1.35%), whereas 58.9% had ≥2 CCs. The most frequent CCs were pain- and rheumatologic-related diseases and psychological disorders. Among triptan users, the mean total healthcare costs were highest in older patients with ≥2 CCs (>64 years: migraine with ≥2 CC "12 331 SFr"). Multivariate regression analyses showed that psychological disorders had the strongest impact on healthcare costs (Coefficient: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides an overview of comorbidities and its related costs in migraine patients, which helps to quantify the current burden of migraine. This is relevant as the recently licensed CGRP antagonists are likely to change current treatment schemes for migraine, which strongly depends also on the comorbidities. The present study might therefore be helpful for the future development of treatment guidelines.

Getting to the Heart of the Matter: Migraine, Triptans, DHE, Ditans, CGRP Antibodies, First/Second-Generation Gepants, and Cardiovascular Risk

PREMISE

The science of migraine pathophysiology has advanced significantly since the 1930's. Imaging techniques, neurochemical analysis, clinical trials, and the clinical experience of providers treating migraine patients have not only sharpened our understanding of the disease, but have also led to the development of novel neural-based targets. Targeted therapies such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies and "Second Generation" CGRP receptor antagonists (Gepants) have not only demonstrated efficacy, but have not resulted in any significant cardiovascular nor other serious adverse events. "First Generation" Gepants were associated with liver toxicity.

PROBLEM

Triptans and dihydroergotamine (DHE) are contraindicated in patients with hemiplegic and basilar migraine based on theories of migraine pathophysiology from the 1930s. While our understanding of migraine has evolved substantially, perceived concerns of safety from almost a century ago continue to preclude their use in certain patient populations.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

While migraine aura was once thought to be primarily due to vasoconstriction, current evidence debunks this concept. For instance, hemiplegic migraine is the consequence of genetic mutations resulting in channelopathies without evidence of cerebral ischemia or infarction. Evidence of basilar artery constriction as postulated in basilar migraine is also lacking. This recognition has led the International Headache Society to rename basilar-type migraine to migraine with brainstem aura. The following discussion reviews current literature with respect to migraine as a neuronal disorder, as well as the published data on the safety of triptans, DHE, Ditans (a novel class of 5-HT_1f receptor agonists), CGRP antibodies, and Gepants.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide levels in tear fluid are elevated in migraine patients compared to healthy controls

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) released from trigeminal nerve fibres indicates trigeminal activation and has a key role in migraine pathophysiology. The trigeminal nerve directly innervates the eye. Therefore, in this study, we compared Calcitonin gene-related peptide in tear fluid of migraine patients and healthy controls.

METHODS

Calcitonin gene-related peptide concentrations in tear fluid and plasma of 48 episodic and 45 chronic migraine patients and 48 controls were assessed using ELISA.

RESULTS

Calcitonin gene-related peptide levels in tear fluid (0.94 ± 1.11 ng/ml) were ∼140 times higher than plasma concentrations (6.81 ± 4.12 pg/ml). Tear fluid CGRP concentrations were elevated in interictal migraine patients (1.10 ± 1.27 ng/ml, n = 49) compared to controls (0.75 ± 0.80 ng/ml, p = 0.022). There was no difference in tear fluid CGRP levels between interictal episodic and chronic migraine patients (episodic: 1.09 ± 1.47 ng/ml, n = 30 and chronic: 1.10 ± 0.89 ng/ml, n = 19) and no correlation of tear fluid CGRP levels with headache frequency in interictal patients (rho = 0.062, p = 0.674). Unmedicated ictal migraine patients had even more elevated tear fluid CGRP levels than interictal migraine patients (1.92 ± 1.84 ng/ml, n = 13, p = 0.102), while medicated ictal migraine patients had lower levels (0.56 ± 0.47 ng/ml, n = 25, p = 0.011 compared to interictal patients), which were undistinguishable from controls (p = 0.609). In contrast to tear fluid, no significant group differences were found in plasma CGRP levels.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this study shows, for the first time, increased CGRP tear fluid levels in migraine patients compared to healthy subjects. Detection of calcitonin gene-related peptide in tear fluid is non-invasive, and likely allows a more direct access to CGRP released from the trigeminal nerve than plasma sampling.

Successful treatment of intractable menstrual migraine with the traditional herbal medicine tokishakuyakusan

In this report, we present the successful treatment of five consecutive cases of premenopausal women suffering from severe menstrual migraine with tokishakuyakusan (TSS). Two patients were complicated by tension-type headache (TTH), and another patient was by medication overuse headache (MOH). The effects of triptans were limited in all of them. After starting TSS, they showed dramatic improvement in the severity and frequency of their attacks. The patients with TTH and MOH also showed dramatic improvement in their symptoms. TSS could be a promising alternative choice for patients with intractable menstruation-related headaches that are refractory to conventional treatments, including triptans.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reclassifying Triptans in Australia: Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, chronic, disabling headache disorder. Triptans, used as an acute treatment for migraine, are available via prescription in Australia. An Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) committee rejected reclassifying sumatriptan and zolmitriptan from prescription medicine to pharmacist-only between 2005 and 2009, largely on the basis of concerns about patient risk. Nevertheless, pharmacist-only triptans may reduce migraine duration and free up healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans from prescription-only to pharmacist-only in Australia.

METHODS

The study design included decision-analytic modeling combining data from various sources. Behavior before and after reclassification was estimated using medical practitioner and patient surveys and also administrative data. Health outcomes included migraine frequency and duration as well as adverse events (AEs) discussed by the TGA committee. Efficacy and AEs were estimated using randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

RESULTS

Reclassifying triptans will reduce migraine duration but increase AEs. This will result in 337 quality-adjusted life-years gained at an increased cost of A$5.9 million over 10 years for all Australian adults older than 15 years (19.6 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be A$17 412/quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Serotonin syndrome, a key concern of the TGA committee, had little impact on the results. Further research is needed regarding pharmacist-only triptan use by migraineurs currently using over-the-counter medicines and by nonmigraineurs, the efficacy of triptans, and the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular AEs and chronic headaches with triptans.

