Naratriptan: an alternative for migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the literature regarding naratriptan's clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and indications. DATA SOURCE: A MEDLINE search was conducted for the period from January 1990 to June 1998. Key words used included naratriptan, triptan, serotonin agonists, migraine, and migraine therapy. In addition, pertinent references cited in articles obtained from MEDLINE and product information for triptans were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All original and review articles and abstracts pertaining to naratriptan were reviewed, as were product information extracts. Clinical trials of naratriptan were critically reviewed and compared with pertinent clinical trials of other oral triptans. DATA SYNTHESIS: The treatment of migraine has been dramatically improved with the use of sumatriptan, other triptans, and serotonin-receptor subtype 1B and 1D agonists. Drawbacks to these medications, however, have included poorly tolerated adverse effects and the recurrence of the migraine. Naratriptan has been recently approved for acute oral migraine therapy. In two Phase III trials of naratriptan compared with placebo, relief at four hours was obtained in 60% and 68% of patients using the 2.5-mg dose, with recurrence of headache in 24 hours in 27% and 28% of patients. The data on migraine recurrence were similar to those of other oral triptans; the efficacy of naratriptan at two hours was not specifically analyzed. Adverse effects of naratriptan were similar to placebo, and its tolerability seemed superior compared with studies of other oral triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan is a promising new oral therapy for acute migraine; it may successfully treat patients who poorly tolerate other triptan therapies or have longer duration migraine headaches.     

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.     

Acute pharmacotherapy of migraine,tension-type headache,and cluster headache

Abstract In most migraine patients acute therapy is needed. Migraine can be treated either with specific drugs, the triptans and ergot alkaloids, or with NSAIDs. Triptans are a major step foreward in migraine therapy. The therapeutic gain for headache relief is 50% for subcutaneous sumatriptan whereas it is 30-40% for most oral triptans. After oral triptans sustained pain free is only 30%. There is thus still ample room for improvement of acute therapy in migraine. For tension-type headache there is no specific therapy and it is treated with NSAIDs. Only 17-32% become pain free after these drugs. For attacks of cluster headache oxygen and subcutaneous sumatriptan can be used. Intranasal triptans can be an alternative.     

Meta-analysis examining the efficacy and safety of almotriptan in the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of oral almotriptan in treating acute migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: Almotriptan is an oral selective sertonin(1B/1D) receptor agonist (triptan) with a high bioavailability and short half-life, developed for the treatment of migraine. In recent years, a number of randomized controlled trials have been published examining the efficacy and safety of almotriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for the proportions of patients achieving headache relief and pain-free responses at 1 or 2 hours post-dose, sustained pain-free response at 2-24 hours post-dose, and safety outcomes (proportions of patients experiencing any adverse events, dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, and chest tightness) comparing almotriptan against placebo, other triptans, and different dosages of almotriptan. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) for 2-hour headache relief, pain free, and sustained pain free responses between almotriptan and placebo were also calculated. RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 4995 patients were included in the analysis. Almotriptan 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for all efficacy outcomes (RRs ranged from 1.47 to 2.15; ARDs ranged from 0.01 to 0.28) and there were no significant differences in any of the safety outcomes. There were also no significant differences in efficacy outcomes comparing almotriptan 12.5 mg against sumatriptan 100 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, but almotriptan 12.5 mg was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than sumatriptan 100 mg (RR: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.67). However, there was no significant difference between almotriptan and sumatriptan in terms of clinically important adverse effects, such as dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, and chest tightness. Almotriptan 12.5 mg was significantly less effective than almotriptan 25 mg for 1-hour pain-free response (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.95), but associated with significantly fewer patients experiencing adverse events (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.41, 0.91) than almotriptan 25 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Almotriptan 12.5 mg is an effective treatment for acute attacks of migraine, in particular, it has been found to be as effective as sumatriptan 100 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg. The risk of adverse events associated with almotriptan 12.5 mg was similar to placebo and significantly lower than sumatriptan 100 mg. Further research is required to assess the comparative efficacy of almotriptan against other triptans.     

