Efficacy, Speed of Action and Tolerability of Almotriptan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

A meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from four randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials comparing several doses of almotriptan ( n = 1908) with placebo ( n = 386) was used to investigate the efficacy, speed of onset and tolerability of almotriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. As early as 30 min after dosing, almotriptan 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for pain relief (14.9% vs. 8.2%; P < 0.05) and pain free (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < 0.05). At 2 h, pain-relief rates were 56.0%, 63.7% and 66.0% for almotriptan 6.25, 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, compared with 35% for placebo; 2-h pain-free rates were 26.7%, 36.4% and 43.4% compared with 13.9% for placebo. All almotriptan dosages were significantly more effective than placebo in eliminating migraine-associated symptoms ( P < 0.05) and in achieving sustained pain relief up to 24 h ( P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events after almotriptan 6.25 mg and 12.5 mg was not significantly different from that of placebo. This meta- analysis confirms the findings of individual clinical trials, while demonstrating for the first time, significant pain-free efficacy at 30 min compared with placebo.

Oral almotriptan: practical uses in the acute treatment of migraine

Almotriptan (Almogran, Lundbeck; Almirall Prodesfarma; Axert, Ortho-McNeil) is a novel 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist (triptan) that is widely available on prescription for the acute treatment of migraine. Almotriptan has pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles that make it suitable for use in this indication. It is a potent agonist at 5-HT(1B), (1D) and (1F) receptors, while having a low affinity for other 5-HT receptors. It is also a potent inhibitor of neurogenic inflammation. Almotriptan has a high oral bioavailability, is absorbed rapidly, has a relatively short plasma half-life and its route of elimination presents few potential problems. Placebo-controlled dose-finding studies have demonstrated that almotriptan tablets are effective and well-tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine, with a 12.5 mg dose providing the best balance between efficacy and tolerability. Large placebo-controlled studies show that the efficacy of oral almotriptan is comparable with that of the other oral triptans. In direct comparator-controlled studies, almotriptan was as effective as sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg but had a superior tolerability profile. Furthermore, the efficacy and tolerability of almotriptan is sustained in the long term following open-label administration. Meta-analyses and post hoc analyses of clinical data confirm these findings. In conclusion, almotriptan 12.5 mg is a good therapeutic choice for the symptomatic treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Service use and costs for people with headache: a UK primary care study

This paper aims to estimate the service and social costs of headache presenting in primary care and to identify predictors of headache costs. Patients were recruited from GP practices in England and service use and lost employment recorded. Predictors of cost were identified using regression models. Service and social costs were available on 288 and 282 patients, respectively. Average service costs over 3 months were £117 whilst total costs (including lost production) were £582. Patients referred to neurologists had service costs that were £82 higher than those not referred (90% CI £36–£128). Costs including lost employment were higher by £150, but this was not significant (90% CI -£139–£439). The annual mean service and social costs, weighted to represent population rates of referral, were £468 and £2328, respectively. Higher costs were significantly related to pain. Age was linked to higher service costs and lower social costs. The figures extrapolated to the whole of the UK suggest £956 million due to service use and £4.8 billion including lost employment. These are likely to be underestimates because many people experiencing headaches do not consult their GP.

Predictors of outcome in patients consulting their general practitioners for headache: a prospective study

Headache is the most common neurological symptom presenting to general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors predicting outcome in patients consulting their GPs for headache may help GPs with prognosis and choose management strategies which would improve patient care. We followed up a cohort of patients receiving standard medical care, recruited from 18 general practices in the South Thames region of England, approximately 9 months after their initial participation in the study. Of the baseline sample (N=255), 134 provided both full baseline and follow-up data on measures of interest. We determined associations between patients' follow-up scores on the Headache Impact Test-6 and baseline characteristics (including headache impact and frequency scores, mood, attributions about psychological/medical causes of their headaches, satisfaction with GP care and illness perceptions). Greater impact and stronger beliefs about the negative consequences of headaches at baseline were the strongest predictors of poor outcome at follow-up.

How do patients referred to neurologists for headache differ from those managed in primary care?

BACKGROUND

Headache is the neurological symptom most frequently presented to GPs and referred to neurologists, but little is known about how referred patients differ from patients managed by GPs.

AIM

To describe and compare headache patients managed in primary care with those referred to neurologists.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Prospective study.

SETTING

Eighteen general practices in south-east England.