Assessing evidence-based medicine and opioid/barbiturate as first-line acute treatment of pediatric migraine and primary headache: A retrospective observational study of health systems data

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate providers' use and predictors of evidence-based medicine or opioid/barbiturate as first-line acute treatment for children's initial presentation of acute migraine or primary headache.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study utilized patient (children ages 6-17) and provider/encounter characteristics extracted from the patient's Electronic Health Record from 2008-2014 during an initial encounter for migraine or primary headache. The primary outcome was provider evidence-based medicine utilization; overall prescriptions and opioid/barbiturate prescriptions were also evaluated. Hierarchical linear modeling examined whether Level 1 (patient: Demographic, insurance type) and Level 2 (provider/encounter: Treatment setting/location, encounter diagnoses) characteristics influenced outcomes.

RESULTS

In all, 38,926 patients (56.7% female, mean age = 12.1) and 1617 providers were evaluated. Only 17.7% of patients were diagnosed with migraine; 16.1% received evidence-based medicine. Older children (OR = 1.07, p < 0.001), females (OR = 1.14, p < 0.001), and those diagnosed with migraine (OR = 4.71, p < 0.001) were more likely to receive evidence-based medicine. Among prescriptions, 15.8% were for opioids/barbiturates. Older children (OR = 1.14, p < 0.001) and those cared for in the emergency department/urgent care (OR = 2.02, p < 0.001) were at increased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographics and migraine diagnosis are associated with evidence-based medicine and opioid/barbiturates. Primary care provides an opportunity to target provider interventions to enhance effective pediatric headache treatment.

Effectiveness of Oxygen and Other Acute Treatments for Cluster Headache: Results From the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, an International Survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of acute cluster headache medications in a large international sample, including recommended treatments such as oxygen, commonly used medications such as opioids, and emerging medications such as intranasal ketamine. Particular focus is paid to a large subset of respondents 65 years of age or older.

BACKGROUND

Large international surveys of cluster headache are rare, as are examinations of treatments and side effects in older cluster headache patients. This article presents data from the Cluster Headache Questionnaire, with respondents from over 50 countries and with the vast majority from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

METHODS

This internet-based survey included questions on cluster headache diagnostic criteria, which were used as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study, as well as effectiveness of medications, physical and medical complications, psychological and emotional complications, mood scores, and difficulty obtaining medications. The diagnostic questions were also used to create a separate group of respondents with probable cluster headache. Limitations to the methods include the use of nonvalidated questions, the lack of a formal clinical diagnosis of cluster headache, and the grouping of some medications (eg, all triptans as opposed to sumatriptan subcutaneous alone).

RESULTS

A total of 3251 subjects participated in the questionnaire, and 2193 respondents met criteria for this study (1604 cluster headache and 589 probable cluster headache). Of the respondents with cluster headache, 68.8% (1104/1604) were male and 78.0% (1245/1596) had episodic cluster headache. Over half of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for triptans (54%, 639/1139) and oxygen (54%, 582/1082). Between 14 and 25% of respondents reported complete or very effective treatment for ergot derivatives (dihydroergotamine 25%, 42/170; cafergot/ergotamine 17%, 50/303), caffeine and energy drinks (17%, 7/41), and intranasal ketamine (14%, 5/37). Less than 10% reported complete or very effective treatment for opioids (6%, 30/541), intranasal capsaicin (5%, 7/151), and intranasal lidocaine (2%, 5/241). Adverse events were especially low for oxygen (no or minimal physical and medical complications 99%, 1077/1093; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 97%, 1065/1093), intranasal lidocaine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 97%, 248/257; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 251/257), intranasal ketamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 95%, 38/40; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 98%, 39/40), intranasal capsaicin (no or minimal physical and medical complications 91%, 145/159; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 94%, 150/159), and caffeine and energy drinks (no or minimal physical and medical complications 89%, 39/44; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 40/44). This is in comparison to ergotamine/cafergot (no or minimal physical and medical complications 83%, 273/327; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 89%, 290/327), dihydroergotamine (no or minimal physical and medical complications 81%, 143/176; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 91%, 160/176), opioids (no or minimal physical and medical complications 76%, 416/549; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 77%, 423/549), or triptans (no or minimal physical and medical complications 73%, 883/1218; no or minimal psychological and emotional complications 85%, 1032/1218). A total of 139 of 1604 cluster headache respondents (8.7%) were age 65 and older and reported similar effectiveness and adverse events to the general population. The 589 respondents with probable cluster headache reported similar medication effectiveness to respondents with a full diagnosis of cluster headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxygen is reported by survey respondents to be a highly effective treatment with few complications in cluster headache in a large international sample, including those 65 years or over. Triptans are also very effective with some side effects, and newer medications deserve additional study. Patients with probable cluster headache may respond similarly to acute medications as patients with a full diagnosis of cluster headache.

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.

