Search

Background and purposeThe response to cluster headache treatments has a high interindividual variation. To date, treatment response has only been assessed by a candidate gene approach and no investigations into metabolic pathways have been performed. Our aim was to investigate the association between the polygenetic risk of cluster headache and treatment response to first-line cluster headache treatments as well as known functional variants of CYP3A4 and the response to verapamil. Further, it was aimed to replicate previous single nucleotide polymorphisms found to be associated with treatment response in cluster headache and/or migraine.MethodsIn, 508 cluster headache patients diagnosed according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders were genotyped and participated in a semi-structured interview to evaluate treatment response. Polygenetic risk scores were calculated by the effect retrieved from a meta-analysis of the latest two genome-wide association studies on cluster headache.ResultsInferior treatment response to oxygen, triptans and verapamil is associated with chronicity of cluster headache were confirmed but no evidence was found that a response could be predicted by a high genetic risk of cluster headache. Likewise, verapamil response was not associated with functional variants of CYP3A4. No support of the genetic variants previously reported to be associated with treatment response to triptans or verapamil was found.ConclusionThe clinically relevant variation in treatment response for cluster headache was not influenced by genetic factors in the present study. Background and purpose: The response to cluster headache treatments has a high interindividual variation. To date, treatment response has only been assessed by a candidate gene approach and no investigations into metabolic pathways have been performed. Our aim was to investigate the association between the polygenetic risk of cluster headache and treatment response to first-line cluster headache treatments as well as known functional variants of CYP3A4 and the response to verapamil. Further, it was aimed to replicate previous single nucleotide polymorphisms found to be associated with treatment response in cluster headache and/or migraine. Methods: In, 508 cluster headache patients diagnosed according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders were genotyped and participated in a semi-structured interview to evaluate treatment response. Polygenetic risk scores were calculated by the effect retrieved from a meta-analysis of the latest two genome-wide association studies on cluster headache. Results: Inferior treatment response to oxygen, triptans and verapamil is associated with chronicity of cluster headache were confirmed but no evidence was found that a response could be predicted by a high genetic risk of cluster headache. Likewise, verapamil response was not associated with functional variants of CYP3A4. No support of the genetic variants previously reported to be associated with treatment response to triptans or verapamil was found. Conclusion: The clinically relevant variation in treatment response for cluster headache was not influenced by genetic factors in the present study.

The exact mechanism and site of action of triptans in aborting migraine attacks remain under debate. We hypothesized that the clinical efficacy of triptans lies in aborting central sensitization and focused on the question of why triptans are headache specific, that is highly effective in migraine and cluster headache and ineffective in extracephalic pain.Forty healthy participants were enrolled in this double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study. The effect of sumatriptan (n = 20) versus placebo (n = 20) was investigated in a trigeminal (V1) versus an extracephalic dermatome (forearm) using a topical capsaicin sensitization model. Capsaicin-induced primary and secondary hyperalgesia were evaluated using quantitative sensory testing.After capsaicin application, primary hyperalgesia developed in both the sumatriptan and placebo groups in both dermatomes. However, sumatriptan exclusively prevented secondary hyperalgesia in the V1 dermatome but not on the forearm. Placebo exerted no effects on secondary hyperalgesia in both trigeminal and extracephalic dermatomes. Additionally, sumatriptan reduced the flare size exclusively in the V1 dermatome.Our data suggest that sumatriptan reduces central sensitization (secondary hyperalgesia) without modulating peripheral sensitization (primary hyperalgesia) in a human pain model of capsaicin-induced sensitization. Moreover, despite a systemic administration of sumatriptan, the modulatory effects are trigeminal specific, echoing the clinical effect of triptans in aborting headaches, but not extracephalic pain.Our data suggest that triptans exert their efficacy by suppressing central sensitization. By revealing a dermatome-specific modulation, our study demonstrates a previously unrecognized interaction between the pharmacodynamics of triptans and the trigeminal nociceptive system that provides new insight into how triptans may work in aborting headache attacks.

