Tolerability and safety of frovatriptan with short- and long-term use for treatment of migraine and in comparison with sumatriptan

Acute Care and Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease involving the brain and its vasculature, typically characterized by recurrent attacks of moderate or severe throbbing headache, accompanied by sensitivity to light and sound, and associated with nausea, vomiting, and inability to move due to worsening of pain. About 30% of migraineurs have some type of aura, most often visual. Migraine attacks, if untreated or suboptimally treated, usually result in significant disability, requiring bed rest and resulting in poor quality of life. Increased frequency of attacks and overuse of acute care medication are significant risks for chronification, resulting in the transformation of episodic migraine into chronic migraine. We aim to review most acute care treatments for migraine.

METHODS

Current treatment options for migraine attacks were reviewed from the selected literature and combined with our clinical experience.

RESULTS

Current acute treatment options for migraine attacks include over-the-counter analgesics, at times combined with caffeine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, opioids, and migraine-specific medications such as triptans and ergots. In the near future, we will probably have 3 gepants (small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] receptor antagonists). The first one was just approved in the United States. A ditan acting as a stimulator of 5-HT1F receptors, was also just approved by the FDA. Stimulation of the trigeminal, vagal, occipital, and even upper arm peripheral nerves through electrical nerve stimulation devices and magnetic stimulation devices are available as alternative, nondrug treatment options. Several devices have already been FDA-allowed for treatment in the United States and/or approved elsewhere, and others will follow soon. Behavioral medicine techniques such as biofeedback training and mindfulness have been available for some time and are often helpful.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of acute care options to treat migraine are available, and others will soon be and will herein be described in further detail. Some medications have been approved by regulatory authorities in countries other than the United States, and some devices have been given a CE Mark in Europe.

Spotlight on frovatriptan: a review of its efficacy in the treatment of migraine

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder, affecting millions of people worldwide. Current guidelines recommend triptans as first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. Frovatriptan is a second-generation triptan with a longer terminal elimination half-life in blood than other triptans (~26 hours). Three double-blind, randomized crossover preference studies have been recently conducted, assessing efficacy and safety of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and almotriptan, respectively. Frovatriptan showed favorable tolerability and sustained effect, with a significantly lower rate of relapse over 48 hours versus the other triptans. These findings were confirmed in a series of analyses of patient subsets from the three studies, including patients with menstrually related and oral contraceptive-induced migraine, hypertension, obesity, weekend migraine, as well as patients with migraine with aura. In all patient subsets analyzed, lower headache recurrence rates were observed versus the comparator triptans, indicating a more sustained pain-relieving effect on migraine symptoms. A further randomized, double-blind study demonstrated that frovatriptan given in combination with the fast-acting cyclooxygenase inhibitor dexketoprofen provided improved migraine pain-free activity at 2 hours, and gave more sustained pain-free activity at 24 hours, versus frovatriptan alone. These benefits were observed both when the combination was administered early (<1 hour after symptom onset) or late (>1 hour after onset). Different pharmacokinetic, but synergistic, properties between frovatriptan and dexketoprofen may make the combination of these agents particularly effective in migraine treatment, with rapid onset of action and sustained effect over 48 hours. These benefits, together with potential cost-effectiveness advantages versus other triptans could drive selection of the most appropriate treatment for acute migraine attacks.

Frovatriptan for The Prevention of Postdural Puncture Headache

Efficacy of 5–day treatment with oral frovatriptan 2.5 mg/die for the prophylaxis of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was tested in 50 in-patients. A mild headache occurred in 7 (14%) patients for a total of 9 days (p < 0.01 vs. no-PDPH). Most episodes of PDPH occurred in the first days of treatment (only 1 patient had headache at dismissal): 5 patients had only 1 episode, while 2 had headache for 2 consecutive days. No other symptoms were recorded. Occurrence of PDPH in a subgroup of 6 (12%) patients previously submitted to a diagnostic lumbar puncture was also examined: 4 of them reported a PDPH on the previous lumbar puncture in absence of triptans. In only 1 of these 4 patients PDPH recurred under treatment with frovatriptan. In conclusion, our non-randomized open-label study suggests efficacy of oral frovatriptan for PDPH prevention. These results need to be confirmed in a randomized, controlled, double-blind study.

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.

A review of frovatriptan for the treatment of menstrual migraine

The objective of this review is to provide an overview of menstrual migraine (MM) and of frovatriptan and to assess clinical trial data regarding the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan for the acute and short-term prophylaxis of MM. Randomized controlled trials comparing frovatriptan with placebo or a triptan comparator for the acute or prophylactic treatment of MM were selected for review. MM affects up to 60% of women with migraine. Compared with attacks at other times of the cycle, menstrual attacks are longer, more severe, less responsive to treatment, more likely to relapse, and more disabling than attacks at other times of the cycle. No drugs are licensed for acute treatment of MM; triptans are recommended for treatment of moderate to severe attacks for menstrual and nonmenstrual attacks. Perimenstrual prophylaxis is indicated for patients with predictable MM that does not respond to symptomatic treatment alone. Treatment is unlicensed, but options include triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and hormone manipulation. Frovatriptan is distinctive from other triptans due to its long elimination half-life of 26 hours, which confers a longer duration of action. Post hoc analyses from randomized trials of MM show similar pain relief and pain-free rates for frovatriptan compared with other triptans (2 hours pain-free: relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.76) but significantly lower relapse rates (24 hours sustained pain-free: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18–0.62). Data from randomized controlled trials show a significant reduction in risk of MM in women using frovatriptan 2.5 mg once daily (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31–1.86) or twice daily (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.68–2.34) for perimenstrual prophylaxis compared with placebo. The twice daily dosing was more effective than once daily (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11–1.46). These findings support the use of frovatriptan as a first-line acute treatment for MM and for perimenstrual prophylaxis.