Loss of Blood-Brain Barrier Integrity in a KCl-Induced Model of Episodic Headache Enhances CNS Drug Delivery

Cortical spreading depression (CSD) in the CNS is suggested as a common mechanism contributing to headache. Despite strong evidence for CNS involvement in headache disorders, drug development for headache disorders remains focused on peripheral targets. Difficulty in delivering drugs across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may partially account for this disparity. It is known, however, that BBB permeability is increased during several CNS pathologies. In this study, we investigated BBB changes in response to KCl-induced CSD events and subsequent allodynia in rats. Cortical KCl injection in awake, freely moving rats produced facial allodynia with peak intensity between 1.5 and 3 h and CSD induction within 0.5-2 h postinjection. Brain perfusion of 14C-sucrose as a marker of BBB paracellular permeability revealed increased leak in the cortex, but not brainstem, beginning 0.5 h post-KCl injection and resolving within 6 h; no changes in tight junction (TJ) proteins occludin or claudin-5 expression were observed. Acute pretreatment with topiramate to inhibit CSD did not prevent the increased BBB paracellular permeability. CNS delivery of the abortive anti-migraine agent sumatriptan was increased in the cortex 1.5 h post-KCl injection. Surprisingly, sumatriptan uptake was also increased in the brainstem following CSD induction, suggesting regulation of active transport mechanisms at the BBB. Together, these results demonstrate the ability of CSD events to produce transient, time-dependent changes in BBB permeability when allodynia is present and to mediate access of clinically relevant therapeutics (i.e., sumatriptan) to the CNS.

Use of Most Bothersome Symptom as a Coprimary Endpoint in Migraine Clinical Trials: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the Pivotal ZOTRIP Randomized, Controlled Trial

Objective

To better understand the utility of using pain freedom and most bothersome headache‐associated symptom (MBS) freedom as co‐primary endpoints in clinical trials of acute migraine interventions.

Background

Adhesive dermally applied microarray (ADAM) is an investigational system for intracutaneous drug administration. The recently completed pivotal Phase 2b/3 study (ZOTRIP), evaluating ADAM zolmitriptan for the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine, was one of the first large studies to incorporate MBS freedom and pain freedom as co‐primary endpoints per recently issued guidance by the US Food and Drug Administration. In this trial, the proportion of patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg, who were pain‐free and MBS‐free at 2 hours post‐dose, was significantly higher than for placebo.

Methods

We undertook a post‐hoc analysis of data from the ZOTRIP trial to examine how the outcomes from this trial compare to what might have been achieved using the conventional co‐primary endpoints of pain relief, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.

Results

Of the 159 patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg or placebo, prospectively designated MBS were photophobia (n = 79), phonophobia (n = 43), and nausea (n = 37). Two‐hour pain free rates in those with photophobia as the MBS were 36% for ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg and 14% for placebo (P = .02). Corresponding rates for those with phonophobia as the MBS were 14% and 41% (P = .05). For those whose MBS was nausea, corresponding values were 56% and 16%, respectively (P = .01). Two‐hour freedom from the MBS for active drug vs placebo were 67% vs 35% (P < .01) for photophobia, 55% vs 43% (P = .45) for phonophobia, and 89% vs 58% for nausea (P = .04). MBS freedom but not pain freedom was achieved in 28%. Only 1 patient (1%) achieved pain freedom, but not MBS freedom. The proportion with both pain and MBS freedom was highest (56%) among those whose MBS was nausea.

Conclusion

In this study, the use of MBS was feasible and seemed to compare favorably to the previously required 4 co‐primary endpoints.

Breath-powered sumatriptan dry nasal powder: an intranasal medication delivery system for acute treatment of migraine

There is a need for fast-acting, non-oral medication options for migraine because some attacks develop rapidly and some are accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and gastroparesis, which can hinder oral medication uptake and absorption. The most commonly prescribed migraine medications are oral triptans, with sumatriptan as the most common. However, oral triptans are associated with adverse events (AEs) of atypical sensations that may be problematic for patients. Subcutaneous (SC) injectable sumatriptan and conventional liquid triptan nasal spray formulations are also available, but the frequency of atypical sensations is the highest with SC sumatriptan, and the intense bitter taste of conventional liquid triptan nasal spray discourages use. AVP-825 (ONZETRA^® Xsail^®) is an intranasal medication delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan nasal powder that is now available in the USA for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. The objective of this review is to summarize the development of AVP-825, which utilizes unique features of nasal anatomy to achieve efficient absorption and reduced systemic exposure. Literature searches for “sumatriptan nasal powder”, “AVP-825”, and “sumatriptan intranasal” were conducted. Review articles and pharmacokinetic, Phase II and Phase III studies were evaluated. AVP-825 demonstrates an earlier onset of efficacy and lower rate of atypical sensations than the oral standard of care, which can be attributed to its fast absorption and low systemic exposure. AEs of abnormal taste are predominantly mild. These results confirm the initial design concept for AVP-825, which aligned pharmacokinetics, anatomy, and drug presentation in a novel device to achieve optimal outcomes for the acute treatment of migraine.

[Triptan-responsive migraine-like headache caused by cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula in a 69-year-old woman with a history of migraine without aura]

A 69-year-old woman with a previous history of migraine without aura developed throbbing headache in the right frontal region accompanied by nausea, lasting more than 4 hours a day. The headache intensity was more severe than that of usual her migraine headaches. Administration of eletriptan in the previous hospital improved her headaches. However, one month later the patient experienced more intense headaches in the same region and then was referred to our hospital. MR angiography showed abnormal signal intensities in the cavernous sinus. Cerebral angiography revealed blood reflux to the cavernous sinus, leading to diagnosis of cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula. Transvenous embolization of cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula was performed, which resulted in resolution of the patient's headache. We should be aware that patients with cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula can manifest migraine-like headaches without being accompanied by cranial nerve palsies.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center study of the safety and efficacy of ADAM zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