Sensitive and selective spectrophotometric and spectrofluorimetric methods have been developed for the estimation of two anti-migraine drugs, namely sumatriptan succinate (SUM) and zolmitriptan (ZOL). These methods depend on producing a yellow-coloured product after the reaction of the two drugs with 7-chloro-4-nitrobenz-2-oxa-1,3-diazole (NBD-Cl). The reaction products exhibited maximum absorbance at 481 nm in borate buffer of pH 9 and fluorescence emission peak at 540 nm after excitation at 470 nm for the two drugs. The linear ranges were 5-60 μg/ml for SUM and 5-50 μg/ml for ZOL in the spectrophotometric method (Method I), whereas this was 0.4-4 μg/ml for SUM and 0.5-5 μg/ml for ZOL in the spectrofluorimetric method (Method II). The method validity was assessed according to International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines. Statistical analysis of the results obtained from the proposed and comparison methods confirmed that the proposed methods were highly accurate and precise. The suggested methods could be used for the determination of the mentioned drugs in both pure form and in tablets.

We sought to investigate the prevalence of triptan use among patients with migraine who have contraindications to triptan usage, and to explore specifics of the medication prescribed, dosage, and route of administration.Triptan medications are a mainstay of acute migraine therapy, but little is known about prevalence and patterns of triptan prescribing among patients with contraindications in the United States.In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from the IBM Marketscan database to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with migraine from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, using International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification 10 codes. Contraindications to triptan medications were identified by review of package labels as listed on the US Food and Drug Administration website. Triptan medications were identified from the IBM Micromedex Redbook linked to prescription claims along with route of administration and dosage.Of 1,038,472 individuals diagnosed with migraine, 400,112 (38.5%) were prescribed triptan medication, and of those who were prescribed a triptan, 55,707 (13.9%) had at least one contraindication, with the most common contraindication being cardiac arrhythmia (33,696/400,112 individuals, 8.4%) followed by cerebrovascular disease (14,787/400,112, 3.7%) and coronary artery disease (10,236/400,112, 2.6%). Sumatriptan was the most prescribed triptan (261,736/1,038,472, 25.2%), and the subcutaneous and intranasal routes were more commonly prescribed among those with contraindications compared with those without contraindications.A substantial proportion of patients with migraine with contraindications were prescribed triptan medications. These findings call for further research on the outcomes of patients with medical contraindications who are prescribed triptan medications, and for greater clarity in prescribing guidelines about the optimal approach for acute therapy among patients with migraine.

We used network meta-analysis (NMA) to characterize the relative effectiveness and harms of acute treatment options for cluster headache.There are few evidence-based acute treatments available for cluster headache. As most treatments were compared only against placebos in clinical trials, few head-to-head comparisons of treatments are available.An a priori registered scoping review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments in adult patients (18 years old) with cluster headache per accepted diagnostic criteria. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments in terms of headache relief at 15 or 30 min, and also the occurrence of adverse events. We report odds ratios (ORs) of relative treatment effects along with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs), as well as measures of treatment ranking.A total of 13 randomized controlled trials informed NMAs. We found high flow oxygen to be the most effective therapy for headache response at 15 and 30 min (OR 9.0, 95% CrI 5.3 to 15.9 vs. placebo), with injectable sumatriptan demonstrating the next highest effect (OR 6.4, 95% CrI 3.75 to 11.1 vs. placebo). High flow oxygen was also more effective than low flow oxygen (OR 2.55, 95% CrI 1.13 to 5.8), nasal spray zolmitriptan (OR 3.75, 95% CrI 1.72 to 8.4), octreotide (OR 4.5, 95% CrI 1.64 to 12.5), and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS; OR 5.2, 95% CrI 2.29 to 11.9). Sumatriptan injectable was also effective for headache relief and was found to be better than nasal spray zolmitriptan (OR 2.67, 95% CrI 1.21 to 5.9), octreotide (OR 3.20, 95% CrI 1.17 to 8.8), and nVNS (OR 3.69, 95% CrI 1.63 to 8.4). Octreotide (OR 4.1, 95% CrI 1.71 to 10.5) and sumatriptan (OR 2.40, 95% CrI 1.39 to 4.2) were associated with greater risk of adverse events compared to placebo, while other treatments did not demonstrate increased risk. When focusing on patients with episodic cluster headache, nVNS was significantly better than placebo (OR 4.9, 95% CrI 1.89 to 14.1).Our findings suggest that high flow oxygen is more efficacious when compared to low flow oxygen for headache relief. When low flow oxygen fails in patients who can tolerate oxygen, increased flow rates should be tried. Additionally, high flow oxygen is likely more effective than zolmitriptan nasal spray, nVNS, and octreotide. Sumatriptan injectable is more likely to be effective when compared to zolmitriptan nasal spray, octreotide, and nVNS.

