Efficacy of 1,000 mg Effervescent Acetylsalicylic Acid and Sumatriptan in Treating Associated Migraine Symptoms

A universal outcome measure for headache treatments, care-delivery systems and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

The first manuscript in this series delineated a model of structured headache services, potentially cost-effective but requiring formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We envisaged a need for a new outcome measure for this purpose, applicable to all forms of treatment, care and care-delivery systems as opposed to comparisons of single-modality treatments.

CONCEPTION AND DELINEATION

A literature review confirmed the lack of any suitable established measure. We prioritised construct validity, simplicity, comprehensiveness and expression in intuitive units. We noted that pain was the key burdensome symptom of migraine and episodic tension-type headache (TTH), that pain above a certain level was disabling, that it was difficult to put economic value to pain but relatively easy to do this for time, a casualty of headache leading to lost productivity. Alleviation of pain to a non-disabling level would be expected to bring restoration of function. We therefore based the measure on time spent in the ictal state (TIS) of migraine or TTH, either as total TIS or proportion of all time. We expressed impact on health, in units of time, as TIS*DW, where DW was the disability weight for the ictal state supplied by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies. If the time unit was hours, TIS*DW yielded hours lived with (or lost to) disability (HLDs), in analogy with GBD's years lived with disability (YLDs).

UTILITY ASSESSMENT

Acute treatments would reduce TIS by shortening attack duration, preventative treatments by reducing attack frequency; health-care systems such as structured headache services would have these effects by delivering these treatments. These benefits were all measurable as HLDs-averted. Population-level estimates would be derived by factoring in prevalence, but also taking treatment coverage and adherence into account. For health-care systems, additional gains from provider-training (promoting adherence to guidelines and, therefore, enhancing coverage) and consumer-education (improving adherence to care plans), increasing numbers within populations gaining the benefits of treatments, would be measurable by the same metric.

CONCLUSIONS

The new outcome measure expressed in intuitive units of time is applicable to treatments of all modalities and to system-level interventions for multiple headache types, with utility for CEA and for informing health policy.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Aspirin in the Treatment and Prevention of Migraine Headaches: Possible Additional Clinical Options for Primary Healthcare Providers

Migraine headaches are among the most common and potentially debilitating disorders encountered by primary healthcare providers. In the treatment of acute migraine and the prevention of recurrent attacks, there are prescription drugs of proven benefit. However, for those without health insurance or high co-pays, these drugs may be neither available nor affordable and, for all patients, they may be either poorly tolerated or contraindicated. The totality of evidence, which includes data from randomized trials, suggests that high-dose aspirin, in doses from 900 to 1300 mg, taken at the onset of symptoms, is an effective and safe treatment option for acute migraine headaches. In addition, the totality of evidence, including some, but not all, randomized trials, suggests the possibility that daily aspirin, in doses from 81 to 325 mg, may be an effective and safe treatment option for the prevention of recurrent migraine headaches. The relatively favorable side effect profile of aspirin and extremely low costs compared with other prescription drug therapies may provide additional options for primary healthcare providers in the treatment of both acute and recurrent migraine headaches.

Network meta-analysis of migraine disorder treatment by NSAIDs and triptans

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder resulting in large socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) is designed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) and triptans.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches in database PubMed and Embase. Treatment effectiveness was compared by synthesizing direct and indirect evidences using NMA. The surface under curve ranking area (SUCRA) was created to rank those interventions.

Results

Eletriptan and rizatriptan are superior to sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, almotriptan, ibuprofen and aspirin with respect to pain-relief. When analyzing 2 h-nausea-absence, rizatriptan has a better efficacy than sumatriptan, while other treatments indicate no distinctive difference compared with placebo. Furthermore, sumatriptan demonstrates a higher incidence of all-adverse-event compared with diclofenac-potassium, ibuprofen and almotriptan.

