A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: Health-related quality of life

The aim of this prospective sequential multinational (5 countries) study was to concurrently evaluate the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan on clinical parameters, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures, workplace productivity and patient satisfaction. This report presents the HRQOL results. 582 patients (aged 18 to 65 years) with moderate to severe migraine received their customary antimigraine therapy for 12 weeks and then subcutaneous sumatriptan for 24 weeks. The Short Form-36 Health Survey and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were completed at a screening visit (base-line), at the end of the 12-week customary therapy phase, and at 12 and 24 weeks of the sumatriptan phase. Scores for most of the Short Form-36 dimensions improved significantly (p < 0.05) after 12 and 24 weeks of sumatriptan therapy compared with 12 weeks of customary therapy, in each country. Similarly, scores on all Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire dimensions were significantly (p < 0.05; paired t-test) improved after 12 weeks (in all countries) and 24 weeks (in 4 of 5 countries) of sumatriptan therapy compared with 12 weeks of customary therapy. This study demonstrates that, in 5 countries, treatment of migraine attacks with subcutaneous sumatriptan compared with customary therapy was associated with improvements in HRQOL, as measured by both general health status and disease-specific instruments.     

A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. I: Design, methods and clinical findings

This report describes the design, methods and clinical results of a prospective sequential multinational (5 countries) study conducted to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan on health-related quality of life, workplace productivity, clinical parameters and patient satisfaction. Adult patients with moderate to severe migraine initially received customary therapy for migraine episodes for 12 weeks, followed by 24 weeks' treatment with self-administered subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg. Demographic, baseline, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction rating data were collected during visits to the clinic. Data relating to migraine symptoms, migraine therapy, work productivity and non-work activity time were collected on diary cards filled out by the patients. 749 patients were recruited to the study and 637 received at least 1 dose of sumatriptan. Overall, 75.5% of migraines were successfully treated within 2 hours with sumatriptan compared with 31.9% with customary therapy; 36% of patients reported complete relief at 2 hours with sumatriptan treatment compared with 1% of patients receiving customary therapy. 69% of patients successfully treated 70% of their migraines with sumatriptan within 2 hours, compared with 12% of patients with customary therapy. No serious adverse events were reported; 50% of patients reported an adverse event during the 12-week customary therapy phase and 89% of patients during the 24-week sumatriptan phase. These clinical results, which are consistent with those reported in randomised blinded studies of subcutaneous sumatriptan, suggest that relief of migraine symptoms occurs more often, and in less time, in patients receiving subcutaneous sumatriptan rather than customary therapy as their primary medication.     

A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. III: Workplace productivity and non-workplace activity

This report presents the workplace productivity and non-workplace activity results of a multinational study of the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg in the acute treatment of migraine compared with patient's customary therapy. Patients diagnosed with migraine treated their symptoms for 24 weeks with subcutaneous sumatriptan after a 12-week period of treating symptoms with their customary (non-sumatriptan) therapy. Patients used diary cards to record information concerning the effects of migraine on workplace productivity and non-workplace activity time. The average workplace productivity time lost was 23.4 hours per patient during 12 weeks of customary therapy, compared with 7.2 and 5.8 hours per patient during the first and second 12-week periods of sumatriptan therapy, respectively. An average of 9.3 hours of non-workplace activity time was lost per patient during the customary therapy phase, compared with 3.2 and 2.8 hours during the first and second 12-week periods of sumatriptan therapy, respectively. Treatment of migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan compared with customary therapy was associated with an average gain per patient of approximately 16 hours of workplace productivity time and 6 hours of non-workplace activity time, over a 3-month period.     

Needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan: in the acute treatment of migraine attacks or cluster headache episodes

A needle-free device for delivering a 6?mg fixed dose of sumatriptan into subcutaneous tissues has been developed and approved for the acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache in the US and some EU countries. In a pivotal registration study in healthy adult volunteers, a single dose of needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan 6?mg demonstrated bioequivalence to a single dose of traditional, needle-based subcutaneous sumatriptan 6?mg when delivered into the abdomen or the thigh, but not the arm. In a noncomparative, multicentre, phase IV study, the administration of (one or two doses of) needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan 6?mg consistently provided rapid and sustained relief from migraine pain and associated symptoms during the treatment of up to four migraine attacks over a period of up to 60 days among current triptan users. Moreover, the use of needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan was associated with a significant improvement in treatment satisfaction in these patients who were less than 'very satisfied' with their usual symptomatic therapy. Needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan was generally well tolerated in the phase IV study. Although the overall adverse event profile of the needle-free delivery system was similar to that previously reported for the needle-based delivery system, it was associated with a numerically higher incidence of administration/injection-site reactions in clinical trials that enrolled healthy adult volunteers.     

Sumatriptan. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache.

Sumatriptan is a serotonin1 (5-HT1) receptor agonist, which is effective in the acute treatment of migraine headache. Its antimigraine activity is believed to derive from selective vasoconstriction of cranial blood vessels which are dilated and distended during migraine headache and/or from inhibition of neurogenically mediated inflammation in the dura mater. In placebo-controlled comparative studies, sumatriptan reduced migraine headache from 'moderate or severe' to 'mild or none' within 2 hours in 50 to 73% of patients following oral administration of 100 or 200 mg, and within 1 hour in 70 to 80% of patients following subcutaneous doses of 6 to 8 mg or intranasal doses 20 mg into each nostril. In addition, sumatriptan alleviated the accompanying symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and photophobia/phonophobia more effectively than placebo, and permitted higher percentages of patients to resume normal daily activities. Sumatriptan 100 mg orally was more effective in the acute treatment of migraine than oral combination therapy consisting of ergotamine 2 mg plus caffeine 200 mg or aspirin 900 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg. Pooled data from nearly 5000 patients treated with either oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan in clinical trials indicate that it is well tolerated. However, migraine recurrence within 24 or 48 hours of initial symptom resolution developed in approximately 40% of patients treated with sumatriptan, irrespective of route of administration. It is likely that migraine recurrence is related to the short half-life of the drug (approximately 2 hours). Future studies should attempt to ascertain whether additional doses of sumatriptan will help prevent migraine recurrence in patients with attacks of long duration and if so, should determine the optimum interval between dosages. In conclusion, sumatriptan is an important addition to the range of drugs currently available for acute treatment of migraine. It provides rapid relief from debilitating symptoms in a high percentage of patients, particularly after subcutaneous administration. At this stage in its development a number of questions remain to be answered - most notably whether repeat doses will help prevent recurrent attacks and which patients are most likely to respond to therapy. Nevertheless, sumatriptan presently offers a combination of efficacy and tolerability that is unique in this particular clinical setting.     

Rizatriptan: pharmacological differences from sumatriptan and clinical results

Rizatriptan and sumatriptan are selective 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists for theacute treatment of migraine. For oral formulations, the time to maximum plasma concentration is reached earlier with rizatriptan than with sumatriptan (1 h versus 2-2.5 h) and rizatriptan has greater bioavailability than sumatriptan (45% versus 15%). These pharmacological advantages appear to translate into a faster onset of action and a better overall response for oral rizatriptan versus oral sumatriptan. The two drugs have been directly compared in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate or severe migraine attacks. Rizatriptan 10 mg was generally superior to sumatriptan on a measure of time-to-pain-relief within 2 h, where pain relief was defined as a reduction of pain to mild or none (odds ratio for rizatriptan versus sumatriptan 100 mg = 1.21; odds ratios for rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg = 1.14 and 1.10 in two studies). Rizatriptan 10 mg was also superior to sumatriptan on the International Headache Society recommended endpoint of the percentage of patients pain free at 2 h (40% for rizatriptan 10 mg, 33% for sumatriptan 100 mg, and 35% for sumatriptan 50 mg). Further advantages for rizatriptan were seen on stringent outcome measures of the percentage of patients who were completely free of all symptoms at 2 h, patient satisfaction with medication at 2 h, and 24-h sustained pain-free response. 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with coronary artery disease because of their potential to cause vasoconstriction. In clinical trials which excluded such patients, rizatriptan and sumatriptan were both well-tolerated. The most common side-effects on both drugs occurred in <10% of patients and consisted of dizziness, drowsiness, and asthenia/fatigue. The adverse events were usually mild or moderate in severity and short-lasting.     