This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.

Sumatriptan was introduced in 1983, as the first of the triptans, selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT

Seizure occurs as a result of uncontrolled electrical disturbances within the brain. Various biomolecules such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA), nitric oxide (NO), and cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) have been implicated in the pathophysiology of seizure. Sumatriptan is a specific 5-Hydroxytryptamine 1B/1D receptor agonist and has neuroprotective effects in various neuropsychiatric disorders. In the current study, we tried to investigate the possible interaction of sumatriptan with NMDA/NO and CREB signaling pathway in PTZ induced seizure. For this purpose, various agonist and antagonist of NMDA such as MK-801 and Ketamine, NO precursor L-ARG, and NOS inhibitors L-NAME and 7-NI were co-administered with sumatriptan in PTZ induced seizure model. The level of nitrite in mice hippocampus was determined by Griess reaction. The gene expression of NR1, NR2A, NR2B, and CREB were quantified by quantitative real time-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Furthermore, the involved neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) protein expression was examined via western blot analysis. Effective dose of sumatriptan (1.2 mg/kg) alone and subeffective dose of sumatriptan (0.3 mg/kg) in combination with NMDA and/or NO antagonist showed significant (P

AIM To describe the clinical characteristics and therapeutic options available to paediatric patients with cluster headache. METHOD Based on a literature search of the medical databases PubMed, LILACS, and Web of Science and using selected descriptors, we carried out a systematic review of case reports on cluster headache in paediatric patients published from 1990 to 2020. RESULTS Fifty-one patients (29 males, 22 females) with a mean (SD) age of 9 years 7 months (3y 10mo; range 2-16y) were diagnosed with cluster headache. The mean (SD) diagnosis was made 27.8 months (26.2mo) after the onset of cluster headache. Pain occurred at night or on waking up (76.5%) and consisted of 1 to 3 attacks per day (62.7%) lasting 30 to 120 minutes (68.6%). Headaches were unilateral (90.2%), had a pulsatile character (64.7%), and severe intensity (100%). There were autonomic manifestations (90.2%) predominantly ipsilateral to pain, in this order: lacrimation; conjunctival injection; nasal congestion; ptosis; eyelid oedema; and rhinorrhoea. Sumatriptan and oxygen inhalation were the most effective treatments for acute manifestation. Prophylaxis, corticosteroids, verapamil, and gabapentin were the most effective drugs. INTERPRETATION Due to the small number of published studies, this review could not provide reliable data; however, it appears that cluster headache in children and adolescents is similar to adults, both in clinical characteristics and treatment. What this paper adds Cluster headache in children and adolescents is poorly studied. Cluster headache is uncommon before 10 years of age and diagnosis is difficult in the first few years of life. Treatment of cluster headache in children and adolescents is similar to that used in adults. The notion of the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment is based only on authors' experience.

A simple and highly sensitive spectrofluorimetric method for the estimation of sumatriptan succinate has been investigated. The suggested method depends on the determination of the intrinsic fluorescence properties of the drug in aqueous systems at λem 350 nm following λex at 225 nm. The linearity range was 10-100 ng/ml, with a detection limit and quantitation limit of 1.2 and 3.6 ng/ml, respectively. The suggested method was sufficiently successful for determination of sumatriptan its pharmaceutical tablets as well as in spiked human plasma. Moreover, the validation parameters were determined following International Council for Harmonisation guidelines. Statistical analysis of the obtained results from the proposed and reference methods showed no significance difference between the two methods regarding accuracy and precision.

