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

Drotrecogin alfa (Activated) in adults with septic shock

There have been conflicting reports on the efficacy of recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), for the treatment of patients with septic shock.In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assigned 1697 patients with infection, systemic inflammation, and shock who were receiving fluids and vasopressors above a threshold dose for 4 hours to receive either DrotAA (at a dose of 24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or placebo for 96 hours. The primary outcome was death from any cause 28 days after randomization.At 28 days, 223 of 846 patients (26.4%) in the DrotAA group and 202 of 834 (24.2%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk in the DrotAA group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.28; P=0.31). At 90 days, 287 of 842 patients (34.1%) in the DrotAA group and 269 of 822 (32.7%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P=0.56). Among patients with severe protein C deficiency at baseline, 98 of 342 (28.7%) in the DrotAA group had died at 28 days, as compared with 102 of 331 (30.8%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.54). Similarly, rates of death at 28 and 90 days were not significantly different in other predefined subgroups, including patients at increased risk for death. Serious bleeding during the treatment period occurred in 10 patients in the DrotAA group and 8 in the placebo group (P=0.81).DrotAA did not significantly reduce mortality at 28 or 90 days, as compared with placebo, in patients with septic shock. (Funded by Eli Lilly; PROWESS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604214.)