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others

Objectives.— This second portion of a 3‐part series examines the relative effectiveness of headache treatment with neuroleptics, antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, valproate, and other drugs (octreotide, lidocaine, nitrous oxide, propofol, and bupivacaine) in the setting of an emergency department, urgent care center, or headache clinic. Methods.— MEDLINE was searched using the terms “migraine” AND “emergency” AND “therapy” OR “treatment.” Reports were from emergency department and urgent care settings and involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinics were only included if medications were delivered by a parenteral route. Results.— Prochlorperazine, promethazine, and metoclopramide, when used alone, were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also have more side effects (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. Meperidine was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking droperidol and prochlorperazine was equivalent to sumatriptan. Conclusions.— Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti‐migraine medications in the emergent setting, and the effectiveness of each is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in producing migraine pain relief. Dopamine antagonists, in general, appear to be equivalent for migraine pain relief to the migraine‐“specific” medications sumatriptan and dihydroergotamine, although there are fewer studies involving the last two. Lack of comparisons to placebo and the frequent use of combination medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one other.     

Sumatriptan 6 mg subcutaneous as an effective migraine treatment in patients with cutaneous allodynia who historically fail to respond to oral triptans

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of 6 mg subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan to treat migraine and the relationship between response of migraine and cutaneous allodynia in a population of migraine patients who historically failed to respond to oral triptan medications. This was an openlabel study consisting of patients with migraines who historically failed to respond to oral triptan medications. Forty-three patients were asked to treat three migraine attacks with 6 mg SC sumatriptan. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving relief of headache at 2 h. Ninetyone percent of the patients responded to a single dose of SC sumatriptan 6 mg. Fifty percent of all patients were pain-free by 2 h and over 30% had a 24-h sustained pain-free response. When administered within 90 min from the onset of migraine (i.e., during the developing phase of cutaneous allodynia), SC 6 mg sumatriptan proved to be effective despite the occurrence of allodynia in a group of patients, who historically had failed to respond to oral triptan medications. These findings suggest that the window of opportunity to treat allodynic patients with injectable triptans may be longer (up to 2 h) than with oral triptans (up to 1 h).     

Sumatriptan in Acute Migraine Using a Novel Cartridge System Self-Injector

SYNOPSIS
This double-blind. randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study assessed the efficacy, acceptability, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg administered using a novel cartridge system self-injector for the acute treatment of migraine.
Eighty-six patients treated one migraine attack at home with sumatriptan or placebo. A second identical injection was available after 1 hour for inadequate relief or if the headache recurred. Rescue medication was available I hour later. The primary end point was headache relief (improvement in headache from moderate or severe to mild or no pain) within 60 minutes of the first injection. Secondary end points included the acceptability of the self-injector, requirement for and efficacy of a second dose, relief of nonheadache symptoms, use of rescue medication, and adverse events.
Significantly more patients taking sumatriptan than placebo reported headache relief I hour after the first injection (88% vs 11%, P <0.001). The device was well accepted by patients; about 90% found it easy to use and wanted to take further medication using it. Significantly fewer patients taking sumatriptan than placebo required a second injection (33% vs 92%, P <0.001) or rescue medication after the second injection (35% vs 67% P <0.05). Significantly more patients taking sumatriptan than placebo reported headache relief after the second injection (83% vs 32%, P <0.01), and resolution of non-headache migraine symptoms (54% vs 23%, P <0.01). Sumatriptan was generally well tolerated.
Subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg self-administered using the novel self-injector is an effective, well accepted, and well tolerated acute treatment of migraine.     

A Sumatriptan Iontophoretic Transdermal System for the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Objective.— Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, occur almost universally at one time or another in patients during a migraine attack. One third of patients who experience migraine‐related nausea report that this symptom interferes with their ability to take oral medications. The sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system (NuPathe Inc., Conshohocken, PA, USA) uses proprietary technology to circumvent the gastrointestinal tract while delivering triptan therapy. This phase III randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of this system for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods.— Patients were randomized to treat a single moderate‐to‐severe migraine attack with the sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who were headache pain‐free 2 hours after patch activation. Other end points included the proportions of patients who reported headache pain relief, and freedom from nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia; rescue medication use; and tolerability. Results.— Four hundred sixty‐nine patients were treated. Significantly more patients treated with the sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system compared with placebo experienced freedom from headache pain, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia 2 hours after patch activation, experienced rapid and sustained headache pain relief, and used less rescue medication. Treatment‐emergent adverse events were reported by 50% and 44% of patients treated with the sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system and placebo, respectively. Most events were transient mild‐to‐moderate application‐site reactions. Conclusions.— The sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system is effective and well tolerated, and may be particularly useful in patients with migraine‐related gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea.     

