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

A Framework for Estimating the Eligible Patient Population for New Migraine Acute Therapies in the United States

Introduction

Migraine is associated with considerable disability for patients not adequately managed with current standards of care. New acute therapies may offer relief for this population of patients; however, population size and associated potential costs of new therapies are unclear. In this study, a conceptual framework was developed to estimate anticipated use of new acute therapies.

Methods

Targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies, and characteristics of individuals who would be eligible for new acute therapies. Findings from the TLR were combined to create a framework for estimating the size of the eligible patient population. This framework was used to calculate two estimates of the eligible patient population by applying parameters (i) identified in the TLR and (ii) from a recent budget-impact analysis (BIA).

Results

The primary factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies identified in the TLR were consulting a healthcare professional for headache, receiving a migraine diagnosis, and receiving a prescription for migraine-specific treatment. Characteristics of individuals likely to use new acute therapies reflected in the TLR were contraindication to triptans, or failure to respond to/tolerate at least two oral triptans. Application of the framework suggested that 15–25% of individuals with migraine would be eligible for new acute therapies.

Conclusion

A limited number of patients currently use migraine-specific acute therapies. Among such patients, a significant proportion do not have adequate symptom control. Accordingly, a minority of individuals with migraine may be expected to use new acute therapies. The framework developed in this study is intended to facilitate estimating the eligible patient population in assessments of costs of new acute therapies. Such assessments should also consider recommendations that patients have access to multiple types of acute therapies, which may yield savings from reduced medication-overuse headache (MOH), progression to chronic migraine, and urgent-care costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01781-z.

Post-traumatic headaches

Chronic pain, especially headache, is an exceedingly common complication of traumatic brain injury (TBI). In fact, paradoxically, the milder the TBI, the more likely one is to develop headaches. The environment of injury and the associated comorbidities can have a significant impact on the frequency and severity of headaches and commonly serve to direct management of the headaches. Trauma likely contributes to the development of headaches via alterations in neuronal signaling, inflammation, and musculoskeletal changes. The clinical picture of the patient with post-traumatic headaches is often that of a mixed headache disorder with features of tension-type headaches as well as migrainous headaches. Treatment of these headaches is thus often guided by the predominant characteristics of the headaches and can include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies. Pharmacologic therapies include both abortive and prophylactic agents with prophylaxis targeting comorbidities, primarily impaired sleep. Nonpharmacologic interventions for post-traumatic headaches include thermal and physical modalities as well as cognitive behavioral approaches. As with many postconcussive symptoms, headaches can lessen with time but in up to 25% of patients, chronic headaches are long-term residua.

Symptomatic Overlap and Therapeutic Opportunities in Primary Headache

Headache, a nearly universal experience, remains costly, disabling, and often suboptimally managed. The most common presentations in the United States are migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) and "sinus" headache, but their extensive symptomatic overlap suggests that these conditions can be approached as variations in the same underlying pathology and managed accordingly. We use case studies of patients with varying prior diagnoses (none, migraine, TTH, and sinus headache), as well as a 4-question diagnostic screening tool, to illustrate how pharmacists can use this conceptual framework to simplify identification, management, and referral of patients with primary headache conditions of uncertain etiology.

Tension-type headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides an update on the appropriate diagnosis and evaluation of patients with tension-type headache, with reviews of the latest concepts regarding pathogenesis and the evidence-based recommendations for management of this disorder.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pericranial myofascial mechanisms are probably of importance in episodic tension-type headache, whereas sensitization of central nociceptive pathways and inadequate endogenous antinociceptive circuitry seem to be more relevant in chronic tension-type headache. While acute treatment with simple analgesics is generally helpful, recent data attempting to document the efficacy of preventive therapies are unconvincing.

SUMMARY

Tension-type headache is the most common form of headache in the general population. It is characterized by recurrent episodes of headache that are relatively featureless and mild to moderate in intensity. The diagnosis is based solely on the history and examination. Exclusion of secondary headaches or forms of migraine is important in the assessment process. Despite extensive investigation, the underlying pathophysiology remains a matter of speculation, with peripheral muscular and CNS components both likely involved. Acute management with simple analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and caffeine-containing compounds is typically effective. Preventive therapies include a number of nonpharmacologic recommendations as well as several antidepressant drugs. Prognosis is generally favorable.

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.

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.

Marketed oral triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review on efficacy and tolerability

BACKGROUND

In the current literature, there is neither a reported systematic review comparing the efficacy of triptans at 30 minutes and 1 hour after the migraine treatment, nor data related to efficacy of new marketed triptans.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of currently marketed oral, non-reencapsulated triptan formulations vs placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe migraine attacks.

METHODS

A systematic review of double-blind, randomized clinical trials reporting data after a single migraine attack was conducted. Efficacy results are shown using relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

After reviewing 221 publications, 38 studies were included. All marketed triptans provided significant relief and/or absence of pain at 2 hours, and relief at 1 hour when compared with placebo. After 30 minutes, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg showed significant relief when compared to placebo, whereas the fast-dissolving formulation of sumatriptan 100 mg was the only oral triptan that was superior to placebo in meeting the pain-free endpoint. On the other hand, fast-dissolving sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg and eletriptan 40 mg showed a lower rate of recurrence than placebo, whereas rizatriptan 10 mg was the only triptan with a recurrence rate greater than that of placebo. Adverse events associated with treatment with tablet formulations of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan were significantly more frequent than those of the placebo group. The inclusion of trials with reencapsulated triptans in the analysis introduced minor specific changes in these results.

CONCLUSION

This analysis updates the comparative data available for the 7 currently marketed oral triptans and clearly demonstrates their efficacy when compared to placebo, even with stricter endpoints, such as efficacy at 30 minutes. No triptan exhibited better tolerability than placebo. Results are diverse, depending on the triptan, which probably is a reflection of heterogeneous pharmacokinetics.