The role of triptans and analgesics for primary headache treatment

Primary headache especially migraine is very common disorder. The mainstay in the acute treatment of migraine is triptans (sumatriptan, zolmitriptan, eletriptan, naratriptan) and analgesics or NSAIDs. However, it is still unclear the appropriate usage of triptans and analgesics or NSAIDs for migraine treatment. Mild attacks may be managed with analgesics or NSAIDs while severe disabling ones usually respond better to specific antimigraine drugs, triptans. Analgesics or NSAIDs administration is always plagued with the potential of subsequent drug induced headache phenomenon. Therefore usage of analgesics or NSAIDs should be restricted only for young and typical type patients with migraine. As triptan medication method corresponding to various life style, in addition to tablet formulation, there are subcutaneous injector and nasal spray formulation in sumatriptan, rapid melt tablet formulation in zolmitriptan (rapimelt) and naratriptan (rapidisk). These different type of formulation are valuable for patient's needs.     

How to Apply the AHS Evidence Assessment of the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults to your Patient with Migraine

The “Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: The American Headache Society Evidence Assessment of Migraine Pharmacotherapies” provides levels of evidence for medication efficacy for acute treatment of migraine. The goal of this companion paper is to provide guidance on how to choose between evidence‐based treatment options, and, based on the clinical characteristics of the patient and their migraine attacks, to provide guidance on designing an individualized strategy for managing migraine attacks. The acute pharmacological treatments described in the American Headache Society evidence assessment can be divided into those initially taken by the patient during the headache phase of the migraine attack, those taken by the patient later in the attack when initial treatments fail, and those administered intravenously or intramuscularly in urgent care settings. Medications taken initially by patients in the headache phase include nonspecific analgesics such as acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), triptans, and dihydroergotamine (DHE). A stratified approach to treatment is advised, with the choice of medication based on the patient's treatment needs, taking into consideration the attack severity, presence of associated symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, and the degree of migraine‐related disability. Individuals with migraine may find reassurance in having a “back‐up plan” in the event of an initial acute treatment failure. For those individuals who had a partial response to the initial acute treatment, a second dose might be indicated. When the initial treatment does not provide meaningful and sustained benefits, a treatment from a different medication class is typically chosen. Depending upon the initial treatment used, this might include NSAIDs, triptans, or DHE. Opioids or acetaminophen in combination with codeine or tramadol can be considered as part of the “back‐up plan,” provided they are used infrequently. When all patient administered treatments have failed and moderate to severe migraine symptoms remain, some individuals seek treatment in urgent care settings. The intravenous administration of antiemetics with or without an intravenous or intramuscular NSAID or DHE, or an intramuscular opioid can be considered. Patients with migraine should be encouraged to treat migraine pain early, and avoid overuse of medications.     

Intravenous valproate sodium in the treatment of daily headache

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic daily headache/transformed migraine is challenging, especially when it is complicated by overuse of analgesics, triptans, or both. One common approach involves the use of repetitive intravenous dihydroergotamine. We investigated the use of intravenous valproate sodium in the treatment of chronic daily headache/transformed migraine in patients who had contraindications to the use of or had failed treatment with dihydroergotamine. METHODS: We administered intravenous valproate sodium (Depacon) to patients with chronic daily headache/transformed migraine (loading dose 15 mg/kg, followed by 5 mg/kg every 8 hours). All analgesics and triptans were discontinued prior to treatment with divalproex sodium, and preventative medications for migraine were begun or continued. All patients received instruction in behavioral modification and the proper use of analgesics and triptans. RESULTS: Improvement in headache was reported by 80% of the patients treated, and valproate sodium was tolerated well by most. CONCLUSION: Intravenous valproate sodium may be of assistance in the initial management of patients with chronic daily headache/transformed migraine and analgesic/triptan overuse, especially when dihydroergotamine is ineffective or contraindicated.     

Symptomatic pharmacotherapy of migraine.