Conclusion

This study suggests that eletriptan may be the most suitable therapy for migraine from a comprehensive point of view. In the meantime ibuprofen may also be a good choice for its excellent tolerability. Multi-component medication also attracts attention and may be a promising avenue for the next generation of migraine treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0703-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Results from a pharmacy-based patient survey on the use of a fixed combination analgesic containing acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol and caffeine by self-diagnosing and self-treating patients

Background

Patients suffering from migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) often treat their complaints with over-the-counter (OTC) medications. Fixed dose combinations of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol and caffeine (APC) are among the most commonly used analgesics, and their efficacy for treating acute headache pain has been well demonstrated. This investigation was run to better characterize patients who treat their headache with OTC APC combinations, as well as treatment effects.

Methods

A pharmacy-based patient survey in 164 German pharmacies was performed. Patients (age ≥18 years) who purchased APC analgesics (of the brand Thomapyrin^®) were handed a questionnaire, which had to be filled out at patients own discretion after taking the medication. Demographics, pain characteristics and perceived efficacy and tolerability data were analysed with descriptive statistics.

Results

Questionnaires from 1298 patients were analysed, of whom 71.9 % were females and 28.1 % were males. Headache patients were assigned to TTH or migraine according to diagnosis criteria of the International Headache Classification-II (ICHD-II), with 828 patients for TTH and 206 for migraine. About one third of patients in the subgroup migraine did not report their pain as migraine. Nausea, photophobia/phonophobia turned out to be the most distinguishing feature between migraine and TTH. The main reasons for purchasing the product were recommendation by the pharmacists (40.5 %) and/or friends or relatives (24.4 %). 74 % of TTH and 55 % of migraine patients reported onset of pain relief within the first 30 min. More than 90 % rated efficacy as well as tolerability to be “good” or “very good”.

Conclusions

The main reason for purchasing APC products in the pharmacy are TTH or migraine. About a third of patients fulfilling the IHCD-II criteria for migraine failed to recognize their headache as migraine. This could be explained e.g. by patients’ misconceptions about their pain. Patients’ assessments of efficacy and tolerability showed that the investigated APC combinations are valuable for the treatment of TTH and migraine headache. These data complement those of randomized clinical studies on such preparations.

Central effects of acetylsalicylic acid on trigeminal-nociceptive stimuli

BACKGROUND

Acetylsalicylic acid is one of the most used analgesics to treat an acute migraine attack. Next to the inhibitory effects on peripheral prostaglandin synthesis, central mechanisms of action have also been discussed.

METHODS

Using a standardized model for trigeminal-nociceptive stimulation during fMRI scanning, we investigated the effect of acetylsalicylic acid on acute pain compared to saline in 22 healthy volunteers in a double-blind within-subject design. Painful stimulation was applied using gaseous ammonia and presented in a pseudo-randomized order with several control stimuli. All participants were instructed to rate the intensity and unpleasantness of every stimulus on a VAS scale. Based on previous results, we hypothesized to find an effect of ASA on central pain processing structures like the ACC, SI and SII as well as the trigeminal nuclei and the hypothalamus.

RESULTS

Even though we did not find any differences in pain ratings between saline and ASA, we observed decreased BOLD signal changes in response to trigemino-nociceptive stimulation in the ACC and SII after administration of ASA compared to saline. This finding is in line with earlier imaging results investigating the effect of ASA on acute pain. Contrary to earlier findings from animal studies, we could not find an effect of ASA on the trigeminal nuclei in the brainstem or within the hypothalamic area.

