Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Triptans
Terms modified by Triptans Selected AbstractsMultiple attack study on the available triptans in Italy versus placeboEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 7 2005C. Vollono The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the five triptans that are commercially available in Italy (zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, rizatriptan 10 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, almotriptan 12.5 mg and eletriptan 40 mg). The study was conducted in single-blind versus placebo and its duration was 18 months. At the Headache Centre of the ,Agostino Gemelli' Hospital in Rome we selected 42 patients, suffering from headache with and without aura (International Headache Society Committee on Headache Classification, 1988 Cephalalgia 8:1,96), whose headache frequency ranged between 1- and 4-monthly crises. For a total of 25 crises, for every five consecutive crises, a different triptan was taken. The end-points of the study were as follows: response at 2 h, ,pain free' at 2 h and ,sustained pain free' (at 24 h). The intra-patient consistency and the tolerability were also evaluated. Thirty patients completed the study and the statistical analysis was only applied to these patients. No substantial difference in terms of the efficacy of the triptans was noted; all triptans were well tolerated. These results suggest the possibility of testing different triptans in the same patient in order to identify the ideal drug for every patient. [source] Meta-Analysis Examining the Efficacy and Safety of Almotriptan in the Acute Treatment of MigraineHEADACHE, Issue 8 2007Li-Chia Chen PhD Objective.,To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of oral almotriptan in treating acute migraine attacks. Background.,Almotriptan is an oral selective sertonin1B/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. [source] Eletriptan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adolescents: Results of a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled TrialHEADACHE, Issue 4 2007Paul Winner DO Background.,Eletriptan is a potent 5-HT1B/1D agonist with proven efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Objective.,To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo in adolescent patients (aged 12-17). Methods.,A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted comparing 40 mg of oral eletriptan with placebo for the treatment of migraine in adolescent patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was 2-hour headache response, and a number of secondary endpoints were also evaluated. An exploratory analysis evaluated which clinical and demographic characteristics might be correlated with high placebo response. Results.,Of 274 patients who treated a migraine attack, 267 were evaluated for efficacy (n = 138 eletriptan; n = 129 placebo) at 2 hours post-dose. There was no significant difference in 2-hour headache response for eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo (57% vs 57%), and no significant improvements were observed for any of the outcomes at 1 or 2 hours post-dose. By contrast, there was a significant advantage for eletriptan 40 mg in reducing headache recurrence within 24 hours post-dose (11% vs 25%, P= .028), and post hoc analyses showed statistically significant differences for sustained headache response rates (52% vs 39%; P= .04) and sustained pain-free response rates (22% vs 10%; P= .013). The strongest clinical predictor of placebo response was triptan-naïve status (ie, no previous use of any triptan). Eletriptan 40 mg was well tolerated in this population, and the profile of adverse events was similar to that observed in Phase III trials in adult patients. Conclusions.,The high placebo response rates reported here for 1- and 2-hour outcomes are in accordance with other studies of triptans in adolescent patients. The evaluation of treatment effect in adolescent migraine might benefit from use of more stringent outcome measures, such as headache recurrence, sustained headache response, and sustained pain-free response at 24 hours post-dose. [source] Sumatriptan Nasal Spray in Adolescent Migraineurs: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Acute StudyHEADACHE, Issue 2 2006Paul Winner DO Objective.,To compare the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan nasal spray (NS) (5, 20 mg) versus placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adolescent subjects. Background.,Currently, no triptan is approved in the United States for the treatment of migraine in adolescent subjects (12 to 17 years). In a previous randomized, placebo-controlled study of 510 adolescent subjects, sumatriptan NS at 5, 10, and 20 mg doses was well tolerated. However, the primary efficacy analysis for headache relief with 20 mg at 2 hours did not demonstrate statistical significance (P= .059). A second study was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of sumatriptan NS in this population. Methods.,This was a randomized (1:1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study. Overall, 738 adolescent subjects (mean age: 14 years) with ,6-month history of migraine (with or without aura) self-treated a single attack of moderate or severe migraine. The primary endpoints were headache relief at 1 hour and sustained relief from 1 to 24 hours. Pain-free rates, presence/absence of associated symptoms, headache recurrence, and use of rescue medications were also assessed. Tolerability was based on adverse events (AEs) and vital signs. Results.,Sumatriptan NS 20 mg provided greater headache relief than placebo at 30 minutes (42% vs. 33%, respectively; P= .046) and 2 hours (68% vs. 58%; P= .025) postdose, but did not reach statistical significance at 1 hour (61% vs. 52%; P= .087) or for sustained headache relief from 1 to 24 hours (P= .061). Significant differences (P < .05) in favor of sumatriptan NS 20 mg over placebo were observed for several secondary efficacy endpoints including sustained relief from 2 to 24 hours. In general, sumatriptan NS 5 mg percentages were slightly higher than placebo but the differences did not reach statistical significance. Both doses of sumatriptan NS were well tolerated. No AEs were serious or led to study withdrawal. The most common event was taste disturbance (2%, placebo; 19%, sumatriptan NS 5 mg; 25%, sumatriptan NS 20 mg). Conclusions.,This study suggests that sumatriptan may be beneficial to some adolescents and is generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine in this population. [source] Assessment of Adverse Events Associated With Triptans,Methods of Assessment Influence the ResultsHEADACHE, Issue 10 2004Fred D. Sheftell MD Background.,A recent study conducted in triptan-naïve migraine patients showed that tolerability was the second most important attribute of an acute treatment. However, the proportion of patients reporting side effects after any acute treatment may vary with regard to the method of assessment. Objectives.,To contrast two methods of assessing adverse events (prompted and unprompted) in those with headache using triptans. Methods.,This study was conducted in two sites, a headache center in the United States, and a neurology office focusing on headache in Italy. We prospectively surveyed 415 adults with headache, who