1
|
Li G, Duan S, Zhu T, Ren Z, Xia H, Wang Z, Liu L, Liu Z. Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 2023; 24:129. [PMID: 37723470 PMCID: PMC10506288 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01662-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients. METHODS The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS Nineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model. CONCLUSIONS Compared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guanglu Li
- Graduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- Department of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Shaojie Duan
- Department of Geriatrics, Taizhou Central Hospital (Taizhou University Hospital), Taizhou, China
| | - Tiantian Zhu
- Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhiying Ren
- Graduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- Department of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Hui Xia
- Graduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- Department of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ziyao Wang
- Graduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- Department of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lei Liu
- Department of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
| | - Zunjing Liu
- Department of Neurology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
VanderPluym JH, Halker Singh RB, Urtecho M, Morrow AS, Nayfeh T, Torres Roldan VD, Farah MH, Hasan B, Saadi S, Shah S, Abd-Rabu R, Daraz L, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Wang Z. Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2021; 325:2357-2369. [PMID: 34128998 PMCID: PMC8207243 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults. DATA SOURCES Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. FINDINGS Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliana H. VanderPluym
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Rashmi B. Halker Singh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Meritxell Urtecho
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Allison S. Morrow
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tarek Nayfeh
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Victor D. Torres Roldan
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Magdoleen H. Farah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Bashar Hasan
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Samer Saadi
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sahrish Shah
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Rami Abd-Rabu
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Lubna Daraz
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Larry J. Prokop
- Department of Library–Public Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Zhen Wang
- Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Rochester, Minnesota
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hansen JM, Charles A. Differences in treatment response between migraine with aura and migraine without aura: lessons from clinical practice and RCTs. J Headache Pain 2019; 20:96. [PMID: 31492106 PMCID: PMC6734209 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1046-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 09/02/2019] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Migraine is a major public health problem afflicting approximately 10% of the general population and is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet our understanding of the basis mechanisms of migraine remains incomplete. About a third of migraine patients have attacks with aura, consisting of transient neurological symptoms that precede or accompany headache, or occur without headache. For patients, aura symptoms are alarming and may be transiently disabling. For clinicians and scientists, aura represents an intriguing neurophysiological event that may provide important insight into basic mechanisms of migraine. Several observations point toward important differences between migraine with and without aura. Compared with migraine without aura, migraine with aura has different heritability, greater association with different conditions including stroke, different alterations of brain structure and function as revealed by imaging studies. A number of studies also indicate that migraine with aura may respond differently to acute and preventive therapies as compared to migraine without aura. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of these differences in treatment responses, and to discuss the possibility of different therapeutic strategies for migraine with vs. without aura.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakob Møller Hansen
- Danish Headache Centre and Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Valdemar Hansen Vej 5, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark
| | - Andrew Charles
- UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rashed A, Mazer-Amirshahi M, Pourmand A. Current Approach to Undifferentiated Headache Management in the Emergency Department. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2019; 23:26. [PMID: 30868276 DOI: 10.1007/s11916-019-0765-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To discuss pharmacological interventions in the emergency department (ED) setting for the management of acute primary headache. RECENT FINDINGS Acute headache treatment in the ED has seen an expansion in terms of possible pharmacological interventions in recent years. After a thorough evaluation ruling out dangerous causes of headache, providers should take the patient's history, comorbidities, and prior therapy into consideration. Antidopaminergics have an established role in the management of acute, severe, headache with manageable side-effect profiles. However, recent studies suggest anesthetic and anti-epileptic drugs may play roles in headache treatment in the ED. Current literature also suggest steroids as a promising tool for emergency department clinicians combating the readmission of patients with recurrent headaches. Emergency medicine providers must be cognizant of these traditional and emerging therapies in order to optimize the care of headache patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir Rashed
- Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2120 L St., Washington, DC, 20037, USA
| | - Maryann Mazer-Amirshahi
- Department of Emergency Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.,School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ali Pourmand
- Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2120 L St., Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
In migraine attack treatment analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans can be utilized. The efficacy of acute attack treatment is relevant to prevent migraine chronification. For prophylactic treatment β‑blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, flunarizine, antiepileptics and onabotulinumtoxin A are available. There is evidence that some other substances (e. g. sartans) are also efficacious in this regard. Furthermore, nondrug approaches are essential in migraine therapy. Early education and prophylactic treatment of patients at risk may prevent from medication overuse headache. Noninvasive neuromodulatory approaches as supraorbital or vagal nerve stimulation are emerging methods for prophylactic treatment. Ongoing clinical trials investigate an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist for acute treatment and several prophylactic monoclonal CGRP or CGRP receptor-antibodies regarding safety, side effects and efficacy as new therapeutic options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Holle-Lee
- Klinik für Neurologie und westdeutsches Kopfschmerzzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland
| | - S Nägel
- Klinik für Neurologie und westdeutsches Kopfschmerzzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland
| | - C Gaul
- Migräne und Kopfschmerzklinik Königstein, Ölmühlweg 31, 61462, Königstein im Taunus, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Vikelis M, Spingos KC, Rapoport AM. The iontophoretic transdermal system formulation of sumatriptan as a new option in the acute treatment of migraine: a perspective. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2015; 8:160-5. [PMID: 26136843 DOI: 10.1177/1756285615585918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
An iontophoretic transdermal system (ITS) (skin patch) formulation of sumatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine attacks was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2013. This transdermal system bypasses the gastrointestinal tract, as it uses low electrical current to move sumatriptan transdermally into the subcutaneous tissue. Randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials have demonstrated minimal triptan-related side effects and superior efficacy versus placebo, comparable with other sumatriptan formulations. Sumatriptan ITS can be applied successfully during a mild or severe migraine attack. According to pharmacokinetic properties and clinical data, sumatriptan ITS may be a good choice for people with migraine and severe nausea, vomiting or gastroparesis, those with intolerable triptan-related adverse events and those not responding optimally to oral medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michail Vikelis
- Glyfada Headache Center, 8 Lazaraki Str. Glyfada 16675, Greece
| | | | - Alan M Rapoport
- The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Derry CJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Sumatriptan (all routes of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults - overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD009108. [PMID: 24865446 PMCID: PMC6469574 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009108.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. It is available for administration by four different routes: oral, subcutaneous, intranasal, and rectal. OBJECTIVES To summarise evidence from four Cochrane intervention reviews on the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults by four routes of administration (oral, subcutaneous, intranasal, and rectal) compared with both placebo and active comparators. METHODS The included reviews were written by the authors of this overview; no additional searching was carried out. All included reviews were conducted according to a standard protocol and reported a standard set of outcomes. From each individual review we extracted results for pain relief at different levels, and adverse events. No additional statistical comparison was undertaken as part of the overview. We focused on the most important findings for doses and routes licensed in North America or Europe (oral 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg; subcutaneous 4 mg, 6 mg; intranasal 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg; rectal 25 mg). MAIN RESULTS Included reviews provided data for 18 different dose and route of administration combinations in 52,236 participants. Data for the primary outcomes sought were generally well reported, and involved adequate numbers of participants to give confidence in the results, except for the rectal route of administration, where numbers were low.Subcutaneous administration was the most effective, with pain reduced from moderate or severe to none by two hours in almost 6 in 10 people (59%) taking 6 mg sumatriptan, compared with approximately 1 in 7 (15%) taking placebo; the number needed to treat (NNT) was 2.3 (95% confidence interval 2.1 to 2.4) with 2522 participants in the analysis. The most commonly used doses of oral, rectal, and intranasal sumatriptan also provided clinically useful pain relief, with the oral 50 mg dose providing complete relief of pain in almost 3 in 10 people (28%) compared with about 1 in 10 (11%) after placebo (NNT 6.1 (5.5 to 6.9) in 6447 participants). Subcutaneous administration provided more rapid pain relief than the other routes. Taking medication early, when pain was mild, was more effective than waiting until the pain was moderate or severe.The most effective dose of sumatriptan for each route of administration for the outcome of headache relief (pain reduced from moderate or severe to none or mild) at two hours was oral 100 mg (NNT 3.5 (3.2 to 3.7) in 7811 participants), subcutaneous 6 mg (NNT 2.1 (2.0 to 2.2) in 2738 participants), intranasal 20 mg (NNT 3.5 (3.1 to 4.1) in 2020 participants), and rectal 25 mg (NNT 2.4 (1.9 to 3.4) in 240 participants).Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate severity, of short duration, and more common with subcutaneously administered sumatriptan and higher doses of oral and intranasal sumatriptan than with other dose and route combinations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Sumatriptan is an effective abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, but is associated with increased adverse events relative to placebo. The route of administration influences efficacy, particularly within the first hour after administration. Subcutaneous sumatriptan shows the greatest efficacy in terms of pain relief, but at the expense of relatively high levels of adverse events, and with a high financial cost compared with other routes. Information about the relative efficacy of the different routes of administration for different outcomes should help to inform decisions about the suitability of sumatriptan as a migraine treatment, as well as about the most appropriate way to administer the treatment for individual patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Zolmitriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. These medicines work in a different way to analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with three online databases (www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and apps.who.int/trialsearch) for studies to 12 March 2014. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using zolmitriptan to treat a migraine headache episode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-five studies (20,162 participants) compared zolmitriptan with placebo or an active comparator. The evidence from placebo-controlled studies was of high quality for all outcomes except 24 hour outcomes and serious adverse events where only limited data were available. The majority of included studies were at a low risk of performance, detection and attrition biases, but did not adequately describe methods of randomisation and concealment.Most of the data were for the 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses compared with placebo, for treatment of moderate to severe pain. For all efficacy outcomes, zolmitriptan surpassed placebo. For oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg versus placebo, the NNTs were 5.0, 3.2, 7.7, and 4.1 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, sustained pain-free during the 24 hours postdose, and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, respectively. Results for the oral 5 mg dose were similar to the 2.5 mg dose, while zolmitriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than 5 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours. For headache relief at one and two hours and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, but not pain-free at two hours, zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray was significantly more effective than the 5 mg oral tablet.For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with zolmitriptan than placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (1 mg to 10 mg).High quality evidence from two studies showed that oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg provided headache relief at two hours to the same proportion of people as oral sumatriptan 50 mg (66%, 67%, and 68% respectively), although not necessarily the same individuals. There was no significant difference in numbers experiencing adverse events. Single studies reported on other active treatment comparisons but are not described further because of the small amount of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Zolmitriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks for some people, but is associated with increased adverse events compared to placebo. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg benefited the same proportion of people as sumatriptan 50 mg, although not necessarily the same individuals, for headache relief at two hours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Bird
- University of OxfordLincoln CollegeOxfordUK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rahimdel A, Mellat A, Zeinali A, Jafari E, Ayatollahi P. Comparison between Intravenous Sodium Valproate and Subcutaneous Sumatriptan for Treatment of Acute Migraine Attacks; Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial. IRANIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2014; 39:171-7. [PMID: 24753639 PMCID: PMC3993044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2012] [Revised: 02/04/2013] [Accepted: 03/03/2013] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sodium valproate (SV) has been approved for migraine prophylaxis and its intravenous form is used to treat acute migraine attacks. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous SV and subcutaneous Sumatriptan in managing acute migraine attacks. METHODS This double-blind randomized clinical trial divided 90 patients into two groups: one group received 400 mg of intravenous SV and the second group received 6 mg of subcutaneous Sumatriptan. Headache severity before treatment and half an hour, one hour, and two hours after treatment was measured based on the VNRS in the groups. Associated symptoms, i.e., photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting, were assayed on admission and 2 hours after treatment. Side effects of the drugs were checked 2 hours after injection. Obtained data from the groups were compared. RESULTS In both groups, pain decrement at the mentioned time points was significant (P<0.001), but had no significant difference (P>0.05), indicating the similar effect of both drugs on pain improvement. In the SV group, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting were improved significantly, while in the Sumatriptan group, only photophobia and vomiting were decreased significantly, indicating the advantage of SV in improving the associated symptoms. Nausea, vomiting, facial paresthesia, and hypotension were more significantly frequent in the Sumatriptan group than in the SV group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION Intravenous SV (400 mg) was as effective as subcutaneous Sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, but with more improvement in associated symptoms and with fewer side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER IRCT201108025943N4.