CONCLUSION

Taken together our study replicates earlier findings of an attenuating effect of ASA on pain processing structures, which adds further evidence to a possibly central mechanism of action of ASA.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were found for this update. Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Evaluation of onset of pain relief from micronized aspirin in a dental pain model

A new formulation of a micronized acetylsalicylic acid swallowable tablet with an effervescent component (FR-aspirin) was evaluated in two independent studies using the dental impaction pain model. These clinical studies were performed to confirm the results of preclinical dissolution studies and human pharmacokinetic studies, which indicated an improved onset of analgesia without compromising duration of effect or safety. Study 1 evaluated a 650-mg dose of aspirin and Study 2 evaluated a 1,000-mg dose of aspirin. Both studies were double-blinded, parallel group and compared to regular aspirin (R-aspirin) and placebo. Speed of onset was measured by the double stopwatch method for time to both first perceptible relief and meaningful relief. In both studies, the FR-aspirin was significantly faster (p<0.038-0.001) than both R-aspirin and placebo for both onset measures. There were no significant differences between FR-aspirin and R-aspirin for peak or total effects and both treatments were significantly better than placebo. For first perceptible relief, FR-aspirin onset was 19.8 and 16.3 min for 650 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively, compared to 23.7 and 20.0 for R-aspirin. For meaningful relief, FR-aspirin onset was 48.9 and 49.4 min for 650 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively, compared to 119.2 and 99.2 for R-aspirin. These efficacy studies clearly demonstrate that the onset of analgesic efficacy is dramatically improved by adding an effervescent component and micronized active ingredient to the swallowable tablet aspirin formulation. The enhanced onset did not adversely impact either the peak effect or duration of effect or tolerability compared to regular aspirin.

Efficacy and safety of 400 and 800 mg etodolac vs. 1,000 mg paracetamol in acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicenter, phase III clinical trial

AIM

We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of etodolac, in acute migraine attacks in comparison with paracetamol (acetaminophen).

METHODS

We designed a randomized, double-blind, crossover phase III clinical trial for patients diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year, according to ICHD-II criteria. Two hundred and twenty-nine adult patients having 2 to 8 attacks monthly from 17 centers were included. The patients were instructed to use 3 attack treatment packages consisting of 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac on 3 migraine attacks of moderate-severe intensity each in a 3-month treatment period, interchangeably.

RESULTS

Any pain medication was used in 1,570 migraine attacks while study treatments were used in 1,047 attacks. The results for 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac were as follows: response of headache at 2 hours 44.9%, 48.3% and 46.1%; pain-free at 2 hours 19.2%, 19.3% and 24.1%; sustained pain-free from 2 to 24 hours 34.3%, 38.3% and 41.1%; relapse rates in 2 to 24 hours 7.3%, 14.3% and 9.7%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the headache response, pain-free, sustained pain-free, and relapse rates. Nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, or photophobia decreased similarly in all groups within 24 hours of treatment administration. Drug-related adverse events were noted in 8 patients with 1,000 mg paracetamol, in 9 patients with 400 mg etodolac and in 9 patients for 800 mg etodolac during the study.

COMMENT

Our study showed that etodolac is a safe and effective alternative in acute migraine treatment and showed comparable efficacy to paracetamol 1,000 mg. Etodolac may be considered as an alternative option for acute treatment of migraine.

Sumatriptan (oral route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using oral sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one studies (37,250 participants) compared oral sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 50 mg and 100 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 50 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 6.1, 7.5, and 4.0 for pain-free at two hours and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. NNTs for sustained pain-free and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose were 9.5 and 6.0, respectively. For sumatriptan 100 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 6.8, 3.5, 6.5, and 5.2, respectively, for the same outcomes. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 50 mg dose, while sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than 50 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours, and for sustained pain-free during 24 hours. Treating early, during the mild pain phase, gave significantly better NNTs for pain-free at two hours and sustained pain-free during 24 hours than did treating established attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity.Relief of associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than with placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with the sumatriptan than with placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (25 mg to 100 mg).Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, paracetamol (acetaminophen), acetylsalicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and ergotamine combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

Self-medication of migraine and tension-type headache: summary of the evidence-based recommendations of the Deutsche Migräne und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (DMKG), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN), the Österreichische Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (ÖKSG) and the Schweizerische Kopfwehgesellschaft (SKG)

