New paradigms in the recognition and acute treatment of migraine

Accuracy of migraine diagnosis and treatment by neurologists in the Baltic states: e-survey with clinical case challenge

BACKGROUND

Underdiagnosis of migraine causes a significant health burden, including lower quality of life, excessive medication use, and a delay in effective treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate migraine diagnosis accuracy and to review the treatment approaches used by neurologists in the Baltic states.

METHODS

The research was conducted as an anonymous e-survey with four cases in March and April 2021.

RESULTS

119 practicing adult neurologists have participated. The migraine diagnostic accuracy was 63.2%. The most commonly used diagnostic criteria were moderate/severe pain, unilateral pain, and disruption of daily activities. Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between neurologists who always use ICHD-3 criteria and those who don't (68.4% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.167). It was higher in neurologists who were working in headache centers (91.7% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.012), and was related to a higher percentage of migraine diagnoses in all consulted headache patients (R2 = 0.202, adjusted R2 = 0.195, p < 0.001), prophylaxis with onabotulinumtoxin A [OR = 4.332, 95% Cl (1.588-11.814)], and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies [OR = 2.862, 95% Cl (1.186-6.907)].

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine diagnostic accuracy is improved through practical patient counseling and modern treatment prescription. Although the neurologists in the Baltic states follow current European guidelines, there is room for improvement in diagnostic accuracy to reduce migraine burden.

Tricyclic and Tetracyclic Antidepressants for the Prevention of Frequent Episodic or Chronic Tension-Type Headache in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of tricyclic (TCA) and tetracyclic antidepressants in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headache.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the ISI Web of Science, and clinical trial registries through 11 March 2017 for randomized controlled studies of TCA or tetracyclic antidepressants in the prevention of tension-type headache in adults. Data were pooled using a random effects approach.

KEY RESULTS

Among 22 randomized controlled trials, eight included a placebo comparison and 19 compared at least two active treatments. Eight studies compared TCAs to placebo, four compared TCAs to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and two trials compared TCAs to behavioral therapies. Two trials compared tetracyclics to placebo. Single trials compared TCAs to tetracyclics, buspirone, spinal manipulation, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, massage, and intra-oral orthotics. High-quality evidence suggests that TCAs were superior to placebo in reducing headache frequency (weighted mean differences (WMD): -4.8 headaches/month, 95% CI: -6.63 to -2.95) and number of analgesic medications consumed (WMD: -21.0 doses/month, 95% CI: -38.2 to -3.8). TCAs were more effective than SSRIs. Low-quality studies suggest that TCAs are superior to buspirone, but equivalent to behavioral therapy, spinal manipulation, intra-oral orthotics, and massage. Tetracyclics were no better than placebo for chronic tension-type headache.

CONCLUSIONS

Tricyclic antidepressants are modestly effective in reducing chronic tension-type headache and are superior to buspirone. In limited studies, tetracyclics appear to be ineffective in the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache.

Clinical patterns of primary stabbing headache: a single clinic-based prospective study

Background

The clinical features and disease courses of primary stabbing headache (PSH) are diverse. We aimed to identify distinct clinical patterns of PSH.

Methods

We prospectively screened consecutive first-visit patients who presented with stabbing headache at the Samsung Medical Centre Headache Clinic from June 2015 to March 2016. Demographics, headache characteristics, and disease courses were prospectively evaluated. After discerning factors related to the chronicity at the time of presentation, clinical patterns were identified based on the frequency (daily vs. intermittent), clinical course (remitted or not), and total disease duration (<3 or >3 months).

Results

In the 65 patients with PSH included in this study, monophasic (n = 31), intermittent (n = 17), and chronic daily (n = 12) patterns were identified. The median disease durations were 9 days for monophasic PSH, 9 months for chronic daily PSH, and 2 years for intermittent PSH. The features of monophasic PSH were greater severity, single and side-locked locations, more attacks per day, daily occurrence, and good treatment response. Chronic daily PSH was associated with female predominance, longer-lasting stabs, and multiple or migrating locations on bilateral or alternating sides. The characteristics of intermittent PSH included female predominance and sporadic stabs with less intensity.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated distinct clinical patterns of PSH. In addition to help early recognition of disease, our findings suggest different pathophysiologic mechanisms. Future prospective studies are required to reveal the etiologies of these different PSH patterns and their optimal treatment strategies.