Newer formulations of the triptans: advances in migraine management

Migraine is a common, frequently incapacitating, headache disorder that imposes a substantial burden on both the individual patient and society. The last two decades have witnessed an explosion in our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine, and in our development of an efficacious and diverse therapeutic armamentarium. There are several routes of drug administration available to patients with migraine. All the serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists (triptans) are available as oral tablets (sumatriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, frovatriptan and eletriptan). Only sumatriptan is available as a subcutaneous injection. Some triptans are also available via newer routes of administration, including orally disintegrating tablets (rizatriptan and zolmitriptan), rectal suppositories (sumatriptan) and intranasal sprays (sumatriptan and zolmitriptan). Oral disintegrating tablets and other non-oral triptan routes (subcutaneous, intranasal, rectal) are a useful alternative to conventional oral tablets for patients who have difficulty swallowing pills or prefer not to do so, and for patients whose nausea and/or vomiting precludes swallowing tablets and/or makes the likelihood of complete absorption unpredictable. This is important because epidemiological studies in migraine reveal that the vast majority of patients (>90%) have experienced nausea during a migraine attack and more than 50% have nausea with the majority of attacks. Similarly, most (almost 70%) have vomited at some time during an attack and of these patients, almost one-third vomit in the majority of attacks. The newer formulations, rapidly dissolving tablets and intranasal sprays, afford patients the opportunity to use abortive therapy without the need for liquids, at anytime and anywhere, at the onset of a migraine attack. Furthermore, the intranasal sprays are absorbed rapidly and have a prompt onset of action allowing for significant pain free rates versus placebo as early as 15 minutes post administration. The ability to administer treatment early in a migraine attack and have a rapid onset of action is particularly important in acute migraine treatment in order to prevent the development of central sensitisation. While many patients and physicians choose conventional oral tablets because of familiarity and ease of administration, the newer formulations, oral disintegrating tablets and intranasal sprays, should be given consideration as first-line agents in selected patients.     

Rapid absorption of sumatriptan powder and effects on glyceryl trinitrate model of headache following intranasal delivery using a novel bi‐directional device

Objectives The aim was to investigate the pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan (administered using a novel bi‐directional powder delivery device) and study its effects on quantitative electroencephalography in patients with migraine. The safety profiles of the two formulations were also compared. Methods The pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan (10 mg and 20 mg) administered using a novel breath‐actuated bi‐directional powder delivery device were compared with subcutaneous sumatriptan (6 mg), along with an investigation of their effects on the electroencephalogram (EEG) following glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) challenge in 12 patients with migraine using a randomized, three‐way cross‐over design. Key findings Following intranasal delivery, median t_max was 20 min with both doses compared with 10 min after the subcutaneous dose. Mean ± SD values for C_max were 96 ± 25, 11 ± 7 and 16 ± 6 ng/ml for subcutaneous, intranasal 10 mg and intranasal 20 mg formulations, respectively. Values for area under the curve were also lower with the intranasal doses. Intranasal and subcutaneous sumatriptan induced similar EEG changes characterized by reduced theta‐power and increased beta‐power. The majority of study participants were free of pain according to the headache severity score with all treatments from 15 min through to 8 h post‐dose. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no reports of bitter aftertaste after intranasal delivery. Sumatriptan was rapidly absorbed after intranasal administration using the new device. Using the GTN challenge, sumatriptan powder delivered intranasally at a dose of 20 mg by the new device had effects similar to those of subcutaneous sumatriptan on EEG and reported headache pain, despite much lower systemic exposure. Conclusions Administration of sumatriptan intranasally at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg by the breath actuated bi‐directional powder delivery device results in rapid absorption. Delivery to target sites beyond the nasal valve induced a similar EEG profile to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg and prevented migraine attacks in patients following GTN challenge. Intranasal administration of sumatriptan powder with the breath actuated bi‐directional powder delivery device was well tolerated.     