Efficacy of frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of menstrual migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter studies

The objective of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS criteria) through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. Subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, patients had to switch to the next treatment for other 3 months. 346 subjects formed intention-to-treat population of the main study; 280 of them were of a female gender, 256 had regular menses and 187 were included in the menstrual migraine subgroup analysis. Rate of pain free at 2, 4 and 24 h was 23, 52 and 67 % with F and 30, 61 and 66 % with comparators (P = NS). Pain relief episodes at 2, 4 and 24 h were 37, 60 and 66 % for F and 43, 55 and 61 % for comparators (P = NS). Rate of recurrence was significantly (P < 0.05) lower under F either at 24 h (11 vs. 24 % comparators) or at 48 h (15 vs. 26 % comparators). Number of menstrual migraine attacks associated with drug-related adverse events was equally low (P = NS) between F (5 %) and comparators (4 %).

A review of the use of frovatriptan in the treatment of menstrually related migraine

Menstrual migraine (MM) is a highly prevalent condition associated with considerable disability. Migraine attacks occur exclusively around the menstrual period in approximately 10% of women with migraine, that is, pure menstrual migraine, while at least 50% of them also experience migraine at other times of the month, that is, menstrually related migraine (MRM). The therapeutic approach to patients with MRM is based on treatment of the attack, or prophylactic strategies. Triptans are recommended as first-line treatments for moderate to severe migraine attacks, including MM. Frovatriptan is one of the newest triptans. Its high affinity for 5-HT1B/1D receptors and long half-life contribute to its distinctive clinical effect, characterized by a more sustained and prolonged effect than other triptans. Indeed, frovatriptan proved to be effective in treating the acute attack, but was particularly effective in the short-term preventive therapy of MM. In addition, frovatriptan is one of the safest triptans, with the lowest risk of treatment-emergent adverse events. Following extensive evidence from randomized pharmacological trials, frovatriptan has now gained a grade A recommendation from the guidelines for short-term prophylaxis of MM. Recent post-hoc analyses of direct comparative trials also suggest that frovatriptan might have an important role in the acute treatment of MRM. In these studies, frovatriptan showed pain relief and pain-free rates similar to those of zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, and almotriptan, but with significantly lower recurrence rates. More well-designed, randomized, prospective studies, specifically enrolling women with MM, will be needed in the near future to confirm the efficacy of frovatriptan in this migraine subtype.

Management of acute and chronic migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We highlight the recent clinical trials for the management of acute and chronic migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

In women with menstrual migraine, triptans seem to be well tolerated irrespective of whether or not patients are taking oestrogen-containing contraceptives or have comorbidities that indicate increased cardiovascular risk. The new acute drug, telcagepant, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist, is safe for long-term use (up to 18 months) in migraine patients with stable coronary artery disease in whom the use of triptans is not advisable. From the pooled analysis of the two Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy studies of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) in chronic migraineurs, it clearly emerged that efficacy increases overtime (up to 56 weeks) and paralleled self-perceived improvement in quality of life. Effectiveness was also observed in patients with severely disabling headaches, who met criteria for triptan abuse and were refractory to several prophylactic treatments. Finally, combination of preventive pharmacological agents with different action mechanisms may be the next frontier in therapeutic advancements for treating migraine.

SUMMARY

Although triptans are safe and well tolerated, CGRP antagonists may be an option for nonresponsive patients or those in whom the use of triptans is not advisable. New drugs and combinations of old therapeutic options may help patients with severe forms of headache.

Frovatriptan: a review of its use in the acute treatment of migraine

Frovatriptan (Migard®; Frova®) is an orally administered triptan approved for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, with or without aura. This article reviews the pharmacology of frovatriptan, focusing on its efficacy and tolerability. The precise mechanism of action of frovatriptan is unknown, but is thought to stem from agonism at serotonin 5-HT(1B) and 5-HT(1D) receptors, resulting in inhibition of intracranial and extracerebral artery vasodilation, along with possible anti-inflammatory and pain inhibiting effects. Frovatriptan appears to be functionally selective for 5-HT receptors in human basilar arteries over coronary arteries, which could translate into a low cardiovascular risk. In contrast to other triptans, frovatriptan has a long terminal elimination half-life in blood of ≈26 hours, which can be expected to be associated with a sustained treatment effect. Oral frovatriptan 2.5 mg was efficacious in patients with moderate to severe migraine attacks; in randomized, double-blind trials the proportion of patients with headache response at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was consistently significantly higher in frovatriptan than placebo groups. Frovatriptan was generally well tolerated in short-term clinical trials and when used over the longer term. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events occurring at a frequency ≥1% higher in frovatriptan than placebo recipients were dizziness, fatigue, headache, paraesthesia, flushing, skeletal pain, hot or cold sensation, dry mouth, chest pain and dyspepsia. In a study in patients with coronary artery disease, or who were at high risk of coronary artery disease, there was no increase over placebo in the occurrence of clinically significant ECG changes or in cardiac rhythm disturbances. In a further trial, frovatriptan administered early in a migraine attack was more efficacious than placebo followed by later administration of frovatriptan as pain progressed. Three crossover trials compared early administration of frovatriptan 2.5 mg with almotriptan 12.5 mg, rizatriptan 10 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg in patients with migraine. There were no significant between-group differences in patient drug preference scores (primary endpoint) or in other endpoints, except for headache recurrence, which favoured frovatriptan in two of the trials. The trials did not test noninferiority of frovatriptan to the comparator. In a placebo-controlled trial that included a sumatriptan active treatment arm, sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly more efficacious than frovatriptan 2.5 mg for this primary endpoint. Frovatriptan was generally better tolerated than all four triptan comparators. In summary, frovatriptan was an efficacious acute treatment for moderate to severe migraine attacks and had a favourable tolerability profile, although in a single trial, it was not as efficacious as sumatriptan. Administration of frovatriptan early in an attack while the attack was at a mild level of intensity was more efficacious than late administration. Furthermore, in clinical trials adopting this early administration strategy, frovatriptan was not significantly less efficacious than almotriptan, rizatriptan and zolmitriptan, appeared to have a more sustained treatment effect, and was better tolerated than the comparators. Frovatriptan provides an alternative treatment for migraine, especially in patients who have had adverse events or frequent headache recurrences with triptans or other antimigraine drugs, and who are amenable to adopting an early administration strategy.

Frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian studies

The objective of the study is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. 414 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F 2.5 mg or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting not more than 3 months. The number of pain free (PF) and pain relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and the number of sustained pain free (SPF) and recurrent episodes within the 48 h were the efficacy endpoints. 346 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 30% with F and 34% with comparators (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 55% for F and 59% for comparators (p = NS). SPF episodes at 48 h were also similar between the two groups (22% F vs. 21% comparators). Rate of recurrence was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under F (27 vs. 40% comparators). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F, particularly cardiovascular symptoms. Our systematic analysis of individual studies suggests that F has a similar immediate efficacy, but a more sustained effect and a better tolerability than R, Z and A.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment.

Triptans for the management of migraine

Migraine is a chronic, recurrent, disabling condition that affects millions of people in the US and worldwide. Proper acute care treatment for migraineurs is essential for a full return of function and productivity. Triptans are serotonin (5-HT)(1B/1D) receptor agonists that are generally effective, well tolerated and safe. Seven triptans are available worldwide, although not all are available in every country, with multiple routes of administration, giving doctors and patients a wide choice. Despite the similarities of the available triptans, pharmacological heterogeneity offers slightly different efficacy profiles. All triptans are superior to placebo in clinical trials, and some, such as rizatriptan 10 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, almotriptan 12.5 mg, and zolmitriptan 2.5 and 5 mg are very similar to each other and to the prototype triptan, sumatriptan 100 mg. These five are known as the fast-acting triptans. Increased dosing can offer increased efficacy but may confer a higher risk of adverse events, which are usually mild to moderate and transient in nature. This paper critically reviews efficacy, safety and tolerability for the different formulations of sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, eletriptan and frovatriptan.

Frovatriptan versus zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine: a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study

The objective of this study is to assess patients' satisfaction with migraine treatment with frovatriptan (F) or zolmitriptan (Z), by preference questionnaire. 133 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting no more than 3 months. At the end of the study, patients were asked to assign preference to one of the treatments (primary endpoint). The number of pain-free (PF) and pain-relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and number of recurrent and sustained pain-free (SPF) episodes within 48 h were the secondary study endpoints. Seventy-seven percent of patients expressed a preference. Average score of preference was 2.9 +/- 1.3 (F) versus 3.0 +/- 1.3 (Z; p = NS). Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 26% with F and 31% with Z (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 57% for F and 58% for Z (p = NS). Rate of recurrence was 21 (F) and 24% (Z; p = NS). Time to recurrence within 48 h was better for F especially between 4 and 16 h (p < 0.05). SPF episodes were 18 (F) versus 22% (Z; p = NS). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F (3 vs. 10). In conclusion, our study suggests that F has a similar efficacy of Z, with some advantage as regards tolerability and recurrence.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1-3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9±1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2±1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p<0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p=NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

Safety and tolerability of frovatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine and prevention of menstrual migraine: Results of a new analysis of data from five previously published studies

BACKGROUND

Triptans are a recommended first-line treatment for moderate to severe migraine.

OBJECTIVE

Using clinical trial data, we evaluated the safety and tolerability of frovatriptan as acute treatment (AT) and as short-term preventive (STP) therapy for menstrual migraine (MM).

METHODS

Data from 2 Phase III AT trials (AT1: randomized, placebo controlled, 1 attack; AT2: 12-months, noncomparative, open label) and 3 Phase IIIb STP trials in MM (MMP1 and MMP2: randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, 3 perimenstrual periods; MMP3: open label, noncomparative, 12 perimenstrual periods) were analyzed. In AT1, patients treated each attack with frovatriptan 2.5 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, or placebo. In AT2, they used frovatriptan 2.5 mg. In MMP1 and MMP2, women administered frovatriptan 2.5 mg for 6 days during the perimenstrual period, taking a loading dose of 2 or 4 tablets on day 1, followed by once-daily or BID frovatriptan 2.5 mg, respectively; in MMP3, they used BID frovatriptan 2.5 mg. In AT1, which was previously published in part, group differences in adverse events (AEs) were analyzed using the Fisher exact test, and response rates were compared using logistic regression. Post hoc analyses of sustained pain-free status with no AEs (SNAE) and sustained pain response with no AEs (SPRNAE) were performed using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions without continuity correction. For AT2 and the STP studies, data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results of individual safety analyses for the STP studies were previously reported; the present report includes new results from a pooled analysis of MMP1 and MMP2 and a new analysis of MMP3 in which AEs were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 8.0.