Acute Pain Management

Acute pain management is improving steadily over the past few years, but training and professional education are still lacking in many professions. Untreated or undertreated acute pain could have detrimental effects on the patient in terms of comfort and recovery from trauma or surgery. Acute undertreated pain can decrease a patient's vascular perfusion, increase oxygen demand, suppress the immune system, and possibly risk increased incidence of venous thrombosis. Although acute postoperative pain needs to be managed aggressively, patients are most vulnerable during this period for developing adverse effects, and therefore, patient assessment and careful drug therapy evaluation are necessary processes in therapeutic planning. Acute pain management requires careful and thorough initial assessment and follow-up reassessment in addition to frequent dosage adjustments, and managing analgesic induced side effects. Analgesic selection and dosing must be based on the patient's past and recent analgesic exposure. There is no single acute pain management regimen that is suitable for all patients. Analgesics must be tailored to the individual patient.

Headache Treatment Before and After the Consultation of a Specialized Centre: A Pharmacoepidemiology Study

Our aim was to study and compare pharmacoepidemiology of headache treatment in two different settings: inside and outside a specialized Centre. We analysed the differences in headache treatment between 612 subjects admitted for the first visit (‘naive’) (F/M: 2.41; mean age = 37.31 ± 14.09 years) and 620 subjects admitted for a control visit (F/M: 3.18; mean age = 44.30 ± 15.37 years) to the Headache Centre of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Most patients suffered from migraine. As acute treatment, on the first visit, 49.4% of them were taking drugs prescribed by a doctor; 41.5% were taking over-the-counter analgesics (OTCAs); 9.1% were not taking any drug. On the control visit, 81.3% of patients were taking prescription drugs; 15.8% OTCAs; 2.9% were not taking drugs (overall chi-square = 139.229, P < 0.001). Non-selective analgesics were the most-used drugs. Triptans were used by 9.1% of ‘naive’ patients and by 31.8% of patients attending for the control visit (Fisher's Z = 7.655, P < 0.001). Nimesulide was the most-used drug. A prophylactic treatment was made by 16.8% of ‘naive’ patients, and by 58.2% of patients admitted to the control visit (Fisher's Z = 12.135, P < 0.001). Antidepressants were the class of drugs most used for prophylaxis. Amitriptyline was the drug for prophylaxis most frequently used by patients attending the control visit, while flunarizine was the most frequently used by ‘naive’ patients. Before being examined in a specialized centre, few patients take prescription drugs, triptans, or prophylactic drugs; specialized care increases the proportion of patients taking prophylactic drugs, and changes the type of acute treatment used into disease-specific medication for headache.

Managing migraine by patient profile: role of frovatriptan

For the last quarter of a century, triptans have been available for acute treatment of migraine but with little guidance on which of the different triptan products to use for which patient or which attack of migraine. In this article, we propose a structured approach to analysis of individual migraine attacks and patient characteristics as a means of defining and optimizing acute intervention. Assessment of patient and attack profiles includes the "5-Ps": pattern, phenotype, patient, pharmacology, and precipitants. Attending to these five components of information can assist in developing an individualized behavioral, pharmacological, and nonpharmacological comprehensive treatment plan for most migraine patients. This clinical approach is then focused on frovatriptan because of its unique molecular signature and potential novel clinical applications. Frovatriptan like all triptans is indicated for acute treatment of migraine but its role has been explored in management of several unique migraine phenotypes. Frovatriptan has the longest half-life of any triptan and consequently is often promoted for acute treatment of migraine of longer duration. It has also been studied as a short-term preventive treatment in women with menstrual-related migraine. Given that 60% of female migraineurs suffer from menstrual-related migraine, this population is the obvious group for continued study. Small studies have also explored frovatriptan's use in treating migraine predicted by premonitory symptoms as a preventive for the headache phase of migraine. By identifying patient and attack profiles, clinicians may effectively determine the viability of frovatriptan as an effective pharmacological intervention for migraine.