METHOD

This study examined 488 eligible patients consulting GPs with primary headache over 7 weeks and 81 patients referred to neurologists over 1 year. Headache disability was measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Score, headache impact by the Headache Impact Test, emotional distress by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and illness perception was assessed using the Illness Perception Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Participants were 303 patients who agreed to participate. Both groups reported severe disability and very severe impact on functioning. Referred patients consulted more frequently than those not referred in the 3 months before referral (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between GP-managed and referred groups in mean headache disability, impact, anxiety, depression, or satisfaction with care. The referred group were more likely to link an increased number of symptoms to their headaches (P = 0.01), to have stronger emotional representations of their headaches (P = 0.006), to worry more (P = 0.001), and were made anxious by their headache symptoms (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Patients who consult for headache experience severe disability and impact, and up to a third report anxiety and/or depression. Referral is not related to clinical severity of headaches, but is associated with higher consultation frequency and patients' anxiety and concern about their headache symptoms.

Headache: a 'suitable case' for behavioural treatment in primary care?

Headache is a health problem with considerable impact at personal, social, and financial levels in terms of distress, disability, and cost. In the past, many studies have investigated the use of various behavioural treatment modalities for headache. Literature reviews consistently support the effectiveness of behavioural therapeutic approaches for the treatment of the most common primary headaches, namely migraine and tension-type headache. This article recommends that behavioural headache therapies should be developed, tested, and integrated into primary care practice, where most patients with headache are seen and treated. The large population seen in general practice, most of whom have uncomplicated primary headaches, could represent the ideal target for testing behavioural therapies.

Almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To compare almotriptan and zolmitriptan in the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

This multicentre, double-blind trial randomized adult migraineurs to almotriptan 12.5 mg (n = 532) or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (n = 530) for the treatment of a single migraine attack. The primary end point was sustained pain free plus no adverse events (SNAE); other end points included pain relief and pain free at several time points, sustained pain free, headache recurrence, use of rescue medication, functional impairment, time lost because of migraine, treatment acceptability, and overall treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

No significant difference was seen in SNAE (almotriptan 29.2% vs zolmitriptan 31.8%) or the other efficacy end points measured. The incidence of triptan-associated AEs and triptan-associated central nervous system AEs was significantly lower for patients receiving almotriptan compared to zolmitriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Almotriptan and zolmitriptan were associated with similar efficacy and overall tolerability in the treatment of acute migraine. Almotriptan was associated with a significantly lower rate of triptan-associated AEs.

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.

Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Utility of the Migraine-ACT Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The 4-item Migraine-ACT questionnaire is an assessment tool for use by primary care physicians to identify patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment. It has been shown to be easy to use, and to be reliable and accurate in its assessments.

OBJECTIVES

To further analyze the Migraine-ACT study database, providing additional information on the reliability, validity, and potential clinical utility of the questionnaire.

METHODS

Reliability was assessed by recording the distribution of Migraine-ACT scores recorded at baseline and 1 week later (test-retest reliability). Analyses of consistency of Migraine-ACT scores were conducted on the total sample of patients and for the separate centers, using Pearson and Spearman correlations. Validity was assessed by comparing the t-discrimination values for clinically relevant questions within domains of the original 27-item questionnaire. Reliability and validity were also assessed by constructing an "alternative" (Form B) Migraine-ACT questionnaire, derived from an analysis of the second-best items in each domain in the original study data. Clinical utility was assessed using Pearson pairwise correlations to compare Migraine-ACT scores with clinically defined criteria as analyzed by the SF-36 Quality of Life questionnaire, the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, and the Migraine Therapy Assessment (MTAQ) questionnaire.

RESULTS

The distribution of Migraine-ACT scores between the 2 completions of the questionnaire was consistent for the total sample (test-retest reliability, r= .81) and between the individual countries (r= .61 to .92). In this study, the validity (assessed as t-discrimination) of the Migraine-ACT "impact" and "global assessment of relief" questions were markedly higher than those of other endpoints used in migraine clinical studies. The Form B Migraine-ACT questionnaire was almost as reliable and accurate as the original Form A questionnaire. The distribution of Migraine-ACT scores was: 0 = 12.6%, 1 = 13.7%, 2 = 14.7%, 3 = 20.5%, and 4 = 38.4%. The change in Migraine-ACT score correlated with, and had a linear relationship with changes in SF-36, MIDAS, and MTAQ scores, and indicated that a Migraine-ACT score of <or=2 corresponded with a need to consider changing the patient's acute medication. About 40% of the migraine patients in the study scored <or=2 and may have had significant unmet treatment needs.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm the excellent reliability and validity of the Migraine-ACT questionnaire and provide further evidence for its utility in clinical practice.