had been using the same triptan for at least 3 months. Participants were asked about their headache and treatment history. Subjects then completed a standardized questionnaire, assessing adverse events in two different ways. First, subjects were asked if they had any adverse events when using the triptan. After returning the first part of the questionnaire, subjects received a second form, where 49 possible adverse events were listed. We contrasted and correlated both sets of answers. Results.,Most patients (U.S. = 74.9%, Italy = 65.5%) reported no side effects in the unprompted questionnaire. However, most of them (U.S. = 62.9%, Italy = 54.1%) reported at least one side effect in the prompted questionnaire. Most patients that reported side effects in the unprompted questionnaire said they had just one adverse event, while most reported two or more side effects in the prompted questionnaire. Both in the unprompted and in the prompted questionnaires, most side effects were rated as mild or moderate. Interestingly, 31 (7.5%) subjects (pooling data from both sites together) graded their adverse events as severe in the prompted questionnaire, but had not self-reported them. Conclusions.,(1) When assessing adverse events, the method of data collection may dramatically influence the results. (2) From those subjects who did not self-report adverse events after using a triptan, most of them will report positively if presented with a list of side effects. [source] Reduced Impact of Migraine in Everyday Life: An Observational Study in the Dutch Society of Headache PatientsHEADACHE, Issue 6 2003J. Vos MA Objective.,To explore the percentage of patients who report a reduced impact of migraine on their life, and to which factors this improvement can be attributed. Methods.,Four hundred forty-eight members of the Dutch Society of Headache Patients answered a set of structured questionnaires, including the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life instrument (MSQOL). Results.,Of this group, 70% reported a reduced impact of migraine. The most frequently reported reason for this reduction was a change in medication (77%); in particular, change to a triptan. Other favorable factors included a change in life-style (56%): 42% of patients reported more relaxed coping with migraine, a reduction of stress in general (28%) and of stress related to work (24%), and leading a more regular life-style (21%). In addition, social support was frequently mentioned, particularly that offered by the Dutch Society of Headache Patients (58%), family (46%), and their general practitioner (28%). The patients who reported a reduced impact of migraine had less migraine attacks and a higher quality of life than those who did not report such a reduction. Conclusion.,The results confirm that factors that are proven effective in clinical trials on migraine also have these effects outside a formal experimental environment. [source] Migraine Headache Recurrence: Relationship to Clinical, Pharmacological, and Pharmacokinetic Properties of TriptansHEADACHE, Issue 4 2003Gilles Géraud MD Background and Objectives.,Triptan use is associated with headache recurrence, and this has been cited as an important reason for patient dissatisfaction with the treatment. The mechanism by which recurrence occurs is not clear, and the incidence of recurrence varies with the triptan used. In order to explore the pharmacological and physiological interaction of triptans and migraine headache recurrence further, some specific clinical, pharmacological, and pharmacokinetic factors that might influence migraine recurrence were evaluated in a review of the major efficacy data for the drugs in the triptan class. These factors were 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor activities, the pharmacokinetic elimination half-life of each triptan, and the clinical efficacy of each compound, determined by the proportion of patients with headache relief and the therapeutic gain over placebo. Methods.,Clinical data were derived from 31 triptan, placebo-controlled, major efficacy studies used in a previous meta-analysis. The mean recurrence rate, mean headache response, and therapeutic gain were calculated using the results from the individual clinical studies. Mean headache response and therapeutic gain were calculated at the time point used to define recurrence in each study. Data for binding affinity and potency were taken from a direct-comparison in vitro pharmacology study, and the elimination half-life quoted in the data sheet for each triptan was used. Rank correlation with recurrence rate was performed for each of the test parameters. Results.,Mean headache recurrence rates ranged from 17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg to 40% for rizatriptan. Elimination half-life and recurrence were inversely correlated (r = ,1.0, P = .0016). There was also a significant inverse correlation between 5-HT1B receptor potency and recurrence (r = ,0.68, P = .034), but 5-HT1D receptor potency was not correlated with recurrence (r = ,0.20, P = .54). In addition, the binding affinities for the 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptors were not correlated to headache recurrence. Importantly, it also was demonstrated that initial clinical efficacy was not correlated to headache recurrence. The correlation coefficient for headache response was 0.18 (P = .53) and for therapeutic gain, ,0.11 (P = .71). Conclusion.,The incidence of migraine headache recurrence varies between drugs in the triptan class. Migraine recurrence does not appear to be related to initial clinical efficacy, but is influenced by the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of the individual triptans. The triptans with longer half-lives and greater 5-HT1B receptor potency had the lowest rates of headache recurrence. [source] Sumatriptan challenge in bipolar patients with and without migraine: a neuroendocrine study of 5-HT1D receptor function.HEADACHE, Issue 3 2003T Mahmood Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002 Jan;17(1):33-36 An association between bipolar disorder and migraine has been lately recognized and an abnormality of central serotonergic function is suggested as the underlying neurophysiological disturbance. To examine the role of serotonin in bipolar disorder and migraine, we used the neuroendocrine challenge paradigm, and we chose sumatriptan, a 5HT1D agonist, as the pharmacological probe. We studied nine bipolar patients with migraine, nine bipolar patients without it, seven migraine patients, and nine matched normal controls. A post-hoc analysis showed subsensitivity of serotonergic function, reflected in a blunted growth hormone response to sumatriptan challenge in bipolar patients who also suffered from migraine. Comment: Given regulatory and labelling concerns about the potential for triptans to provoke serotonin syndrome, the apparent down-regulation of serotonergic function in patients with bipolar disorder may suggest cause for cautious optimism and encourage future study of triptans in these patients to establish true causality or otherwise. A prospective trial of sumatriptan injectable identified 1700 patients who repetitively used the triptan and were concomitantly on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. No serotonin syndrome was reported in any patient (Putnam GP, O'Quinn S, Bolden-Watson CP, Davis RL, Gutterman DL, Fox AW. Migraine polypharmacy and the tolerability of sumatriptan: a large-scale, prospective study. Cephalalgia. 