The current evidence-based guideline on self-medication in migraine and tension-type headache of the German, Austrian and Swiss headache societies and the German Society of Neurology is addressed to physicians engaged in primary care as well as pharmacists and patients. The guideline is especially concerned with the description of the methodology used, the selection process of the literature used and which evidence the recommendations are based upon. The following recommendations about self-medication in migraine attacks can be made: The efficacy of the fixed-dose combination of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine and the monotherapies with ibuprofen or naratriptan or acetaminophen or phenazone are scientifically proven and recommended as first-line therapy. None of the substances used in self-medication in migraine prophylaxis can be seen as effective. Concerning the self-medication in tension-type headache, the following therapies can be recommended as first-line therapy: the fixed-dose combination of acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid and caffeine as well as the fixed combination of acetaminophen and caffeine as well as the monotherapies with ibuprofen or acetylsalicylic acid or diclofenac. The four scientific societies hope that this guideline will help to improve the treatment of headaches which largely is initiated by the patients themselves without any consultation with their physicians.

Are the current IHS guidelines for migraine drug trials being followed?

In 2000, the Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) published the second edition of its guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. The purpose of this publication was to improve the quality of such trials by increasing the awareness amongst investigators of the methodological issues specific to this particular illness. Until now the adherence to these guidelines has not been systematically assessed. We reviewed all published controlled trials of drugs in migraine from 2002 to 2008. Eligible trials were scored for compliance with the IHS guidelines by using grading scales based on the most essential recommendations of the guidelines. The primary efficacy measure of each trial was also recorded. A total of 145 trials of acute treatment and 52 trials of prophylactic treatment were eligible for review. Of the randomized, double-blind trials, acute trials scored an average of 4.7 out of 7 while prophylactic trials scored an average of 5.6 out of 9 for compliance. Thirty-one percent of acute trials and 72% of prophylactic trials used the recommended primary efficacy measure. Fourteen percent of the reviewed trials were either not randomized or not double-blinded. Adherence to international guidelines like these of IHS is important to ensure that only high-quality trials are performed, and to provide the consensus that is required for meta analyses. The primary efficacy measure for trials of acute treatment should be “pain free” and not “headache relief”. Open-label or non-randomized trials generally have no place in the study of migraine drugs.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

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.

Triptans vs other drugs for acute migraine. Are there differences in efficacy? A comment

The introduction of triptans in migraine treatment was apparently a revolution. Comparative randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with triptan and other drugs do not give a clear-cut picture. Oral triptans are superior to oral ergotamine most likely because the bioavailability oral of ergotamine is extremely low (<1%). Compared with NSAIDs, in most cases aspirin, triptans were not superior and in several RCTs triptans caused more adverse events than aspirin plus metoclopramide. Guidelines for treatment of migraine should be evidence-based. It is suggested that based on current evidence, effervescent aspirin should be the first-line drug for the treatment of migraine. Aspirin is also much cheaper than the triptans.

Efficacy and safety of 1,000mg effervescent aspirin: individual patient data meta-analysis of three trials in migraine headache and migraine accompanying symptoms