Medication overuse headache in patients with primary headache disorders: epidemiology, management and pathogenesis

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a common medical condition that is associated with considerable long-term morbidity and disability. Patients experiencing MOH have primary headache disorders (migraine, tension-type headache [TTH] or the combination of migraine and TTH) that change to a pattern of daily or near-daily headaches over a period of years or decades following the overuse of symptomatic headache medications. Overused drugs include analgesics, ergot alkaloids, serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists ('triptans') and medications containing barbiturates, codeine, caffeine, tranquillisers and mixed analgesics. Affected patients usually have a long history of primary headache, overuse of medications and MOH before they consult a physician for care. Patients with MOH are usually managed in specialist centres by withdrawal of the overused drugs and treatment of withdrawal symptoms (on an inpatient or outpatient basis), headache prophylaxis and limited use of symptomatic acute medications. Most patients respond to this therapy, although the prognosis is not always good and >or=50% may lapse over an initial 5-year follow-up period. The best practical strategy at present is to prevent the overuse of drugs in the first place by patient education and formal management approaches conducted in primary care to treat the primary headache before it changes to MOH. The quality of the clinical evidence on MOH is suboptimal and further biological and clinical research is urgently required to help facilitate the management of these patients more effectively in the future.

Patients' preference for triptans and other medications as a tool for assessing the efficacy of acute treatments for migraine

Oral triptans are effective and well tolerated acute treatments for migraine, but clinical differences between them are small and difficult to measure in conventional clinical trials. Patient preference assesses a global measure of efficacy and tolerability, and may be a more sensitive means of distinguishing between these drugs. In a series of studies, patients consistently expressed a clear preference for triptans over their usual non–triptan acute medications, e.g., analgesics and ergotamine. Direct comparator studies of patient preference with oral triptans showed that patients could distinguish between different triptans, and between different formulations of the same triptan. Patients could even distinguish between the three oral doses of sumatriptan. The most frequently provided reasons for preference were speed of response and overall effectiveness. Patient preference is a sensitive clinical trial endpoint and physicians should consider using it when reviewing the efficacy of acute migraine medications.

Managing migraine headaches experienced by patients who self-report with menstrually related migraine: a prospective, placebo-controlled study with oral sumatriptan

The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan (100 mg) in patients who self–reported with menstrually related migraine. A prospective, multicentre, randomised, double–blind, placebocontrolled, two–group crossover study was carried out in 20 UK primary and secondary care surgeries. Of 115 patients with a self–reported history of menstrually related migraine that entered the study, 93 patients completed it. Patients treated all migraine attacks for 2 months with sumatriptan (100 mg) and for 2 months with placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting headache relief at 4 hours for the first treated attack. Only 11% of patients fulfilled the protocol definition of menstrually related migraine. Patients reported a variable pattern of migraine attacks occurring inside and outside the menstrual window. For the first attack, significantly more patients receiving sumatriptan than placebo reported headache relief for attacks occurring inside (67% vs. 33%, p=0.007) and outside (79% vs. 31%, p<0.001) the menstrual period. Sumatriptan was generally well tolerated. Oral sumatriptan (100 mg) is an effective and well tolerated acute treatment for patients who report menstrually related migraine.

Disability Associated With Headaches Occurring Inside and Outside the Menstrual Period in Those With Migraine: A General Practice Study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the disability of females who have migraine and other headache attacks occurring during and outside the menstrual period.

METHODS

One thousand four hundred and thirty-four of 3470 female patients (41.3%) aged 14 to 50 years registered at a UK general practice completed two questionnaires. The first questionnaire assessed the prevalence of headache, depression, and bodily pain in the total population. The second questionnaire assessed the disability of all headaches over a 2-month period (to capture a complete menstrual cycle) for patients reporting migraine who were still menstruating. Disability was assessed as the time lost and time spent at less than 50% productivity in normal activities due to headache, and analyzed as rank sums using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

The first part of the study showed that the prevalence of headache (66.1%), depression (55.4%), and bodily pain (40.6%) were high in this population of women. Thirty migraine patients who were still menstruating reported 89 migraine and 114 nonmigraine headache episodes in the second part of the study. For migraine, the rank order of time at less than 50% productivity was greater for attacks taking place inside the menstrual period than for those occurring outside the menstrual period. The comparison was significant for time at less than 50% productivity (P=.01). For nonmigraine headaches, the rank order of time lost was greater for attacks taking place outside the menstrual period than for those occurring inside the menstrual period. The comparison was not significant for time lost (P= .06).

CONCLUSIONS

For those with migraine, migraine attacks that took place during the menstrual period tended to be slightly more disabling than those taking place outside the menstrual period, but the opposite was true for nonmigraine headache.