Efficacy endpoints in migraine clinical trials: the importance of assessing freedom from pain

Abstract

Many efficacy endpoints have been used in clinical trials of acute migraine pharmacotherapy. Headache response or headache relief (i.e., moderate/severe pain reduced to mild/no pain) at a single, specified time-point, traditionally the primary endpoint, and headache recurrence (i.e., return of pain after initial postdose relief) are inadequate. Headache relief does not provide information about pain-free response and counts a partial response as a treatment success. Headache recurrence can reflect sustained efficacy but is confounded by initial response to treatment, because ineffective drugs have low recurrence rates. The International Headache Society (IHS) guidelines state that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response (i.e., freedom from pain with no recurrence or use of rescue or study medication 2–24 hours postdose) provide the most clinically relevant information about the efficacy of migraine pharmacotherapy. The pain-free criterion counts partial responses as failures and thus is a more rigorous test of therapeutic benefit than headache relief, and the two endpoints together incorporate the main treatment attributes that determine patient satisfaction. As an example, consider needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan and oral triptan tablets. An open-label study of needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan by Cady and colleagues found that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response were 64% and 42% respectively. For oral triptan tablets, the 2001 metaanalysis by Ferrari and colleagues reported 2 hour pain-free response rates ranging from 23% to 38% and sustained pain-free response rates ranging from 11% to 26%. The measures of pain-free response 2 hours postdose and sustained pain-free response can differentiate among treatments and be used to guide therapeutic choices.     

Triptans in migraine: a comparative review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and efficacy

Triptans are a new class of compounds developed for the treatment of migraine attacks. The first of the class, sumatriptan, and the newer triptans (zolmitriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, eletriptan, almotriptan and frovatriptan) display high agonist activity at mainly the serotonin 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor subtypes. As expected for a class of compounds developed for affinity at a specific receptor, there are minor pharmacodynamic differences between the triptans. Sumatriptan has a low oral bioavailability (14%) and all the newer triptans have an improved oral bioavailability and for one, risatriptan, the rate of absorption is faster. The half-lives of naratriptan, eletriptan and, in particular, frovatriptan (26 to 30h) are longer than that of sumatriptan (2h). These pharmacokinetic improvements of the newer triptans so far seem to have only resulted in minor differences in their efficacy in migraine. Double-blind, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the different triptans and triptans with other medication should ideally be the basis for judging their place in migraine therapy. In only 15 of the 83 reported RCTs were 2 triptans compared, and in 11 trials triptans were compared with other drugs. Therefore, in all placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials, the relative efficacy of the triptans was also judged by calculating the therapeutic gain (i.e. percentage response for active minus percentage response for placebo). The mean therapeutic gain with subcutaneous sumatriptan 6mg (51%) was more than that for all other dosage forms of triptans (oral sumatriptan 100mg 32%; oral sumatriptan 50mg 29%: intranasal sumatriptan 20mg 30%; rectal sumatriptan 25mg 31%; oral zolmitriptan 2.5mg 32%; oral rizatriptan 10mg 37%; oral eletriptan 40mg 37%; oral almotriptan 12.5mg 26%). Compared with oral sumatriptan 100mg (32%), the mean therapeutic gain was higher with oral eletriptan 80mg (42%) but lower with oral naratriptan 2.5mg (22%) or oral frovatriptan 2.5mg (16%). The few direct comparative randomised clinical trials with oral triptans reveal the same picture. Recurrence of headache within 24 hours after an initial successful response occurs in 30 to 40% of sumatriptan-treated patients. Apart from naratriptan, which has a tendency towards less recurrence, there appears to be no consistent difference in recurrence rates between the newer triptans and sumatriptan. Rizatriptan with its shorter time to maximum concentration (tmax) tended to produce a quicker onset of headache relief than sumatriptan and zolmitriptan. The place of triptans compared with non-triptan drugs in migraine therapy remains to be established and further RCTs are required.     