Consistency of response to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in a randomized placebo-controlled, cross-over study for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescence

A multi-centered, randomized, placebo-controlled, early intervention, cross-over study was conducted to evaluate the consistency of response of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium 85/500 mg (S/NS) over 4 attacks in the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents. Inclusion of subjects was dependent on their age of 12-17 years, frequency, and history of migraine headaches (1-8 per month) over the previous 6 months prior to screening and generally healthy males and females of non-childbearing potential that were not on excluded medications. Subjects were instructed to treat within 1 hour of pain onset, including when the pain was still mild. Subjects were randomized in a double-blind fashion using a computer-generated randomization list in which the study drug was prepared prior to study start, and subjects were allocated to a number in sequential order for each site. Each site was allocated number blocks in sets of 10 depending of the rate of enrollment. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of S/NS vs placebo in the primary end-points of pain-free response at 2 hours (2hPF), 24-hour sustained pain-free response (24hPF), and pain-free response at 2 hours with early intervention (2hPFE) calculated as percentage out of all attacks. In the study, 94 subjects treated 347 attacks in total: treating 277 with S/NS and 70 with placebo. Compared with placebo, S/NS produced higher 2hPF rates (S/NS 37%, placebo 18%; P < .004), and 2hPFE with rates (S/NS 32%, 18% placebo; P < .03). Compared with placebo, 24hPF rates were S/NS 86%, placebo 78%, P < .17, which were higher than placebo but not clinically significant. 2hPF was reported in at least 2 of the 3 migraines treated with S/NS in 40.4% of subjects. 24hPF was reported in at least 2 of the 3 migraine treated with S/NS in 86.2% subjects. Adverse reactions were generally low and comparable between S/NS and placebo.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy of migraine pain: a review of the literature

This paper reviews the economic evaluation literature on pharmacotherapy for migraine and identifies important trends and gaps in the literature. Given the tremendous economic burden of migraine and the availability of various therapies for migraine treatment, economic evaluation of alternative therapies plays a critical role in identifying the most cost-effective therapy to optimize health care resource allocation and clinical decisions. Particularly, physicians and clinical administrators are expected to take an active role in resource allocation decisions at the clinical level. Thus, it is important for them to be familiar with the economic evaluation in migraine pain management, and most importantly, methodologies of economic analyses and the associated shortcomings of published estimates. In this paper, the methodological characteristics of these studies are examined and their results are compared and interpreted. Alternative treatment and health outcome measures are defined and data sources described while methods for assessing the direct and indirect costs are explored. Directions for future research are identified and discussed.

Expanding access to triptans: assessment of clinical outcome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether access to more liberal quantities of rizatriptan improves clinical outcome in patients with episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Currently many pharmacy benefit programs limit the number of triptan tablets/injections per month based on perceived cost savings and the belief that too-frequent use of triptans may lead to medication overuse headache and headache chronification.

METHODS

This observer-blind, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled 197 subjects with migraine with or without aura. Subjects completed a 3-month baseline period to establish migraine frequency and then were randomly assigned to receive 9 (formulary limit [FL]) or 27 (clinical limit [CL]) tablets of 10 mg rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) per month for 3 months. The primary endpoint was change in the mean number of migraine days from the baseline to treatment period.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the FL and CL groups in mean number of migraine days (FL-CL LS mean: -0.08 [-0.39, 0.23]; P = .613). Subjects in the CL group treated attacks at lower headache severity. No CL subjects were reported to have developed chronic migraine despite utilization of greater than 10 rizatriptan ODT tablets per month. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated by both groups.

CONCLUSION

Providing a greater quantity of rizatriptan ODT 10 mg did not reduce the number of migraine days compared with providing 9 tablets per month for this population with episodic migraine with a frequency of 3-8 migraines per month. Regardless of quantity provided, rizatriptan was generally well tolerated.