Clinical and economic issues associated with switching between triptans in clinical practice

Seven oral triptans are now generally available for the acute treatment of migraine, and physicians may sometimes feel under pressure to switch patients from one triptan to another for nonclinical reasons. This commentary article provides advice on what information should be taken into account by the physician before they consider switching one triptan for another. We review recommendations on switching triptans from international guidelines for migraine management and relate these to data from a recently published study on the economic implications of switching triptans in the UK. Controlled clinical studies reveal that most of the oral triptans have broadly similar efficacy profiles. Switching triptans can therefore only be recommended if the patient experiences problems such as lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects following repeated use of the initial triptan. The retrospective database study revealed that most patients who had their triptan switched were subsequently switched again during a 15 month review period, most usually back to their original triptan. Overall, switching a patient's triptan led to increased costs (analysed as costs of medication and the GP consultation) to the healthcare provider. These data indicate that patients should only be switched from one triptan for another for clinical reasons and not for perceived economic reasons, i.e. cost of the medication.

Part III: the convenience of, and patient preference for, zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet

As part of an optimal strategy for the management of migraine, the individual needs and preferences of patients need to be considered when of patients need to be considered when prescribing treatments. Zolmitriptan has been available as a conventional oral tablet for more than seven years, and is established as a highly effective, well-tolerated compound for the acute treatment of migraine. A bioequivalent, orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of zolmitriptan, which dissolves on the tongue without the need for additional fluid intake, has been developed. In a study designed to compare patient preference for zolmitriptan ODT and conventional oral sumatriptan tablets, > 60% of the 186 patients questioned had an overall preference for zolmitriptan ODT, with > 80% of patients reporting that this was the more convenient and less disruptive therapy to take. Approximately 90% of patients agreed that, unlike a conventional tablet, zolmitriptan ODT can be taken wherever and whenever a migraine occurs. When patient preference for zolmitriptan ODT and the ODT formulation of rizatriptan was compared in 171 migraineurs, 70% had an overall preference for zolmitriptan ODT to be superior to rizatriptan ODT with respect to taste and aftertaste, as well as packaging. In summary, not only is zolmitriptan ODT a convenient tablets, such as the sumatriptan oral tablet, but patients generally consider it to be a more attractive option for the acute treatment of migraine than the orally disintegrating version of rizatriptan.

Zolmitriptan Nasal Spray Exhibits Good Long-Term Safety and Tolerability in Migraine: Results of the INDEX Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray has a fast onset of action, high efficacy, and good tolerability in the acute treatment of migraine. Objective.-This open-label, noncomparative, multicenter, multinational phase III study was designed to further evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray in a population of migraineurs largely naive to triptan nasal sprays who treated multiple migraine attacks over a 1-year period.

METHODS

Patients were required to have an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura (based on International Headache Society criteria), a high frequency of migraine attacks, and were allowed to treat migraine with any baseline headache intensity. A secondary objective of the study was to assess the long-term efficacy of zolmitriptan nasal spray. A subgroup analysis aimed to determine whether rhinitis had any influence on outcomes of treatment.

RESULTS

The safety population consisted of 538 patients who treated 20,717 migraine attacks with zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray. Overall, adverse events occurred in 32.8% of attacks, and led to treatment withdrawal in 4.5% of patients. The most common adverse events were unusual taste (19.0%) and paresthesia (6.8%). Adverse events were generally of mild intensity, transient, and well tolerated, showing a decline in incidence over time. Serious adverse events were rare. The presence of rhinitis and use of a second dose of trial medication had no effect on the incidence of adverse events. At 2 hours, 53.8% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg were rendered pain free. The highest 2-hour pain free rates were seen for headaches of mild baseline intensity (83.3%), followed by headaches of moderate (56.5%), and severe (32.2%) baseline intensity. The 2-hour pain-free rate remained consistent throughout the study period. The presence of rhinitis had no effect on efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray demonstrated a well-tolerated and efficacious profile in the acute treatment of multiple migraine attacks over a 1-year period.

Part II: clinical efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet in the acute treatment of migraine

Controlled clinical trials and extensive clinical use of conventional oral tablets of zolmitriptan, a selective agonist of serotonin1B/1D receptors, have proven the compound to be fast-acting, highly effective, and well-tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine. An orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of zolmitriptan that dissolves on the tongue without the need for fluid intake has been developed in order to provide an acceptable, convenient alternative for patients who prefer not to, or cannot, take conventional tablets. A fast onset of effective, sustained pain relief was predicted for zolmitriptan ODT on the basis of its bioequivalence with the conventional tablet, which has been confirmed in three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of zolmitriptan ODT in the acute treatment of migraine. Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of patients treated with zolmitriptan ODT responded to treatment (reduction of moderate or severe headache to mild or no pain) as early as 30 minutes after dosing. Headache response was maintained at 24 hours in significantly higher proportions of patients receiving zolmitriptan ODT compared with placebo. Zolmitriptan ODT also resulted in significantly greater pain-free rates than placebo as early as 1 hour after dosing. Zolmitriptan ODT relieved patients of other migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and enabled >50% of patients to resume normal daily activities 2 hours after dosing. Adverse events observed with zolmitriptan ODT were similar to those associated with the serotonin1B/1D agonists as a class, and were generally transient and of mild or moderate intensity.