OBJECTIVE This study describes the approaches, medications used, and time of care for migraineurs, who have been in emergency departments (ED) from 2 different regions of Brazil. METHODS Retrospective, cross-sectional, observational, non-randomized study of migraine patients seen at 2 headache centers in Brazil. RESULTS Eighty-four migraine patients (15 men and 69 women) were divided into 2 groups: chronic (19%, n = 16) and episodic migraineurs (81%, n = 68). In the ED, medications were used in the following order of frequency: dipyrone or metamizole (89.3%, 75/84), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (57.1%; 48/84) opioids (51.1%; 43/84), metoclopramide (29.8%; 25/84), dexamethasone (28.6%; 24/84), chlorpromazine (13.1%; 11/84), and subcutaneous sumatriptan (7.1%; 6/84). The average time in the care center was 8.2 hours, but only 23 patients (27.4%) left the hospital with greater than 50% relief in headache severity. CONCLUSIONS Dipyrone and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories were the most used drugs, but nearly half received opioids. More efficient drugs were poorly used. Considering the number of patients leaving the hospital with headache relief, a changing treatment paradigm should be carried out in Brazil.

Background Gastric accommodation is an essential gastric motor function which occurs following ingestion of a meal. Impaired gastric fundic accommodation (IFA) is associated with dyspeptic symptoms. Gastric accommodation is mediated by the vagal pathway with several important physiologic factors such as duodenal nutrient feedback playing a significant role. IFA has been described as a pathophysiologic factor in several gastrointestinal disorders including functional dyspepsia, diabetic gastropathy, post-Nissen fundoplication, postsurgical gastrectomy, and rumination syndrome. Modalities for gastric accommodation assessment include gastric barostat, intragastric meal distribution via scintigraphy, drinking tests (eg, water load), SPECT, MRI, 2D and 3D ultrasound, and intragastric high-resolution manometry. Several treatment options including sumatriptan, buspirone, tandospirone, ondansetron, and acotiamide may improve symptoms by increasing post-meal gastric volume. Purpose Our aim is to provide an overview of the physiology, diagnostic modalities, and therapies for IFA. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and other sources to identify relevant studies available until December 2020. Gastric accommodation is an important gastric motor function which if impaired, is associated with several upper gastrointestinal disorders. There are an increasing number of gastric accommodation testing modalities; however, each has facets which warrant consideration. Evidence regarding potentially effective therapies for IFA is growing.

BACKGROUND ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP ) channel opener levcromakalim induces migraine attacks in migraine patients. Underlying mechanisms responsible for headache and migraine induction after levcromakalim infusion are unknown. OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of levcromakalim on the cranial arteries and to explore the possible relationship between the middle meningeal artery (MMA) dilation and headache. METHODS In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 20 healthy volunteers were scanned at the baseline and repeatedly after infusion of levcromakalim (n = 14) and placebo (n = 6). All participants received a subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan 6 mg before the last scanning. RESULTS The MMA circumference was significantly larger after levcromakalim compared with placebo (P

ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature and rated risk of bias of included studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence criteria. A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from the systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine–compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence.ResultsThere is evidence to support the efficacy of the use of ibuprofen, acetaminophen (in children and adolescents), and triptans (mainly in adolescents) for the relief of migraine pain, although confidence in the evidence varies between agents. There is high confidence that adolescents receiving oral sumatriptan/naproxen and zolmitriptan nasal spray are more likely to be headache-free at 2 hours than those receiving placebo. No acute treatments were effective for migraine-related nausea or vomiting; some triptans were effective for migraine-related phonophobia and photophobia.RecommendationsRecommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in children and adolescents focus on the importance of early treatment, choosing the route of administration best suited to the characteristics of the individual migraine attack, and providing counseling on lifestyle factors that can exacerbate migraine, including trigger avoidance and medication overuse.