Consistency of Response to Sumatriptan/Naproxen Sodium in a Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

Two identical randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were conducted to evaluate consistency of response to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium 85/500 mg (S/NS) over four attacks in adults with migraine. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 h of pain onset while pain was mild. Co-primary end-points were pain-free response at 2 h (2hPF) and 24-h sustained pain-free response (24hSPF) calculated as percentages of all attacks. In Study 1, 570 patients treated 1693 attacks with S/NS and 424 with placebo. In Study 2, 565 patients treated 1678 attacks with S/NS and 422 with placebo. Compared with placebo, S/NS conferred higher 2hPF rates (Study 1: S/NS 52%, placebo 25%; Study 2: S/NS 50%, placebo 20%; both P < 0.001) and higher 24hSPF rates (Study 1: S/NS 37%, placebo 17%; Study 2: S/NS 34%, placebo 12%; both P < 0.001). 2hPF was reported in at least two of the first three S/NS-treated attacks in 55.0% of patients in Study 1 and 52.1% of patients in Study 2. 24hSPF was reported in at least two of the first three S/NS-treated attacks in 35.7% of patients in Study 1 and 32.6% of patients in Study 2. The incidences of any adverse event and of specific adverse events were low and generally similar between S/NS and placebo.

Fixed-dose sumatriptan and naproxen in poor responders to triptans with a short half-life

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a single, fixed-dose tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (sumatriptan/naproxen sodium) vs placebo in migraineurs who had discontinued treatment with a short-acting triptan because of poor response or intolerance.

BACKGROUND

Triptan monotherapy is ineffective or poorly tolerated in 1 of 3 migraineurs and in 2 of 5 migraine attacks. In April, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration approved the combination therapy sumatriptan/naproxen sodium, developed specifically to target multiple migraine mechanisms. This combination product offers an alternative migraine therapy for patients who have reported poor response or intolerance to short-acting triptans.

METHODS

Two replicate, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-attack crossover trials evaluated migraineurs who had discontinued a short-acting triptan in the past year because of poor response or intolerance. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 hour and while pain was mild.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 144 study 1; n = 139 study 2) had discontinued an average of 3.3 triptans before study entry. Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was superior (P < .001) to placebo for 2- through 24-hour sustained pain-free response (primary end point) (study 1, 26% vs 8%; study 2, 31% vs 8%) and pain-free response 2 hours post dose (key secondary end point) (study 1, 40% vs 17%; study 2, 44% vs 14%). A similar pattern of results was observed for other end points that evaluated acute (2- or 4-hour), intermediate (8-hour), or 2- through 24-hour sustained response for migraine (ie, pain and associated symptoms), photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea (with the exception of nausea 2 and 4 hours post dose). The percentage of patients with at least 1 adverse event (regardless of causality) was 11% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 4% with placebo in study 1 and 9% with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium compared with 5% with placebo in study 2. Only 1 adverse event in 1 study was reported in > or =2% of patients after treatment with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium and reported more frequently with sumatriptan/naproxen than placebo: chest discomfort was reported in 2% of subjects in study 1, and no events met this threshold in study 2. No serious adverse events attributed to study medication were reported in either study.

CONCLUSION

In migraineurs who reported poor response to a short-acting triptan, sumatriptan/naproxen sodium was generally well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in conferring initial, intermediate, and sustained efficacy for pain and migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia and phonophobia.

Prevalence of migraine and response to sumatriptan in patients self-reporting tension/stress headache

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of migraine and its responsiveness to migraine-specific therapy in patients with self-reported tension-type headache.

METHODS

Patients were adults (n = 423) consulting one of 54 North American study sites including primary care clinics, neurology clinics, and headache clinics. The study comprised an initial diagnosis phase to determine the headache diagnosis of patients entering the study with self-reported tension/stress headache, including that previously diagnosed by a health care provider. Patients reporting tension/stress headache were evaluated and diagnosed as having migraine with or without aura, probable migraine, tension-type headache, or another headache type. Exclusion criteria included prior diagnosis of migraine or probable migraine and the presence of headache for at least 15 days monthly during either of the 2 months before screening. The initial phase was followed by a randomized, double-blind treatment phase to evaluate the efficacy of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets for the treatment of a single migraine attack in those meeting International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for migraine during the diagnosis phase.