Objective To determine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ascending doses of Adhesive Dermally-Applied Microarray (ADAM) zolmitriptan versus placebo for acute migraine treatment. Background ADAM is a novel patient-administered system for intracutaneous drug administration. In a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study, zolmitriptan administered using ADAM had much faster absorption than oral administration with higher exposure in the first two hours. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase 2b/3 study evaluating ADAM zolmitriptan 1 mg, 1.9 mg, and 3.8 mg versus placebo. Co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome other migraine-associated symptom 2 hours post-dose. Results Of patients treated with ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg or placebo, 41.5% and 14.2%, respectively were pain-free 2 hours post-dose ( p = 0.0001) and 68.3% and 42.9% were free from their most bothersome other symptom ( p = 0.0009). Due to the fixed sequential testing methodology, formal statistical significance was not established for secondary endpoints. However, the proportion of patients who were photophobia-free, phonophobia-free, and nausea-free at 2 hours post-dose was higher in the ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg group compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients who were pain-free, and who experienced pain relief up to 48 hours post-dose. Systemic adverse events were consistent with previous triptan trials, and included dizziness, paresthesia, muscle tightness, and nausea, all of which occurred in < 5% of patients in any group. Application site reactions were generally mild and resolved within 48 hours, although erythema and bruising persisted for longer periods in some patients. Conclusion ADAM zolmitriptan 3.8 mg provides effective relief of migraine headache and associated most bothersome symptoms compared with placebo, and is well-tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02745392.

Post Hoc Subanalysis of Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Trials Evaluating Diclofenac Potassium for Oral Solution: Impact of Migraine-Associated Nausea and Prior Triptan Use on Efficacy

Objective

To determine whether baseline nausea or prior triptan treatment for migraine impact the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution in treating acute migraine.

Background

A great deal of variability exists in patients' response to migraine medications. Migraine‐associated nausea is common and debilitating and can reduce the effectiveness of oral medications. It may cause patients to delay taking oral medications, which is known to diminish therapeutic outcomes, or to avoid taking them altogether. Gastroparesis, which may be associated with nausea, also inhibits drug absorption, resulting in lower bioavailability. Studies have shown that having nausea at the time of drug administration predicts a poorer response to triptan treatment. It is of interest to understand how effective other migraine medications are in patients with a poor response to triptans.

Methods

Data from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled trials were pooled and post hoc subgroup analyses were performed in patients with and without nausea at baseline, and in patients with and without prior triptan treatment. Efficacy assessments included the percentage of patients who, at 2 hours postdosing, were headache pain‐free (2hPF, primary endpoint), without photophobia, without phonophobia, without nausea, or without a severe degree of disability. A Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test, stratified by analysis center was used to evaluate treatment effect. Effects of nausea or prior triptan use were determined using logistic regression with factors of treatment group, analysis center, nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing, and interaction of treatment group by nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing.

Results

The modified intent to treat population consisted of 1272 patients, 644 on active drug and 628 on placebo. The majority of patients (85%) were female. At the time of dosing, 783 (62%) patients reported nausea with the treated attack. Prior triptan use was recorded in 570 (45%). For headache pain, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, patients in the active treatment group had a statistically significantly better response than those receiving placebo, regardless of whether they had nausea at baseline. In logistic regression analysis only treatment group predicted a response for these parameters with no detectable group interaction. Baseline nausea, as well as treatment group, predicted whether patients recorded severe disability at 2 hours. While patients in the active treatment group were significantly more likely to be headache pain‐free at 2 hours after dosing, whether or not they had previously been treated with triptan, more triptan‐naïve patients (30%) than triptan‐experienced patients (20%) were headache pain‐free. Interestingly, in the placebo groups, triptan‐naïve patients were also more likely to be PF (14% vs 7%). In the logistic regression analysis, treatment group predicted a headache pain response, triptan use predicted a lack of response, and there was no interaction between the two. Prior triptan use did not predict any of the other outcome measures.

Conclusions

Nausea at the time of dosing does not diminish the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution. The rapid absorption profile may enhance the effectiveness in patients with nausea. Prior triptan use predicted poorer headache response at 2 hours postdose, suggesting the possibility of a subset of patients who are more likely to be refractory to both triptans and diclofenac. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is effective in triptan‐naïve patients but no reliable inference can be made from this study as to about how to order treatment.

Systematic Reviews Published in the July 2016 Issue of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly as a DVD and monthly online ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com ). The July 2016 issue (third DVD for 2016) contains 6963 complete reviews, 2457 protocols for reviews in production. In addition, there are citations of 945,000 randomized controlled trials, and 15,700 cited papers in the Cochrane Methodology Register. The Health Technology Assessment database contains some 16,000 citations. One hundred and twenty-one new reviews have been published in the previous three months, of which four have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. The impact factor of the Cochrane Library stands at 6.1. Readers are encouraged to access the full report for any articles of interest, as only a brief commentary is provided.

Cardiovascular Events, Conditions, and Procedures Among People With Episodic Migraine in the US Population: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

BACKGROUND

Though migraine, particularly migraine with aura, is a cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, the scope and distribution of cardiovascular disease in representative samples of people with migraine are not known. This is important because many widely used acute migraine treatments, including triptans, ergot alkaloids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, carry precautions, warnings, or contraindications for use in persons with CV disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the scope and distribution of cardiovascular events, conditions, and procedures in persons with episodic migraine in a representative sample of the US population, using data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study.

METHODS

Eligible subjects completed the 2009 AMPP survey, met ICHD-3beta criteria for migraine, and had a headache frequency of less than 15 days per month (episodic migraine). A survey on cardiovascular events (ie, myocardial infarction), conditions (ie, angina), and procedures (ie, carotid endarterectomy) was adopted from the Women's Health Study and the Physician's Health Studies. Cardiovascular events and conditions were defined by participant reports of having both experienced and received a physician diagnosis for a particular event or condition. The distribution of CV events, conditions, and procedures was summarized for the entire migraine sample and in groups defined by gender and age (22-39, 40-59, and ≥60). To assess the numbers of persons with episodic migraine in the US, we applied age and gender stratified estimates of migraine prevalence to the 2015 Census data. To estimate the number of cardiovascular events, conditions, and procedures in the US migraine population, we applied age and gender stratified event rates to the number of persons with episodic migraine in each stratum.