1999;19:668-675). Since SSRIs can rarely induce serotonin syndrome alone, there is a significant difficulty in establishing a risk of coadministration. DSM and SJT [source] Dose Range-Finding Studies With Frovatriptan in the Acute Treatment of MigraineHEADACHE, Issue 2002Alan Rapoport MD Objective.,To determine the optimum dose of frovatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine. Background.,Frovatriptan is a new triptan developed for the acute treatment of migraine. The dose-response characteristics and safety of frovatriptan have been investigated across a broad range of doses from 0.5 to 40 mg. Design.,Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials, with a total of 1453 patients, were performed to determine the optimal dose of the 5-HT1B/1D agonist, frovatriptan, for the acute treatment of migraine. The dose ranges studied were 2.5 to 40 mg in the high-dose study and 0.5 to 5 mg in the low-dose study. Results.,At 2 hours postdosing for initial moderate or severe headache (International Headache Society grades 2 or 3), there was an approximate two-fold difference in the proportion of patients taking frovatriptan doses of 2.5 to 40 mg with mild or no headache compared to placebo. Frovatriptan doses of 0.5 mg and 1 mg were not more effective than placebo at 2 hours postdose, and 2.5 mg was identified as the lowest effective dose for the relief of migraine and accompanying symptoms. Above 2.5 mg, no dose-response relationship was observed for any efficacy parameters. There was an increase in the incidence of adverse events from 10 mg and above, but the vast majority were rated as mild in severity and did not impact upon tolerability in a significant manner. Conclusions.,Frovatriptan was well tolerated throughout the dose range of 0.5 to 40 mg. The 2.5-mg dose confers the optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability for the acute treatment of migraine. [source] Tolerability and Safety of Frovatriptan With Short- and Long-term Use for Treatment of Migraine and in Comparison With SumatriptanHEADACHE, Issue 2002Gilles Géraud MD Objective.,To evaluate the tolerability and safety of frovatriptan 2.5 mg in patients with migraine. Background.,Frovatriptan is a new, selective serotonin agonist (triptan) developed for the acute treatment of migraine. Dose range-finding studies identified 2.5 mg as the dose that conferred the optimal combination of efficacy and tolerability. Methods.,The tolerability and safety of frovatriptan 2.5 mg were assessed during controlled, acute migraine treatment studies, including a study that compared frovatriptan 2.5 mg with sumatriptan 100 mg, as well as a 12-month open-label study during which patients could take up to three doses of frovatriptan 2.5 mg within a 24-hour period. Safety and tolerability were assessed through the collection of adverse events, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure performance of 12-lead electrocardiogram, hematology screen, and blood chemistry studies. Results.,In the short-term studies, 1554 patients took frovatriptan 2.5 mg and 838 took placebo. In the 12-month study, 496 patients treated 13 878 migraine attacks. Frovatriptan was well tolerated in the short- and long-term studies with 1% of patients in the short-term studies and 5% of patients in the long-term study withdrawing due to lack of tolerability. The incidence of adverse events was higher in the frovatriptan-treated patients than in the patients who took placebo (47% versus 34%) and the spectrum of adverse events was similar. When compared to sumatriptan 100 mg, significantly fewer patients taking frovatriptan experienced adverse events (43% versus 36%; P=.03) and the number of adverse events was lower (0.62 versus 0.91), there were also fewer adverse events suggestive of cardiovascular symptoms in the frovatriptan group. Analysis of the entire clinical database (n=2392) demonstrated that frovatriptan was well tolerated by the patients regardless of their age, gender, race, concomitant medication, or the presence of cardiovascular risk factors. No effects of frovatriptan on heart rate, blood pressure, 12-lead electrocardiogram, hematology screen, or blood chemistry were observed. No patient suffered any treatment-related serious adverse event. Conclusions.,Short- and long-term use of frovatriptan 2.5 mg was well tolerated by a wide variety of patients. Frovatriptan treatment produced an adverse events profile similar to that of placebo, and in a direct comparison study was better tolerated than sumatriptan 100 mg. [source] Cardiac Risk Factors and the Use of Triptans: A Survey StudyHEADACHE, Issue 7 2000William B. Young MD Objective.,To describe current practice in triptan use. Background.,Triptans are effective migraine treatments that cause chest symptoms in some patients. True cardiac ischemia is rare. Design.,Headache specialists and family practitioners completed questionnaires regarding the times when triptans are contraindicated, obtaining electrocardiograms (ECGs), and giving the first dose in the office. Results.,Sixty-five headache specialists and 67 family practitioners responded. Headache specialists saw an average of 36.3 patients with headache per week. Family practitioners saw an average of 7.2. Family practitioners and headache specialists had similar opinions regarding the age at which triptans were contraindicated with various numbers of risk factors. Sixty-one percent of headache specialists and 50% of family practitioners would not use a triptan at any age for patients with more than three risk factors (P = NS). Ten percent of headache specialists obtained an ECG for all patients being prescribed triptans, while no family practitioners did (P = .008). Ten percent of both family practitioners and headache specialists never obtained an ECG, even with multiple cardiac risk factors. Headache specialists obtained ECGs more often than family practitioners (P < .002 for one to three risk factors). Family practitioners were more likely to give the first dose of the triptan in the office regardless of cardiovascular risk (58% versus 20%, P < .001). Forty-five percent of headache specialists and 2% of family practitioners never gave the first dose in the office (P < .001). Family practitioners gave the first dose in the office more readily than headache specialists in patients with no risk factors (P = .001), but not for one or more risk factors. Conclusions.,No consensus exists among family practitioners or headache specialists about when to avoid using a triptan due to excessive cardiac risk factors, when to obtain an ECG prior to using a triptan, and when to give the first dose of a triptan in the office. Headache specialists are more likely to obtain ECGs, whereas family practitioners are more likely to give the first dose of a triptan in the office. [source] Latest news and product developmentsPRESCRIBER, Issue 7 2007Article first published online: 11 JUL 200 Poor asthma control with off-licence prescribing Children who are prescribed off-licence medications are more likely to have poor asthma control, according to an analysis from Dundee (Br J Gen Practice 2007;57:220-2). The