Acute treatment of migraine and the role of triptans

Efficacy of ketorolac in the treatment of acute migraine attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.

METHODS

We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.

Why triptan treatment can fail: focus on gastrointestinal manifestations of migraine

BACKGROUND

Results of randomized, double-blind, controlled studies establish the efficacy of triptans in the acute treatment of migraine, but triptan benefits demonstrated in clinical trials have not consistently been realized in clinical practice. This paper explores the contribution of gastrointestinal manifestations of migraine--namely nausea (with or without vomiting) and gastroparesis--to triptan treatment failure.

SYNTHESIS

Migraine-related nausea and vomiting and migraine-associated gastroparesis appear to be prevalent and highly impactful and have been characterized as being among the greatest challenges affecting migraine care today. These gastrointestinal signs and symptoms have not been satisfactorily taken into account in the management of migraine, which is dominated by the use of oral therapies. Oral triptans are not the optimal therapy in the presence of migraine-related nausea because nausea predicts poor response to oral triptans and because nausea can cause patients to delay oral treatment, which can further compromise therapeutic efficacy. Oral triptans are not the optimal therapy in the presence of migraine-associated gastroparesis because these agents rely on gastric motility and gastrointestinal absorption and may be ineffective or slowly or inconsistently effective in the presence of gastroparesis. Health care providers need to work with their patients to address the still-all-too-frequent problem of treatment failure in migraine. First, health care providers need to have greater appreciation of the importance of nausea, vomiting, and gastroparesis as factors affecting migraine prognosis and treatment success. Second, health care providers need to systematically assess migraine patients for gastrointestinal signs and symptoms. Finally, patients and health care providers need to be willing to practice customized migraine care, in which patients tailor the treatment and formulation to the characteristics and context of the individual migraine episode.

The use of triptans in the management of menstrual migraine

Many women experience headaches, including migraine, in association with their menstrual cycles. Although definitions vary, menstrual migraine generally refers to migraine without aura that occurs within several days prior to and several days after the onset of menses. Although menstrual migraine has been reported to be more difficult to treat than other types of migraines, there is no evidence from controlled clinical trials to support this assertion. Thus, the pharmacological treatment of menstrual migraine should be similar to that of other types of migraines, except with respect to the use of hormonal manipulations to treat menstrual migraine. Serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists (triptans) are effective for the acute treatment of both menstrual and non-menstrual migraines. When used as acute therapy, a triptan should be administered early, when the headache is still mild in severity. Ideally, an acute therapy will provide rapid and complete pain relief with no disability. Some patients may require preventive therapy for menstrual migraine based on suboptimal response to an adequate trial of acute therapy. Patient diaries that record headache onset, relationship to the menstrual cycle and treatment response through three complete cycles will allow accurate prediction of the onset of menstrual migraine; this information is also needed to make decisions about timing of intermittent preventive therapy. The goals of intermittent preventive therapy are to reduce the frequency, duration and intensity of menstrual migraine attacks. Clinical studies show that triptans are effective when used as either acute therapy or as intermittent preventive therapy for menstrual migraine. Sumatriptan and zolmitriptan have been evaluated in prospective, randomised, controlled trials for acute treatment. Retrospective analyses and open-label studies also support the use of other triptans as acute therapy. In addition, sumatriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan and zolmitriptan have been evaluated as intermittent preventive therapy in prospective studies. Thus, data from clinical studies indicate that triptans are effective for the treatment of menstrual migraine.

Initiating and optimizing acute therapy for migraine: the role of patient-centered stratified care

Migraine is a chronic, intermittently disabling condition that affects physical, mental, and social aspects of health-related quality of life. Because patients seeking assistance with migraine most often present to primary care providers, these healthcare professionals play critical roles in the diagnosis and treatment process. A comprehensive migraine management plan involves a partnership between the patient and healthcare professional where treatment goals and strategies are established. Elements of such a plan should include preventive strategies to reduce the frequency and effects of future attacks as well as the use of acute treatments to address the immediate need for relief during an attack. Approaches to prevention include education, lifestyle modification, and, often, appropriate medication. Many medications have been used for acute treatment. Nonspecific agents include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), single or combination analgesics (sometimes including antiemetics or caffeine), and narcotics. Migraine-specific medications include ergot alkaloids and triptans (5-hydroxytryptamine(1B/1D) agonists). Various professional organizations have created guidelines to help providers in choosing appropriate management interventions. Clinical approaches to the patient with migraine include step care, whereby all patients begin on a simple or nonspecific treatment, stepping up to the next level of therapy if treatment is unsuccessful; or stratified care, whereby first-line therapy is tailored to the severity of the patient's pattern of headache. Studies have demonstrated that for more disabled headache patients, the stratified-care approach results in more robust headache response with less disability and greater cost-effectiveness than step care. Patient satisfaction studies demonstrate that the use of migraine-specific abortive medications (triptans) is associated with a higher satisfaction rate than over-the-counter preparations, NSAIDs, and analgesic combinations. Patients who initially reported satisfaction with the latter medications also reported a preference for triptan therapy. Healthcare professionals can assist patients, not only by choosing the most appropriate medication but also by assessing whether the level of benefit the patient is currently receiving could be improved.

Prevalence and Diagnosis of Migraine in Patients Consulting Their Physician With a Complaint of Headache: Data From the Landmark Study

CONTEXT

Headache experts have suggested that to improve the recognition of migraine, patients with a stable pattern of episodic, disabling headache and a normal physical exam should be considered to have migraine in the absence of contradictory evidence. The premise upon which this approach is based-that is, that episodic, recurrent primary headache in the clinic is usually migraine-has not been evaluated in prospective clinical studies.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) evaluate the diagnoses of patients consulting their physician with primary episodic headache and (2) compare clinic diagnoses and patient self-diagnoses with International Headache Society (IHS) headache diagnoses assigned on the basis of longitudinal data from patient diaries.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label study. During the screening visit, patients self-reported a headache diagnosis and then were assigned a headache diagnosis by their physician following his or her customary practice. Patients with a new physician diagnosis of migraine or nonmigraine primary headache were given diaries to record headache symptoms for up to 3 months or 6 attacks. Members of an expert panel, unaware of the clinic diagnosis, used diary data to assign a headache diagnosis to each attack and to each patient.

SETTING

One hundred twenty-eight (128) practices in 15 countries including the United States.

PATIENTS

A total of 1203 male and female patients between 18 and 65 years of age who consulted their physician with headache as a primary or secondary complaint.

RESULTS

Overall, 94% of patients with a physician diagnosis of nonmigraine primary headache or a new clinic diagnosis of migraine had IHS-defined migraine (76%) or probable migraine (migrainous) (18%) headache on the basis of longitudinal diary data. A new clinic diagnosis of migraine was almost always correct: 98% of patients with a clinic diagnosis of migraine had IHS-defined migraine (87% of patients) or probable migraine (11% of patients) headache on the basis of longitudinal diary data. On the other hand, review of diaries of patients with a clinic diagnosis of nonmigraine revealed that 82% of these patients had IHS-defined migraine (48%) or probable migraine (34%) headache. Altogether, one in four patients (25%) with IHS-defined migraine according to longitudinal diary data did not receive a clinic diagnosis of migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the diagnostic approach of considering episodic, disabling primary headaches with an otherwise normal physical exam to be migraine in the absence of contradictory evidence. If in doubt of diagnosis or when assigning a nonmigraine diagnosis, strong consideration should be given to the use of a diary to confirm primary headache diagnosis.