Published and not fully published double-blind, randomised, controlled trials with oral naratriptan in the treatment of migraine: a review based on the GSK Trial Register

Naratriptan 2.5 mg is now an over-the-counter drug in Germany. This should increase the interest in drug. The GSK Trial Register was searched for published and unpublished double-blind, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the use of naratriptan in migraine. Only 7 of 17 RCTs are published in full. Naratriptan 2.5 mg is superior to placebo for acute migraine treatment in 6 RCTs, but inferior to sumatriptan 100 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg in one RCT each. This dose of naratriptan has no more adverse events than placebo. Naratriptan 1 mg b.i.d. has some effect in the short-term prophylactic treatment of menstruation-associated migraine in 3 RCTs. In 2 RCTs, naratriptan 2.5 mg was equivalent to naproxen sodium 375 mg for migraine-related quality of life. Naratriptan 2.5 mg (34% preference) was superior to naproxen sodium 500 mg (25% preference). Naratriptan 2.5 mg is better than placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. The adverse effect profile of naratriptan 2.5 mg is similar to that of placebo. The efficacy of naratriptan 2.5 mg versus NSAIDs is not sufficiently investigated. Naratriptan, when available OTC is a reasonable second or third choice on the step care ladder in the acute treatment of migraine

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 %)

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up

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

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

Association between lifestyle factors and headache

Modification of lifestyle habits is a key preventive strategy for many diseases. The role of lifestyle for the onset of headache in general and for specific headache types, such as migraine and tension-type headache (TTH), has been discussed for many years. Most results, however, were inconsistent and data on the association between lifestyle factors and probable headache forms are completely lacking. We evaluated the cross-sectional association between different lifestyle factors and headache subtypes using data from three different German cohorts. Information was assessed by standardized face-to-face interviews. Lifestyle factors included alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity and body mass index. According to the 2004 diagnostic criteria, we distinguished the following headache types: migraine, TTH and their probable forms. Regional variations of lifestyle factors were observed. In the age- and gender-adjusted logistic regression models, none of the lifestyle factors was statistically significant associated with migraine, TTH, and their probable headache forms. In addition, we found no association between headache subtypes and the health index representing the sum of individual lifestyle factors. The lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity and overweight seem to be unrelated to migraine and TTH prevalence. For a judgement on their role in the onset of new or first attacks of migraine or TTH (incident cases), prospective cohort studies are required

Combined analgesics in (headache) pain therapy: shotgun approach or precise multi-target therapeutics?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain in general and headache in particular are characterized by a change in activity in brain areas involved in pain processing. The therapeutic challenge is to identify drugs with molecular targets that restore the healthy state, resulting in meaningful pain relief or even freedom from pain. Different aspects of pain perception, i.e. sensory and affective components, also explain why there is not just one single target structure for therapeutic approaches to pain. A network of brain areas ("pain matrix") are involved in pain perception and pain control. This diversification of the pain system explains why a wide range of molecularly different substances can be used in the treatment of different pain states and why in recent years more and more studies have described a superior efficacy of a precise multi-target combination therapy compared to therapy with monotherapeutics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this article, we discuss the available literature on the effects of several fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of headaches and discuss the evidence in support of the role of combination therapy in the pharmacotherapy of pain, particularly of headaches. The scientific rationale behind multi-target combinations is the therapeutic benefit that could not be achieved by the individual constituents and that the single substances of the combinations act together additively or even multiplicatively and cooperate to achieve a completeness of the desired therapeutic effect.</p> <p>As an example the fixesd-dose combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), paracetamol (acetaminophen) and caffeine is reviewed in detail. The major advantage of using such a fixed combination is that the active ingredients act on different but distinct molecular targets and thus are able to act on more signalling cascades involved in pain than most single analgesics without adding more side effects to the therapy.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Multitarget therapeutics like combined analgesics broaden the array of therapeutic options, enable the completeness of the therapeutic effect, and allow doctors (and, in self-medication with OTC medications, the patients themselves) to customize treatment to the patient's specific needs. There is substantial clinical evidence that such a multi-component therapy is more effective than mono-component therapies.</p