A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9 ± 1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2 ± 1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p = NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action

Dispute settlement understanding on the use of BOTOX® in chronic migraine

[No abstract available

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment

CONSORT recommendations in abstracts of randomised, controlled trials on migraine and headache

A CONSORT statement on the content of abstracts of randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) was published in 2008. I therefore reviewed the abstracts from 2009 to 2010 published on RCTs in Cephalalgia, Headache and other (non-headache) journals. The following items were reviewed: number of patients, reporting of response either in percentages or absolute values, the use of p values, and effect size with its precision. The latter was recommended in the CONSORT statement. A total of 46 abstracts were reviewed and effect size with 95% confidence intervals was only reported in seven abstracts. The influence of the CONSORT statement on reporting in abstracts has so far only had a limited influence on the headache literature

Efficacy of frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of menstrual migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter studies

The objective of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS criteria) through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. Subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, patients had to switch to the next treatment for other 3 months. 346 subjects formed intention-to-treat population of the main study; 280 of them were of a female gender, 256 had regular menses and 187 were included in the menstrual migraine subgroup analysis. Rate of pain free at 2, 4 and 24 h was 23, 52 and 67 % with F and 30, 61 and 66 % with comparators (P = NS). Pain relief episodes at 2, 4 and 24 h were 37, 60 and 66 % for F and 43, 55 and 61 % for comparators (P = NS). Rate of recurrence was significantly (P < 0.05) lower under F either at 24 h (11 vs. 24 % comparators) or at 48 h (15 vs. 26 % comparators). Number of menstrual migraine attacks associated with drug-related adverse events was equally low (P = NS) between F (5 %) and comparators (4 %)

New uses of the Migraine Screen Questionnaire (MS-Q): validation in the Primary Care setting and ability to detect hidden migraine. MS-Q in Primary Care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>PC plays an important role in early diagnosis of health disorders, particularly migraine, due to the financial impact of this disease for the society and its impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of the study was to validate the self-administered MS-Q questionnaire for detection of hidden migraine in the field of primary care (PC), and to explore its use in this setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional, observational, and multicentre study in subjects above 18 years of age patients attending PC centers (regardless of the reason for consultation). A MS-Q score ≥ 4 was considered possible migraine. Level of agreement with IHS criteria clinical diagnosis (kappa coefficient), and instrument's validity properties: sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were determined. The ability of the instrument to identify possible new cases of migraine was calculated, as well as the ratio of hidden disease compared to the ratio obtained by IHS criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 9,670 patients were included [48.9 ± 17.2 years (mean ± SD); 61.9% women], from 410 PC centers representative of the whole national territory. The clinical prevalence of migraine according to the IHS criteria was 24.7%, and 20.4% according to MS-Q: Kappa index of agreement 0.82 (p < 0.05). MS-Q sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81 - 0.84), specificity 0.97 (95% CI, 0.98 - 0.99), PPV 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94 - 0.96), and NPV 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93 - 0.95). No statistically significant differences were found in the percentages of patients with <it>de novo </it>and hidden migraine identified by MS-Q and by IHS criteria: 5.7% vs. 6.1% and 26.6% vs. 24.1%, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of the present study confirm the usefulness of the MS-Q questionnaire for the early detection and assessment of migraine in PC settings, and its ability to detect hidden migraine.</p

One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults

Several studies have shown that the prevalence of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) varied between different geographical regions. Therefore, there is a need of a nationwide prevalence study for headache in our country, located between Asia and Europe. This nationwide study was designed to estimate the 1-year prevalence of migraine and TTH and analyse the clinical features, the impact as well as the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the participant households in Turkey. We planned to investigate 6,000 representative households in 21 cities of Turkey; and a total of 5,323 households (response rate of 89%) aged between 18 and 65 years were examined for headache by 33 trained physicians at home on the basis of the diagnostic criteria of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II). The electronically registered questionnaire was based on the headache features, the associated symptoms, demographic and socio-economic situation and history. Of 5,323 participants (48.8% women; mean age 35.9 ± 12 years) 44.6% reported recurrent headaches during the last 1 year and 871 were diagnosed with migraine at a prevalence rate of 16.4% (8.5% in men and 24.6% in women), whereas only 270 were diagnosed with TTH at a prevalence rate of 5.1% (5.7% in men and 4.5% in women). The 1-year prevalence of probable migraine was 12.4% and probable TTH was 9.5% additionally. The rate of migraine with aura among migraineurs was 21.5%. The prevalence of migraine was highest among 35–40-year-old women while there were no differences in age groups among men and in TTH overall. More than 2/3 of migraineurs had ever consulted a physician whereas only 1/3 of patients with TTH had ever consulted a physician. For women, the migraine prevalence was higher among the ones with a lower income, while among men, it did not show any change by income. Migraine prevalence was lower in those with a lower educational status compared to those with a high educational status. Chronic daily headache was present in 3.3% and the prevalence of medication overuse headache was 2.1% in our population. There was an important impact of migraine with a monthly frequency of 5.9 ± 6, and an attack duration of 35.1 ± 72 h, but only 4.9% were on prophylactic treatment. The one-year prevalence of migraine estimated as 16.4% was similar or even higher than world-wide reported migraine prevalence figures and identical to a previous nation-wide study conducted in 1998, whereas the TTH prevalence was much lower using the same methodology with the ICHD-II criteria

Chronic migraine plus medication overuse headache: two entities or not?

Chronic migraine (CM) represents migraine natural evolution from its episodic form. It is realized through a chronicization phase that may require months or years and varies from patient to patient. The transition to more frequent attacks pattern is influenced by lifestyle, life events, comorbid conditions and personal genetic terrain, and it often leads to acute drugs overuse. Medication overuse headache (MOH) may complicate every type of headache and all the drugs employed for headache treatment can cause MOH. The first step in the management of CM complicated by medication overuse must be the withdrawal of the overused drugs and a detoxification treatment. The goal is not only to detoxify the patient and stop the chronic headache but also to improve responsiveness to acute or prophylactic drugs. Different methods have been suggested: gradual or abrupt withdrawal; home treatment, hospitalization, or a day-hospital setting; re-prophylaxes performed immediately or at the end of the wash-out period. Up to now, only topiramate and local injection of onabotulinumtoxinA have shown efficacy as therapeutic agents for re-prophylaxis after detoxification in patients with CM with and without medication overuse. Although the two treatments showed similar efficacy, onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with a better adverse events profile. Recently, the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program proved that patients with CM, even those with MOH, are the ones most likely to benefit from onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. Furthermore, it provided an injection paradigm that can be used as a guide for a correct administration of onabotulinumtoxinA