Collapse
|
10
|
Derry CJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Sumatriptan (rectal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012:CD009664. [PMID: 22336868 PMCID: PMC4170908 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Rectal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of rectal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using rectally administered sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS Three studies (866 participants) compared rectally administered sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses. For the majority of efficacy outcomes, sumatriptan surpassed placebo. For sumatriptan 12.5 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 5.2 and 3.2 for headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 12.5 mg dose, and there were no significant differences between the two doses for any of the outcomes analysed. The NNTs for sumatriptan 25 mg versus placebo were 4.2, 3.2, and 2.4 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at one hour, and headache relief at two hours, respectively.Relief of functional disability was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, with NNTs of 8.0 and 4.0 for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses, respectively. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than with placebo, but there were insufficient data to perform any analyses.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to one study comparing sumatriptan 25 mg with ergotamine tartrate 2 mg + caffeine 100 mg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on limited amounts of data, sumatriptan 25 mg, administered rectally, is an effective treatment for acute migraine attacks, with participants in these studies experiencing a significant reduction in headache pain and functional disability within two hours of treatment. The lack of data on relief of headache-associated symptoms or incidence of adverse events limits any conclusions that can be drawn.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Derry CJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Sumatriptan (subcutaneous route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012:CD009665. [PMID: 22336869 PMCID: PMC4164380 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Subcutaneous administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using subcutaneous sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-five studies (9365 participants) compared subcutaneous sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 6 mg dose. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 6 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 2.9, 2.3, 2.2, and 2.1 for pain-free at one and two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively, and 6.1 for sustained pain-free at 24 hours. Results for the 4 mg and 8 mg doses were similar to the 6 mg dose, with 6 mg significantly better than 4 mg only for pain-free at one hour, and 8 mg significantly better than 6 mg only for headache relief at one hour. There was no evidence of increased migraine relief if a second dose of sumatriptan 6 mg was given after an inadequate response to the first.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide, and dihydroergotamine, but there were insufficient data for any pooled analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Subcutaneous sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, quickly relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Derry CJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Sumatriptan (oral route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012:CD008615. [PMID: 22336849 PMCID: PMC4167868 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008615.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using oral sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS Sixty-one studies (37,250 participants) compared oral sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 50 mg and 100 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 50 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 6.1, 7.5, and 4.0 for pain-free at two hours and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. NNTs for sustained pain-free and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose were 9.5 and 6.0, respectively. For sumatriptan 100 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 6.8, 3.5, 6.5, and 5.2, respectively, for the same outcomes. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 50 mg dose, while sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than 50 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours, and for sustained pain-free during 24 hours. Treating early, during the mild pain phase, gave significantly better NNTs for pain-free at two hours and sustained pain-free during 24 hours than did treating established attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity.Relief of associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than with placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with the sumatriptan than with placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (25 mg to 100 mg).Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, paracetamol (acetaminophen), acetylsalicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and ergotamine combinations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Oral sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Derry CJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Sumatriptan (intranasal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012:CD009663. [PMID: 22336867 PMCID: PMC4164476 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Intranasal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting, although it is primarily absorbed in the gut, not the nasal mucosa. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using intranasal sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS Twelve studies (4755 participants) compared intranasal sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 10 mg and 20 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 10 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 7.3, 7.4, and 5.5 for pain-free at two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. For sumatriptan 20 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 4.9, and 3.5, respectively, for the same outcomes. The 20 mg dose was significantly better than the 10 mg dose for each of these three primary efficacy outcomes.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to two studies, one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg and dihydroergotamine (DHE) 1 mg, and one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg with rizatriptan 10 mg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Intranasal sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events compared with placebo.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|