RESULTS

AT1 included 1206 patients in the safety group; AT2 included 496. In the STP studies, safety data were collected for 1487 women. In AT1 and AT2, 85.6% and 88.3%, respectively, of enrolled patients were women. Overall, AEs were generally mild to moderate (AT studies: 82.3%-90.0%; STP studies: 78.9%89.5%). In AT1, 27.3% (131/480) of frovatriptan patients, 33.4% (161/482) of sumatriptan patients, and 14.8% (36/244) of placebo patients experienced an AE considered possibly or probably related to treatment (P < 0.001 for either drug vs placebo).There were no significant differences between frovatriptan and sumatriptan in SNAE at 4 to 24 hours or in SPRNAE at 2 to 24 hours or at 4 to 24 hours. In randomized, controlled STP trials for MM, AEs were reported by 57.8% (166/287, BID) and 63.4% (210/331, once daily) of frovatriptan users versus 62.8% (216/344) of placebo recipients. There were no consistent differences in AEs reported by patients with potential cardiovascular risk or in AEs related to the use of estrogencontaining contraceptives (ECCs).

CONCLUSIONS

In randomized controlled trials and 12-month open-label studies, frovatriptan was well tolerated in these women during AT and STP therapy for MM. Subgroup analyses provide preliminary evidence of tolerability in women using ECCs and in women with comorbidities that do not contraindicate triptan use but may be suggestive of cardiovascular risk.

Safety and tolerability of short-term preventive frovatriptan: a combined analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and tolerability profile of the 5-HT(1B/1D) agonist frovatriptan (Frova(R), Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Chadds Ford, PA, USA) when used as a 6-day regimen for the short-term prevention of menstrual migraine scheduled over multiple perimenstrual periods.

BACKGROUND

Two randomized controlled trials have established the efficacy of a 6-day regimen of frovatriptan for reducing the incidence and severity of menstrual migraine over 1 to 3 perimenstrual periods; long-term data are needed to further assess the safety and tolerability profile of this regimen.

METHODS

Two multinational trials were included in the analysis: Study 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind parallel trial (3 perimenstrual periods treated) with an open-label extension (3 additional perimenstrual periods treated), and Study 2 was a long-term (12 perimenstrual periods treated over 12-15 months) open-label study. Enrolled women experienced menstrual migraine defined as predictable migraine attacks that started -2 days to +3 (Study 1) or +4 (Study 2) days relative to the first day of menses and that occurred in at least 2 out of 3 menstrual cycles. Frovatriptan or placebo was given 2 days before anticipated menstrual migraine and continued for 6 days. Adverse events, serious adverse events, vital signs, cardiovascular events, electrocardiograms, and laboratory parameters were assessed and recorded periodically and summarized using descriptive statistics. Adverse event data from Study 1 and Study 2 were compared using event rates.

RESULTS

The demographic characteristics of the 2 study populations were similar: the mean age was approximately 38 years, > or =94% of participants were white, and 85% reported menstrual migraine began on days -2 to +1 of the menstrual cycle. The mean reported history of menstrual migraine was approximately 11 years. A large percentage of the respective safety populations completed each study or study period: 87% (362/416) and 88% (273/309) completed the double-blind period and open-label periods of Study 1, respectively, and 59% (308/525) completed treatment of 12 perimenstrual periods in Study 2. Major reasons for discontinuation in Study 1 included adverse events (5%, double-blind period) and "other" (10% double-blind period and 5% open-label period). In Study 2, major reasons for discontinuation included patient request (17.3%) and adverse event (10.2%). The most common treatment emergent adverse events in the double-blind period of Study 1 (placebo vs frovatriptan twice daily) were upper respiratory infection (9% vs 9%), nausea (6% vs 8%), dizziness (7% vs 7%), fatigue (4% vs 7%), dysmenorrhea (3% vs 7%), influenza (3% vs 6%), neck pain (4% vs 6%), and migraine (4% vs 4%). With the exception of migraine (which was reported using a different method in each study), prevalence rates for Studies 1 and 2 were numerically similar. The most frequently reported cardiovascular adverse events during double-blind treatment (placebo vs frovatriptan twice daily) were chest discomfort (2% and 3%), chest pain (2% and 2%), and hypertension (0 and 2%). The corresponding adverse event rates in Study 2 were 2% (chest pain), 3% (chest discomfort), and 3% (hypertension). In both studies, most adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity and their incidence numerically declined with each perimenstrual period/cycle, as did the incidence of menstrual migraine. The observed rate of intercurrent migraine in Study 2 over 12 perimenstrual periods was 1.5 per month, compared with 1.7 at baseline. There was no observable increase in the first occurrence of migraine in the 5 days following the perimenstrual period, indicating a lack of rebound headache.

CONCLUSIONS

During treatment of up to 12 perimenstrual periods over a 12- to 15-month period, the safety and tolerability of frovatriptan for short-term prevention of menstrual migraine was similar to that observed with acute use of triptans. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity, there was no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events relative to acute treatment, and rebound headache was not evident. A short-term regimen with frovatriptan presents a safe and viable treatment option for preventing predictable migraine such as menstrual migraine.

