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

Rhodium(III)-Catalyzed C-H Cascade Annulation of Arylhydrazines with 2-Diazo-1,3-indandiones for the Synthesis of Tetracyclic Indeno[1,2-b]indoles

An efficient approach for the preparation of tetracyclic indeno[1,2-b]indoles via Rh(III)-catalyzed C-H cascade annulation between arylhydrazines and diazo indan-1,3-diones has been established. In addition, a series of indeno[1,2-b]indoles were obtained in up to 96% yield with a wide range of substrates and high functional group tolerance. Finally, the diverse transformations of the desired products demonstrate the synthetic utility and utilization of this protocol.

Carbazole Derivatives as Potential Antimicrobial Agents

Microbial infection is a leading cause of death worldwide, resulting in around 1.2 million deaths annually. Due to this, medicinal chemists are continuously searching for new or improved alternatives to combat microbial infections. Among many nitrogen-containing heterocycles, carbazole derivatives have shown significant biological activities, of which its antimicrobial and antifungal activities are the most studied. In this review, miscellaneous carbazole derivatives and their antimicrobial activity are discussed (articles published from 1999 to 2022).

The Therapeutic Prospects of Naturally Occurring and Synthetic Indole Alkaloids for Depression and Anxiety Disorders

Depression and anxiety are the most common disorders among all age groups. Several antidepressant drugs including benzodiazepine, antidepressant tricyclics, azapirone, noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, serotonin, noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors have been used to treat these psychiatric disorders. However, these antidepressants are generally synthetic agents and can cause a wide range of side effects. The potential efficacy of plant-derived alkaloids has been reviewed against various neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer's disease, Huntington disease, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, and epilepsy. However, data correlating the indole alkaloids and antidepressant activity are limited. Natural products, especially plants and the marine environment, are rich sources of potential new drugs. Plants possess a variety of indole alkaloids, and compounds that have an indole moiety are related to serotonin, which is a neurotransmitter that regulates brain function and cognition, which in turn alleviates anxiety, and ensures a good mood and happiness. The present review is a summary of the bioactive compounds from plants and marine sources that contain the indole moiety, which can serve as potent antidepressants. The prospects of naturally occurring as well as synthetic indole alkaloids for the amelioration of anxiety and depression-related disorders, structure-activity relationship, and their therapeutic prospects have been discussed.

The efficacy of dexketoprofen for migraine attack: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of dexketoprofen for migraine attack remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of dexketoprofen supplementation versus placebo on pain control in migraine attack patients.

METHODS

We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through March 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dexketoprofen supplementation versus placebo on pain control for migraine attack patients. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs involving 794 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for migraine attack, dexketoprofen supplementation is associated with substantially increased pain free at 2 hours (RR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.43-2.53; P < .0001), pain free at 48 hours (RR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.07-2.49; P = .02), good or excellent treatment (RR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.24-1.78; P < .0001) and pain relief at 2 hours (RR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.17-2.77; P = .007), as well as reduced need for rescue drug (RR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.43-0.94; P = .02), with no significant increase in adverse events (RR = 1.51; 95% CI = 0.87-2.62; P = .14).

CONCLUSION

Dexketoprofen supplementation benefits to improve pain control at 48 hours and reduce the need for rescue drug in migraine attack patients.

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.

Efficacy and pharmacokinetic activity of frovatriptan compared to rizatriptan in patients with moderate-to-severe migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a painful neurological disorder that affects over 10% of the general population. Frovatriptan and rizatriptan are antimigraine agents belonging to the triptan class. Although previous studies have independently compared the efficacy of these agents, contemporaneous data examining both pharmacokinetic (PK) properties and efficacy in parallel have not previously been available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center double-blind study, 18 subjects (ten female) were treated for a single migraine attack with frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg. Plasma concentrations were measured predose and at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after drug administration. The primary end point of this study was to evaluate the association between PK parameters and efficacy measures and recurrence rate. Secondary end points were pain-free and pain-relief episodes at 2 and 4 hours, recurrent episodes within 48 hours, and cumulative hazard of recurrence within 72 hours.