RESULTS

Of 423 patients reporting tension/stress headache at study entry, 84% (n = 357) were diagnosed at the clinic visit as fulfilling IHS criteria for migraine without aura or migraine with aura, and 65% (n = 276) were diagnosed with migraine only (i.e., with no other concurrent headache diagnosis). Three hundred thirty-two (332) patients entered the double-blind treatment phase. Headache relief rates 2h post-dose, the primary efficacy endpoint, did not significantly differ between sumatriptan and placebo (p = 0.099). However, improvements were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with sumatriptan than placebo on several other headache-related efficacy measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine headache may go unrecognized in patients with self-reported tension headache. Among patients having self-reported tension headache and diagnosed with migraine during the study, response to acute treatment with sumatriptan was inconclusive. Improvement with sumatriptan versus placebo was observed for some measures and not for others. The results should be interpreted in the context of study limitations including use of patient self-reports to assess headache diagnosis and possible lack of representativeness arising from the predominantly white sample.

Review of clinical trials using early acute intervention with oral triptans for migraine management

Most of the data on triptan use are from clinical trials in which patients were instructed to wait until migraine headache pain was moderate/severe in intensity. In the real world, patients may hesitate to use a triptan until headache pain is moderate/severe because of the cost of these agents or limited supply allowed by their health service organisation. However, accumulating data indicate that early intervention with an oral triptan when headache pain is still mild may be the most effective acute treatment strategy. Economic analyses also support early triptan intervention in migraine attacks. Tolerability is expected to be particularly important in early intervention, as patients treating mild migraine pain may be more reluctant to risk adverse events. Thus, an agent selected for use as early intervention should have both a demonstrated efficacy in treating mild migraine headache and placebo-like tolerability. This article reviews retrospective and prospective clinical trials which investigated the use of triptans for early acute migraine therapy.

Impact of a migraine management program on improving health outcomes

The goals of this program were to evaluate the effectiveness of migraine disease management techniques in improving patient satisfaction with migraine care, decreasing the frequency and severity of headaches and migraine-associated disability, increasing the effectiveness of migraine treatment and work productivity, improving physician diagnosis and treatment of migraine, and ultimately determining the program's impact on healthcare resource utilization. A prospective observational study was undertaken. This prospective Migraine Management Program (MMP) used active patient and healthcare physician-based disease management resources, tools, and techniques. Members were identified using administrative and medical claims databases indicating an ICD-9 diagnosis code (346.XX) for migraine during the previous twelve months. All identified patients received the Migraine Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (MTAQ) to assess their level of migraine control for pre/post measurement. Of the 2,134 patients responding to the initial MTAQ, 789 completed both a baseline and follow-up and 1,345 completed only a baseline questionnaire. For those patients completing both, there was a statistically significant reduction in all identified management issues: poor symptom control, high attack frequency, knowledge/behavior barriers, economic burden, and dissatisfaction with treatment. Comparing the former group to those completing only the baseline MTAQ, the latter were significantly more likely to report problems with three migraine management issues; poorer symptom control, greater economic burden, and dissatisfaction with their treatment. The use of appropriate patient and physician educational interventions, such as Aetna's MMP incorporating disease management principles and the MTAQ questionnaire, can have a significant impact on patient-centered outcomes and satisfaction with their migraine treatment.

Early intervention in migraine with sumatriptan tablets 50 mg versus 100 mg: a pooled analysis of data from six clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials evaluating sumatriptan in the treatment of moderate or severe migraine pain, the 50- and 100-mg doses have been comparably effective and well tolerated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the dose-efficacy relationship of sumatriptan tablets given early for mild pain, data from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, early-intervention studies of sumatriptan tablets 50 mg and 100 mg (5 of which have been published) were pooled for analysis. These constitute all the studies conducted to date of sumatriptan tablets prospectively given early for mild pain.