Several lines of evidence pointed to an important role for CGRP in migraine. These included the anatomic colocalization of CGRP and its receptor in sensory fibers innervating pain-producing meningeal blood vessels, its release by trigeminal stimulation, the observation of elevated CGRP in the cranial circulation during migraine with normalization concomitant with headache relief by sumatriptan, and translational studies with intravenous (IV) CGRP that evoked migraine only in migraineurs. The development of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (CGRP-RAs) that showed clinical antimigraine efficacy acutely and prophylactically in randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials subsequently gave definitive pharmacological proof of the importance of CGRP in migraine. More recently, CGRP target engagement imaging studies using a CGRP receptor PET ligand [11 C]MK-4232 demonstrated that there was no brain CGRP receptor occupancy at clinically effective antimigraine doses of telcagepant, a prototypic CGRP-RA. Taken together, these data indicated that (1) the therapeutic site of action of the CGRP-RAs was peripheral not central; (2) that IV CGRP had most likely evoked migraine through an action at sites outside the blood-brain barrier; and (3) that migraine pain was therefore, at least in part, peripheral in origin. The evolution of CGRP migraine science gave impetus to the development of peripherally acting drugs that could modulate CGRP chronically to prevent frequent episodic and chronic migraine. Large molecule biologic antibody (mAb) approaches that are given subcutaneously to neutralize circulating CGRP peptide (fremanezumab, galcanezumab) or block CGRP receptors (erenumab) have shown consistent efficacy and tolerability in multicenter migraine prevention trials and are now approved for clinical use. Eptinezumab, a CGRP neutralizing antibody given IV, shows promise in late stage clinical development. Recently, orally administered next-generation small molecule CGRP-RAs have been shown to have safety and efficacy in acute treatment (ubrogepant and rimegepant) and prevention (atogepant) of migraine, giving additional CGRP-based therapeutic options for migraine patients.

Background and purpose Acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) are neuronal proton sensors emerging as potential therapeutic targets in pain of the orofacial region. Amiloride, a non-specific ASIC blocker, has been shown to exert beneficial effects in animal models of migraine and in patients. We explored the involvement of the ASIC1-subtype in cutaneous allodynia, a hallmark of migraine affecting cephalic and extra-cephalic regions in about 70% of migrainers. Experimental approach We investigated the effects of systemic injections of amiloride and mambalgin-1, a specific inhibitor of ASIC1a- and ASIC1b-containing channels, on cephalic and extra-cephalic mechanical sensitivity in a rodent model of acute and chronic migraine induced by i.p. injections of isosorbide dinitrate. Key results I.v. injections of these inhibitors reversed cephalic and extra-cephalic acute cutaneous mechanical allodynia in rats, a single injection inducing a delay in the subsequent establishment of chronic allodynia. Both mambalgin-1 and amiloride also reversed established chronic allodynia. The anti-allodynic effects of mambalgin-1 were not altered in ASIC1a-knockout mice, showing the ASIC1a subtype is not involved in these effects which were comparable to those of the anti-migraine drug sumatriptan and of the preventive drug topiramate on acute and chronic allodynia respectively. A single daily injection of mambalgin-1 also had a significant preventive effect on allodynia chronification. Conclusions and implications These pharmacological data support the involvement of peripheral ASIC1-containing channels in migraine cutaneous allodynia as well as in its chronification. They highlight the therapeutic potential of ASIC1 inhibitors as both an acute and prophylactic treatment for migraine.