Sumatriptan: a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and associated drug interactions of the novel antimigraine drug sumatriptan are reviewed. DATA SOURCES: English-language publications pertaining to sumatriptan were identified via a search of the MEDLINE computerized database. STUDY SELECTION: Open and controlled clinical studies were reviewed in assessing clinical efficacy, although only the results of controlled, randomized trials from the basis for the conclusions pertaining to the effectiveness of sumatriptan. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary measure of drug effectiveness in all clinical studies was significant improvement in headache severity scores. Secondary measures included functional ability, time to relief, rescue medication use, associated symptoms of nausea/vomiting and photo/phonophobia, and, in some studies, headache recurrence rate. These data were obtained from each published clinical trial and used in the overall analysis of sumatriptan efficacy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sumatriptan is a serotonin agonist that has been studied for the acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. The drug appears to work via specific serotonin receptors to mediate selective vasoconstriction within the cranial vasculature and to prevent the release of inflammatory mediators from trigeminal nerve terminals. The recommended dose of sumatriptan is 6 mg given subcutaneously at the onset of headache; an oral formulation is under investigation. In the published clinical trials of the oral and subcutaneous dosage forms to date, sumatriptan was effective in reducing headache severity from moderate/severe to mild/absent in approximately 70-80 percent of patients treated with active drug, compared with only 20-30 percent in the placebo groups, and 48 percent in the oral ergotamine tartrate/caffeine (Cafergot)-treated group. Secondary measures of effectiveness also favored sumatriptan. There may be a higher rate of headache recurrence with sumatriptan compared with placebo or Cafergot, although further study is necessary to confirm this observation. Adverse effects associated with sumatriptan administration generally were mild and transient and included tingling, warm/hot sensations, and pressure and tightness in the chest and neck. No significant drug interactions have yet been identified. CONCLUSIONS: Sumatriptan appears to represent a safe and effective alternative to the ergot alkaloids for the abortive treatment of acute migraine. However, further clinical trials, especially those yielding comparative data with current antimigraine agents, are needed to determine the full therapeutic contribution of sumatriptan.     

Oral sumatriptan for the acute treatment of probable migraine: first randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan tablets in adults who meet International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for probable migraine but who do not meet IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura. BACKGROUND: Headaches with some but not all of the features of migraine meet criteria for probable migraine, a form of migraine recognized by the IHS. Probable migraine attacks are also prevalent and frequently underdiagnosed. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults (18 to 65 years) with a 1-year history of headaches that met 2004 IHS criteria for probable migraine without aura (same operational definition as 1988 IHS migrainous disorder) were eligible for enrollment. All patients were triptan- and ergot-na?ve and had never been diagnosed with migraine. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion to receive sumatriptan 25, 50, or 100 mg conventional tablets or matching placebo and were instructed to treat a single moderate or severe probable migraine attack. A post hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the population of patients who achieved headache relief sustained throughout the immediate posttreatment period. Patients who reported relief within 2 hours and subsequently lost headache relief within 4 hours were considered nonresponders. RESULTS: At 2 hours, more patients treated with sumatriptan achieved headache relief, the primary efficacy measure, compared with placebo, but differences only approached statistical significance for 100 mg (P= .053). The 2-hour headache relief rate in the sumatriptan 25 or 50 mg groups was not significantly different than placebo. The time to use of rescue was significantly shorter in the placebo group compared with the sumatriptan 100 mg group (P= .002). The time to use of rescue in the sumatriptan 25 or 50 mg groups was not significantly different than placebo. More patients treated with placebo (22%) lost headache relief within 4 hours compared with patients treated with sumatriptan 25 mg (17%), 50 mg (14%), or 100 mg (7%). A post hoc analysis demonstrated that at 2 hours, headache relief sustained through 4 hours (S 0-4 hours) was achieved in 44%, 49%, and 57% of patients treated with sumatriptan 25, 50, and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 34% of patients treated with placebo (P < .05 for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg vs. placebo). All doses of sumatriptan were well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that oral sumatriptan may be effective and is well tolerated for the acute treatment of probable migraine without aura, however, the difference between sumatriptan and placebo was not statistically significant for the a priori defined primary endpoint.     