RESULTS

The 2009 AMPP Study survey was returned by 11,792 study participants out of 16,983 (64.9% response rate), including 6723 individuals who met study criteria for episodic migraine (5227 women and 1496 men). Among 22-39 year olds with episodic migraine, 3.4% reported having received a physician diagnosis of CV events or conditions and 1.1% reported undergoing CV related procedures. Among 40-59 year olds, 10.2% reported having received a physician diagnosis of CV events or conditions and 3.5% reported CV related procedures. For those age 60 or older, 22.3% reported CV events or conditions and 8.8% reported CV procedures. Prevalence of events, conditions, and procedures was higher in men than women and also in older age groups. However, the absolute number of CV events, procedures, and conditions was greater for women than men due to the higher population prevalence of episodic migraine in women. We projected that 2.0 million women and 665,000 men in the US had episodic migraine and a history of one or more CV event, condition, or procedure. By age group, it is estimated that 579,000 among those aged 22-39, 1.37 million of those aged 40-59, and 696,000 of those 60 and older with episodic migraine have ever had at least one CV event, procedure, or condition.

CONCLUSION

Based on these analyses, we estimate that there are roughly 2.6 million people with episodic migraine aged 22 and older in the US with one or more prior CV event, condition, or procedure. For this group, cardiovascular contraindications to many migraine-specific acute migraine therapies may make treatment challenging.

Systematic Reviews Published in the April 2016 Issue of the Cochrane Library

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews is published quarterly as a DVD and monthly online ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com ). The April 2016 issue (2nd DVD for 2016) contains 6875 complete reviews, 2417 protocols for reviews in production, and 36,600 short summaries of systematic reviews published in the general medical literature (this short summary database is no longer being updated). In addition, there are citations of 934,000 randomized controlled trials, and 15,700 cited papers in the Cochrane Methodology Register. The Health Technology Assessment database contains some 16,000 citations. One hundred and twenty-nine new reviews have been published in the previous 3 months, of which three have potential relevance for practitioners in pain and palliative medicine. The impact factor of the Cochrane Library stands at 5.939. Readers are encouraged to access the full report for any articles of interest, as only a brief commentary is provided.

The effects of acute and preventive migraine therapies in a mouse model of chronic migraine

Background The development of novel migraine therapies has been slow, in part because of the small number of clinically relevant animal models. We have recently developed a new mouse model of chronic migraine using chronic intermittent nitroglycerin, a known human migraine trigger. The objective of this study was to validate this model by testing known and potential migraine-preventive treatments. Methods Migraine therapies were administered to male and female mice for 11 days. On day 3, mice were tested with nitroglycerin every second day for nine days. Basal and nitroglycerin-evoked mechanical hypersensitivity was evaluated using von Frey filaments. Results Chronic intermittent nitroglycerin produced acute hyperalgesia with each administration, and progressive and sustained basal hypersensitivity. The established preventive migraine therapy propranolol effectively blocked the development of acute and chronic nitroglycerin-induced hyperalgesia, while valproate had no effect. Potential migraine-preventive therapies were also tested: Amiloride inhibited nitroglycerin-induced acute and chronic hyperalgesia; while memantine was ineffective. We also tested the acute migraine therapy sumatriptan, which did not alter nitroglycerin-induced hyperalgesia, but instead resulted in acute and chronic hyperalgesia similar to that observed following nitroglycerin administration. Conclusions This study establishes the chronic nitroglycerin model as an additional screening tool to test novel migraine-preventive therapies.

Human factors validation study of 3 mg sumatriptan autoinjector, for migraine patients

Background

Migraine pain relief is reported by more than 50% of patients who receive low dose (3 mg) of sumatriptan. Currently, there is no two-step autoinjector of low-dose sumatriptan available on the market for acute migraine treatment. To fulfill this need, a fully assembled, single-dose, subcutaneous autoinjector (sumatriptan 3 mg; product-code DFN-11) was developed. The device allows for injection with a simple two-step, push-to-inject process and provides feedback of the injection activation, progress, and completion.

Objective

To determine if DFN-11 autoinjector can be used correctly and safely by migraine patients.

Methods and participants

A human factors validation study was conducted with 45 migraine patients (30 oral-only medications users; 15 injectable sumatriptan users) who performed one unaided simulated injection. Two days prior, half the oral participants were briefly trained. All others were only given the device to inspect and written instructions to review. No injections were performed during the initial session. All participants received written instructions at the injection session.

Results

All participants (45/45; 100%) performed the injection without any errors. Objective measures included device removal from packaging, cap removal, expiration date check, inspection of fluid in window, identification of allowable injection site, proper device positioning, dose confirmation, and device disposal. All participants (45/45; 100%) reported no difficulty administering the injection and no concerns about using the autoinjector during a severe migraine onset.

Conclusion

The results showed that the DFN-11 autoinjector can be used with safe handling without patterns of confusion, failures, high-risk errors, wet injections, or patient safety risks. The DFN-11 autoinjector was validated to be used correctly and safely by migraine patients, whether they were injection experienced, unexperienced, trained, or self-trained.

Predictors of Triptan Response in Pediatric Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is common in children and adolescents and can be disabling. Being able to predict which patients will respond to triptans based on their clinical phenotype would be helpful. Adult data suggest cranial autonomic symptoms and aura predict triptan response. This study examined clinical predictors of triptan response in pediatric migraineurs.