Clinical and economic comparison of frovatriptan versus other oral triptans in the treatment of acute migraine in the real-world setting

Triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists) such as frovatriptan have been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with acute migraine. However, the large number of available triptans has led to the issue of how best to decide which triptan should be prescribed at an individual patient level. This review focuses on frovatriptan and highlights parameters that affect oral triptan choice, discusses the results of several open-label clinical and post-marketing surveillance studies of frovatriptan, and compares these naturalistic data with those from similar studies of other oral triptans. Efficacy data obtained from these trials are used to compare costs of treating migraine with frovatriptan and other oral triptans in four European countries. Studies of triptans in migraine have used several outcomes deemed important to patients, including complete pain relief, absence of recurrence, rapid onset of action, no side effects, restoration of functional ability, improvements in quality of life, and cost. In contrast to indirect evidence from some individual randomized, double-blind studies, results from open-label naturalistic studies and a meta-analysis of 31 placebo-controlled efficacy studies suggest that frovatriptan is associated with a lower rate of migraine recurrence than with other triptans in a real-world clinical setting (17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg vs 23-40% for other triptans in the meta-analysis). It is likely that this may be due to the terminal elimination half-life of this agent (about 26 hours), which is longer than that of other triptans. Naturalistic studies indicate that the long duration of action of frovatriptan appears to confer other benefits such as greater patient satisfaction, with over 90% of patients and doctors rating frovatriptan therapy as 'very good' or 'good'. The cost of treatment with different triptans based on the number of tablets required per episode varies widely in each of the four countries analysed (Great Britain Pound 4.95-7.98 in France, Great Britain Pound 6.78-12.58 in Germany, Great Britain Pound 4.32-9.73 in the UK and Great Britain Pound 6.69-10.36 in Italy, based on lowest possible costs for branded versions in 2008) due to differences in both the acquisition costs of these agents and in the headache recurrence rates. Frovatriptan compares favourably with other available triptans with regard to cost per migraine attack on this basis, although head-to-head studies are required to confirm these data. The low rate of headache recurrence with frovatriptan compared with other oral triptans, and the associated lower treatment costs, deserve consideration when choosing an oral triptan for the treatment of patients with acute migraine.

Postmarketing migraine survey of frovatriptan: effectiveness and tolerability vs previous triptans, NSAIDs or a combination

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness and tolerability of current therapy with frovatriptan 2.5-mg tablets (in 1-3 migraines) in patients with migraine previously using other triptans, analgesics/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or triptans and NSAIDs (T+NSAIDs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subanalysis of a postmarketing survey study in patients with migraine managed at primary care facilities in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A total of 5025 patients rated the effectiveness and tolerability of previous therapy (triptans; T+NSAIDs; NSAIDs) and current therapy with frovatriptan; physicians rated only frovatriptan effectiveness and tolerability (1 = Very Good, 2 = Good, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Poor).

RESULTS

Of 7107 patients initially surveyed, 5025 were identified for this subanalysis as previously using NSAIDs (n = 2890), triptans (n = 1418) or T + NSAIDs (n = 717). The mean (SD) age was 42.3 (11.9) years. At baseline, patients who previously used NSAIDs reported significantly fewer migraines per month, lower migraine severity, shorter migraine duration, and poorer ratings for effectiveness and tolerability versus responses from patients previously using triptans or T + NSAIDs (P < 0. 001 for each). Patient effectiveness ratings of Very Good or Good for previous therapy occurred in 49% (n = 691 of 1411) of patients using triptans, 27% (n = 195 of 716) of patients using T + NSAIDs, and 11% (n = 303 of 2866) of patients using NSAIDs (P < 0.04 between each group). Most patients rated current therapy with frovatriptan as Very Good or Good for effectiveness (86%, triptans; 83%, T + NSAIDs; 94%, NSAIDs) and tolerability (95%; 95%; 97%). Most physicians rated frovatriptan as Very Good or Good for effectiveness (87%; 86%; 95%) and tolerability (96%; 96%; 98%). Within-patient comparisons confirmed that frovatriptan had improved effectiveness (P < 0.001) and tolerability ratings (P < 0.001) in all three groups versus previous therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrapatient comparisons showed that most patients with migraine reported significantly improved effectiveness and tolerability ratings with frovatriptan versus previous acute therapies.

Pharmacokinetics of two 6-day frovatriptan dosing regimens used for the short-term prevention of menstrual migraine: A phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover, single-centre study in healthy female volunteers

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of once- and twice-daily frovatriptan given for 6 days, a regimen that has previously been reported to reduce the incidence and severity of menstrual migraine when administered during the perimenstrual period.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study carried out in healthy premenopausal female volunteers aged >or=18 years (equal number taking or not taking estrogen-containing contraceptives [ECCs]) who were admitted to a clinical pharmacology unit. Women alternately received frovatriptan once daily (day 1: 5 mg; days 2-6: 2.5 mg) and twice daily (day 1: 5 mg [10 mg total]; days 2-6: 2.5 mg [5 mg total]) in a randomized treatment sequence. Dosing was also random with respect to the menstrual cycle. Whole blood samples were obtained on days 1 and 6 (predose and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 [before evening dose], 13, 14, 16 and 18 hours post-dose) and on days 2-5 (samples were taken before the morning dose). A final sample was drawn at 24 hours after the last treatment on day 6. A fully validated liquid chromatography assay coupled to a tandem mass spectroscopy assay measured drug concentrations (simultaneous measurement of frovatriptan and its metabolites). Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using a noncompartmental approach. Safety and tolerability were measured by monitoring adverse events, haematology and biochemistry, vital signs, ECG results and physical examination findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-six healthy women participated in the study and 24 (12 ECC users and 12 ECC nonusers) completed the study. One ECC user during period 1 and one nonuser during period 2 withdrew before completion; both were taking frovatriptan once daily. Most women were White (n = 21), three were Black, and one each was Hispanic or Asian; mean +/- SD age was 25.4 +/- 4.9 years; and mean +/- SD weight was 61.9 +/- 6.5 kg. For both once- and twice-daily dosing, time to reach maximum blood concentration (C(max)) [t(max)] was in the range of 2-4 hours. The loading dose enabled steady state (defined as constant trough blood concentration [C(min)]) to be reached by day 2 with both regimens. Geometric mean C(max) and area under the blood concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC(12)) were higher with twice- versus once-daily dosing (day 1: p < 0.02; day 6: p < 0.001 for both). C(min) was lower with once- (range 0.8-1.7 ng/mL) versus twice-daily frovatriptan (range 1.7-3.6 ng/mL). The ratio of C(max) : C(min) on days 1 and 6 was lower with twice- than with once-daily dosing, indicating less fluctuation in frovatriptan blood concentrations. ECC users had 26-68% higher C(max) and AUC from 0 to 24 hours values than nonusers on days 1 and 6 (p < 0.02); the clinical relevance of this is not known. Both dosing regimens were well tolerated; one incident of vomiting and one of headache were rated as moderate, with all other adverse events being rated as mild.

