Migraine Treatment With Rizatriptan and Almotriptan: A Crossover Study

Background.— Rizatriptan and almotriptan are effective and well-tolerated triptans that have not been compared directly. Objective.— To evaluate the effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg and almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine, in a real-world setting. Methods.— Of a large, multicenter, open-label, crossover study, we conducted a substudy to contrast the effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg and almotriptan 12.5 mg for the acute treatment of 2 migraine attacks in a sequential, crossover manner. Time to outcome was assessed using stopwatches. Mean and median times to onset of pain relief (PR) and pain freedom (PF) for rizatriptan and almotriptan were compared. The effect of rizatriptan on times to onset of PR and PF, adjusting for potential confounding factors (treatment sequence, treatment order, and use of rescue medication), was computed via a Cox proportional hazard model. Results.— Out of the 146 patients taking almotriptan as their usual care medication, 79 used stopwatch for both attacks. Significantly more patients taking rizatriptan achieved onset of PR within 2 hours after dosing than those taking almotriptan (88.6% vs 73.4%, P = .007). A higher proportion of patients taking rizatriptan achieved PF within 2 hours after dosing than those taking almotriptan (55.7% vs 45.6%, P = .10). Times to onset of PR and PF were significantly shorter with those patients taking rizatriptan than with those taking almotriptan (median time to PR: 45 vs 60 minutes, P = .002; median time to PF: 100 vs 135 minutes, P = .004). The adjusted proportional hazard ratios (rizatriptan vs almotriptan) for times to onset of PR and PF were 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.88) and 1.42 (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.76), respectively. More patients were very satisfied when treating their attacks with rizatriptan than with almotriptan. Rizatriptan was preferred by most patients. Conclusions.— Times to achieve PR and PF were significantly shorter for patients using rizatriptan, as compared with those using almotriptan.     

Rizatriptan 5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents: results from a double-blind, single-attack study and two open-label, multiple-attack studies

OBJECTIVE: To examine the short- and long-term efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan 5 mg in adolescents with migraine. METHODS: Two studies were conducted in patients aged 12 to 17 years. The first study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack study followed by a randomized, 1-year, open-label extension. The second study was a randomized, 1-year, open-label study. In the single-attack study, patients treated a moderate or severe migraine headache and up to two recurrences with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n = 234) or placebo (n = 242). Patients were instructed to use the study medication only on nonschool days. Headache severity, associated symptoms, and functional disability were assessed by the patient at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 hours after the initial dose. In the 1-year studies, patients treated up to 6 migraine attacks per month with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n = 273), rizatriptan 5-mg wafers (n = 281), or standard care therapy (n = 132). Headache severity was assessed by the patient at 2 hours after the initial dose. In all studies, the primary efficacy measure was pain relief at 2 hours post dose. RESULTS: In the single-attack study, the proportion of patients with pain relief at 2 hours was not significantly different between rizatriptan 5 mg (68.2%) and placebo (68.8%). Fewer patients than expected (about 30%) treated their migraine attacks on the weekend. Among these patients, the proportion with pain relief at 2 hours was significantly higher in the rizatriptan group than in the placebo group (74% vs. 58%, P = 0.022). In the multiple-attack studies, pain relief at 2 hours was achieved in significantly more attacks treated with rizatriptan 5-mg tablet (77%) or with rizatriptan 5-mg wafer (77%) than with standard care (64%). Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated in both the studies, with an adverse event profile not significantly different from that of placebo or standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was not more effective than placebo in the treatment of a single migraine attack in adolescents, but appeared to be more effective than standard care for treating multiple attacks occurring over 1 year in these patients. Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated in adolescents during short-term and long-term use.     

Pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan tablets during and between migraine attacks

Gastric stasis during migraine attacks results in delayed absorption of several orally administered antimigraine agents. This study, as part of a larger trial, was conducted to examine the pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan tablets during and between migraine attacks. Participating patients met IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura, and suffered between one and eight migraines per month for the previous 6 months. In part 1 of the study, 21 patients were randomized to receive a single 5-mg tablet of rizatriptan or placebo in the migraine-free state. In part 2, the same patients were treated during migraine with rizatriptan 5-mg tablets (n=18) or placebo (n=3). Blood samples were obtained before dosing and 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after dosing. The plasma concentration profile (ie, AUC_(0-∞), C_max, T_max) of rizatriptan 5-mg tablets administered during and between migraine attacks were comparable. The median T_max for rizatriptan between and during attacks was 1 hour, indicating rapid absorption even during a migraine attack. Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated and 67% of the patients experienced headache relief 2 hours postdose.     

Expanding Access to Triptans: Assessment of Clinical Outcome

Objective.— To evaluate whether access to more liberal quantities of rizatriptan improves clinical outcome in patients with episodic migraine.
Background.— Currently many pharmacy benefit programs limit the number of triptan tablets/injections per month based on perceived cost savings and the belief that too-frequent use of triptans may lead to medication overuse headache and headache chronification.
Methods.— This observer-blind, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled 197 subjects with migraine with or without aura. Subjects completed a 3-month baseline period to establish migraine frequency and then were randomly assigned to receive 9 (formulary limit [FL]) or 27 (clinical limit [CL]) tablets of 10 mg rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) per month for 3 months. The primary endpoint was change in the mean number of migraine days from the baseline to treatment period.
Results.— There was no statistically significant difference between the FL and CL groups in mean number of migraine days (FL-CL LS mean: −0.08 [−0.39, 0.23]; P  = .613). Subjects in the CL group treated attacks at lower headache severity. No CL subjects were reported to have developed chronic migraine despite utilization of greater than 10 rizatriptan ODT tablets per month. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated by both groups.
Conclusion.— Providing a greater quantity of rizatriptan ODT 10 mg did not reduce the number of migraine days compared with providing 9 tablets per month for this population with episodic migraine with a frequency of 3-8 migraines per month. Regardless of quantity provided, rizatriptan was generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy of rizatriptan for menstrual migraine in an early intervention model: a prospective subgroup analysis of the rizatriptan TAME (Treat A Migraine Early) studies

OBJECTIVE: A prospective subgroup analysis of the TAME (Treat A Migraine Early) studies examined the efficacy of rizatriptan in patients treating a menstrual migraine attack. METHODS: Both TAME studies were randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind. Adults with migraine were assigned (2:1) to either rizatriptan 10-mg tablet or placebo. Patients were instructed to treat within 1 hour of migraine onset and when the pain was mild. The primary endpoint was 2-hour pain freedom. The diagnosis of menstrual migraine was established according to the revised 2004 International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria. Data from both studies were pooled for logistic regression analyses. A test for interaction was performed to compare rates of 2-hour pain freedom between patients treating a menstrual and non-menstrual attack. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (63 in the rizatriptan group and 31 in the placebo group) met IHS criteria for menstrual migraine and treated a menstrual attack. The percentage of patients reporting 2-hour pain freedom was significantly greater for rizatriptan than for placebo (63.5% vs 29.0%; odds ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.7, 11.9; P = .002) in those treating a menstrual attack. In those treating with rizatriptan, the percentage of patients with 2-hour pain freedom did not statistically differ between those treating a menstrual or non-menstrual migraine attack (63.5% vs 57.5%; P = .454). CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10 mg was effective for the treatment of menstrual migraine in an early intervention model, as measured by 2-hour pain freedom. Rates of 2-hour pain freedom were comparable for patients treating menstrual and non-menstrual migraine attacks with rizatriptan.     