Transdermal sumatriptan for acute treatment of migraineurs with baseline nausea

Objective.— To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transdermal sumatriptan in migraine patients who have baseline nausea. Background.— Migraine‐associated nausea and vomiting can limit the effectiveness of acute treatment with oral agents by causing delays, avoidance, or incomplete absorption of medication due to post‐dose vomiting. Methods.— In a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study in adult (aged 18‐66 years) migraineurs, 530 patients were randomized to receive transdermal sumatriptan or a placebo patch and remained in the study until they had treated a single moderate to severe migraine attack or had gone 2 months without treatment. At baseline (before applying the study patch), patients recorded headache pain intensity and the presence or absence of migraine‐associated symptoms, including nausea. The use of analgesic or anti‐emetic rescue medications within 2 hours of patch activation was prohibited. Post‐hoc analyses were conducted to assess the proportion of patients with nausea at baseline who experienced headache relief and who were free from nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia at 1 and 2 hours post‐activation. Results.— A total of 454 patients were included in the intent‐to‐treat population for efficacy analyses. Baseline demographic and migraine headache characteristics were generally similar between the treatment groups. In the overall study population, transdermal sumatriptan was significantly superior to placebo at 1 hour post‐activation for pain relief (29% vs 19%, respectively; P < .0135) and freedom from nausea (71% vs 58%, respectively; P < .05) and at 2 hours post‐activation for freedom from pain (18% vs 9%, respectively; P < .009), pain relief (53% vs 29%, respectively; P < .0001), freedom from nausea (84% vs 63% respectively; P < .001), freedom from photophobia (51% vs 36%, respectively; P < .0028), freedom from phonophobia (55% vs 39%, respectively; P < .0002); and freedom from migraine (16% vs 8%, respectively; P < .0135). In the post‐hoc analysis, transdermal sumatriptan was markedly superior to placebo for pain relief and freedom from pain, nausea, photo‐, and phonophobia at 1 and 2 hours post‐activation. Conclusions.— Transdermal sumatriptan is superior to oral triptans for migraine patients whose baseline nausea causes them to delay or avoid acute treatment.     

Oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine and migraine recurrence in general practice

We investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability compared with placebo of a second dose of oral sumatriptan 100 mg in 1349 general practice patients who had already treated a moderate or severe migraine headache with 100 mg sumatriptan 4 h earlier. Headache was relieved by the first sumatriptan dose in about 70% of patients, but the second dose did not produce significantly more relief than placebo, either in nonresponders or in the group as a whole, nor did it reduce other symptoms (photophobia, nausea, vomiting, etc,) at 8 h, or influence the incidence of headache recurrence. The drug was well-tolerated, and a further single dose was effective in treating recurrence after initial relief. A single 100 mg dose of sumatriptan is an effective acute treatment for migraine. A second dose should be reserved for treating headache recurrence.      

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.     

Sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks-a review of controlled clinical trials

Sumatriptan, a 5HT₁-like receptor agonist, is a completely new treatment principle for migraine. In an extensive international programme of controlled clinical trials, sumatriptan, 6 mg subcutaneously and 100 mg orally, was superior to placebo in reducing headache and associated symptoms. The response rate for subcutaneous sumatriptan (70–84% after 1 h and 81–87% after 2 h) was higher than for oral sumatriptan (50–67% after 2 h). Additional doses did not increase efficacy. Oral sumatriptan was superior to Cafergot (2 mg ergotamine plus 200 mg caffeine) and somewhat better than aspirin (900 mg) plus metoclopramide (10 mg). Recurrence of migraine occurred in approximately 40% of attacks. Side effects were generally mild and short-lived in the controlled clinical trials. However, in clinical practice sumatriptan has subsequently caused rare cases of heart ischemia and sumatriptan is contraindicated in patients with a history of ischemic heart disease.     

Oral sumatriptan: effect of a second dose, and incidence and treatment of headache recurrences

Oral sumatriptan in a dose of 100 mg aborts about 60% of migraine attacks within 2 h, but the headache may recur within 24 h. We investigated: (i) the incidence of headache recurrence after oral sumatriptan, (ii) whether a second tablet of sumatriptan at 2 h increases initial efficacy and/or (iii) prevents headache recurrence and (iv) whether a further tablet of sumatriptan treats headache recurrence. In a randomized, parallel-group clinical trial, 1246 patients treated one to three migraine attacks (with or without aura) with 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Two hours later they all took a double-blind randomized second tablet of sumatriptan (group I) or placebo (group II). Patients who initially improved, but then experienced headache recurrence took a further double-blind randomized tablet of sumatriptan or placebo. Proportions of patients who improved from moderate/severe headache to mild/none were similar in groups I and II at 2 h (55 vs 56%) and 4 h (80 vs 77%). Incidences of headache recurrence (moderate/severe-any grade of headache) and median times to headache recurrence were also similar: 22-32% at 16 h in group I and 25-33% at 16.5 h in group II. Sumatriptan was superior to placebo in treating headache recurrence: 74 vs 49% ( p = 0.017) in group I and 70 vs 30% ( p = 0.0001) in group II. Thus, one-fourth of patients experience headache recurrence at about 16 h after successful treatment of a migraine attack with 100 mg oral sumatriptan. A second tablet of sumatriptan at 2 h does not increase initial efficacy and neither prevents nor delays headache recurrence. A further tablet of sumatriptan is, however, highly effective in treating headache recurrence. All dose regimens were well tolerated.     