CONCLUSION

Both frovatriptan regimens achieved steady-state therapeutic blood concentrations by day 2. Twice-daily dosing maintained more consistent drug concentrations than once-daily dosing and was well tolerated.

Rapid responders to frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment: results from a long-term, open-label study

BACKGROUND

The chronic nature of migraine and the reliance on acute treatment constitute the basis of the present long-term, open-label study.

OBJECTIVES

First, assessment of the tolerability and safety of frovatriptan, 2.5-7.5 mg taken orally over 24 hours, for the acute treatment of migraine, repeatedly over a 12-month period. Second, assessment of the efficacy and tolerability of a second, double-blind dose of 2.5-mg frovatriptan, compared with placebo, for nonresponse at 2 hours after treatment of moderate or severe headache with 2.5-mg frovatriptan.

RESULTS

With regard to the first attack treated, 173 (36%) of the 486 subjects in the study did not take a second dose at 2 hours for nonresponse. At 2 hours and 4 hours, these "rapid responders" experienced a decrease in headache intensity from moderate or severe to mild or no pain in 84% and 98%, respectively ("headache response"). Six percent of them experienced recurrence of moderate or severe headache within 24 hours following a response at 4 hours and 12% took rescue medication. The response, measured in terms of median time to "complete migraine relief," was maintained over 30 subsequent migraine attacks, treated from attack 2 onwards over the course of 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Frovatriptan provides a remarkably fast and high headache response in a subgroup of more than one-third of migraineurs, with a very low 24-hour headache recurrence and low rescue medication intake.

Acute migraine in the Emergency Department: extending European principles of management

The World Health Organization (WHO) placed migraine 19th among all causes of disability (12th in women) measured in years of healthy life lost to disability (YLD). The importance of headache disorders, particularly of the primary forms, is established by their distribution worldwide, their duration (the majority being life-long conditions) and their imposition of both disability and life-style restrictions among large numbers of people. For these reasons, headache disorders should represent a public-health priority. In the Emergency Department (ED), as elsewhere, migraine is often under-diagnosed-and under-treated when it is diagnosed. The result is likely to be failure of treatment. Particular attention to diagnosis is needed in ED patients with acute headache, since there is a higher probability of secondary headache due to underlying pathologies. According to European principles of management, acute migraine treatment generally is stepwise. Of the two main steps, the first relies on symptomatic medication, preferably NSAIDs with or without antiemetics. The second step uses specific therapies, usually triptans. Modifications to routine practice are appropriate in the ED. Parenteral administration of symptomatic therapies is a preferred first choice, whilst immediate resort to triptans may be appropriate, and achieve better outcomes, in patients with severe headache and diagnostic confirmation of migraine.

Oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine. Clinical aspects and response to frovatriptan

Oral contraceptive-induced menstrual migraine (OCMM) is a poorly defined migraine subtype mainly triggered by the cyclic pill suspension. In this pilot, open-label trial we describe its clinical features and evaluate the efficacy of frovatriptan in the treatment of its acute attack. During the first 3 months of the study 20 women (mean age 32.2+/-7.0, range 22-46) with a 6-month history of pure OCMM recorded, in monthly diary cards, clinical information about their migraine. During the 4th menstrual cycle they treated an OCMM attack with frovatriptan 2.5 mg. The majority of attacks were moderate/severe and lasted 25-72 h or more, in the presence of usual treatment. Generally an OCMM attack appeared within the first 5 days after the pill suspension, but in 15% of cases it started later. After frovatriptan administration, headache intensity progressively decreased (2.4 at onset, 1.6 after 2 h, 1.1 after 4 h and 0.8 after 24 h; p=0.0001). In 55% of patients pain relief was reported after 2 h. Ten percent of subjects were pain-free subjects after 2 h, 35% after 4 h and 60% after 24 h (p=0.003 for trend); 36% relapsed within 24 h. Rescue medication was needed by 35% of patients; 50% of frovatriptan-treated required a second dose. Concomitant nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia decreased significantly after drug intake. OCMM is a severe form of migraine; actually its clinical features are not always exactly identified by the ICHD-II classification. However, treatment with frovatriptan 2.5 mg might be effective in its management.

Review of frovatriptan in the treatment of migraine

Triptans are recommended for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine or failure to respond to other acute migraine treatments. Seven triptans are available providing a wide range of choices. These triptans are more similar than dissimilar but patients do note differences in effectiveness and in tolerance. Also migraine situations may differ from attack to attack, providing the opportunity to exploit the uniqueness of a particular triptan. Frovatriptan has a uniquely long-half life, five times that of other triptans. This provides the opportunity to use frovatriptan in mini-prophylaxis such as in menstrual-related migraine and other situations, as well as use in long-lasting or recurrent migraine.

