Search

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 ≤ 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 ≤ 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of the triptans brought advances in achieving complete and sustained pain resolution in migraine patients, compared with non-migraine-specific treatments. However, sustained pain-free rates for triptans recorded in many clinical trials are still relatively low. This may be due to study participants being treated late into the attack, when pain is already moderate or severe. Studies with almotriptan have shown that efficacy is enhanced when treatment is given early in a migraine attack while pain is still mild, compared with later administration when pain intensity is greater. Developments in our understanding of migraine pathophysiology provide a rationale for this phenomenon, with improved efficacy seen when abortive treatment is administered before central sensitization develops. A limited window of therapeutic opportunity exists early in an attack to improve the outcome of triptan treatment. Early intervention is recommended to avoid the significant pain and disability commonly associated with moderate or severe migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pascual-Lozano AM, Chamarro-Lazáro R&Láinez MJA. Placebo response in a patient with chronic migraine and ergotic overuse. Cephalalgia 2005; 25:391–394. London. ISSN 0333-1024Facilitation of nociceptive systems has been implicated in Chronic-Migraine pathogenesis. Daily consumption of medication may be a contributing factor. The patient was male, aged 76 years, with history of migraine without aura. Six years ago, he presented with a mild-moderate daily pulsating headache. He was overusing analgesics and ergotamine. After withdrawing, the patient started a nonpulsating headache, diffuse and constant. During follow up, he was refractive to several symptomatic and prophylactic treatments. When we treated him with placebo capsules, the headache responded very well. At first, pain-relief occurred for 6 h and progressively, extended. Two years later, when our patient started to use transdermal patches of fentanyl for treatment of a complex regional pain syndrome type 1, his headache did not improve. Patient has maintained prolonged response to placebo. Actually, he is pain-free for 2–3 days with 1 placebo capsule. We discuss mechanisms of chronic-migraine, drug-overuse, drug-induced headache and placebo addiction. Powerful psychological mechanisms could determine response to placebo in this patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our aim was to establish the validity and reliability of a patient-rated Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (M-TOQ) in primary care. Patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edn criteria for migraine completed a 19-item questionnaire containing candidate items for the M-TOQ, and three questionnaires designed to test convergent/construct validity [Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Scale (MSQoL)]. A 15-item (M-TOQ-15) and a five-item (M-TOQ-5) questionnaire were derived. Two hundred and fifty-three adult patients were recruited. Five treatment optimization domains were identified: functioning, rapid relief, consistency of relief, risk of recurrence and tolerability; with Cronbach alphas of 0.70–0.84. The Cronbach α for M-TOQ-15 was 0.85, and it correlated well with MIDAS, HIT-6 and MSQoL ( r = 0.33–0.44). The Cronbach α for M-TOQ-5 was 0.66, and it also correlated well with the three questionnaires ( r = 0.33–0.41). The utility of the M-TOQ for assessing treatment benefit in research (M-TOQ-15) and primary care (M-TOQ-5) should be further validated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary chronic headache can affect a patient's health-related quality of life (HQL). The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire has been used to address this issue. We compare the impact of headache on the HQL of patients with migraine and chronic daily headache (CDH) using the SF-36 instrument. We analyzed a group of 115 consecutive patients; 62 migraine patients and 53 CDH patients completed the questionnaire. Patterns of disability were similar between the two groups, but CDH was marked by a lower level of health scales. Patients with CDH had a significantly worse pain score in physical functioning, role functioning (physical), bodily pain, general health perceptions, and mental health than patients with migraine headache. Our results in the migraine group were similar to findings in other publications, with the lowest scores in role functioning (physical) and bodily pain. There is no previous experience in CDH patients, but the present data suggest that the SF-36 questionnaire is valuable in determining the differences in functional status among headache types. These data suggest that the SF-36 is a reliable and valid measure of the HQL of patients with CDH, and may indeed prove to be valuable in studying the efficacy of therapeutic agents for this type of headache. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]