Migraine is often associated with health consequences including impaired quality of life, and the cost of treating migraine headaches places a significant financial burden on patients who suffer from migraines. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and triptans are commonly used for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Aspirin is widely accepted as a treatment option for migraine pain relief and could provide an alternative not only for treatment of moderate migraine attacks, but also for severe migraine attacks. The efficacy and safety of 1,000 mg effervescent aspirin (eASA) was evaluated in comparison to 50 mg sumatriptan and placebo in an individual patient data meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled, single- dose migraine trials. Pain-relief at 2 h, pain-free at 2 h and sustained pain-free up to 24 h were calculated. For eASA, the response rates were 51.5 % (95 % CI: 46.6-56.5 %), 27.1 % (95 % CI: 22.6-31.4 %), and 23.5 % (95 % CI: 19.3-27.7 %). For sumatriptan, the response rates were 46.6 % (95% CI: 40.0-53.2 %), 29% (95 % CI: 23.0-34.9 %), and 22.2 % (95 % CI: 16.7-27.6 %). The corresponding rates for placebo were 33.9 % (95% CI: 29.1-38.6 %), 15.1 % (95 % CI: 11.5-18.7 %), and 14.6 % (95 % CI: 11.0-18.1 %). The treatment effect of eASA and sumatriptan were significantly different from placebo (p < 0.001), but differences between eASA and sumatriptan were not significant. The remission of accompanying symptoms and the subgroup analyses of patients with moderate or severe migraine pain at baseline revealed no significant differences between eASA and sumatriptan. Safety was evaluated based on the frequency of reported adverse events, and treatment with eASA was associated with lower incidence of adverse events than was with sumatriptan. This individual patient data meta-analysis provided evidence that eASA 1,000 mg is as effective as sumatriptan 50mg for the treatment of acute migraine attacks and has a better side effect profile. This is also true for patients with moderate as well as severe headache at baseline. Patients therefore should be advised to use eASA first for migraine attacks and use a triptan in case of no response.

[Acetylsalicylic acid in self-medication of migraine. A pharmacy-based observational study]

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of acute migraine attacks by self-medication under daily life conditions when bought in a pharmacy and also the ability of patients to self-diagnose correctly.

METHODS

A total of 296 patients were recruited from 156 pharmacies and recorded up to 3 migraine attacks. Following an advisory discussion the pharmacists gave a questionnaire to persons who had purchased acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin Migraine) in the pharmacy to treat migraine. A total of 578 questionnaires containing 36 questions about demographic details, headache phenotype, medical history, efficacy over 2 h and tolerability of the preparation were analyzed.

RESULTS

The IHS criteria (1988) for migraine were identified correctly by 92.7% of the patients. In 66.3% of the attacks, the intensity of the headache was reported as severe. In 60% of the documented attacks, a decrease from severe or moderate to mild or no headache was recorded after medication, and freedom from headache was achieved in 35.8%. The effect was reproducible over 3 migraine attacks. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced by 71-86% compared to the baseline level. Side-effects were reported twice as often by the participants in response to closed questions than to open questions (16.6 vs. 8.3%).

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of migraine patients are capable of diagnosing their condition themselves when they seek advice in a pharmacy. The data on efficacy confirm the results from controlled clinical studies. The same parameters as those used in controlled clinical studies can also be recorded in pharmacy-based observational studies, therefore, the safety and tolerability of the medication can be recorded under real conditions.

Aspirin in the treatment of acute migraine attacks

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin or ASA) has been used for many years as an analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory drug. In recent years, evidence for its effectiveness in migraine headache has been demonstrated in several clinical trials. The effervescent highly buffered preparation of aspirin was shown to be effective, safe and well tolerated compared with placebo or other treatment options. The effervescent aspirin preparation is at least as effective as the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide, but has fewer side effects. This review summarizes and analyzes clinical data of aspirin in the treatment of acute migraine attacks with respect to the different galenic formulations.

Efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac potassium sachets in migraine: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study in comparison with diclofenac potassium tablets and placebo

A randomized, controlled, cross-over trial compared single doses of 50 mg diclofenac potassium sachets and tablets with placebo in 328 patients with migraine pain, treating 888 attacks. For the primary endpoint 24.7% of the patients were pain free at 2 h postdose with sachets, 18.5% for tablets and 11.7% for placebo. Treatment differences were significant for sachets vs. placebo (P<0.0001), tablets vs. placebo (P=0.0040) and for sachets vs. tablets (P=0.0035). The numbers needed to treat compared with placebo to achieve pain free at 2 h were 7.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.46, 13.35] for sachets and 15.83 (95% CI 8.63, 96.20) for tablets. Sachets were also statistically superior to tablets for sustained headache response, sustained pain free and reduction in headache intensity within the first 2 h postdose measured on a visual analogue scale (P<0.05). Onset of analgesic effect was 15 min for sachets and 60 min for tablets. Fewer patients needed rescue medication, and there were marked improvements in accompanying symptoms and working ability with both sachets and tablets vs. placebo. No safety issues were identified. This study demonstrates that sachets offer patients suffering from migraine pain a more effective treatment with a faster onset of analgesia when compared with tablets.