Psychiatric morbidity and cognitive representations of illness in chronic daily headache

OBJECTIVES

We studied patients with chronic daily headache (CDH) attending a headache clinic. Our hypothesis was that patients with anxiety or depression would have poorer functional status and differing cognitive representations of illness than would those without psychiatric morbidity.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 144 consecutive new patients. Patients underwent a semistructured interview and completed a prospective headache diary, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and other health-related questionnaires.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (42%) were probable cases of anxiety or depression on the basis of their HADS score. These HADS-positive cases had longer, more severe headaches, were more worried about them, were more functionally impaired and believed that their illness would last longer. Principal components analysis revealed that the HADS-positive cases believed that psychological factors play a role in their headaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological morbidity is high amongst CDH patients who attend specialist clinics. In addition to identifying those with high levels of psychological distress, the HADS can be used to predict those likely to have worse headaches and poorer functional ability.

Managing chronic headaches in the clinic

Chronic daily headache (CDH), which is often linked to a history of migraine, tension-type headache and the abuse of headache medications, and cluster headache are the best known of the chronic headaches. These headaches may not be well recognised or well treated in primary care. This article outlines the development of management algorithms for these headache subtypes, designed for use by the primary care physician with an interest in headache. Principles of care for chronic headaches include implementation of screening procedures, differential diagnosis, tailoring of management to the individual's needs, proactive follow-up and a team approach to care. These principles can be customised to the headache subtype by the selection of appropriate therapies. The optimal treatments for CDH include physical therapy to the neck if there is any stiffness there, withdrawal of abused medications and treatment of any subsequent withdrawal symptoms and headache prophylaxis, together with the provision of acute medications as rescue therapy. Optimal treatments for cluster headache include short- and long-term prophylaxis to prevent the headaches developing and acute medications for use as rescue. If treatment is ineffective, alternative medications can be provided at follow-up, with the possibility of referral for refractory patients.

Identifying patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment: the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT) questionnaire

The aim of the study was to design and test a new, easy to use, assessment tool, the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT), for identifying patients who require a change in their acute treatment. A 27-item questionnaire was developed by an international advisory board including questions formulated in four domains: headache impact, global assessment of relief, consistency of response and emotional response. Migraine patients entered a multinational, prospective study to investigate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the tool, which was completed by the patients on two occasions. Test-retest reliability was assessed by Pearson's and by Spearman correlation coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by correlating patients' answers to the 27-item questionnaire with those of well-reported measures: SF-36, MIDAS and Migraine Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (MTAQ). The test-retest reliability of the 27 initial questions ranged from good to excellent. Correlations of all items with SF-36, MIDAS and MTAQ scores--assessed by discriminatory t-tests--indicated that the following 4 were the most discriminating items: Does your migraine medication work consistently, in the majority of your attacks? Does the headache pain disappear within 2 hours? Are you able to function normally within 2 hours? Are you comfortable enough with your medication to be able to plan your daily activities? The 4-item Migraine-ACT is a brief, simple, and reliable assessment tool to identify patients who require a change in their acute migraine treatment, and can be recommended for primary care physicians, neurologists and headache clinicians.

Identifying patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment: the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT) questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Currently available measures of the efficacy of acute migraine medications are not frequently used in primary care. They may be too burdensome and complicated for routine use.

OBJECTIVES

To design and test a new, easy to use, 4-item assessment tool, the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT) questionnaire for use by clinicians, to quickly evaluate how a recently prescribed acute medication is working, and to identify patients who require a change of their current acute treatment.

METHODS

A 27-item Migraine-ACT questionnaire was developed by an international advisory board of headache specialists. Questions were formulated in four domains: headache impact, global assessment of relief, consistency of response and emotional response. All these are clinically important measures of migraine severity and treatment outcome. All questions were dichotomous and answered by yes or no. Patients (n = 185) attending secondary care headache clinics who were diagnosed with migraine according to International Headache Society criteria entered a multinational, prospective, observational study to investigate the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the 27-item Migraine-ACT. Patients completed the Migraine-ACT on two occasions, separated by a 1-week interval, and test-retest reliability was assessed by Pearson product moment and Spearman rank measures. Construct validity was assessed by correlating patients' answers to the 27-item Migraine-ACT with those to other questionnaires (individual domains and total scores) conceptually related to it; the Short-Form 36 quality of life questionnaire (SF-36), the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire and the Migraine Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (MTAQ). Discriminatory t-tests were used to identify the four Migraine-ACT questions (one in each domain) which discriminated best between the domains of the SF36, MIDAS, and MTAQ. These four items constituted the final 4-item Migraine-ACT.