Rizatriptan for treatment of acute migraine in patients taking topiramate for migraine prophylaxis

Objective.— To assess efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. Background.— There are limited data from prospective controlled trials demonstrating the benefit of triptans in patients who experience migraine attacks while taking prophylactic medication. Methods.— This was a worldwide, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, multiple‐attack study in adults with a >1‐year history of migraine taking a stable dose of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis and experiencing ≥2 moderate/severe attacks per month. Participants treated 3 moderate/severe attacks in crossover fashion (2 with rizatriptan 10‐mg ODT, 1 with placebo) following random assignment to 1 of 3 treatment sequences. The primary end point was 2‐hour pain relief. Results.— Two‐hour pain relief was significantly greater with rizatriptan compared with placebo (55.0% vs 17.4%, P < .001). Response rates also favored rizatriptan for sustained pain relief from 2‐24 hours (32.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001), 2‐hour pain freedom (36.0% vs 6.5%, P < .001), normal functional ability at 2 hours (42.2% vs 12.7%, P < .001), and overall treatment satisfaction at 24 hours (60.8% vs 33.6%, P < .001). Few participants reported adverse experiences (16 [15.8%] with rizatriptan, 3 [3.2%] with placebo); none were serious. Conclusion.— Rizatriptan 10‐mg ODT was superior to placebo at all pain end points for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated in this population. These results are comparable with those from clinical trials in patients not using prophylaxis, suggesting that the use of topiramate does not affect the efficacy or tolerability of rizatriptan for acute migraine treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of almotriptan and rizatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common disorder that costs US employers billions of dollars each year in missed workdays and reduced productivity. Seven triptans, including almotriptan and rizatriptan, are recommended as first-line therapy for acute migraine. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of almotriptan and rizatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine. METHODS: A model was built to compare almotriptan 12.5 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg for the treatment of a single, acute migraine attack. Cost-effectiveness (in year-1999 US dollars) was evaluated from the perspective of a US health care payer. Mean and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) were calculated. The effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients who achieved sustained freedom from pain with no adverse events (SNAE). Data on sustained pain-free outcomes and adverse-event rates were obtained from a meta-analysis of oral triptan trials. Efficacy and tolerability were assumed to be independent in the base-case scenario, so the total direct cost of treating a single migraine attack was calculated, adding drug costs to health service costs per attack. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the mean CERs for almotriptan 12.5 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg were 91.12 dollars and 131.26 dollars, respectively, per attack at which SNAE was achieved after treatment. The incremental CER for almotriptan (compared with rizatriptan 10 mg) was 6.94 dollars per additional SNAE achieved. The economic benefit of almotriptan 12.5 mg was robust in a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Almotriptan 12.5 mg was more cost-effective than rizatriptan 10 mg for the treatment of acute migraine in this analysis based on published data.     

Preference for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer vs. eletriptan 40-mg tablet for acute treatment of migraine

Preference is a composite, patient-oriented endpoint incorporating efficacy, tolerability, formulation, and convenience of medications. The objective of this study was to compare patient preference for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer vs. eletriptan 40-mg tablet for acute treatment of migraine. In this multicentre, open-label, two-period, crossover study, out-patients were randomly assigned to treat the first of two moderate to severe migraines with rizatriptan or eletriptan and the second with the alternate therapy. Patients completed diary assessments at baseline and up to 24 h after taking study medication. At the last visit, patients completed a psychometrically validated preference questionnaire. A total of 372 patients (mean age 38 years, 85% female) treated two migraine attacks, and 342 patients (92%) expressed a preference for treatment. Significantly more (P < or = 0.001) patients preferred rizatriptan 10-mg wafer [61.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 55.7, 66.3] to eletriptan 40-mg tablet (38.9%; 95% CI 33.7, 44.3). The most common reason given for preference of either treatment was speed of headache relief. At 2 h, 80% and 69% of patients reported that rizatriptan and eletriptan, respectively, was convenient or very convenient to take (mean convenience score 1.99 vs. 2.31, respectively; P < or = 0.001). Both triptans were well tolerated. In this head-to-head study designed to evaluate global patient preference, significantly more patients preferred the rizatriptan 10-mg wafer to the eletriptan 40-mg tablet for acute treatment of migraine. The single most important reason for preference was speed of relief, consistent with results from previous preference studies.     