RESULTS

At baseline, approximately 17% of patients had mild migraine, while 83% had moderate-severe migraine. Although the time to maximum concentration was similar for both drugs (2.7 versus 2.3 hours), the terminal half-life for frovatriptan was longer than rizatriptan (29.3 versus 3.2 hours, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients who were pain-free at 4 hours without rescue medication was higher in the frovatriptan-treated group, (38.9 versus 5.6%, P=0.045). The cumulative hazard of recurrence over 72 h was reduced by frovatriptan compared to rizatriptan-treated patients (log-rank test, P=0.04). Pain-free and pain-relief episodes for the study period were positively correlated with the concentration:maximum concentration (Cmax) ratio for frovatriptan (r=0.52, P=0.028), but not rizatriptan. Recurrence rate was negatively correlated with the concentration:Cmax ratio for both frovatriptan (r=-0.96, P=0.0024) and rizatriptan (r=-0.98, P=0.0004). Fewer adverse events were observed for frovatriptan compared to rizatriptan (one versus eight, P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study indicates that a similar extent of initial pain relief is afforded by both triptans in migraine treatment. The longer duration of action of frovatriptan parallels and correlates with its PK profile.

Comparison of frovatriptan plus dexketoprofen (25 mg or 37.5 mg) with frovatriptan alone in the treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Drugs for migraine attacks include triptans and NSAIDs; their combination could provide greater symptom relief.

METHODS

A total of 314 subjects with history of migraine, with or without aura, were randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg alone (Frova), frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 25 mg (FroDex25) or frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 37.5 mg (FroDex37.5) and treated at least one migraine attack. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary end point was the proportion of pain free (PF) at two hours. Secondary end points were PF at one and four hours, pain relief (PR) at one, two, four hours, sustained PF (SPF) at 24 and 48 hours, recurrence at 48 hours, resolution of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia at two and four hours, the use of rescue medication and the judgment of the treatment.

RESULTS

The results were assessed in the full analysis set (FAS) population, which included all subjects randomized and treated for whom at least one post-dose intensity of headache was recorded. The proportions of subjects PF at two hours (primary end point) were 29% (27/93) with Frova compared with 51% (48/95 FroDex25 and 46/91 FroDex37.5) with each combination therapies ( P < 0.05). Proportions of SPF at 24 hours were 24% (22/93) for Frova, 43% (41/95) for FroDex25 ( P < 0.001) and 42% (38/91) for FroDex37.5 ( P < 0.05). SPF at 48 hours was 23% (21/93) with Frova, 36% (34/95) with FroDex25 and 33% (30/91) with FroDex37.5 ( P = NS). Recurrence was similar for Frova (22%, 6/27), FroDex25 (29%, 14/48) and FroDex37.5 (28%, 13/46) ( P = NS), meaning a lack of improvement with the combination therapy. Statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed. No statistically significant differences were reported in the occurrence of total and drug-related adverse events. FroDex25 and FroDex37.5 showed a similar efficacy both for primary and secondary end points. There did not seem to be a dose response curve for the addition of dexketoprofen.

CONCLUSION

FroDex improved initial efficacy at two hours compared to Frova whilst maintaining efficacy at 48 hours in this study. Tolerability profiles were comparable. Intrinsic pharmacokinetic properties of the two single drugs contribute to this improved efficacy profile.

Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study

Background

The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine.

Results

129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient’s needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs.

Trial registration

2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).

Frovatriptan versus almotriptan for acute treatment of menstrual migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian, comparative study

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan and almotriptan in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS Classification of Headache disorders) enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patients received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg in a randomized sequence: after treating 3 episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient was switched to the other treatment. 67 of the 96 female patients of the intention-to-treat population of the main study had regular menstrual cycles and were thus included in this subgroup analysis. 77 migraine attacks classified as related to menses were treated with frovatriptan and 78 with almotriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 and 4 h was 36 and 53 % for frovatriptan and 41 and 50 % for almotriptan (p = NS between treatments). Rate of pain free at 2 and 4 h was 19 and 47 % with frovatriptan and 29 and 54 % for almotriptan (p = NS). At 24 h, 62 % of frovatriptan-treated and 67 % of almotriptan-treated patients had pain relief, while 60 versus 67 % were pain free (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (8 vs. 21 % almotriptan). This was the case also at 48 h (9 vs. 24 %, p < 0.05). Frovatriptan was as effective as almotriptan in the immediate treatment of menstrually related migraine attacks. However, it showed a more favorable sustained effect, as shown by a lower rate of migraine recurrence.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of frovatriptan

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is the most common painful neurological disorder, affecting 13% of the general population. Triptans represent a powerful pharmacological tool in acute migraine treatment, however, a significant portion of treated patients cannot have access to this class due to possible adverse affects. Today, a total of seven triptan molecules are available, representing a commonly prescribed migraine treatment. Although there is a need of extensive use of triptans, only 25% of migraine patients are using triptans.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes triptans and evidence for the use of frovatriptan. A systematic approach is used to discuss the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of frovatriptan, considering the emerging data on the clinical efficacy of frovatriptan in the treatment of migraine and cluster headaches. The data were obtained by searching the following key words in MEDLINE: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, triptans, frovatriptan, migraine, menstrual migraine, relatively to the period 1988 - 2011.