Background Fast relief of migraine pain, associated symptoms, and migraine-related disability are priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. Efforts to improve the pharmacokinetic profiles of acute migraine treatments with the aim of providing faster relief include the development of non-oral routes of administration. AVP-825 (ONZETRA® Xsail®) is a delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan powder that uses a patient's own breath to deliver medication intranasally, targeting the upper posterior nasal cavity beyond the narrow nasal valve, an area lined with vascular mucosa conducive to rapid drug absorption into the systemic circulation. While most studies comparing treatments measure differences in proportions of patients achieving a dichotomous endpoint at fixed time intervals, in this study we compare trajectories of migraine pain and disability over time for AVP-825 versus 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablets. Methods We used data from the COMPASS study (NCT01667679, clinicaltrials.gov), a double-blind, double-dummy, active-comparator, cross-over study of people with a diagnosis of migraine. Participants treated up to five qualifying migraine attacks within 1 hour of onset with either AVP-825 plus placebo tablets or 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablets plus placebo delivery system during the first of two 12-week treatment periods, and then switched treatment sequences to treat up to five more attacks in the second treatment period. Patients recorded ordinal migraine pain intensity and migraine-related disability before dosing (predose), and at 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. Three-level ordinal multilevel models accounted for unique data structure (repeated measures nested within attacks for each patient) and tested for treatment differences in migraine pain and migraine-related disability through the first 2 hours of attacks post dose. Results Among 259 study participants (mean age 40.0 years, 84.6% female, 78.4% white), there was significant between and within person variability in migraine pain intensity and migraine-related disability. A typical individual showed significantly faster reductions in migraine pain over the first 30 minutes and migraine-related disability over the first 45 minutes when treating with AVP-825 compared with oral sumatriptan. Overall levels of pain and disability also favored AVP-825 over 2 h following treatment. Model-based odds ratios (OR) comparing AVP-825 to oral sumatriptan ranged from 0.38 to 0.76 for pain and 0.37 to 0.65 for disability, with OR

Objective To further characterize the clinical utility of AVP-825 based on additional prespecified outcomes and post hoc analyses of COMPASS, a Phase 3 comparative efficacy trial of AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan (NCT01667679). AVP-825 was approved in January 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration under the name ONZETRA® Xsail® (sumatriptan nasal powder) for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. Background AVP-825 is a delivery system that uses a patient's own breath to deliver low-dose sumatriptan powder to the upper posterior regions of the nasal cavity beyond the narrow nasal valve, areas lined with vascular mucosa conducive to rapid drug absorption into the systemic circulation. The recommended dose of AVP-825 is 22 mg sumatriptan powder administered as one 11 mg nosepiece in each nostril, which delivers approximately 15-16 mg of sumatriptan intranasally. The COMPASS trial compared AVP-825 22-100 mg oral sumatriptan across multiple migraine attacks for efficacy, safety, and tolerability endpoints. Design/Methods COMPASS was a randomized, multicenter, double-dummy, crossover, multiattack, comparative efficacy study with two 12-week double-blind periods. Patients with 2-8 migraine attacks/month were randomized 1:1 to AVP-825 (22 mg) plus oral placebo or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan for the first period, and then patients switched treatments for the second period. Patients treated up to 5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 h of onset, even if the intensity of the attack was mild. Results from the primary endpoint (SPID-30, defined as the sum of pain intensity differences from dosing to 30 minutes), key secondary efficacy endpoints and safety assessments have been reported in the primary publication (Tepper et al., 2015). This article reports additional prespecified outcomes, including the SPID-30 for attacks treated when baseline severity was mild vs moderate/severe, measures of sustained response and consistency of effect in patients who experienced multiple migraine attacks, and the results of post hoc analyses performed to assess total migraine freedom (defined as no pain and no migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia), time to pain freedom, time to meaningful pain relief, and local (occurring at the site of administration in the nose) vs systemic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results A total of 185 patients completed both treatment periods, yielding 1,531 migraine attacks which were treated and assessed (765 AVP-825, 766 oral sumatriptan). Treatment with AVP-825 provided greater reduction in migraine pain intensity which was statistically significant vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes postdose regardless of whether attacks were treated when pain was mild (least squares mean SPID-30 = 3.90 vs 0.24, P = .0013) or moderate/severe (least squares mean SPID-30 = 13.83 vs 10.07, P = .0002). At every time point from 15 to 90 minutes postdose, the proportion of attacks achieving total migraine freedom was greater and statistically significant after treatment with AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan. AVP-825 treatment resulted in greater odds of achieving pain freedom (odds ratio, OR = 1.29, P