METHODS

This chart review study included all patients less than 18 years old with migraine who were seen at the University of California, San Francisco Headache Center in 2014. Univariate χ(2) analyses were performed, followed by multivariate logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Of 127 pediatric migraineurs, 70 (55%) had chronic migraine and 24 (19%) had aura. The majority (55%) had at least one cranial autonomic symptom. Of 65 with triptan outcome data, 47 (73%) benefitted from a triptan. In univariate analyses, triptan benefit was seen in 65% with chronic migraine versus 88% with episodic migraine (P = 0.048), 67% with aura versus 74% without (P = 0.66), and 70% with cranial autonomic symptom versus 74% without (P = 0.76). In a multivariate logistic regression model, chronic migraine, aura, and cranial autonomic symptom were not statistically significant predictors of triptan benefit: chronic migraine: 0.25 (0.06-1.04); aura: 0.65 (0.09-4.45); cranial autonomic symptom: 0.75 (0.22-2.52).

CONCLUSIONS

In univariate analysis, individuals with chronic migraine were less likely to benefit from triptans. In contrast to what has been documented in adults, cranial autonomic symptoms and aura did not predict triptan response, although our small sample size limited the study's power. Larger pediatric studies are needed, and future pediatric triptan trials should provide response rates stratified by clinical variables such as aura.

A retrospective analysis of triptan and dhe use for basilar and hemiplegic migraine

BACKGROUND

Patients with basilar migraine (BM) and hemiplegic migraine (HM) have been excluded from triptan and DHE clinical trials due to a potential risk of ischemic vascular events, and the FDA mandates that package labeling state that they are contraindicated in BM and HM. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that triptans and DHE can be used for the abortive treatment of BM and HM without significant adverse ischemic vascular events.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients with BM features or HM who received acute abortive treatment with either triptans or DHE was conducted at 4 headache centers to assess the frequency of ischemic vascular events after administration. The diagnoses of BM or HM were made by headache specialists based on The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II). Searchable terms included BM, vertigo, dysarthria, diplopia, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, facial droop, weakness, confusion, altered consciousness, confusion, ataxia, and aphasia, as well as all triptans or DHE.

RESULTS

The study included 67 patients with BM features and 13 patients with HM. Among those receiving triptans, 40 were in the BM group and 5 were in the HM group. Among those receiving DHE, 27 were included in the BM group and 8 were in the HM group. No side effects of stroke or myocardial infarction were reported. In the triptan group, 5 patients reported adverse effects that included GI upset, rash, neck dystonia, nightmares, and flushing. In the DHE group, 5 patients had adverse events that included chest tightness, dystonic reaction, transient asymptomatic anterior T wave inversion, and agitation.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, triptans and DHE were used with no reported, subsequent acute/subacute ischemic vascular events for the abortive treatment of migraines with basilar and hemiplegic-type features. Although the small sample sizes generated theoretical statistical event rates of 4.5% for BM and 23% for HM, there has been no clear evidence that BM and HM carry an actual elevated risk for vascular events compared with migraine with aura.

A Randomized Trial of Ketorolac vs. Sumatripan vs. Placebo Nasal Spray (KSPN) for Acute Migraine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray (NS) vs. placebo and sumatriptan NS for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator, crossover study. Adult migraineurs were randomized to ketorolac NS 31.5 mg, sumatriptan NS 20 mg, or placebo to treat three moderate to severe migraine attacks and switched treatments with each attack. Patients seeking headache care at a headache center or in response to community advertisement were recruited. Adult participants with episodic migraine who experienced ≥2 migraine attacks per month were eligible for the Ketorolac vs. Sumatriptan vs. Placebo Nasal Spray migraine study. Participants were randomized to treatment arms by a research pharmacist, in a 1:1:1 ratio using computer-generated lists. The primary outcome was 2-hour pain relief. Secondary outcomes included 2-hour pain freedom and absence of migraine associated symptoms, and 24-hour sustained pain relief and pain freedom.

RESULTS

Of the 72 randomized participants, 54 (75%) treated at least one attack and 49 (68%) completed all three treatments, for a total of 152 treated migraine attacks. Both ketorolac NS (72.5%, P < .001) and sumatriptan NS (69.4%, P = .001) were more effective than placebo (38.3%) for 2-hour pain relief and 2-hour pain freedom (ketorolac: 43.1%, P = .004; sumatriptan: 36.7%, P = .046; placebo: 18.4%). Ketorolac NS, but not sumatriptan NS, was more effective than placebo in 2-hour absence of nausea. Both ketorolac NS and sumatriptan NS were more effective than placebo for 24-hour sustained pain relief (ketorolac: 49%, P < .001; sumatriptan: 31%, P = .01, placebo: 20%). Only ketorolac NS was superior to placebo for 24-hour (ketorolac: 35.3%, P = .003; sumatriptan: 22.4%, P = .18, placebo: 12.2%) sustained pain freedom. Nasal burning and dysgeusia were the most common adverse effects for active treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports that ketorolac NS is superior to placebo and that it is non-inferior to sumatriptan NS for the acute abortive treatment of migraine.

Triptan-induced Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome: Two Case Reports with a Literature Review

We encountered two patients with sumatriptan-induced reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS). The present patients were taking sumatriptan for the first time because they had been tentatively diagnosed with a migraine. On reviewing the literature, we found nine other cases of triptan-induced RCVS, predominantly among women aged 30 to 40 years. RCVS has been precipitated by triptan at the first ever use, after daily use, and even with long-term use at a normal dose. Patients with acute onset of severe headache should be thoroughly evaluated, and triptan should be administered appropriately. If triptan-induced RCVS is suspected, vascular imaging should be repeated after several days.

Systematic Review of Preventive and Acute Treatment of Menstrual Migraine

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to identify the efficacy of different categories of treatments for menstrual migraines as found in randomized controlled trials or open label studies with similar efficacy endpoints.