RESULTS

The test-retest reliability of the 27 Migraine-ACT questions ranged from good to excellent, and correlation coefficients were highly significant for all items. The consistency of reporting the yes and no answers was also excellent. Correlations of Migraine-ACT items with SF-36 and MIDAS items and SF-36, MIDAS and MTAQ total scores indicated that the following were the most discriminating items, in the respective four domains, and constitute the final Migraine-ACT questionnaire: Consistency of response: Does your migraine medication work consistently, in the majority of your attacks? Global assessment of relief: Does the headache pain disappear within 2 h?

IMPACT

Are you able to function normally within 2 h? Emotional response: Are you comfortable enough with your medication to be able to plan your daily activities? The 4-item Migraine-ACT was shown to be highly reliable (Spearman/Pearson measure r = 0.82). The individual questions, and the total 4-item Migraine-ACT score, showed good correlation with items of the SF-36, MIDAS and MTAQ questionnaires, particularly with the total MTAQ and SF-36 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4-item Migraine-ACT questionnaire is an assessment tool for use by primary care physicians to identify patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment. It is brief and simple to complete and score, and has demonstrated reliability, accuracy and simplicity. Migraine-ACT can therefore be recommended for everyday clinical use by clinicians.

Almotriptan Improves Response Rates When Treatment Is Within 1 Hour of Migraine Onset

BACKGROUND

Results from open-label trials with almotriptan and sumatriptan have shown higher response rates when treatment was initiated early after acute migraine onset.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the temporal component of early intervention by measuring 2-hour pain-free and sustained pain-free responses to almotriptan and sumatriptan when the study drug was taken within 1 hour of onset of moderate to severe pain.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan and sumatriptan. Men and women, 18 to 65 years of age, who met International Headache Society criteria for migraine with or without aura were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive a single oral dose of almotriptan 12.5 or 25 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, or placebo at the onset of a severe or moderate migraine attack. For this post hoc analysis, the almotriptan 25-mg dose was excluded because 12.5 mg is the recommended dose. The primary efficacy assessment was sustained pain-free, defined as pain-free at 2 hours postdose with no recurrence from 2 to 24 hours and no use of rescue medication. Only patients who took study medication within 1 hour of migraine onset were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 475 patients involved in the original study, 253 (53.3%) initiated treatment within the 0- to 1-hour interval. For these patients, 2-hour pain-free rates were 37.9% for almotriptan 12.5 mg (P=.016 versus placebo), 35.7% for sumatriptan 100 mg (P=.028 versus placebo), and 18.9% for placebo. Only almotriptan was significantly higher than placebo on the sustained pain-free rate-34.7% (P=.022 versus placebo); the sustained pain-free rate for sumatriptan was 29.6% and for placebo, 17.0%.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of treatment with almotriptan 12.5 mg within the first hour after acute migraine onset resulted in a significantly higher sustained pain-free response compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in sustained pain-free rates between sumatriptan and placebo. These results are consistent with those from a previous open-label trial, and suggest that early intervention with almotriptan can improve clinical outcome.

Speed of onset and efficacy of zolmitriptan nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study versus zolmitriptan tablet

OBJECTIVE

Zolmitriptan oral tablet is highly effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura in adults. A nasal spray formulation has now been developed. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed doses of zolmitriptan administered via a nasal spray with placebo and zolmitriptan oral tablet in the acute treatment of migraine.

PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, dose-ranging study. 1547 patients aged 18-65 years with an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura (as defined by International Headache Society criteria) who had at least a 1-year history of migraine and an age of onset <50 years were included. Patients were able to distinguish typical migraine from nonmigraine headaches and had experienced an average of one to six migraine headaches per month during the 2 months preceding the study. Patients were randomised to zolmitriptan (Zomig) The use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) nasal spray (5.0, 2.5, 1.0 or 0.5 mg), zolmitriptan oral tablet (2.5mg) or placebo for the treatment of three moderate or severe migraine attacks. The primary outcome measure was headache response at 2 hours following treatment, defined as reduced intensity of migraine pain (using a scale of none, mild, moderate or severe) from severe or moderate at baseline to mild or no pain at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcome measures included early headache response at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and headache response at 1 and 4 hours postdose, as well as pain-free rates at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and 1, 2 and 4 hours postdose. Laboratory assessments, vital signs, 12-lead ECGs and nose and throat examinations were performed at screening and follow-up visits. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study using Coding Symbols for Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms (COSTART) terminology.