Frovatriptan vs. transdermal oestrogens or naproxen sodium for the prophylaxis of menstrual migraine

Acute treatment of menstrual migraine (MM) attacks is often incomplete and unsatisfactory, and perimenstrual prophylaxis with triptans, oestrogen supplementation or naproxen sodium may be needed for decreasing frequency and severity of the attack. In this pilot, open-label, non-randomised, parallel group study we evaluated, in 38 women with a history of MM, the efficacy of frovatriptan (n=14) 2.5 mg per os or transdermal oestrogens (n=10) 25 microg or naproxen sodium (n=14) 500 mg per os once-daily for the short-term prevention of MM. All treatments were administered in the morning for 6 days, beginning 2 days before the expected onset of menstrual headache. All women were asked to fill in a diary card, in the absence of (baseline) and under treatment, in order to score headache severity. All women reported at least one episode of MM at baseline. During treatment all patients taking transdermal oestrogens or naproxen sodium and 13 out of the 14 patients (93%) taking frovatriptan had at least one migraine attack (p=0.424). Daily incidence of migraine was significantly (p=0.045) lower under frovatriptan than under transdermal oestrogens or NS. At baseline, the overall median score of headache severity was 4.6, 4.2 and 4.3 in the group subsequently treated with frovatriptan, transdermal oestrogens and naproxen sodium, respectively (p=0.819). During treatment the median score was significantly lower under frovatriptan (2.5) than under transdermal oestrogens (3.0) and naproxen sodium (3.9, p=0.049). This was evident also for each single day of observation (p=0.016). Among treatments differences were particularly evident for the subgroup of patients with true MM (n=22) and for frovatriptan vs. naproxen sodium. This study suggests that short-term prophylaxis of MM with frovatriptan may be more effective than that based on transdermal oestrogens or naproxen sodium.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical trials of frovatriptan were systematically identified through electronic searches and historical searches up until February 2005. Studies were included if they were (i) double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials that evaluated frovatriptan 2.5 mg in acute migraine treatment and (ii) reporting the efficacy data in terms of pain-free, headache response, headache recurrence, or relief of migraine-associated symptoms. Two authors extracted data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The efficacy was estimated using risk ratio (RR), risk difference, and number needed to treat together with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five trials involving a total of 2,866 patients were included. Frovatriptan 2.5 mg was more effective than placebo in rendering patient pain-free (RR 3.70, 95% CI 2.59-5.29, P < 0.0001 at 2 h and 2.67, 95% CI 2.21-3.22, P < 0.0001 at 4 h post-dose). It was also superior to placebo in reducing headache severity. The pooled RR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.48-1.88, P < 0.0001) and 1.83 (95% CI 1.66-2.00, P < 0.0001), respectively, at 2 and 4 h after treatment. In those whose headache was relieved at 4 h, the risk of headache recurrence within 24 h was reduced by 26% with frovatriptan (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.93, P = 0.009). Frovatriptan was also superior to placebo in improving symptoms associated with migraine. At 2 h after dosing, frovatriptan reduced the risk of nausea by 14% (95% CI 6-20%, P = 0.0005), photophobia 17% (95% CI 12-22%, P < 0.0001), and phonophobia 14% (95% CI 17-20%, P < 0.0001). The corresponding numbers at 4 h after dosing were 37% (95% CI 30-43%, P < 0.0001), 34% (95% CI 29-39%, P < 0.0001) and 30% (95% CI 23-36%, P < 0.0001), respectively. Frovatriptan caused more adverse events than did placebo (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.62, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that frovatriptan is more effective but may cause more adverse events than placebo in the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine. It is effective in providing pain relief and reducing the risk of recurrence. However, its effectiveness relative to other more established agents needs to be better defined by appropriate head to head trials.

Frovatriptan: clinical review and future directions

Triptan medications are selective serotonin receptor (5-HT1B/D) agonists approved for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Among the currently available triptans, frovatriptan is unique with a long half-life (~26 h), metabolism by multiple pathways and a low side-effect profile. Clinical trial data demonstrates efficacy for frovatriptan across multiple doses, with the 2.5 mg dose selected for lower side effects. Frovatriptan is approved for use in the conventional treatment of an ongoing migraine attack, as are the other currently available triptan medications. The long half-life of frovatriptan has led to the initiation of studies of frovatriptan for the short-term prevention of menstrually related migraine attacks, during which patients are often difficult to treat. This newly investigated treatment approach for patients with predictable menstrually related migraine may, in the future, lead to treatment paradigms that benefit those patients with migraine attacks that are difficult to manage.

Evaluating the safety and tolerability profile of acute treatments for migraine

Among the medications that have been used as acute treatments for migraine are nonspecific agents, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics (either single or combination), and narcotics, as well as migraine-specific medications, including ergot alkaloids and triptans (5-hydroxytryptamine 1B/1D agonists). All of these drugs have side effects that vary in type and severity. Side effects of nonspecific medications, including gastrointestinal (GI) and renal effects with NSAIDs and cognitive effects and the potential for abuse with narcotics and butalbital-containing medications, have been documented over time, as these medications have been used for various indications. Side effects of the migraine-specific medications include GI and vascular symptoms with the ergots; for the triptans, they include chest and neurologic symptoms. Although adverse events are reported fairly frequently in patients receiving triptans, they are usually mild, and few patients discontinue therapy because of them. The most serious adverse events are cardiovascular. Because of potential vasoconstrictor effects--mild and transient increases in blood pressure and mild and transient effects on coronary artery tone--triptans as a class are contraindicated in patients with established or clinically suspected cardiovascular disease, specifically ischemic heart disease and uncontrolled hypertension. Other adverse events, including the potential for drug-drug interactions, are less common. Therefore, consideration should be given to the tolerability and safety of medications before their use as abortive medications for the treatment of migraine headache.