EXPERT OPINION

Frovatriptan has been developed in order to improve safety and efficacy of triptans. It shows a favorable tolerability and efficacy profile, limited to 24/48-h headache recurrence, when compared with other triptans. Preclinical data suggest that the pharmacokinetic profile of frovatriptan may differ from other available triptans. In fact, among triptans, frovatriptan showed the highest potency at the 5-HT1B receptor (8.2) and the longer half-life (26 h). These parameters determine the clinical properties of frovatriptan; in particular the lowest rate of headache recurrence in comparison with other triptans.

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.

Efficacy of frovatriptan in the acute treatment of menstrually related migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian, comparative study versus zolmitriptan

Menstrually related migraine (MRM) is a particularly difficult-to-treat pain condition, associated with substantial disability. Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan and zolmitriptan in the treatment of MRM attacks, analyzing data from a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over study. We analyzed the subset of 76 regularly menstruating women who participated in one head-to-head multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over clinical trial and who took the study drugs to treat MRM attacks. In a randomized sequence, each patient received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg: after treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient had to switch to the other treatment. MRM was defined according to the criteria listed in the Appendix of the last Classification of Headache disorders of the International Headache Society. A total of 73 attacks, classified as MRM, were treated with frovatriptan and 65 with zolmitriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 h was 52% for frovatriptan and 53% for zolmitriptan (p = NS), while rate of pain free at 2 h was 22 and 26% (p = NS), respectively. At 24 h, 74 and 83% of frovatriptan-treated and 69 and 82% of zolmitriptan-treated patients were pain free and had pain relief, respectively (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (15 vs. 22% zolmitriptan). Frovatriptan proved to be effective in the immediate treatment of MRM attacks, similarly to zolmitriptan, but showed lower recurrence rates, and thus a better sustained relief.

Efficacy of frovatriptan in the acute treatment of menstrually related migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian, comparative study versus rizatriptan

The objectives of this study are to assess the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan, and rizatriptan in the subgroup of women with menstrually related migraine of a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over study. Each patient received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg in a randomized sequence: after treating 3 episodes of migraine in not more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient had to switch to the other treatment. Menstrually related migraine was defined according to the criteria listed in the Appendix of the last IHS Classification of Headache disorders. 99 out of the 125 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis of the main study were of a female gender: 93 had regular menstrual cycles and were, thus, included in this analysis. A total of 49 attacks classified as menstrually related migraine were treated with frovatriptan and 59 with rizatriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 h was 58% for frovatriptan and 64% for rizatriptan (p = NS), while rate of pain free at 2 h was 31 and 34% (p = NS), respectively. At 24 h, 67 and 81% of frovatriptan-treated, and 61 and 74% of rizatriptan-treated patients were pain free and had pain relief, respectively (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.01) lower with frovatriptan (10 vs. 32% rizatriptan). Frovatriptan was as effective as rizatriptan in the immediate treatment of menstrually related migraine attacks while showing a favorable sustained effect with a lower rate of migraine recurrence. These results need to be confirmed by randomized, double-blind, prospective, large clinical trials.

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.

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.

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.

Patterns of diagnosis and acute and preventive treatment for migraine in the United States: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patterns of medical treatment for migraineurs in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, many new treatments for migraine have become available and awareness of migraine has improved. However, there is little information about the patterns of medical treatment in the US society.

DESIGN/METHODS

A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 120,000 US households. Each household member with severe headaches was asked to complete the survey. The questionnaire assessed headache features, disability, and patterns of medical treatment. Subjects were classified according to their use of headache preventive medication, as current users, coincident users (using effective medications for other medical reasons), lapsed users (had used in the past but not at the time of the survey), or never users.

RESULTS

In 162,576 participants, the prevalence of migraine was 17.1% in women and 5.6% in men. Only 56.2% of those with migraine had ever received a medical diagnosis. Ninety-eight percent of the migraineurs used acute treatment for their migraine attacks. Forty-nine percent (49%) usually used over-the-counters, 20% usually used prescription medications, and 29% used both. Only 12.4% of migraineurs indicated that they were taking a migraine preventive medication, but 17.2% were using medications with potential antimigraine effects for other medical reasons. Current or past use of preventive medication was more likely in women than men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.48), increased with age and individuals with high MIDAS grade (Grade IV vs I, OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.09-2.64). Preventive medication use increased with awareness of migraine and with illness severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine remains undertreated in the US population. Barriers to preventive treatment are greater in younger age groups, men, and people unaware that they have migraine.