Rizatriptan 5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents: a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the tolerability and efficacy of rizatriptan 5 mg in adolescent migraineurs. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients aged 12 to 17 years received rizatriptan 5 mg (n = 149) or placebo (n = 147) for a moderate or severe headache and for up to two recurrences. Headache severity, presence or absence of associated symptoms, and functional disability were assessed over a 4-hour postdose period, and any adverse events were recorded. The primary efficacy measure was pain-free status at 2 hours postdose. RESULTS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events (all with incidence of 5% or less) among patients receiving rizatriptan were dry mouth, dizziness, asthenia/fatigue, nausea, and somnolence. The percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours was 32% for rizatriptan 5 mg versus 28% for placebo (P=.474). The percentage of patients with pain relief (reduction of predose pain intensity to mild or none) at 2 hours was 66% for rizatriptan versus 56% for placebo (P=.079). Placebo response rates were higher than those typically observed in previous studies of rizatriptan in adults. Compared with placebo, rizatriptan significantly improved functional disability at 1.5 and 2 hours, and nausea at 1 and 1.5 hours. Post hoc analysis showed a significant benefit of rizatriptan versus placebo in the percentage of patients who had pain relief when their migraine attacks were treated on weekends (65% versus 36%, P=.046) compared with weekdays (66% versus 61%, P=.365), and the weekend placebo response rate was similar to that seen in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 5 mg was well tolerated and effective on some measures when used in adolescents for the treatment of a migraine attack.     

Early treatment of migraine with rizatriptan: a placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of rizatriptan when administered early during a migraine attack. BACKGROUND: Several studies indicate that triptans are more efficacious when administered early during a migraine attack, when the pain is still mild. METHODS: One hundred and twelve rizatriptan-na?ve patients aged 20 to 64 years with a history of migraine with or without aura that progressively worsened when left untreated were instructed to treat a total of three migraine attacks with either rizatriptan 10 mg or placebo as early as possible during each attack. Seventy-four patients (68 women and 6 men) were assigned to use the active drug and 38 (35 women and 3 men) to placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain-free response at 2 hours after administration of the study drug. Secondary efficacy measures were pain-free response at 1 hour and sustained pain-free response lasting between 2 and 24 hours. RESULTS: A total of 216 attacks were treated in the rizatriptan group and 109 in the placebo group. Pain-free response at 2 hours after early treatment was noted in 151 (70%) of attacks in the rizatriptan group and in 24 (22%) in the placebo group (P < .01). Pain-free response at 1 hour occurred in 97 (45%) and 9 (8%) attacks, respectively (P < .01). When the attacks were categorized by headache severity at the time of treatment, the pain-free response at 2 hours was higher for mild attacks than for moderate or severe attacks (P < .01). Sustained pain-free response after treatment was significantly higher for attacks treated with rizatriptan (60%) than for those treated with placebo (17%) (P < .001). Adverse events were observed in 62 patients in the rizatriptan group and 15 in the placebo group. Only 1 patient taking rizatriptan discontinued the study because of adverse events, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan is significantly more likely than placebo to produce a pain-free response within 2 hours when the drug is administered early in the migraine attack, when pain is mild rather than moderate or severe.     

Preference comparison of rizatriptan ODT 10-mg and sumatriptan 50-mg tablet in migraine

OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of patients who prefer rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) 10-mg to sumatriptan 50-mg tablet. BACKGROUND: Migraineurs express treatment preference based on a variety of attributes including the speed of pain relief and medication formulation. Rizatriptan ODT is an orally disintegrating formulation of rizatriptan, a selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist. This study was conducted to determine patient preference between rizatriptan ODT 10-mg and sumatriptan 50-mg tablet for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study conducted in the United States with 524 enrolled patients. Patients treated a single moderate or severe headache in each treatment period. Patients treated one migraine with either rizatriptan ODT 10-mg or sumatriptan 50-mg tablet, then treated a second migraine with the alternate therapy. Patients completed diary assessments at baseline, and 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes postdose and rated headache severity on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe). At the final study visit following treatment of their second migraine, patients expressed preference for one of the two study medications by completing an interviewer-administered Global Preference Question and then responded to a self-administered series of questions to capture their most important reason for preferring one study medication over the other. Safety measurements were recorded through standard adverse experience reporting. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six patients treated two migraine attacks. For those patients who expressed a preference for either rizatriptan ODT or sumatriptan (n = 374), the percentage of patients who preferred rizatriptan ODT 10-mg (57%, n = 213) was significantly greater than those who preferred sumatriptan 50-mg tablet (43%, n = 161) (P<.01). For those patients who treated two migraine attacks and had drug severity measures for both attacks (n = 384), a significantly greater percentage of patients reported pain relief after taking rizatriptan ODT than sumatriptan at the 45- and 60-minute time points (38% versus 29% and 58% versus 49%, respectively) (P<.01). In addition, a significantly greater percentage of patients taking rizatriptan ODT reported a pain-free status at the 60- and 120-minute time points (23% versus 17% [P<.05] and 60% versus 52% [P<.01], respectively). Both rizatriptan ODT and sumatriptan were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater proportion of patients preferred rizatriptan ODT 10-mg to sumatriptan 50-mg tablet for the acute treatment of migraine. Efficacy and safety data are consistent with the preference findings.     

Rizatriptan efficacy in ICHD-II pure menstrual migraine and menstrually related migraine

Objective.— To examine the efficacy of rizatriptan for the treatment of pure menstrual migraine (PMM). Background.— In 2004, the International Headache Society proposed new research criteria for menstrual migraine (International Classification of Headache Disorders [ICHD‐II]). Two subtypes were defined: PMM, in which attacks occur exclusively with menstruation, and menstrually related migraine (MRM), in which attacks may also occur at other times of the cycle. Methods.— The 2 protocols (MM1 and MM2) were identical randomized, double‐blind studies. Adult patients with ICHD‐II menstrual migraine were assigned to either rizatriptan 10‐mg tablet or placebo (2:1). Patients were to treat a single menstrual migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. This prospectively planned substudy pooled data from patients with a diagnosis of PMM from both studies. The primary substudy endpoint was 2‐hour pain relief. Efficacy data were summarized for patients with a diagnosis of MRM. Results.— Of 707 (MM1: 357, MM2: 350) patients treated in the study, 146 patients (MM1: 81, MM2: 65) had a diagnosis of PMM. The percentage of patients reporting 2‐hour pain relief was significantly greater for rizatriptan than for placebo for both PMM (73% vs 50%, P = .006) and MRM subgroups (71% vs 52%, P < .001). Most other efficacy endpoints favored rizatriptan compared with placebo in patients with either PMM or MRM. Conclusion.— Rizatriptan 10 mg was superior to placebo for the treatment of PMM, as measured by 2‐hour pain relief. Rizatriptan was also effective for the treatment of MRM and for relief of migraine‐associated symptoms for both headache subtypes.     

Further evaluation of rizatriptan in menstrual migraine: retrospective analysis of long-term data