Frovatriptan use in migraineurs with or at high risk of coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cardiovascular effects of frovatriptan 2.5 mg during a migraine attack in patients with, or at high risk of, coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Rare occurrences of myocardial ischemia and coronary and peripheral vasospasm associated with the use of sumatriptan have triggered concern over the vasoconstrictor properties of the triptan class of drugs.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 14 US private headache referral centers or clinics. Seventy-five patients, aged 18 years and older, with a history of migraine who were at high risk (Framingham score > or =14) of or who had previously documented coronary artery disease were evaluated.

RESULTS

Incidence of clinically significant electrocardiogram changes was higher at all time points postdose with placebo than with frovatriptan, reaching statistical significance at 4 hours (40% versus 19%, P=.026). Similar proportions of patients had ischemia documented on Holter monitoring in the placebo (13%) and frovatriptan (11%) groups, and the incidence of arrhythmias was higher in the placebo group (11% versus 3%). There were no clinically significant changes in heart rate or blood pressure in either group. Adverse event profiles were similar for placebo and frovatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory study of migraineurs with, or at high risk of, coronary artery disease, frovatriptan 2.5 mg was well tolerated and not associated with an increase in cardiovascular monitoring abnormalities.

Cardiovascular tolerability and safety of triptans: a review of clinical data

Triptans are not widely used in clinical practice despite their well-established efficacy, endorsement by the US Headache Consortium, and the demonstrable need to employ effective intervention to reduce migraine-associated disability. Although the relatively restricted use of triptans may be attributed to several factors, research suggests that prescribers' concerns about cardiovascular safety prominently figure in limiting their use. This article reviews clinical data--including results of clinical trials, postmarketing studies and surveillance, and pharmacodynamic studies--relevant to assessing the cardiovascular safety profile of the triptans. These data demonstrate that triptans are generally well tolerated. Chest symptoms occurring during use of triptans are usually nonserious and usually not attributed to ischemia. Incidence of triptan-associated serious cardiovascular adverse events in both clinical trials and clinical practice appears to be extremely low. When they do occur, serious cardiovascular events have most often been reported in patients at significant cardiovascular risk or in those with overt cardiovascular disease. Adverse cardiovascular events also have occurred, however, in patients without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Several lines of evidence suggest that nonischemic mechanisms are responsible for sumatriptan-associated chest symptoms, although the mechanism of chest symptoms has not been determined to date. Importantly, most of the clinical trials and clinical practice data on triptans are derived from patients without known cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the conclusions of this review cannot be extended to patients with cardiovascular disease. The cardiovascular safety profile of triptans favors their use in the absence of contraindications.

Frovatriptan succinate, a 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist for migraine

Frovatriptan succinate is one of the most recent serotonin receptor agonists to receive FDA, approved labelling for use in the acute management of migraine with or without aura in adults. The mechanism of action of frovatriptan is thought to be similar to that of a serotonin agonist. However, frovatriptan has distinctive pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic properties, chiefly, a high affinity for serotonin receptors 1B and 1D and a long elimination half-life; frovatriptan was shown to be more selective for cerebral than coronary arteries, a property which makes frovatriptan more favourable in patients at risk of coronary artery disease. Additionally, frovatriptan has a half-life of approximately 25 h, substantially longer than that of any other agent within its class. This property makes frovatriptan suitable for patients who typically suffer migraines of long duration and/or those who suffer migraine recurrence. The efficacy of frovatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine was demonstrated in five double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials. At 2h, headache response rates for frovatriptan 2.5 mg ranged from 38 to 40% compared to 22-35% for placebo. Headache recurrence for frovatriptan 2.5 mg at 24h ranged from 9 to 14% compared with 18% in placebo subjects. Frovatriptan has no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with drugs used for migraine prophylaxis or with commonly prescribed medications. Adverse effects of frovatriptan including dizziness, paresthesia, dry mouth, fatigue and flushing were generally mild and well tolerated. Given the fact that patient response to serotonin agonists is individualised, and selecting an effective agent may involve trial and error, frovatriptan is a welcome alternative in the acute management of migraine.

The 40-mg dose of eletriptan: comparative efficacy and tolerability versus sumatriptan 100 mg

Meta-analysis provides valuable information regarding relative efficacies of triptans, but head-to-head comparator studies remain the gold standard. Three similar head-to-head trials comparing eletriptan 40 mg (E40) with sumatriptan 100 mg (S100) provide a rare opportunity and sufficient power, for robust comparisons of efficacy. Data were combined from three double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-dose, first-attack acute migraine treatment studies comparing E40 (n=1132), S100 (n=1129), and placebo (n=645). The primary outcome was headache response at 2 h. Secondary outcomes included headache response at 1 h, pain-free and functional responses, and sustained headache and pain-free responses. Odds ratios were calculated for summary estimates of probability of response. There were higher headache response rates with eletriptan versus sumatriptan at 2 h (67% vs. 57%; P<0.0001) and 1 h (34% vs. 26%; P<0.0001). Eletriptan also had higher 2 h pain-free (35% vs. 25%; P<0.0001) and functional responses (67% vs. 58%; P<0.0001). Sustained headache (42%) and pain-free (22%) response rates were higher for eletriptan versus sumatriptan (34%, P<0.0001; 15%, P<0.0001). The probability of response for eletriptan versus sumatriptan ranged from 36% higher (relief of nausea) to 64% higher (sustained pain-free rate). Combined analysis demonstrates that E40 has superior efficacy versus S100 across all clinically relevant outcomes.