METHODS

The primary efficacy end point in all the studies was the proportion of patients reporting a pain-free result (ie, mild, moderate, or severe pain reduced to none) 2 hours postdose. Other efficacy end points included the proportion of patients who were migraine free (ie, no pain and no associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia) 2 hours postdose; the proportion reporting worsening of pain (ie, moderate or severe pain) 2 hours postdose; and the proportion with a sustained pain-free result (ie, pain free from 2-24 hours postdose with no use of a second dose of study medication or of rescue medication). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating the incidence of individual adverse events. The investigators assessed each adverse event's relationship to study medication.

RESULTS

The number of patients in the intent-to-treat population was 2297 (771 sumatriptan 50 mg, 759 sumatriptan 100 mg, 767 placebo). Patients' mean age ranged from 39.4 to 39.8 years across groups, and most patients were female (90%-92%) and white (89%-90%). A pain-free result 2 hours post dose was reported by significantly more patients who took either dose of sumatriptan tablets compared with placebo and by significantly more patients who took the 100-mg dose compared with the 50-mg dose (50 mg, 49%; 100 mg, 58%; placebo, 24%; P < 0.001, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg). A similar pattern was observed for migraine-free results 2 hours postdose (50 mg, 42%; 100 mg, 47%; placebo, 20%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg), worsening of pain 2 hours postdose (50 mg, 26%; 100 mg, 21%; placebo, 46%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg), and sustained pain-free results from 2 through 24 hours postdose (50 mg, 30%; 100 mg, 35%; placebo, 12%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg). Both doses of sumatriptan were well tolerated, and no dose-related trends in the incidence of individual drug-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of pooled data from 6 clinical trials, sumatriptan tablets 50 mg and 100 mg administered early in a migraine attack while the pain was mild were well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo. The 100-mg dose of sumatriptan was significantly more effective than the 50-mg dose.

Optimizing the Diagnosis and Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE

To describe and discuss short headache questionnaires, which can simplify and improve the diagnosis of migraine.

DATA SOURCES

Review of the worldwide scientific literature on short diagnostic questionnaires for migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

A new three-question Headache Screen addressing disability due to recurring headaches, headache duration, and changes in headache characteristics and/or pattern over the previous 6 months displayed high sensitivity when used to survey >3000 migraineurs, correctly identifying 77% of migraineurs diagnosed by International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, clinical impression, or the presence of recurring, disabling headaches.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The underdiagnosis and undertreatment of migraine are problems that may be attributed to many causes involving both patients and medical providers. These include stringent diagnostic criteria established by the IHS, which fail to easily classify many common migraine presentations, the lack of clear outcome measures of successful management of migraine, and failure to recognize the iatrogenic role of prescription and nonprescription medications as an etiologic factor in chronic daily headache. The recent development of reliable, clinically useful, short headache questionnaires that are focused on headache impact facilitates the understanding and diagnosis of migraine for both patients and healthcare professionals. As a diagnostic tool, the Headache Screen has the potential to expand appropriate medication use, leading to improved functional status and quality of life for migraineurs.

Adverse reactions related to drugs for headache treatment: clinical impact

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical impact of adverse reactions related to drugs for primary headache treatment.

METHODS

We examined the adverse reactions to 360 medications prescribed by the specialists of the Headache Centre of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia to 256 consecutive outpatients (214 female, 42 male; mean age: 38.88 +/- 14.06 years; range 10-72 years). Adverse reactions were reported by patients during scheduled follow-up visits, classified by specialists and reassessed by a clinical pharmacologist.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions with a causal relationship classified as definite/probable/possible were 202 (56%): 62% (80/129) were due to acute treatments and 53% (122/231) to prophylactic treatments (chi2 test, P = 0.115 ns). More than 90% of the adverse reactions were of limited intensity [mild (58%) or moderate (36%)]. Only 5% were severe, and two reactions (1%) were serious. The most affected apparatus was the nervous system (41%). Of these adverse reactions, 43% caused the discontinuance of the treatment, especially of prophylaxis (54%). Patients evaluated 70% of the medications as effective, but, at the same time, they considered most of the adverse reactions (69%) unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

Adverse reactions related to headache medications have a strong impact on patients' management, even if their real intensity and severity are usually very limited. Drugs for headache treatment are still far from being ideal drugs. To prevent the discontinuance of effective medications, the physician, prior to prescribing, should assess, together with the patient, the acceptability of the more common adverse drug reactions.