RESULTS

Each dose of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced a greater 2-hour headache response rate than placebo (70.3%, 58.6%, 54.8% and 41.5% for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0, 2.5, 1.0 and 0.5mg, compared with 30.6% for placebo [all p < 0.001 vs placebo]). The 2-hour headache response rate for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg was significantly higher than that of the zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet (61.3%; p < 0.05), while comparisons of nasal spray 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5mg with zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet were not statistically significant. The nasal spray 5.0 and 2.5mg showed a rapid onset of action, with a significant difference in headache response compared with placebo from 15 minutes through 4 hours after administration and a significant difference between the nasal spray 5.0mg and 2.5mg oral tablet from 15 minutes through to 2 hours (the other nasal spray doses were not statistically significant compared with 2.5mg oral tablet). Zolmitriptan nasal spray resulted in pain-free rates that were dose dependent. While all doses from 1.0 mg upwards produced significant pain-free outcomes from 30 minutes versus placebo, only the 5.0mg dose produced pain-free rates significantly superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg oral tablet. Zolmitriptan nasal spray was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being unusual taste and paresthesia. The majority of adverse events were of short duration and mild or moderate intensity. Only ten patients were withdrawn from the trial because of adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported by nine patients after taking study medication, but none was considered to be causally related to study medication. Zolmitriptan was not associated with any clinically significant changes in laboratory test values or vital signs.

CONCLUSION

All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced significant 2-hour headache response rates compared with placebo. The 5.0 and 2.5mg doses were also significantly more effective than placebo for the majority of secondary efficacy measures. Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg provided a headache response statistically superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 15 minutes after administration, while demonstrating pain-free outcomes significantly superior to placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 30 minutes after administration. All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray were well tolerated, resulting in an optimal therapeutic index and clinical recommendation for the 5.0mg dose.

Tolerability and consistency of effect of zolmitriptan nasal spray in a long-term migraine treatment trial

OBJECTIVES

To primarily assess the tolerability of zolmitriptan (Zomig) nasal spray 5mg in the long-term treatment of migraine, as well as determine efficacy and consistency of effect over time (up to 1 year).

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind-to-dose, parallel-group, multicentre study was designed as a two-phase, crossover trial with a total duration of 1 year. In the pre-crossover phase, 1,093 patients aged 18-65 years with an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura received intranasal zolmitriptan 5, 2.5, 1 or 0.5mg for the treatment of mild, moderate or severe migraine attacks. When a headache persisted or recurred, a second dose of zolmitriptan nasal spray (or other approved escape medication) was permitted 2 hours post-administration but no later than 24 hours after the first dose. In the post-crossover phase, once a placebo-controlled, dose-finding study had established 5mg as the dose with the optimal clinical utility, all patients were crossed over under blinded conditions to receive this dose. As this was primarily a safety study, the primary endpoints for the study were the incidence and nature of all serious adverse events (at any time before or after administration) and nonserious adverse events (within 24 hours of administration), as well as the incidence of clinically significant abnormalities in either ECG or haematology and clinical chemistry parameters. Nose and throat examinations were performed before and after the study at 30 predetermined trial centres. Other endpoint measures included headache response rate, pain-free assessments, reduction in headache intensity, time to resumption of normal activities and consistency of headache response. Efficacy rates were measured in 90-day intervals up to a period of 360 days.

RESULTS

Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg was well tolerated, with only 1.9% of patients withdrawing from the 12-month long-term trial because of adverse events. Adverse events occurred in 22.1% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg, and the majority were of short duration and mild or moderate intensity. Serious adverse events occurred in 0.2% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg. There was no evidence of increased incidence of adverse events with increasing duration of treatment. Nasopharyngeal adverse events were reported in 5.5% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg. Again, events were generally transient and of mild intensity. For the 1,093 patients who treated 13,806 attacks during the pre-crossover phase, headache response rates at 2 hours over all attacks were 73.2%, 70.5%, 49.9% and 41.5% for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5, 2.5, 1 and 0.5mg, respectively. Pain-free rates at 2 hours over all attacks were 51.5%, 48.1%, 24.7% and 21.8%, respectively. For the 783 patients receiving the 5mg dose in either the pre- or post-crossover phases, the 2-hour headache response rates were 72.9%, 74.4%, 74.6% and 74.1% for the four 90-day periods between day 0 and day 360. Normal activities were resumed within 2 hours in 60.4% of attacks. Long-term usage of zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg was also associated with a consistently effective response, with 57.8% of patients experiencing a 2-hour headache response in over 75% of attacks. The majority of patients (70.3%) rated their overall satisfaction with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg as good or excellent.

CONCLUSION

Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg provides good tolerability and efficacy in long-term use in a clinical setting, with consistently high 2-hour headache and pain-free rates. This combination of benefits translates to high patient satisfaction with this formulation of zolmitriptan.