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10-mg wafers in the treatment of menstrual migraine attacks. METHODS: Data from an extension study where patients with migraine used rizatriptan 10 mg to treat moderate or severe migraine attacks occurring over periods of up to 6 months were included in a retrospective analysis. Patients used a diary card to record details of each migraine attack and onset of menstruation. Attacks in women were classified as menstrual or nonmenstrual according to 3 time windows relative to onset of menstruation (day 0): -3 to +3 days (7-day window), -2 to + 2 days (5-day window), and 0 to +1 days (2-day window). The analysis looked at the efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg by menstrual category of attack for each definition on three measures: pain relief at 2 hours (reduction of pain to mild or none), pain free at 2 hours, 24-hours sustained pain free (pain free at 2 hours with no headache recurrence and no use of additional medications from 2 to 24 hours). RESULTS: Ninety-five women used rizatriptan 10 mg to treat a total of 1,839 attacks. The percentage of menstrual attacks was 30% for the -3 to +3 days definition, 23% for the -2 to +2 days definition, and 11% for the 0 to +1 days definition. Rizatriptan 10 mg was equally effective in menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks regardless of the definition used. For example, using the -3 to +3 days definition, 78% of menstrual migraine attacks were relieved at 2 hours after dosing compared with 78% of nonmenstrual attacks. Pain relief rates for the other definitions were as follows: -2 to +2 days, menstrual = 78%, nonmenstrual = 78%; 0 to +1 days, menstrual = 79%, and nonmenstrual = 78%. No differences between menstrual and nonmenstrual attacks were found for the 2-hour pain free and 24-hour sustained pain free measures for any of the three definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 10-mg wafers were equally effective in the treatment of menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks occurring over 6 months, regardless of the precise definition of menstrual association used and even when the outcome criteria were very stringent. These data provide further evidence that triptans are effective treatments for menstrual migraine.     

Long-term tolerability of telcagepant for acute treatment of migraine in a randomized trial

(Headache 2011;51:73‐84) Objective.— To evaluate the long‐term tolerability of telcagepant for acute treatment of intermittent migraine attacks. Background.— Telcagepant is a calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods.— Migraine patients were randomized 2:1 to double‐blind treatment with telcagepant 280/300 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg for an acute mild, moderate, or severe migraine. Patients could administer a second dose within 2‐24 hours for nonresponse or migraine recurrence. Patients could treat up to 8 attacks per month for up to 18 months. Safety assessments included spontaneous reports of adverse events and collection of vital signs, electrocardiograms, and laboratory assessments. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with ≥1 triptan‐related adverse events in the 14‐day period post dose. Results.— Of 1068 patients randomized, 641 (90%) patients treated ≥1 attack with telcagepant and 313 (88%) treated ≥1 attack with rizatriptan. A total of 19,820 attacks were treated with telcagepant (mean per patient = 31) and 10,981 with rizatriptan (mean per patient = 35). Fewer triptan‐related adverse events (difference: ?6.2%; 95% CI ?10.4, ?2.6; P < .001) and drug‐related adverse events (difference: ?15.6%; 95% CI ?22.2, ?9.0) were reported for telcagepant vs rizatriptan. The most common adverse events appeared to have generally similar incidence proportions between the treatment groups. Those with an incidence >5% in the telcagepant group were dry mouth (9.7%, rizatriptan = 13.7%), somnolence (9.2%, rizatriptan = 16.6%), dizziness (8.9%, rizatriptan = 10.2%), and nausea (9.0%, rizatriptan = 6.4%). Conclusions.— Telcagepant was generally well tolerated when administered for the acute intermittent treatment of migraine for up to 18 months. The incidences of triptan‐related and drug‐related adverse events favored telcagepant over rizatriptan.     

Crossover Comparison of Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg Versus Sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg in Migraine

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared rizatriptan 5 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg. A total of 1329 patients were allocated to one of five groups for treatment of two attacks: rizatriptan 5 mg/sumatriptan 25 mg; sumatriptan 25 mg/rizatriptan 5 mg; rizatriptan 10 mg/sumatriptan 50 mg; sumatriptan 50 mg/rizatriptan 10 mg; placebo/placebo. For each attack, patients rated headache severity, presence of associated symptoms, and functional disability prior to dosing and at intervals through 4 hours thereafter. Patients also rated their satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg provided faster relief of headache pain and greater relief of migraine symptoms than the 25-mg and 50-mg doses of sumatriptan, respectively. The response to rizatriptan was better than sumatriptan on additional measures including functional disability and satisfaction with medication. All active treatments were highly effective compared to placebo and acted as early as 30 minutes after dosing. All active treatments were well-tolerated and showed comparable safety profiles.     