review of 17 163 consultations identified 1050 (6.1 per cent) who received a prescription for an unlicensed use (defined as not licensed for children or the particular age group, or dose not licensed). High doses (4.5 per cent) were more frequent than unlicensed indications (1.9 per cent). Children who received off-label prescriptions reported statistically significantly more symptoms in the day or night, symptoms during activity, and increased use of daily short-acting beta2-agonists. The authors note that off-label prescribing appears to be increasing. Atkins diet most effective over one year? The ultra low-carbohydrate, high-protein Atkins diet achieved greater weight loss than other popular diets in overweight women over one year, say US investigators (J Am Med Assoc 2007;297:969-77). The study compared the Atkins diet with three diets designed as low- or very high-carbohydrate, or based on USA nutritional guidance, in 311 women with body mass index 27-40. After one year, mean weight loss was 4.7kg with the Atkins diet , significantly greater than with the low- carbohydrate diet (1.6kg) but not compared with very high-carbohydrate (2.2kg) or the nutrition-based diet (2.6kg). Metabolic endpoints were comparable or more favourable in women using the Atkins diet. Androgen therapy linked to gum disease The majority of men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer are more likely to have periodontal disease (J Urol 2007;177:921-4). After controlling for risk factors, the prevalence of periodontal disease was 80.5 per cent among treated men compared with 3.7 per cent in matched controls not receiving treatment. There was no difference in bone mineral density between the groups but plaque scores were significantly higher among treated men. Food Commission rebuts MHRA on additives An independent watchdog has not accepted the MHRA's justification for including certain additives in medicines for children. The Food Commission (www.foodcomm.org.uk) found that most medicines for children contained additives, some of which , including azo dyes and benzoates , are not permitted in food. The Commission called on the pharmaceutical industry to stop using ,questionable additives'. The MHRA stated that the licensing process takes into account the likely exposure to excipients that are considered essential to make medicines palatable to children. Colouring helps children to identify the correct medicine, and preservatives ensure a reasonable shelf-life. A list of additives is included in the product's summary of product characteristics and patient information leaflet. In response, the Commission states: , , it is quite possible to flavour medicines with natural oils or extracts, and natural colourings such as beetroot and beta-carotene can be used instead of azo dyes. If parents were advised to give these medicinal products at mealtimes the manufacturers could also add a little sugar to sweeten their products, rather than relying on artificial sweeteners.' All triptans the same? There is no economic case for choosing one triptan over another and no evidence for preferring a particular triptan for adults, a systematic review has concluded. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (www.cadth.ca) found that published trials had compared most triptans with sumatriptan but not with one another, and most economic evaluations were flawed. New drug for HIV Janssen-Cilag has introduced darunavir (Prezista), a new protease inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection. Licensed for highly pre- treated patients in whom more than one other pro- tease inhibitor regimen has failed, darunavir must be co-administered with ritonavir (Norvir). A month's treatment at the recommended dose of 600mg twice daily costs £446.70. Variation in liquid captopril for children The NHS uses a wide range of liquid formulations of captopril to treat children with heart failure , with no assurance of their bioequivalence (Arch Dis Child 2007; published online 15 March. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.109389). Specialists in Leicester surveyed 13 tertiary paediatric cardiac centres and 13 hospitals that referred patients to them. Only three tertiary centres supplied the same liquid for-mulation of captopril as their referring hospitals. Four hospitals supplied tablets for crushing and dissolving in water; the other hospitals and centres used a total of nine different formulations. The authors say the formulations had widely varying shelf-lives, determined empirically in all but one case, and were used interchangeably despite a lack of quality control data to establish their bioequivalence. QOF CVD targets not good enough for GPs Two-thirds of GPs want Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) targets for cardiovascular disease brought into line with those of the Joint British Societies latest guidance (JBS2), according to a survey by doctor.net.uk. The survey of 1000 GPs showed that 88 per cent were aware of the JBS2 guidelines and most were already implementing the targets for lipids, blood pressure and blood glucose in some form; however, only 55 per cent were implementing the JBS2 obesity target and 14 per cent were implementing screening for the over-40s. The JBS2 target for lipids in at-risk patients is <4mmol per litre total cholesterol and <2 mmol per litre LDL-cholesterol, compared with <5 and <3mmol per litre respectively in QOF and the NSF. The survey was commissioned by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Schering- Plough. Fracture warning Following warnings in the US that rosiglitazone (Avandia) is associated with an increased risk of fractures in women, Takeda has advised prescribers that pioglitazone (Actos) carries a similar risk. An analysis of the company's clinical trials database has revealed an excess risk of fractures of bones below the elbow and knee. The incidence was similar to the excess risk associated with rosiglitazone and also confined to women. Scottish approvals The Scottish Medicines Consortium (www.scottish medicines.org.uk) has approved for use within NHS Scotland the sublingual tablet formulation buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) for the treatment of opioid dependence. It has also approved the combined formulation of valsartan and amlodipine (Exforge) and the restricted use of the If inhibitor ivabradine (Procoralan). [source] Triptan-induced latent sensitization: A possible basis for medication overuse headacheANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 3 2010Milena De Felice PhD Objective Identification of the neural mechanisms underlying medication overuse headache resulting from triptans. Methods Triptans were administered systemically to rats by repeated intermittent injections or by continuous infusion over 6 days. Periorbital and hind paw sensory thresholds were measured to detect cutaneous allodynia. Immunofluorescent histochemistry was employed to detect changes in peptidic neurotransmitter expression in identified dural afferents. Enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay was used to measure calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) levels in blood. Results Sustained or repeated administration of triptans to rats elicited time-dependent and reversible cutaneous tactile allodynia that was maintained