BACKGROUND

Menstrual migraine is very common and approximately 50% of women have increased risk of developing migraines related to the menstrual cycle. Attacks of menstrual migraine are usually more debilitating, of longer duration, more prone to recurrence, and less responsive to acute treatment than nonmenstrual migraine attacks.

METHODS

Search for evidence was done in 4 databases that included PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Eighty-four articles were selected for full text review by 2 separate readers. Thirty-six of the 84 articles were selected for final inclusion. Articles included randomized controlled and open label trials that focused on efficacy of acute and preventative therapies for menstrual migraine. Secondary analyses where excluded because the initial study population was not women with menstrual migraine.

RESULTS

After final screening, 11 articles were selected for acute and 25 for preventive treatment of menstrual migraine. These were further subdivided into treatment categories. For acute treatment: triptans, combination therapy, prostaglandin synthesis inhibitor, and ergot alkaloids. For preventive treatment: triptans, combined therapy, oral contraceptives, estrogen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, phytoestrogen, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, dopamine agonist, vitamin, mineral, and nonpharmacological therapy were selected. Overall, triptans had strong evidence for treatment in both acute and short term prevention of menstrual migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this literature search, of all categories of treatment for menstrual migraine, triptans have the most extensive research with strong evidence for both acute and preventive treatment of menstrual migraine. Further randomized controlled trials should be performed for other therapies to strengthen their use in the care of menstrual migraine patients.

Triptans in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although triptans are widely used in the acute management of migraine, there is uncertainty around the comparative efficacy of triptans among each other and vs non-triptan migraine treatments. We conducted systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to compare the relative efficacy of triptans (alone or in combination with other drugs) for acute treatment of migraines compared with other triptan agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), acetaminophen, ergots, opioids, or anti-emetics.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared triptans (alone or in combination with other drugs) with placebo-controlled or active migraine treatments. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Outcome data were combined and analyzed using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. For each outcome, odds ratios, relative risks, and absolute probability of response were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 133 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Standard dose triptans relieved headaches within 2 hours in 42 to 76% of patients, and 2-hour sustained freedom from pain was achieved for 18 to 50% of patients. Standard dose triptans provided sustained headache relief at 24 hours in 29 to 50% of patients, and sustained freedom from pain in 18 to 33% of patients. Use of rescue medications ranged from 20 to 34%. For 2-hour headache relief, standard dose triptan achieved better outcomes (42 to 76% response) than ergots (38%); equal or better outcomes than NSAIDs, ASA, and acetaminophen (46 to 52%); and equal or slightly worse outcomes than combination therapy (62 to 80%). Among individual triptans, sumatriptan subcutaneous injection, rizatriptan ODT, zolmitriptan ODT, and eletriptan tablets were associated with the most favorable outcomes.

INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS

Triptans are effective for migraine relief. Standard dose triptans are associated with better outcomes than ergots, and most triptans are associated with equal or better outcomes compared with NSAIDs, ASA, and acetaminophen. Use of triptans in combination with ASA or acetaminophen, or using alternative modes of administration such as injectables, may be associated with slightly better outcomes than standard dose triptan tablets.

Access to Triptans for Acute Episodic Migraine: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to examine factors related to access of triptans among multiple stakeholder groups.

BACKGROUND

Triptans are a cornerstone of pain management for the acute treatment of migraine, but actual utilization of triptans is lower than ideal. Initial and continued access to triptans may be an important clinical issue in the acute treatment of migraines, but factors affecting access at the patient, provider, and health-care system levels have not been comprehensively explored.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, between August 2013 and January 2014. Three participant groups were recruited to the qualitative study: (1) migraineurs who have experience accessing triptans; (2) physicians, including primary care physicians (PCPs) and neurologists, who have prescribed triptans; and (3) pharmacists who have dispensed triptans. Qualitative data were collected through one-on-one, semi-structured telephone interviews. The framework approach was used for data collection and analysis.

RESULTS

Data collected from 19 migraineurs, 6 physicians, and 8 pharmacists were included in the analysis. Study participants discussed various factors that facilitate or hinder access to triptans, which were synthesized into four themes that emerged at the patient, provider, and health-care systems levels: (1) awareness; (2) apathy; (3) advocacy; and (4) affordability. Across all participant groups, awareness of available treatments and coverage policies for those treatments were potential factors relating to timely drug provision. Participants describe apathy in terms of patients' health-seeking behaviors and physicians' lack of concern toward migraine, which were seen as factors that could delay diagnosis and provision of appropriate treatment. Patients engaging in self-advocacy enhanced their ability to seek timely and appropriate provision of triptans at the patient level. At the health-care provider level, pharmacists were identified by patients as advocates for receiving more effective treatments for their migraines; pharmacists also self-identified with the advocate role. The affordability of triptans was a key concern impacting access at the systems level, but coverage limitations (eg, quantity limits) were also described to influence the appropriateness of prescribed migraine treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study fills a gap in knowledge about access to triptans and how this may be impacted by patient, provider, and health-care systems barriers. Overall, our study sheds light on the experiences of prescribing, dispensing, and accessing triptans for migraine treatment, and unveils important information that can impact how patients access these drugs.

Reversible hemiparesis in a patient with migraine

A third of patients with migraine may experience accompanying aura, and when this includes motor weakness, the condition is described as hemiplegic migraine. Young women who suffer from migraine with aura have a 6.2-fold increased risk of ischemic stroke. The slow progression and succession of symptoms help to provide the diagnosis of hemiplegic migraine. This report is adapted from paineurope 2014; Issue 1, Haymarket Medical Publications Ltd., and is presented with permission. paineurope is provided as a service to pain management by Mundipharma International, Ltd., and is distributed free of charge to health care professionals in Europe. Archival issues can be accessed via the Web site: http://www.paineurope.com at which European health professionals can register online to receive copies of the quarterly publication.