Times to pain relief and pain freedom with rizatriptan 10 mg and other oral triptans

BACKGROUND: In the clinical trial setting, oral rizatriptan 10 mg has greater efficacy than other oral triptans in freedom from migraine headache pain 2 h after dosing. OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to compare the effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg and other oral triptans for acute migraine attack in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: A total of 673 patients took rizatriptan 10 mg or their usual-care oral triptans for two migraine attacks in a sequential, cross-over manner and recorded outcomes using a diary and a stopwatch. Mean and median times to pain relief (PR) and pain freedom (PF) for rizatriptan and other oral triptans were compared. The effect of rizatriptan on times to PR and PF, adjusting for potential confounding factors (treatment sequence, treatment order and use of rescue medication), was computed via a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Significantly, more patients taking rizatriptan achieved both PR and PF within 2 h after dosing than other oral triptans. Times to PR and PF were shorter with rizatriptan than with other oral triptans (median time to PR: 45 vs. 52 min, p < 0.0001; median time to PF: 100 vs. 124 min, p < 0.0001). The adjusted proportional hazard ratios (rizatriptan vs. other oral triptans) for times to PR and PF were 1.32 (95% CI: 1.22-1.44) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.16-1.39) respectively. CONCLUSION: The times to PR and PF in a 'naturalistic' setting were significantly shorter for patients treating a migraine attack with rizatriptan 10 mg than with other oral triptans.     

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

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of zolmitriptan in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: Zolmitriptan is a second-generation triptan developed for the treatment of migraine. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to compare different dosages and formulations of zolmitriptan against other treatments for acute migraine. METHODS: Random effects meta-analysis of 24 RCTs, including 15,408 patients suffering from acute migraine attacks. Subgroup analyses compared differences in response between different dosages and formulations of zolmitriptan, and other triptan comparators. RESULTS: Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was found to be as effective as almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg and more effective than naratriptan 2.5 mg in terms of 2-hour pain-free rates. Likewise, zolmitriptan 5 mg tablet was as effective as sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg in 2-hour pain-free rates. Compared against zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet, eletriptan 80 mg was more effective in achieving headache relief, pain-free and sustained pain-free responses, and rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective in terms of sustained pain-free rates. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was associated with a lower risk of adverse events than eletriptan 80 mg but higher risk than naratriptan 2.5 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg. Zolmitriptan 5 mg tablet was superior to zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet in achieving 1- and 2-hour pain-free response. There were no significant differences in 1- and 2-hour headache relief and adverse event rates between the different formulations of zolmitriptan 2.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet is an effective treatment for acute attacks of migraine showing similar efficacy to almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 40 mg, and sumatriptan 50 mg, and being more effective than naratriptan 2.5 mg in terms of pain-free response at 2 hours post dose. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg tablet was also as effective as rizatriptan 10 mg in terms of headache relief and pain-free response but less effective in terms of sustained pain-free response.     

Crossover comparison of rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg in migraine. Rizatriptan Protocol 046 Study Group

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared rizatriptan 5 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg. A total of 1329 patients were allocated to one of five groups for treatment of two attacks: rizatriptan 5 mg/sumatriptan 25 mg; sumatriptan 25 mg/rizatriptan 5 mg; rizatriptan 10 mg/sumatriptan 50 mg; sumatriptan 50 mg/rizatriptan 10 mg; placebo/placebo. For each attack, patients rated headache severity, presence of associated symptoms, and functional disability prior to dosing and at intervals through 4 hours thereafter. Patients also rated their satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg provided faster relief of headache pain and greater relief of migraine symptoms than the 25-mg and 50-mg doses of sumatriptan, respectively. The response to rizatriptan was better than sumatriptan on additional measures including functional disability and satisfaction with medication. All active treatments were highly effective compared to placebo and acted as early as 30 minutes after dosing. All active treatments were well-tolerated and showed comparable safety profiles.