This review summarizes data on the effectiveness of various symptomatic migraine pharmacotherapies and makes recommendations for treatment. A wide variety of agents are available for the symptomatic treatment of migraine headache, including over-the-counter analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), combination products, opiates, ergot alkaloids, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, and triptans. In the stepped-care approach, simple analgesics and NSAIDs are the recommended first step for the treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine headaches. Patients who do not respond to first-step treatments may be given ergots, combination products, dopamine antagonists, or triptans as the second step. Corticosteroids or opiates may be used as rescue treatment in patients who do not respond to second-step treatment. A stratified approach to care individualizes treatment based on the severity of the headache and other patient-specific factors. In a stratified approach, dihydroergotamine or triptans may be the first-step treatment for patients who present with a history of severe migraines that have responded poorly to previous treatments. Sumatriptan was the first triptan approved for the symptomatic treatment of migraine headache; newer triptans include zolmitriptan, naratriptan, and rizatriptan. Since sumatriptan is rapidly absorbed by the subcutaneous route, its time to onset of effect is shortest. Among triptan drugs that are administered orally, the relative time to onset may be shorter with rizatriptan than sumatriptan. Naratriptan has a longer time to onset but is associated with a lower rate of migraine recurrence than other triptans. graine headache, ergot alkaloids, triptans,     

Pharmacological treatment of attacks in juvenile migraine

Although migraine is a common complaint in childhood and adolescence, there is a lack of controlled clinical studies regarding treatment. In the young patient, the pharmacological approach should be preceded by setting up non-pharmacological measures which include behavioural intervention. The sole use of symptomatic therapies should be limited to patients who complain of up to four partially or totally disabling attacks, or those who suffer from headache for more than 4 days per month. The therapeutic armamentarium includes non-specific symptomatic drugs, such as analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as anti-emetics and specific drugs, such as the triptans. Analgesics and NSAIDs are the most frequently used drugs in childhood and adolescence for the symptomatic treatment of migraine attacks of slight or moderate intensity. The first-choice drug for those under 12 years of age is acetaminophen. Among NSAIDs, two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were conducted for ibuprofen, supporting its efficacy. In the past, ergot derivatives played an important role in the treatment of spontaneous migraine attacks, particularly in adults, but after the triptan revolution their role was strongly confined to a small number of patients. Although they are considered first-choice drugs for moderate and severe migraine attacks in adults, triptans are still under study in migraine patients under 18 years of age. The Health Ministry rules do not approve their use in patients under 18 years. They can only be given legally if the therapeutic plan for their use is previously approved by the Ethics Committee and after informed consent from the patient/parents. Promising results have been obtained, particularly for sumatriptan in nasal spray formulation as well as for zolmitriptan and rizatriptan, showing a high tolerability and safety profile.     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 1: triptans, dihydroergotamine, and magnesium

Objective.— To review and analyze published reports on the acute treatment of migraine headache with triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), and magnesium in emergency department, urgent care, and headache clinic settings. Methods.— MEDLINE was searched using the terms “migraine” and “emergency,” and “therapy” or “treatment.” Reports from emergency department and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery were included. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Acute rescue treatment studies involving the triptans were available for injectable and nasal sumatriptan, as well as rizatriptan. Effectiveness varied widely, even when the pain‐free and pain‐relief statistics were evaluated separately. As these medications are known to work best early in the migraine, part of this variability may be attributed to the timing of triptan administration. Multiple studies compared triptans with anti‐emetics, dopamine antagonists, and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was roughly equivalent to that recorded with droperidol and prochlorperazine. Sumatriptan was equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were performed. While the data extracted suggest that magnesium may be effective in treating all symptoms in patients experiencing migraine with aura across all migraine patients, its effectiveness seems to be limited to treating only photophobia and phonophobia. Conclusions.— Although there are relatively few studies involving health‐care provider‐administered triptans or DHE for acute rescue, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. The relatively rare inclusion of a placebo arm and the frequent use of combination medications in active treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents with each other.     

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.     

Migraine headache. Its diagnosis and treatment

Many theories exist on the pathogenesis of migraine. However, the clinical picture of migraine is agreed on universally as a familial disorder characterized by recurrent attacks of headache that are variable in intensity, frequency, and duration. The attacks are usually unilateral and often associated with anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. Migraine therapy is complex and difficult, focusing on abortive and prophylactic regimens. General therapeutic measures, including diet and establishing schedules for meals and sleeping, may benefit many migraineurs. A variety of medications, including ergotamine, propranolol, the calcium channel blockers, antidepressants, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been beneficial in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Ergotamine is the drug of choice in the abortive treatment, although other agents, such as the NSAIDs, have been used successfully. Inpatient therapy in a specialized unit for headache patients may be indicated for the recidivist patient, the patient habituated to analgesics or ergotamine, or the patient with the mixed headache syndrome, i.e., migraine occurring with coexistent muscle contraction headaches.     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications

Objective.— The final section of this 3‐part review analyzes published reports involving the acute treatment of migraine with opioids, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the emergency department (ED), urgent care, and headache clinic settings, as well as post‐discharge medications. In the Conclusion, there is a general discussion of all the therapies presented in the 3 sections. Method.— Using the terms (“migraine” AND “emergency”) AND (“therapy” OR “treatment”), the author searched MEDLINE for reports from ED and urgent care settings that involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinic settings were included only if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Seventy‐five reports were identified that compared the efficacy and safety of multiple acute migraine medications for rescue. Of the medications reviewed in Part 3, opioids, NSAIDs, and steroids all demonstrated some effectiveness. When used alone, nalbuphine and metamizole were superior to placebo. NSAIDs were inferior to the combination of metoclopramide and diphenhydramine. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and dihydroergotamine (DHE) but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other dopamine antagonists. Steroids afford some protection against headache recurrence after the patient leaves the treatment center. Conclusions.— All 3 opioids most frequently studied – meperidine, tramadol, and nalbuphine – were superior to placebo in relieving migraine pain, although meperidine combined with promethazine was not. Opioid side effects included dizziness, sedation, and nausea. With ketorolac being the most frequently studied drug in the class, NSAIDs were generally well tolerated, and they may provide benefit even when given late in the migraine attack. The rate of headache recurrence within 24‐72 hours after discharge from the ED can be greater than 50%. Corticosteroids can be useful in reducing headache recurrence after discharge. As discussed in Parts 1, 2, and 3, there are effective medications for provider‐administered “rescue” in all the classes discussed. Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti‐migraine medications in the emergent setting, and their effectiveness is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in migraine pain relief. Although there are fewer studies involving sumatriptan and DHE, relatively “migraine‐specific” medications, they appear to be equivalent to the dopamine antagonists for migraine pain relief. Lack of comparisons with placebo and the frequent use of combinations of medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one another. When used alone, prochlorperazine, promethazine, metoclopramide, nalbuphine, and metamizole were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also are more likely to produce side effects that are difficult for a patient to tolerate (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine, and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and NSAIDs. Meperidine was arguably equivalent when compared with ketorolac and DHE but was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. Sumatriptan was inferior or equivalent to the neuroleptics and equivalent to DHE when only paired comparisons were considered. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking sumatriptan was equivalent to that observed with droperidol or prochlorperazine. (Headache 2012;52:467‐482)     

Schwierige Entscheidungen

In pregnancy and in childhood, headache and migraine are challenging therapeutic problems.However, this review aims to give treatment recommendations for drug and non-drug therapy in both patient groups which are based on scientific evidence. Pregnant women often lose their migraine attacks which reappear during lactation. During pregnancy acute headache can be treated with paracetamol, in the middle trimenon also ASA and ibuprofen are allowed. Triptans for the acute treatment of migraine are contraindicated. As prophylactic agents, only metoprolol, fluoxetine, and magnesium are possible. In childhood, drug of first choice for acute headache treatment is ibuprofen. Migraine can also be treated by sumatriptan nasal spray. In migraine prophylaxis, flunarizine is drug of first choice, no prophylactic drugs are evaluated for tension-type headache in childhood. The problems of specific contraindications and of the off-label use of drugs in this particular life periods are discussed.     

Factors associated with triptan use in episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

Background.— Though triptans are considered the standard of acute therapy for migraine attacks with headache‐related disability, they are used by the minority of potentially eligible persons. Understanding the socio‐demographic and headache features that predict triptan use may help to clarify barriers to optimal treatment. Objective.— To assess the sociodemographic and headache features associated with triptan use in a US population sample of persons with episodic migraine. Methods.— The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study (AMPP) is a longitudinal study conducted in a representative sample of US headache sufferers. Episodic migraineurs (n = 11,388) who provided treatment data in 2005 were included in the current analyses. We assessed factors associated with triptan use through univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, headache‐related disability, cutaneous allodynia, depression, and preventive headache medication use. Results.— Among persons with episodic migraine, 18.31% reported current use of triptans for acute headache treatment. In univariate analyses, triptan use was most common in midlife (ages 30‐59), among females, and was more common in Caucasians than in African Americans. Triptan use increased with headache frequency, headache‐related disability and allodynia, but decreased among persons with depression. In multivariate analyses, female gender, Caucasian race, age 40‐49, higher levels of education (college or higher), annual household income of ≥$40,000, having health insurance, the presence of cutaneous allodynia, greater headache‐related disability, and preventive medication use for migraine were significantly associated with triptan use. Conclusions.— Less than 1 in 5 persons with migraine in the United States who were respondents to this survey used triptans for acute headache treatment over the course of a year. Several markers of severe headache, including disability and allodynia, were associated with increased triptan use. Groups less likely to get triptans included males, African Americans, older adults, and the uninsured. Predictors of use provide insight into groups with unmet treatment needs.     