Objective A review of treatment options for menstrual migraine. Background Migraine affects ∼30 million people in the US. A subset of female migraineurs have migraines that are mainly associated with menstruation. Menstrual migraine (MM) is divided into pure MM and menstrually related migraine. Pure MM attacks occur only with menstruation and have a prevalence of 1%. Menstrually related migraine has a prevalence of 6-7%, and occurs both during menstruation as well as during the rest of the cycle. MM is usually without aura and is more severe, longer lasting, and more resistant to treatment due to the effects of ovarian hormones, specifically estrogen. MM treatment is divided into acute, short-term prophylaxis, and daily prevention. The best-studied acute treatments are triptans. For short-term prophylaxis, triptans, non-triptans, or combinations are used. Some preventive medications may be used daily to prevent MM. Many anti-epileptic medications used in migraine prevention can affect the efficacy of oral contraceptives and hormonal treatments, so caution is indicated when these are used. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for MM and treatments. Results Many randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective studies have evaluated the efficacy of sumatriptan, rizatriptan, naratriptan, zolmitriptan, and almotriptan in MM. Reviewing numerous studies with statistically significant results, rizatriptan has the best overall evidence for acute treatment of MM, ranging from pain-free responses of 33-73% at 2 hours. Sumatriptan and rizatriptan have shown similar efficacies of 61-63% in terms of 2 hour pain freedom. Rizatriptan showed sustained pain relief between 2 and 24 hours with an efficacy of 63% and sustained pain freedom for MM between 2 and 24 hours with an efficacy of 32%. For short-term prevention of MM, there were four randomized controlled trials for frovatriptan taken twice daily, one trial for zolmitriptan taken three times daily, and two studies for naratriptan taken twice daily, all of which showed statistically significant results. Among studies on non-triptans for short-term prevention of MM, magnesium, estrogen, naproxen sodium, and dihydroergotamine all had statistically significant results. Many antiepileptic medications taken for prevention of MM can cause enzyme induction affecting oral contraceptives (OCs) and hormonal treatments to different degrees. Topiramate has the least effect on OCs at doses below 200 mg/day. Lamotrigine noticeably decreases oral contraceptive levels; however, the evidence for it as a preventive medication is not strong. Conclusion MM can be very difficult to treat. For acute treatments, rizatriptan has the best overall evidence. For short-term prevention, frovatriptan, zolmitriptan, or naratriptan, as well as magnesium, estrogen, naproxen sodium, or dihydroergotamine may be useful.

Objective To provide evidence-based treatment recommendations for adults with acute migraine who require treatment with injectable medication in an emergency department (ED). We addressed two clinically relevant questions: (1) Which injectable medications should be considered first-line treatment for adults who present to an ED with acute migraine? (2) Do parenteral corticosteroids prevent recurrence of migraine in adults discharged from an ED? Methods The American Headache Society convened an expert panel of authors who defined a search strategy and then performed a search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical trial registries from inception through 2015. Identified articles were rated using the American Academy of Neurology's risk of bias tool. For each medication, the expert panel determined likelihood of efficacy. Recommendations were created accounting for efficacy, adverse events, availability of alternate therapies, and principles of medication action. Results/Conclusions The search identified 68 unique randomized controlled trials utilizing 28 injectable medications. Of these, 19 were rated class 1 (low risk of bias), 21 were rated class 2 (higher risk of bias), and 28 were rated class 3 (highest risk of bias). Metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and sumatriptan each had multiple class 1 studies supporting acute efficacy, as did dexamethasone for prevention of headache recurrence. All other medications had lower levels of evidence. Recommendations Intravenous metoclopramide and prochlorperazine, and subcutaneous sumatriptan should be offered to eligible adults who present to an ED with acute migraine (Should offer—Level B). Dexamethasone should be offered to these patients to prevent recurrence of headache (Should offer—Level B). Because of lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy and concern about sub-acute or long-term sequelae, injectable morphine and hydromorphone are best avoided as first-line therapy (May avoid–Level C).