throughout and transiently after drug delivery. Triptan administration increased labeling for CGRP in identified trigeminal dural afferents that persisted long after discontinuation of triptan exposure. Two weeks after triptan exposure, when sensory thresholds returned to baseline levels, rats showed enhanced cutaneous allodynia and increased CGRP in the blood following challenge with a nitric oxide donor. Triptan treatment thus induces a state of latent sensitization characterized by persistent pronociceptive neural adaptations in dural afferents and enhanced responses to an established trigger of migraine headache in humans. Interpretation Triptans represent the treatment of choice for moderate and severe migraine headaches. However, triptan overuse can lead to an increased frequency of migraine headache. Overuse of these medications could induce neural adaptations that result in a state of latent sensitization, which might increase sensitivity to migraine triggers. The latent sensitization could provide a mechanistic basis for the transformation of migraine to medication overuse headache. ANN NEUROL 2010;67:325,337 [source] Monogenic migraine syndromes highlight novel drug targetsDRUG DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, Issue 7 2007J. Jay Gargus Abstract In the post-genomic era, the paradigm for drug discovery has changed, as every gene may become a potential target. Genetic diseases provide a special window into gene target selection. This approach is being applied to migraine making use of the genes and mutations causing familial hemiplegic migraine (FHM). FHM is caused by missense mutations in CACNA1A, altering a neuronal P/Q Ca2+ channel, in ATP1A2, altering ,2 Na,K-ATPase, and in SCN1A, altering a neuronal sodium channel. These genes provide insights into migraine pathogenesis that likely extend to other forms of migraine as well. Since the three FHM genes are only co-expressed in neurons, FHM is a neuronal, not a vascular, disease and because they all encode ion transport proteins, FHM is a neuronal channelopathy,meaning meta-stable neuronal hyperexcitability is the substrate of migraine, much as it is for genetic epilepsy syndromes. This similarity is reinforced, since different mutations of all three FHM genes can produce seizure syndromes. This has implications for drug discovery in that seizure medications already known to modulate the FHM channel mechanisms warrant more targeted development, and that drugs targeted to vascular headaches, such as the historically effective triptans, or experimental botulinum toxin, may well work by similar nonvascular mechanisms. Finally, in model neurogenetic systems such as Caenorhabditis elegans, the FHM genes also provide both a comprehensive means to discover all genes involved in their signaling pathway,genes potentially involved in common forms of the disease, and an in vivo whole animal means to screen rapidly for novel therapeutics. Drug Dev Res 68:432,440, 2007. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Overview of treatment of acute migraineDRUG DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, Issue 7 2007Arthur H. Elkind Abstract Acute migraine is a major public health problem with a significant economic burden secondary to short-term disability and absenteeism. Treatment of acute migraine is always challenging for primary care physicians and family practitioners, as there are no set universal guidelines for the treatment of acute migraine. In acute migraine treatment, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), migraine-specific medications, and adjunctive medications are used, depending on the severity of acute migraine attacks. Treatment of acute migraine has changed drastically since the introduction of the triptans. However, even after the introduction of triptans, nearly one-half of migraine sufferers are still being treated with over-the-counter medications. In this literature review, we mention drugs that are being used in the treatment of acute migraine and their level of evidence recommended by the U.S. Headache Consortium. This article gives special emphasis to pharmacokinetics and clinical characteristics of all available triptans. Drug Dev Res 68:441,448, 2007. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Multiple attack study on the available triptans in Italy versus placeboEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 7 2005C. Vollono The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the five triptans that are commercially available in Italy (zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, rizatriptan 10 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, almotriptan 12.5 mg and eletriptan 40 mg). The study was conducted in single-blind versus placebo and its duration was 18 months. At the Headache Centre of the ,Agostino Gemelli' Hospital in Rome we selected 42 patients, suffering from headache with and without aura (International Headache Society Committee on Headache Classification, 1988 Cephalalgia 8:1,96), whose headache frequency ranged between 1- and 4-monthly crises. For a total of 25 crises, for every five consecutive crises, a different triptan was taken. The end-points of the study were as follows: response at 2 h, ,pain free' at 2 h and ,sustained pain free' (at 24 h). The intra-patient consistency and the tolerability were also evaluated. Thirty patients completed the study and the statistical analysis was only applied to these patients. No substantial difference in terms of the efficacy of the triptans was noted; all triptans were well tolerated. These results suggest the possibility of testing different triptans in the same patient in order to identify the ideal drug for every patient. [source] The 40-mg dose of eletriptan: comparative efficacy and tolerability versus sumatriptan 100 mgEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 2 2004Hans-Christoph Diener Meta-analysis provides valuable information regarding relative efficacies of triptans, but head-to-head comparator studies remain the gold standard. Three similar head-to-head trials comparing eletriptan 40 mg (E40) with sumatriptan 100 mg (S100) provide a rare opportunity and sufficient power, for robust comparisons of efficacy. Data were combined from three double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-dose, first-attack acute migraine treatment studies comparing E40 (n = 1132), S100 (n = 1129), and placebo (n = 645). The primary outcome was headache response at 2 h. Secondary outcomes included headache response at 1 h, pain-free and functional responses, and sustained headache and pain-free responses. Odds ratios were calculated for summary estimates of probability of response. There were higher headache response rates with eletriptan versus sumatriptan at 2 h (67% vs. 57%; P < 0.0001) and 1 h (34% vs. 26%; P < 0.0001). Eletriptan also had higher 2 h pain-free (35% vs. 25%; P < 0.0001) and functional responses (67% vs. 58%; P < 0.0001). Sustained headache (42%) and pain-free (22%) response rates were higher for eletriptan versus sumatriptan (34%, P < 0.0001; 15%, P < 0.0001). The probability of response for eletriptan versus sumatriptan ranged from 36% higher (relief of nausea) to 64% higher (sustained pain-free rate). Combined analysis demonstrates that E40 has superior efficacy versus S100 across