Migraine in children and adolescents: a guide to drug treatment

Migraine is a common disorder in children and adolescents, with a prevalence of 5 and 10%, respectively. Some patients may have recognisable factors that trigger or aggravate migraine attacks, such as flickering or bright lights, strong smells and noise, and where possible these should be avoided. It is also wise to maintain a lifestyle where children receive regular meals and get sufficient sleep. If used, acute pharmacological treatment should be given at the onset of an attack, followed by a rest or sleep. According to recent literature, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen can be recommended for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in children and adolescents, and sumatriptan nasal spray can be recommended for adolescents. The oral formulation of sumatriptan has not shown efficacy in paediatric patients, and the subcutaneous injection, although somewhat effective, is not an ideal formulation for this patient group. There are too few data on the efficacy of the other 'triptans' to recommend their use in children and adolescents. There are less data on the use of prophylactic drugs in paediatric patients. In systematic studies, only flunarizine, which is not available in many countries, and propranolol have been found to be effective. A pilot placebo-controlled study suggests that topiramate might also be effective. Several other agents are commonly used to prevent migraine attacks in children (e.g. amitriptyline, valproic acid [sodium valproate]) despite a lack of robust research into their efficacy.     

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

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of migraine and its responsiveness to migraine-specific therapy in patients with self-reported tension-type headache. METHODS: Patients were adults (n = 423) consulting one of 54 North American study sites including primary care clinics, neurology clinics, and headache clinics. The study comprised an initial diagnosis phase to determine the headache diagnosis of patients entering the study with self-reported tension/stress headache, including that previously diagnosed by a health care provider. Patients reporting tension/stress headache were evaluated and diagnosed as having migraine with or without aura, probable migraine, tension-type headache, or another headache type. Exclusion criteria included prior diagnosis of migraine or probable migraine and the presence of headache for at least 15 days monthly during either of the 2 months before screening. The initial phase was followed by a randomized, double-blind treatment phase to evaluate the efficacy of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets for the treatment of a single migraine attack in those meeting International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for migraine during the diagnosis phase. RESULTS: Of 423 patients reporting tension/stress headache at study entry, 84% (n = 357) were diagnosed at the clinic visit as fulfilling IHS criteria for migraine without aura or migraine with aura, and 65% (n = 276) were diagnosed with migraine only (i.e., with no other concurrent headache diagnosis). Three hundred thirty-two (332) patients entered the double-blind treatment phase. Headache relief rates 2h post-dose, the primary efficacy endpoint, did not significantly differ between sumatriptan and placebo (p = 0.099). However, improvements were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with sumatriptan than placebo on several other headache-related efficacy measures. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine headache may go unrecognized in patients with self-reported tension headache. Among patients having self-reported tension headache and diagnosed with migraine during the study, response to acute treatment with sumatriptan was inconclusive. Improvement with sumatriptan versus placebo was observed for some measures and not for others. The results should be interpreted in the context of study limitations including use of patient self-reports to assess headache diagnosis and possible lack of representativeness arising from the predominantly white sample.     

Economic analysis of triptan therapy for acute migraine: a Medicaid perspective

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare triptan therapies for migraine in terms of the cost to treat 100 migraine attacks and the cost per successfully treated patient (cost/success), by analyzing utilization and reimbursement data from state Medicaid programs. DESIGN: Pharmacoeconomic analysis. DATA SOURCE: Clinical efficacy data were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis for 11 triptan-dose combinations: almotriptan 12.5 mg; eletriptan 20 and 40 mg; naratriptan 2.5 mg; rizatriptan 5 and 10 mg; sumatriptan 25, 50, and 100 mg; and zolmitriptan 2.5 and 5 mg. Triptan reimbursement data were obtained from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program of seven geographically dispersed states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and West Virginia). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Efficacy measures were derived based on data from the published meta-analysis that evaluated headache pain status at 2 and 24 hours after triptan dosing. Reimbursement data for the triptans were applied to a previously developed model of migraine treatment outcomes to calculate the cost to treat 100 migraine attacks and the cost/success. Sensitivity analysis around dosing assumptions was conducted to assess robustness of estimates. Across the seven states, the two treatments associated with the lowest cost to treat 100 migraine attacks were eletriptan 20 mg (range $1549-$1658) and eletriptan 40 mg ($1578-$1661). Naratriptan 2.5 mg (range $1734-$2018), sumatriptan 25 mg ($1853-1954), and zolmitriptan 5 mg ($1854-$1960) were associated with the highest cost to treat 100 migraine attacks. Eletriptan 40 mg was associated with the lowest cost/success (range $57.03-$60.05); naratriptan 2.5 mg ($99.39-$115.65), sumatriptan 25 mg ($107.11-$112.93), and rizatriptan 5 mg ($99.41-$111.25) were associated with the highest cost/success values. Changes in dosing assumptions did not significantly change the rank ordering of triptans across either economic end point. CONCLUSIONS: Eletriptan 20- and 40-mg doses were shown to be associated with the lowest cost to treat 100 migraine attacks and the lowest cost/success in both the baseline and sensitivity analyses. These findings are consistent with results of similar economic analyses that compared multiple triptan therapies.     