[Migraine therapy]

With more than 8 million sufferers in Germany alone, migraine is one of the most frequent medical disorders. Recent discoveries in the pathophysiology and genetics of headaches, as well as specific developments in pharmacology, have paved the way for a significant improvement in both acute migraine treatment and migraine prevention. Within the group of 5-HT(1B/D)-agonists (triptans), seven substances with 23 dosages and formulations have been approved in Germany that allow the customized treatment of migraine attacks. In addition, several new drugs such as valproic acid or topiramate are now available as drugs of first choice for migraine prevention, as well as the well established beta blockers, thus enabling the physician to tailor the preventative treatment according to the individual needs of the patient.

Methodological issues in systematic reviews of headache trials: adapting historical diagnostic classifications and outcome measures to present-day standards

Recent efforts to make headache diagnostic classification and clinical trial methodology more consistent provide valuable advice to trialists generating new evidence on effectiveness of treatments for headache; however, interpreting older trials that do not conform to new standards remains problematic. Systematic reviewers seeking to utilize historical data can adapt currently recommended diagnostic classification and clinical trial methodological approaches to interpret all available data relative to current standards. In evaluating study populations, systematic reviewers can: (i) use available data to attempt to map study populations to diagnoses in the new International Classification of Headache Disorders; and (ii) stratify analyses based on the extent to which study populations are precisely specified. In evaluating outcome measures, systematic reviewers can: (i) summarize prevention studies using headache frequency, incorporating headache index in a stratified analysis if headache frequency is not available; (ii) summarize acute treatment studies using pain-free response as reported in directly measured headache improvement or headache severity outcomes; and (iii) avoid analysis of recurrence or relapse data not conforming to the sustained pain-free response definition.

Aspirin is efficacious for the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of migraine sufferers rely on over-the-counter medications for the treatment of migraine. Along with other over-the-counter products, aspirin is considered by the US Headache Consortium to be an option for first-line migraine treatment. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin versus placebo for the acute treatment of a single acute attack of migraine.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy of a single, 1000-mg dose of aspirin for the treatment of acute moderate to severe migraine, with or without aura. Subjects recorded all study evaluations in a diary at baseline and at .5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 24 hours after treatment. Pain was rated on a 4-point ordinal scale from no pain to severe pain. The primary efficacy end point was headache response at 2 hours. Secondary efficacy parameters included reduction of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, pain intensity difference, and headache recurrence at 24 hours.

RESULTS

Of 485 subjects enrolled, 409 took study medication and 401 treated a confirmed migraine attack (201 with aspirin and 200 with placebo). Baseline demographic and migraine characteristics were not significantly different between groups. The 2-hour headache response rate was 52% with aspirin versus 34% with placebo (P<.001). Aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo for pain reduction beginning 1 hour after dosing (P<.001) and continuing throughout the 6-hour evaluation period. Significantly (P<.05), more subjects were pain free from the 1-hour evaluation through the 6-hour evaluation. Of the aspirin-treated subjects, 20% were pain free at 2 hours versus only 6% of placebo-treated subjects. At 24 hours, the headache recurrence rate was 21.8% for aspirin (23 of 105 subjects) and 27.7% for placebo (19 of 68 subjects). Only 34% of aspirin-treated subjects needed rescue medication at 24 hours compared with 52% of placebo-treated subjects (P<.001). Aspirin was well tolerated, and adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that aspirin is safe and effective for treatment of acute migraine in appropriately selected patients.