all clinically relevant outcomes. [source] Acute Myocardial Infarction With Sumatriptan: A Case Report and Review of the LiteratureHEADACHE, Issue 5 2009Flavio Devetag Chalaupka MD We report a case of myocardial infarction associated with the use of sumatriptan and review the literature regarding similar cases. A 54-year-old woman with a history of migraine without aura, mild arterial hypertension, depression, and no history of coronary artery disease was admitted to our hospital for acute myocardial infarction, 30 minutes after using 6 mg of subcutaneous sumatriptan. Coronary angiography performed several days later revealed a normal coronary arterial system. Although at discharge the patient was advised to permanently avoid triptans, she continued the use of oral sumatriptan at low dosage (25-50 mg) without any problems. [source] Comprehensive Inpatient Treatment of Refractory Chronic Daily HeadacheHEADACHE, Issue 4 2009Alvin E. Lake III PhD Objective., (1) To assess outcome at discharge for a consecutive series of admissions to a comprehensive, multidisciplinary inpatient headache unit; (2) To identify outcome predictors. Background., An evidence-based assessment (2004) concluded that many refractory headache patients appear to benefit from inpatient treatment, underscoring the need for more research, including outcome predictors. Methods., The authors completed a retrospective chart review of 283 consecutive admissions over 6 months. The inpatient program (mean length of stay = 13.0 days) included intravenous and oral medication protocols, drug withdrawal when indicated, cognitive-behavior therapy, and other services when needed, including anesthesiological intervention. Patient-reported pain levels and consensus of medical staff determined outcome status. Results., The 267 completers (94%) included 212 women and 55 men (mean age = 40.3 years, range = 13-74) from 43 states and Canada. The modal diagnosis was intractable, chronic daily headache (85%), predominantly migraine. Most (59%) had medication overuse headache (MOH), involving opioids (48%), triptans (16%), or butalbital-containing analgesics (10%). Psychiatric diagnoses included stress-related headache (82%), mood disorders (70%), anxiety disorders (49%), and personality disorders (PD, 26%). More patients with a PD (62%) had opioid-related MOH than those with no PD (38%), P < .005. Of the completers, 78% had moderate to significant pain reduction, with comparable improvement in mood, function, and behavior. Clinical factors predicting moderate-significant headache improvement were limited to MOH (84% vs 69%, P < .007) and presence of a PD (68% vs 81%, P < .03). Conclusions., Most patients (78%) improved following aggressive, comprehensive inpatient treatment. Maintenance of improvement is likely to depend on multiple post-discharge factors, including continuity of care, compliance, and home or work environment. [source] The Neurogenic Basis of MigraineHEADACHE, Issue 9 2008F. Michael Cutrer MD There is accumulating evidence of a neurogenic basis of migraine. This evidence arises from both the clinical and experimental domains. Many of the well known clinical features of migraine attacks including the prodrome are not explained by changes in vascular caliber. Despite the fact that ergotamines and triptans are vasoactive does not provide substantive proof that vasoconstriction is their most important mechanism of action. Several effective treatments for migraine, both old and new, do not affect vascular caliber. Experimental evidence from investigation of both the aura and headache phases of migraine clearly supports a neural basis of migraine. All genes thus far conclusively associated with hemiplegic migraine code for neural proteins. [source] Favorable Response to Analgesics Does Not Predict a Benign Etiology of HeadacheHEADACHE, Issue 6 2008Jennifer V. Pope MD Background., Distinguishing between primary and secondary headaches (HAs) is essential for the safe and effective management of patients with HA. A favorable response to analgesics may be observed with both classes of HAs and therefore is not a good predictor of who needs further evaluation. Objective., To systematically review the data that a favorable response to analgesics including triptans should not be used to exclude a serious secondary cause of HA. Design., PubMed search of English-language articles between 1980 and 2007 and reference lists of these articles. Two authors independently reviewed articles for study results and quality. Inclusion was based on 100% agreement between authors. We included articles that described secondary HAs as (1) having a favorable response to analgesics and/or (2) having a favorable response to sumatriptan. Of the 548 studies identified by our search strategy, 18 were included in our final analysis. Results., Seven of the 18 studies found that 46/103 patients (44%) described a significant or complete resolution of secondary HA from medications such as anti-emetics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Eleven of the 18 articles including 25/25 patients (100%) described a significant or complete resolution of secondary HA from sumatriptan, a serotonin 5HT agonist. Conclusions., A favorable response to analgesics including triptans should not be used to exclude a serious secondary cause of HA. [source] Meta-Analysis Examining the Efficacy and Safety of Almotriptan in the Acute Treatment of MigraineHEADACHE, Issue 8 2007Li-Chia Chen PhD Objective.,To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of oral almotriptan in treating acute migraine attacks. Background.,Almotriptan is an oral selective sertonin1B/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. [source] Eletriptan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adolescents: Results of a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled TrialHEADACHE, Issue 4 2007Paul Winner DO Background.,Eletriptan is a potent 5-HT1B/1D agonist with proven efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Objective.,To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo in adolescent patients (aged 12-17). Methods.,A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted comparing 40 mg of oral eletriptan with placebo for the treatment of migraine in adolescent patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was 2-hour headache response, and a number of secondary endpoints were also evaluated. An exploratory analysis evaluated which clinical and demographic characteristics might be correlated with high placebo response. Results.,Of 274 patients who treated a migraine attack, 267 were evaluated for efficacy (n = 138 eletriptan; n = 129 placebo) at 2 hours post-dose. There was no significant difference in 2-hour headache response for eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo (57% vs 57%), and no significant improvements were observed for any of the outcomes at 1 or 2 hours post-dose. By contrast, there was a significant advantage for eletriptan 40 mg in reducing headache recurrence within 24 hours post-dose (11% vs 25%, P= .028), and post hoc analyses showed statistically significant differences for sustained headache response rates (52% vs 39%; P= .04) and sustained pain-free response rates (22% vs 10%; P= .013). The strongest clinical predictor of placebo response was triptan-naïve status (ie, no previous use of any triptan). Eletriptan 40 mg was well tolerated in this population, and the profile of adverse events was similar to that observed in Phase III trials in adult patients. Conclusions.,The high placebo response rates reported here for 1- and 2-hour outcomes are in accordance with other studies of triptans in adolescent patients. The evaluation of treatment effect in adolescent migraine might benefit from use of more stringent outcome measures, such as headache recurrence, sustained headache response, and sustained pain-free response at 24 hours post-dose. [source] Eletriptan in Migraine Patients Reporting Unsatisfactory Response to RizatriptanHEADACHE, Issue 7 2006Jerome Goldstein MD Objective.,The objective of this open-label study was to evaluate the efficacy of switching patients who had a previous unsatisfactory response to rizatriptan to eletriptan 40 mg. Background.,The characteristics of individual migraine patients can vary tremendously and can have a significant impact on treatment outcomes. In addition, clinical experience has demonstrated that the triptans are not identical or interchangeable and that patients who respond poorly or who are dissatisfied with one agent can derive benefit by being switched to another agent within the triptan class. Methods.,Patients were eligible if they met International Headache Society criteria for migraine, with a frequency of 1 to 6 migraine attacks per month, and had documented "unsatisfactory treatment response" to rizatriptan within the past year (54% on the melt formulation; 46% on tablets). Reasons for dissatisfaction with rizatriptan (>1 could be cited) included inadequate (84%) or slow onset (50%) of pain relief, high recurrence rate (69%), and lack of improvement in associated symptoms (60%). One hundred twenty-three patients were eligible for treatment. Patients were instructed to take eletriptan 40 mg as soon as they were certain that their headache was a migraine, regardless of level of pain severity (8% treated headaches that were mild). Results.,Headache response at 2 hours (first-attack data) was 64%. Absence of nausea (from baseline to 2 hours) increased from 50% to 78%, absence of photophobia from 30% to 72%, and absence of phonophobia from 39% to 77%. Functional response at 2 hours was 63%, with 41% of patients reporting normal functioning. Treatment with eletriptan 40 mg was associated with a 27% to 40% reduction in migraine attack-related functional impairment, as measured by the PQ-7. Recurrence rates were 36.6%. Overall, 72% of patients rated eletriptan as a "good-to-excellent" treatment, and 78% reported overall satisfaction with the degree of headache relief. Conclusion.,The results of this study suggest that eletriptan is an efficacious treatment option for patients who are dissatisfied with their response to rizatriptan. [source] Assessment of Adverse Events Associated With Triptans,Methods of Assessment Influence the ResultsHEADACHE, Issue 10 2004Fred D. Sheftell MD Background.,A recent study conducted in triptan-naïve migraine patients showed that tolerability was the second most important attribute of an acute treatment. However, the proportion of patients reporting side effects after any acute treatment may vary with regard to the method of assessment. Objectives.,To contrast two methods of assessing adverse events (prompted and unprompted) in those with headache using triptans. Methods.,This study was conducted in two sites, a headache center in the United States, and a neurology office focusing on headache in Italy. We prospectively surveyed 415 adults with headache, who had been using the same triptan for at least 3 months. Participants were asked about their headache and treatment history. Subjects then completed a standardized questionnaire, assessing adverse events in two different ways. First, subjects were asked if they had any adverse events when using the triptan. After returning the first part of the questionnaire, subjects received a second form, where 49 possible adverse events were listed. We contrasted and correlated both sets of answers. Results.,Most patients (U.S. = 74.9%, Italy = 65.5%) reported no side effects in the unprompted questionnaire. However, most of them (U.S. = 62.9%, Italy = 54.1%) reported at least one side effect in the prompted questionnaire. Most patients that reported side effects in the unprompted questionnaire said they had just one adverse event, while most reported two or more side effects in the prompted questionnaire. Both in the unprompted and in the prompted questionnaires, most side effects were rated as mild or moderate. Interestingly, 31 (7.5%) subjects (pooling data from both sites together) graded their adverse events as severe in the prompted questionnaire, but had not self-reported them. Conclusions.,(1) When assessing adverse events, the method of data collection may dramatically influence the results. (2) From those subjects who did not self-report adverse events after using a triptan, most of them will report positively if presented with a list of side effects. [source] Are Migraine and Coronary Heart Disease Associated?HEADACHE, Issue 2004An Epidemiologic Review In evaluating the cardiovascular risks of triptans (5-HT1B/1D agonists) for the treatment of migraine, the possible relationship between migraine and cardiovascular disease warrants careful assessment. The vascular nature of migraine is compatible with the possibility that migraine is a manifestation of cardiovascular disease or is linked to cardiovascular disease via a common mechanism. If so, then migraine itself,independent of the use of triptans,may be associated with an increased risk of cardiac events. This article considers the epidemiologic literature pertinent to evaluating the association of migraine with coronary heart disease. The research reviewed herein fails to support an association between migraine and coronary heart disease. First, data from several large cohort studies show that the presence of migraine does not increase risk of coronary heart disease. Furthermore, although migraineurs are generally more likely than nonmigraineurs to report chest pain, the presence of chest pain in most studies did not predict serious cardiac events such as myocardial infarction. That the gender- and age-specific prevalence of migraine does not overlap with that of coronary heart disease is also consistent with a lack of association between migraine and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. While migraine appears not to be associated with coronary heart disease, preliminary evidence suggests a possible link of migraine with vasospastic disorders such as variant angina and Raynaud's phenomenon. These results warrant further investigation in large prospective studies. [source] Coronary Vasoconstrictor Potential of Triptans: A Review of In Vitro Pharmacologic DataHEADACHE, Issue 2004Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink PhD This article reviews the in vitro pharmacology of the triptans in human isolated coronary arteries. As expected, based on their similar pharmacologic profiles, the triptans cannot be easily differentiated with respect to effects at human isolated coronary arteries. Furthermore, the data show that at therapeutically relevant concentrations, triptans have little potential to cause