Efficacy and safety of sumatriptan 50 mg in patients not responding to standard care, in the treatment of mild to moderate migraine. The Sumatriptan 50 mg Italian Study Group

The tolerability and efficacy of oral sumatriptan 50 mg for the treatment of mild to moderate migraine attacks were assessed in a double-blind, multicenter placebo-controlled study on a group of patients who had not responded sufficiently to analgesic preparations. Three-hundred-and-twenty-eight migraine sufferers treated a first migraine attack with a nontriptan standard care medication: a mixture containing phenazone, butalbital and caffeine (optalidon) or indomethacin plus prochlorperazine plus caffeine (difmetre) or paracetamol 100 mg (tachipirine), depending on their habits. Of these patients, 32.6% reported headache relief with this treatment and were not included in phase II of the study. The 219 patients not reporting relief during the first phase of the study entered the second phase and were randomized to sumatriptan 50 mg or to placebo; 167 of these patients treated a second attack according to the protocol and were evaluated for efficacy. Of the patients with migraine taking sumatriptan, 58% reported headache relief compared with 35% of placebo-treated patients (p = 0.008). The reduction of nausea and vomiting was significantly better in the sumatriptan group. No differences were detected for the recurrence rate, while rescue medication was used more by the placebo group. The safety profile of sumatriptan 50 mg was confirmed. This study demonstrates the usefulness of this dose of oral sumatriptan against the pain and the accompanying symptoms of mild and moderate migraine.     

Sumatriptan: pharmacological basis and clinical results

Sumatriiptan was the first selective serotonin (5-HT)1B/1D agonist for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. Apart from the subcutaneous and oral formulation, it is also available as nasal spray and suppository. In placebo-controlled clinical trials, sumatriptan, administered subcutaneously, orally, intranasally or rectally was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving migraine headache and in producing relief or resolution of other symptoms associated with migraine, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. For patients who desire particularly rapid relief that cannot be provided by a tablet form, sumatriptan injection with a 10-minute onset of action may be an appropriate choice. Patients with very severe attacks and those with vomiting may also benefit from the injection. For patients with nausea who do not wish to take tablets or who fear injections, a sumatriptan nasal spray or a suppository may be appropriate options. New triptans, zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, and naratriptan began entering the market in 1997 but in clinical practice, in particular after dose adjustments have been made, all triptans appear to be very similar with respect to efficacy and tolerability as well as safety.     

Cost-benefit analysis of sumatriptan tablets versus usual therapy for treatment of migraine

We performed a systematic assessment of the costs and benefits of sumatriptan and usual therapy for migraine from society's perspective. A decision tree was constructed with probability estimates based on data from an open-label clinical trial assessing the economic and human impacts of sumatriptan and usual therapy on nursing personnel. Direct medical care costs including costs for drug, physician, and emergency room visits were considered. Benefits were estimated using the human capital approach based on the national average of weekly earnings and productivity loss estimated from a migraine clinical trial. The net benefits of sumatriptan and usual therapy for the treatment of a single migraine attack were estimated to be $50 and $20, respectively. The annual incremental net benefit of sumatriptan over usual therapy was estimated to be $114-540/patient. The price difference was offset by benefits of sumatriptan in reducing use of health care resources and productivity loss.     

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.