Optimize migraine management in primary care

Migraine attacks vary in frequency, severity, symptomatology, and degree of disability. The episodic, heterogeneous nature of migraine can be a barrier to the assessment of impact and optimal management. Migraine is often under-diagnosed and undertreated. Optimizing migraine management requires a systematic assessment of symptoms, including the degree of disability and development of an individualized plan of care.

Efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan tablets in a fast-disintegrating, rapid-release formulation for the acute treatment of migraine: Results of a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Sumatriptan tablets have been developed in a fast-disintegrating, rapid-release formulation designed to facilitate tablet disintegration and drug dispersion and to potentially mitigate the effects of gastric stasis that can accompany migraine.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan 50- and 100-mg tablets in a fast-disintegrating, rapid-release formulation compared with those of placebo in patients with migraine.

METHODS

This clinical trial had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design. Exclusion criteria included >6 migraines monthly during either of the 2 months before screening; uncontrolled hypertension; suspected or confirmed cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease; and ophthalmic, basilar, or hemiplegic migraine. Sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg and placebo were taken on an outpatient basis during the mild-pain phase of a single migraine attack. Patients recorded details of the treated migraine on a diary card and rated pain severity immediately before dosing and 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, and 2 hours after dosing using a 4-point scale (from 0 = none to 3 = severe). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients who were pain free 2 hours after dosing. Additional efficacy end points were the proportion of patients who were pain free at 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 1 hour after dosing; the proportion who were migraine free through 2 hours after dosing; and the proportion with a sustained pain-free response.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age ranged from 39.7 to 41.5 years across the 3 groups, and the majority were women (79.7%-85.9%) and white (98.7%-100%). One hundred thirty-seven patients received sumatriptan 50 mg, 142 sumatriptan 100 mg, and 153 placebo. In the intent-to-treat population (n = 432), 51.1% of patients who received sumatriptan 50 mg and 66.2% of patients who received sumatriptan 100 mg were pain free 2 hours after dosing, compared with 19.6% of the placebo group (P < 0.001, each sumatriptan dose vs placebo). In an exploratory analysis, the 2-hour pain-free rate with sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than that with sumatriptan 50 mg (P = 0.007). Significantly more patients who received sumatriptan 100 mg were pain free compared with placebo at 30 minutes (P < 0.01), 45 minutes (P < 0.001), and 1 hour after dosing (P < 0.001); similar pain-free results were observed in patients who received sumatriptan 50 mg at 45 minutes (P < 0.05) and 1 hour (P = 0.01). In the per-protocol population (n = 313), pain-free efficacy 2 hours after dosing was 52.7% with sumatriptan 50 mg and 74.8% with sumatriptan 100 mg, compared with 21.0% with placebo (P < 0.001, each sumatriptan dose vs placebo). These rates were greater than those in the overall study population, approximately 12.0% of whom treated moderate or severe pain. The only drug-related adverse events reported in >/=3% of patients in any treatment group were nausea and vomiting (<1%, 5%, and 2% in the sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg and placebo groups, respectively), chest symptoms (2%, 3%, and 0%), and malaise and fatigue (1%, 3%, and <1%). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, sumatriptan tablets in a fast-disintegrating, rapid-release oral formulation provided pain-free efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Efficacy was maximized with the 100-mg dose compared with the 50-mg dose, and by treating early when pain was mild. In the intent-to-treat population, 51.1% of patients who received sumatriptan 50 mg and 66.2% of those who received sumatriptan 100 mg were pain free 2 hours after dosing. In the per-protocol population, 3 of 4 patients taking the 100-mg tablets for mild pain within 1 hour of its onset were pain free at 2 hours. Sumatriptan tablets were generally well tolerated.