Patients with migraine prefer zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet to sumatriptan conventional oral tablet

The Zolmitriptan Evaluation versus Sumatriptan Trial (ZEST) assessed patient preference for 2.5 mg zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) or 50 mg sumatriptan conventional tablet in 218 patients with significant migraine disability. Significantly more patients preferred zolmitriptan ODT to sumatriptan conventional tablet (60.1% vs 39.9%; p = 0.0130). In terms of efficacy, significantly more patients considered zolmitriptan ODT to be an effective migraine treatment than sumatriptan conventional tablet (77% vs 63%; p = 0.0063). When asked about specific formulation attributes, significantly more patients selected zolmitriptan ODT as the least disruptive therapy (83.6% vs 16.4%), the easiest to take (85.5% vs 14.5%), the most convenient to take (86.1% vs 13.9%), and the one which enabled them to maintain an active lifestyle (65.5% vs 34.5%), compared with the sumatriptan conventional tablet (all comparisons p < 0.001). Zolmitriptan ODT is a convenient and beneficial alternative to conventional tablets and is preferred to sumatriptan conventional tablets by migraineurs.

Establishing principles for migraine management in primary care

Published guidelines for the management of migraine in primary care were evaluated by an international advisory board of headache specialists, to establish evidence-based principles of migraine management that could be recommended for international use. Twelve principles of migraine management were identified, covering screening, diagnosis, management and treatments: Almost all headaches are benign/primary and can be managed by all practising clinicians. Use questions/a questionnaire to assess the impact on daily living and everyday activities, for diagnostic screening and to aid management decisions. Share migraine management between the clinician and the patient. Provide individualised care for migraine and encourage patients to manage their migraine. Follow up patients, preferably with migraine calendars or diaries. Regularly re-evaluate the success of therapy using specific outcome measures and monitor the use of acute and prophylactic medications regularly. Adapt migraine management to changes that occur in the illness and its presentation over the years. Provide acute medication to all migraine patients and recommend it is taken at the appropriate time, during the attack. Provide rescue medication/symptomatic treatment for when the initial therapy fails. Offer to prescribe prophylactic medications, as well as lifestyle changes, to patients who have four or more migraine attacks per month or who are resistant to acute medications. Consider concurrent co-morbidities in the choice of appropriate prophylactic medication. Work with the patient to achieve comfort with mutually agreed upon treatment and ensure that it is practical for their lifestyle and headache presentation. Using these principles, practising clinicians can screen and diagnose their headache patients effectively and manage their migraine patients over the long-term natural history of the migraine process. In this way, the majority of migraine patients can be well treated in primary care, ensuring a structured and individualised approach to headache management, and conserving valuable healthcare resources.

Casebook: headache

Headache alone rarely indicates a sinister underlying cause. However, if the red flags are flying -- that is, if the patient is over 30 years old when the first headache develops, has additional symptoms or signs or has a very acute onset, particularly involving vomiting, then suspicion should be raised (see table 4). Although migraine has a high impact on the sufferer and affects a large proportion of the population on a monthly basis, the problem of acute muscle contraction headache is far greater. Other forms of headache are actually uncommon in comparison to these two. However, chronic daily headache is the most common condition seen by the medical professional because of its impact on the patient's quality of life. The key to the management of this condition is the assessment of analgesic dependence including NSAIDs, and particularly the codeine-containing agents. These should be avoided while long-term aproached such as exercise and certain prophylactic agents are introduced. It is true to say that if a careful initial assessment is made leading to a correct diagnosis, then the chance of appropriate management is enormously increased. Patients undergoing the correct management should generally see a massive improvement in their quality of life. Headache can, therefore, be a very satisfying condition for the clinician to treat.

Analysis of the patients attending a specialist UK headache clinic over a 3-year period

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the profile of patients who attended a specialist UK headache clinic over a 3-year period.

METHODS

An audit was conducted of the clinical records of patients attending the specialist headache clinic at King's College, London, between January 1997 and January 2000. Data were collected for diagnoses given, current medications taken, medications prescribed and recommended, and investigations conducted. Results were calculated as numbers and proportions of patients for the 3-year period and for the 3 separate 12-month periods.

RESULTS

A total of 458 patients were included in the audit. Most patients were diagnosed as having chronic daily headache (CDH, 60%) or migraine (33%). Prior to the clinic visit, most patients with CDH and migraine treated their headaches with analgesics, and there was little use of prophylactic medication. In the clinic, 74% of patients with CDH and 85% of migraineurs were prescribed prophylactic medication, and 81% of migraineurs were given triptans for acute treatment. Diagnostic testing was performed in 12% of the patients, and all results were normal or negative.

CONCLUSIONS

CDH and migraine were the most common headache types encountered in this UK secondary-care clinic. Review of treatment patterns used prior to the initial clinic evaluation suggests that management of CDH and migraine in UK primary care is suboptimal, and educational initiatives are needed to improve headache management.