Glutamate levels in cerebrospinal fluid and triptans overuse in chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE: Chronic migraine (CM) is a common disorder, affecting 2% to 3% of the general population. Glutamate is implicated in cortical spreading depression, trigeminovascular activation, central sensitization, and may be linked to migraine chronification. Triptans brought a novel option for the acute migraine treatment. As the development of central sensitization impacts upon the effectiveness of triptan therapy, we hypothesized that glutamate might be related to triptan response mechanisms. METHODS: We studied 19 patients diagnosed with CM according to the International Headache Society (2004) criteria. Patients were divided in those overusing analgesics (NSAIDs); those without overuse, and those overusing triptans. RESULTS: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glutamate levels were similar in patients overusing acute medications (0.335 +/- 0.225 micromol) compared to those without overuse (0.354 +/- 0.141 micromol), P= NS). In contrast, patients overusing triptans had CSF glutamate levels significantly lower than that observed in nonoverusers (0.175 +/- 0.057 vs 0.354 +/- 0.141 micromol, P= 0.015), and significantly higher than controls (0.175 +/- 0.057 vs 0.109 +/- 0.066 micromol, P= 0.039). In triptan overusers, CSF glutamate levels, although lower, were not significantly different from patients overusing other types of analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed lower glutamate levels in CSF of CM patients overusing triptans. Glutamate may be implicated in triptan response mechanisms, triptans may work in part by reducing extracellular glutamate levels in the brain.     

Drug Interaction and Serotonin Toxicity with Opioid Use: Another Reason to Avoid Opioids in Headache and Migraine Treatment

Treatment of headache, specifically migraine attacks, has always been a challenging subject, especially for neurologist and pain specialists. Triptans are generally underutilized, despite being the gold standard abortive medication for migraine attacks. On the other hand, opioid analgesics are overused as a treatment for headache. One reason for this could be physician unfamiliarity with drug interactions between opioids and other medications, especially the possibility of serotonin toxicity. The general awareness of potential serotonin toxicity with using opioid analgesics is low. In this review, we will conduct a theoretic and evidence-based review of the potential for developing serotonin syndrome in patients who are using opioids analgesics, especially in combination with antidepressants, a common co-prescribed combination. We also review the current diagnostic criteria for serotonin syndrome and identify possible shortcomings of those criteria. Our aim is to increase the awareness of health care providers about potential drug interaction of opioid analgesics with other classes of medication. We place particular emphasis on tramadol since this drug is one of the most commonly used opioid analgesics for headache. The potential for developing serotonin syndrome is relatively high in the patients who are using opioid for pain control. The use of opioids in migraine headache is already discouraged due to the high risk of medication overuse headache and also an increase in headache-related disability (Katsarava et al. Neurology 62:788–790, 2004; Bigal and Lipton. Neurology 71:1821-8, 2008; Casucci and Cevoli. Neurol Sci. 34 Suppl 1:S125–8, 2013). This is another reason that physicians and health care providers should avoid using this class of medication for pain, specifically headache and migraine treatment.     

Providing relief from headache pain. Current options for acute and prophylactic therapy

The sometimes debilitating pain of migraine and other types of primary headache can be difficult to control with acute drug therapy alone. Often patients need both acute and prophylactic treatment to keep headache pain at bay. Dr Ward discusses the current treatment options for migraine with and without aura, tension-type headache, and cluster headache. He also provides practical pointers for use of the various formulations of specific drugs, including the newer "triptan" medications.     

Migraine treatment patterns and patient satisfaction with prior therapy: a substudy of a multicenter trial of rizatriptan effectiveness