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)     

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.     

Pharmacology and efficacy of eletriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks

Sumatriptan, a 5-HT 1B/1D agonist, was introduced 10 years ago and was the most effective therapy for migraine attacks at that time. Eletriptan is a new 5-HT 1B/1D agonist with high potency and selectivity at 5-HT 1B/1D receptors. It is effective in animal models in which the vascular and neurogenic mechanisms implicated in migraine were measured. Eletriptan is selective for the intracranial blood vessels over other extracranial vasculature, in particular coronary arteries. Eletriptan has a rapid and complete oral absorption and a good oral bioavailability in migraineurs. In comparative trials 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg eletriptan, 100 mg sumatritpan and placebo were compared for the treatment of migraine attacks. All three doses of eletriptan were statistically superior to placebo for headache response and headache-free patients. The 80 mg dose of eletriptan was also superior to sumatriptan 100 mg. Headache recurrence, defined as return of moderate or severe headache within 24 hours of dosing and following a headache response at two hours after initial dosing, occurred in 33% of the patients following 100 mg sumatriptan and in 28%, 34% and 32% after 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg eletriptan. In another large trial, headache response rates were significantly higher for both doses of eletriptan (64% for 40 mg and 67% for 80 mg) than for two doses of sumatriptan (50% for 50 mg and 53% for 100 mg). Eletriptan 40 mg or 80 mg was also superior to ergotamine plus caffeine (Cafergot). In summary, eletriptan is a highly effective and fast-acting drug for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.     

History of the use of ergotamine and dihydroergotamine in migraine from 1906 and onward

Dale showed in 1906 in a seminal work that ergot inhibits the pressor effect of adrenaline. Stoll at Sandoz isolated ergotamine from ergot in 1918. Based on the belief that migraine was due to increased sympathetic activity, ergotamine was first used in the acute treatment of migraine by Maier in Switzerland in 1925. In 1938 Graham and Wolff demonstrated the parallel decrease of temporal pulsations and headache after ergotamine i.v. This inspired the vascular theory of Wolff: an initial cerebral vasoconstriction followed by an extracranial vasodilation. Dihydroergotamine (DHE) was introduced as an adrenolytic agent in 1943. It is still in use parenterally and by the nasal route. Before the triptan era ergotamine and DHE had widespread use as the only specific antimigraine drugs. From 1950 the world literature on ergotamine was dominated by two adverse events: ergotamine overuse headache and the relatively rare overt ergotism. Recently, oral ergotamine, which has an oral bioavailability of < 1%, has been inferior to oral triptans in randomized clinical trials. A European Consensus in 2000 concluded that ergotamine is not a drug of first choice. In an American review of 2003 it was suggested that ergotamine may be considered in the treatment of selected patients with moderate to severe migraine.     

Tolfenamic Acid Rapid Release Versus Sumatriptan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Comparable Effect in a Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel-Group Study

The efficacy and safety of tolfenamic acid and oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine was studied at five neurological centers in Finland. One hundred forty-one patients experiencing 289 migraine attacks, fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura as defined by the International Headache Society, were randomized.
For first attacks, 77% of patients receiving tolfenamic acid experienced a reduction of the initial severe or moderate headache to mild or no headache after 2 hours, as compared to 79% in the sumatriptan group and 29% in the placebo group. No significant difference was found between active treatments ( P =0.85, 95% Cl [−22%, 18%]), however, both active treatments were significantly better than placebo; P =0.001, 95% Cl (26%, 69%) for tolfenamic acid and P =0.001, 95% Cl (28%, 71%) for sumatriptan. For second attacks, results were similar with 70% of patients receiving tolfenamic acid experiencing relief, as compared to 64% in the sumatriptan group and 39% in the placebo group.
No significant differences were observed in accompanying symptoms.
Both drugs were well tolerated with the frequency of adverse events; 30% for tolfenamic acid and 41% for sumatriptan, a nonsignificant difference.
In this study, tolfenamic acid and oral sumatriptan are comparably effective in the acute treatment of migraine. When comparably effective, factors like individual effect, tolerance, and cost of treatment should be considered when prescribing migraine medication.