Headache, cerebral aneurysms, and the use of triptans and ergot derivatives

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists regarding the correlation between unruptured cerebral aneurysms and their role in headache etiology. It is also unclear whether surgical endovascular treatment may improve or worsen the headache, and if there are predictable factors for headache outcome such as pre-existing headache features, aneurysm characteristics, or other medical history. There is debate regarding safe treatment of migraine in patients with aneurysms, both before and after endovascular treatments. Particularly, there is hesitancy to use the triptans and ergot derivatives such as dihydroergotamine because of their vasoconstrictive effects and concern for adverse events related to the aneurysm such as aneurysmal instability and rupture.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature regarding the anatomy, pathophysiology, and association between headache, untreated vs surgically treated aneurysms, and the use of triptans and ergot derivatives for migraine treatment in this setting.

CONCLUSION

Associations between some headaches and aneurysms may exist. Some chronic headaches may respond to surgical aneurysm repair while others may worsen. These associations are undefined by current literature because of variable results, study methods, and limited data. Prospective studies are needed which incorporate pre- and post-procedure headache character and diagnosis, aneurysm characteristics, type of aneurysm repair, associated risk factors for worsening post-procedure headache, and ultimately combining all of these data to better predict headache outcome following surgical aneurysm treatment. Lastly, the caution and avoidance of triptan and ergot derivative use for migraine in the setting of aneurysm is not supported by the current evidence, and much of this concern may be excessive and unwarranted, although more evidence confirming safety is needed.

Adding Additional Acute Medications to a Triptan Regimen for Migraine and Observed Changes in Headache-Related Disability: Results From the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

BACKGROUND

Though triptans are the most widely used acute treatments for migraine, response to treatment is sometimes suboptimal. Triptan therapy is often augmented by the addition of other acute treatments. The benefits of this practice have not been examined in large-scale, real-world observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in headache-related disability associated with adding additional acute treatments to a triptan regimen by category of added treatment including: a second triptan, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), opioids or barbiturates.

METHODS

Subjects were participants in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, a longitudinal, US population-based study of individuals with "severe" headache. Respondents who met International Classification of Headache Disorders 3 beta criteria for migraine were on triptan therapy per respondent self-report, used the same triptan, and provided headache-related disability data for at least 2 consecutive years. Subjects were divided based on headache days per month into 3 groups: low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM, 0-4), moderate-frequency episodic migraine (MFEM, 5-9), and high-frequency episodic migraine/chronic migraine (HFEM/CM, ≥ 10 headache days per month). HFEM and CM were combined into a single group for analyses because of sample size limitations. Patterns of acute treatment for migraine were monitored from one year to the next over the following couplets of years (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009). The first eligible couplet was analyzed for each respondent. Medication regimens studied included: (1) maintaining current triptan use (consistent group); (2) adding a different triptan; (3) adding an NSAID; or (4) adding a combination analgesic containing opioids or barbiturates. We assessed change in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score from the first to the second year of a couplet, contrasting scores of participants with consistent use with those who added an acute treatment to their triptan regimen.

RESULTS

The study sample (N = 2128) included 111 individuals who added another triptan, 118 who added an opioid or barbiturate, and 69 who added an NSAID, with referent groups of approximately 600 cases in each group who remained consistent. In general, MIDAS scores were higher among those who made changes from one year to the next compared with those who did not make changes in therapy. In fully adjusted models, adding triptans or NSAIDs was associated with increased disability for HFEM/CM cases at follow-up but decreased disability at follow-up for MFEM cases, resulting in significant interaction effects for both adding triptans and NSAIDs, respectively (15.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75, 31.01, 38.52, 95% CI 12.43, 64.61).

CONCLUSIONS

While the effects of adding vs staying consistent on the outcome of headache-related disability varied by medication type added and headache frequency strata, in general, these results suggest that for individuals with migraine, adding acute therapies to current triptan use is generally not associated with reductions in headache-related disability. The results were strongest among persons with HFEM and CM. These results identify important unmet medical needs in current migraine management, especially among patients with high-frequency migraine, and suggest that alternative treatment strategies are needed to improve patient outcomes.

Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults

There are many options for acute migraine attack treatment, but none is ideal for all patients. This study aims to review current medical office-based acute migraine therapy in adults and provides readers with an organized approach to this important facet of migraine treatment. A general literature review includes a review of several recent published guidelines. Acetaminophen, 4 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], naproxen sodium, and diclofenac potassium), and 7 triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) have good evidence for efficacy and form the core of acute migraine treatment. NSAID-triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non-opioid combination analgesics (acetaminophen, ASA, and caffeine), and several anti-emetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, and prochlorperazine) are additional evidence-based options. Opioid containing combination analgesics may be helpful in specific patients, but should not be used routinely. Clinical features to be considered when choosing an acute migraine medication include usual headache intensity, usual rapidity of pain intensity increase, nausea, vomiting, degree of disability, patient response to previously used medications, history of headache recurrence with previous attacks, and the presence of contraindications to specific acute medications. Available acute medications can be organized into 4 treatment strategies, including a strategy for attacks of mild to moderate severity (strategy one: acetaminophen and/or NSAIDs), a triptan strategy for patients with severe attacks and for attacks not responding to strategy one, a refractory attack strategy, and a strategy for patients with contraindications to vasoconstricting drugs. Acute treatment of migraine attacks during pregnancy, lactation, and for patients with chronic migraine is also discussed. In chronic migraine, it is particularly important that medication overuse is eliminated or avoided. Migraine treatment is complex, and treatment must be individualized and tailored to the patient's clinical features. Clinicians should make full use of available medications and formulations in an organized approach.