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, chronic, often disabling neurologic condition that is underdiagnosed and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: We undertook this questionnaire-based study as a substudy of a multicenter trial of rizatriptan effectiveness. Our goal was to assess the history of acute migraine medication use and the relationship between different migraine medication regimens and patient satisfaction with prior therapy. METHODS: This study was conducted at 85 neurology clinics throughout Spain from March Lo December 2001. It was planned prospectively as part of the screening visit for a multicenter trial of the effectiveness of rizatriptan therapy for migraine. Male and female patients >/=18 years of age were eligible for the primary trial, and hence for this study, if they had a history of migraine attacks and did not have a contraindication for triptan use. At the screening visit for the primary trial, a questionnaire was used by clinicians to record past and current use, and duration and order of use, of analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), ergot derivatives, and triptans; satisfaction with treatment was scored on a 5-point scale ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied." RESULTS: Of 712 patients completing the questionnaire (mean [SD] age, 34 [10] years; range, 18-69 years), 75% were women and 94% experienced moderate or severe functional disability during migraine attacks. Analgesics were used by the majority of patients (81%) and for the longest mean [SD] duration (8.8 [7.6] years) but were associated with the least satisfaction (10% of patients "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied"). Triptans were used by the fewest patients (32%) and for the shortest mean duration (18 [1.6] years) but were associated with the highest rate of satisfaction (66%) compared with NSAIDs (27%) and ergot derivatives (31%). Regardless of duration or order of drug use, or sex or age of the patient, the likelihood of satisfaction with triptans was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than with nontriptan regimens, with an adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of 16.8 (11.4-24.9) versus analgesics, 5.1 (3.6-7.1) versus NSAIDs, and 4.1 (2.8-6.0) versus ergot derivatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that analgesics, NSAIDs, and ergot derivatives were used for long durations but provided low satisfaction among patients. Triptans were rarely used as a first treatment choice; however, patients reported the highest treatment satisfaction scores after triptan therapy compared with ergot derivatives, NSAIDs, or analgesics.     

Rizatriptan combined with rofecoxib vs. rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine: an open label pilot study

Rizatriptan is an effective and fast acting drug for the acute treatment of migraine. As with any other acute treatment for migraine, headache recurrence may occur in up to one-third of responders. Combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) seems to reduce the incidence of headache recurrence in clinical practice. Rofecoxib is a member of a new class of NSAIDs, which selectively inhibits the COX-2 enzyme and therefore is associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal side-effects; the drug has a long plasma half-life (17 h). This open label study compared rizatriptan with rizatriptan plus rofecoxib in the acute treatment of migraine. Fifty-six triptan naive patients from a tertiary centre (37 women and 19 men, ages 16-55 years, mean 35 years) with International Headache Society migraine were randomized into two groups. They were instructed to treat three consecutive moderate or severe attacks with either 10 mg rizatriptan (group 1: 18 women and 10 men) or with 10 mg rizatriptan plus 25 mg rofecoxib (group 2: 19 women and 9 men). The presence of headache and nausea at 1, 2 and 4 h, and of side-effects, use of rescue medication and recurrence were compared. Fifty-four patients completed the study. Group 1 treated 76 attacks and group 2 treated 81 attacks. Absence of headache at 1 h was seen in 19 attacks (25%) in group 1 and in 34 attacks (42%) in group 2 (P=0.082); at 2 h absence of headache was seen in 60% of group 1 attacks and in 76% of group 2 attacks (P=0.115). At 4 h, 75% of group 1 attacks and 88% of group 2 attacks were pain free (P=0.122). With regard to nausea, of those who had nausea at baseline, 31% and 49% of attacks in groups 1 and 2, respectively, were nausea free at 1 h (P=0.091), 75% and 79% at 2 h (P=0.736) and 82% and 91% (P=0.479) at 4 h. Recurrence, based on all attacks of those patients who achieved pain free at 4 h, was observed in 53% of group 1 and 20% of group 2 attacks (P<0.001). Sustained pain-free rates (for the 4-h time point) were 45.6% of group 1 and 78.9% of group 2 attacks. There were no significant differences with regard to rescue medication consumption after 4 h and side-effects in both groups. There was a non-significant trend for the combination group to have a higher response rate. The group treated with rizatriptan and rofecoxib had a lower recurrence rate than the group treated with rizatriptan. This study demonstrated that combining a fast acting triptan such as rizatriptan with rofecoxib reduced headache recurrence rates, was well tolerated and may be more effective than the use of rizatriptan alone. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are necessary to confirm these observations.     

Triptans versus analgesics

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively assess patient preferences between triptans and analgesics in treating migraine headache. METHODS: The study assessed patient preferences for triptans versus commonly used migraine analgesic preparations. Over a 3-month period, 663 patients with migraine between the ages of 17 and 62 years completed an office-based survey. RESULTS: Most patients preferred a treatment regimen that included either a triptan alone (52%) or a triptan with an analgesic medication within 1 hour (18%). Overall, 70% of patients who had been given triptans in the past chose to continue to use them, either alone or with an analgesic. Patients who preferred analgesics alone comprised 21% of the total. Nine percent preferred not to take either triptans or analgesic medications. Among the patients who preferred triptans, 62% stated that increased efficacy was the primary reason for their preference. Thirty percent cited both efficacy and decreased adverse events. The remaining 8% believed that decreased adverse events was the basis for their preference. CONCLUSIONS: Despite cost and other limitations of triptans, most patients prefer them over nontriptan medications. Enhanced efficacy was the main reason for choosing triptans over analgesics.