clinically significant constriction of nondiseased coronary arteries. These data, considered in the context of clinical findings reviewed elsewhere in this supplement, support the conclusion that, while all triptans have the potential to produce small contractions of human isolated coronary arteries, their craniovascular selectivity, when used at therapeutic doses, renders them unlikely to cause serious adverse coronary events in patients with healthy coronary arteries. [source] Cardiovascular Tolerability and Safety of Triptans: A Review of Clinical DataHEADACHE, Issue 2004David W. Dodick MD Triptans are not widely used in clinical practice despite their well-established efficacy, endorsement by the US Headache Consortium, and the demonstrable need to employ effective intervention to reduce migraine-associated disability. Although the relatively restricted use of triptans may be attributed to several factors, research suggests that prescribers' concerns about cardiovascular safety prominently figure in limiting their use. This article reviews clinical data,including results of clinical trials, postmarketing studies and surveillance, and pharmacodynamic studies,relevant to assessing the cardiovascular safety profile of the triptans. These data demonstrate that triptans are generally well tolerated. Chest symptoms occurring during use of triptans are usually nonserious and usually not attributed to ischemia. Incidence of triptan-associated serious cardiovascular adverse events in both clinical trials and clinical practice appears to be extremely low. When they do occur, serious cardiovascular events have most often been reported in patients at significant cardiovascular risk or in those with overt cardiovascular disease. Adverse cardiovascular events also have occurred, however, in patients without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Several lines of evidence suggest that nonischemic mechanisms are responsible for sumatriptan-associated chest symptoms, although the mechanism of chest symptoms has not been determined to date. Importantly, most of the clinical trials and clinical practice data on triptans are derived from patients without known cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the conclusions of this review cannot be extended to patients with cardiovascular disease. The cardiovascular safety profile of triptans favors their use in the absence of contraindications. [source] Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and TriptansHEADACHE, Issue 2004Vasilios Papademetriou MD Identifying the patient for whom triptans are contraindicated because of recognized, diagnosed cardiovascular disease is relatively straightforward. Determining whether a patient with potential unrecognized cardiovascular disease is an appropriate candidate for triptan therapy, however, constitutes a difficult challenge, especially in the absence of a framework for workup of patients. This article discusses the pathophysiology of coronary heart disease and issues involved in assessing cardiovascular risk, and it attempts to provide a framework for cardiovascular risk assessment that can be applied to decisions for prescribing triptans. Current guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment allow stratification of patients to low, intermediate, or high risk of coronary heart disease events. This framework for risk assessment can be applied to decisions for prescribing triptans. Cardiovascular risk-assessment algorithms discussed elsewhere in this supplement suggest that patients at low risk (1 or no risk factors) of coronary heart disease can be prescribed triptans without the need for a more intensive cardiovascular evaluation. Conversely, patients with established coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalents should not be prescribed triptans according to the current prescribing recommendations. Patients at intermediate risk (2 or more risk factors) of coronary heart disease require cardiovascular evaluation before triptans can be prescribed. Current understanding suggests that the risk of future acute coronary events is a function of the absolute number of vulnerable plaques present, a variable that cannot be accurately determined using available technology or risk-prediction models. Cardiovascular risk-assessment guidelines should be evaluated in the context of this limitation. [source] Migraine Headache Recurrence: Relationship to Clinical, Pharmacological, and Pharmacokinetic Properties of TriptansHEADACHE, Issue 4 2003Gilles Géraud MD Background and Objectives.,Triptan use is associated with headache recurrence, and this has been cited as an important reason for patient dissatisfaction with the treatment. The mechanism by which recurrence occurs is not clear, and the incidence of recurrence varies with the triptan used. In order to explore the pharmacological and physiological interaction of triptans and migraine headache recurrence further, some specific clinical, pharmacological, and pharmacokinetic factors that might influence migraine recurrence were evaluated in a review of the major efficacy data for the drugs in the triptan class. These factors were 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor activities, the pharmacokinetic elimination half-life of each triptan, and the clinical efficacy of each compound, determined by the proportion of patients with headache relief and the therapeutic gain over placebo. Methods.,Clinical data were derived from 31 triptan, placebo-controlled, major efficacy studies used in a previous meta-analysis. The mean recurrence rate, mean headache response, and therapeutic gain were calculated using the results from the individual clinical studies. Mean headache response and therapeutic gain were calculated at the time point used to define recurrence in each study. Data for binding affinity and potency were taken from a direct-comparison in vitro pharmacology study, and the elimination half-life quoted in the data sheet for each triptan was used. Rank correlation with recurrence rate was performed for each of the test parameters. Results.,Mean headache recurrence rates ranged from 17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg to 40% for rizatriptan. Elimination half-life and recurrence were inversely correlated (r = ,1.0, P = .0016). There was also a significant inverse correlation between 5-HT1B receptor potency and recurrence (r = ,0.68, P = .034), but 5-HT1D receptor potency was not correlated with recurrence (r = ,0.20, P = .54). In addition, the binding affinities for the 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptors were not correlated to headache recurrence. Importantly, it also was demonstrated that initial clinical efficacy was not correlated to headache recurrence. The correlation coefficient for headache response was 0.18 (P = .53) and for therapeutic gain, ,0.11 (P = .71). Conclusion.,The incidence of migraine headache recurrence varies between drugs in the triptan class. Migraine recurrence does not appear to be related to initial clinical efficacy, but is influenced by the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of the individual triptans. The triptans with longer half-lives and greater 5-HT1B receptor potency had the lowest rates of headache recurrence. [source] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||