Objective To compare the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray (NS) vs placebo and sumatriptan NS for the acute treatment of migraine. Methods This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator, crossover study. Adult migraineurs were randomized to ketorolac NS 31.5 mg, sumatriptan NS 20 mg, or placebo to treat three moderate to severe migraine attacks and switched treatments with each attack. Patients seeking headache care at a headache center or in response to community advertisement were recruited. Adult participants with episodic migraine who experienced ≥2 migraine attacks per month were eligible for the Ketorolac vs Sumatriptan vs Placebo Nasal Spray migraine study. Participants were randomized to treatment arms by a research pharmacist, in a 1:1:1 ratio using computer-generated lists. The primary outcome was 2-hour pain relief. Secondary outcomes included 2-hour pain freedom and absence of migraine associated symptoms, and 24-hour sustained pain relief and pain freedom. Results Of the 72 randomized participants, 54 (75%) treated at least one attack and 49 (68%) completed all three treatments, for a total of 152 treated migraine attacks. Both ketorolac NS (72.5%, P

Objective We sought to conduct a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the safety and efficacy of available treatments for pediatric patients with migraine or benign primary headache in the emergency department, in an effort to inform future practice. Methods Scopus, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched for randomized controlled trials retrospective reviews, review articles, and case studies discussing migraine or benign primary headache management that were conducted in the emergency room or outpatient acute care setting in pediatric patients (less than 18-years old). Meeting abstracts and cited references within articles were also evaluated. Multiple variables were recorded, including type of treatment, study design, dosing, primary outcome, and side effects. Therapeutic gain was calculated in studies with a placebo arm. Treatments were subjectively assessed based on methodology and number of trials for a particular therapy. Results Thirty-one studies were included in the final analysis. Of these, 17 were randomized controlled trials, 9 were retrospective reviews, and 5 were prospective chart review studies. One pertained to IV fluids, 2 to nonspecific analgesic use, 5 to dopamine receptor antagonists, 2 to valproic acid, 1 to propofol, 1 to magnesium, 1 to bupivicaine, 13 to triptan medications, and 3 to dihydroergotamine (DHE). Treatments considered effective for acute migraine or benign primary headache in the analgesic category include ibuprofen, and to a lesser degree acetaminophen. Ketorolac was not compared to other NSAIDs, but was found to be less effective than prochlorperazine. Of the phenothiazines, prochlorperazine was considered most effective. Of the triptan medications, almotriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan nasal spray, sumatriptan nasal spray, and combination sumatriptan/naproxen are effective agents for acute treatment. Treatments considered probably effective included IV fluids, chlorpromazine, valproate sodium, injectable sumatriptan, and IV DHE. Treatments with oral zolmitriptan showed inconsistent results, while treatments considered ineffective included isolated oral sumatriptan and oral DHE. There is insufficient evidence to comment on propofol, magnesium, and bupivicaine efficacy. Conclusions Of the available evidence, ibuprofen, prochlorperazine, and certain triptan medications are the most effective and safe agents for acute management of migraine and other benign headache disorders in the pediatric population. Additional studies in this population are needed, and should take into consideration variables such as dosing, co-administered medications, treatment duration, and length of treatment effect.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) is approved for chronic migraine treatment, its mechanism of action is still unknown. Dural neurogenic inflammation (DNI) commonly used to investigate migraine pathophysiology can be evoked by trigeminal pain. Here we investigated the reactivity of cranial dura to trigeminal pain, and the mechanism of BoNT/A action on DNI. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Since temporomandibular disorders are highly comorbid with migraine we employed a rat model of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) inflammation induced by complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA). The rats were treated with BoNT/A injections or sumatriptan per os. DNI was investigated by Evans blue-plasma protein extravasation, cell histology and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) radioimmunoassay. BoNT/A enzymatic activity in dura was assessed by cleaved synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25) immunohistochemistry. KEY RESULTS: BoNT/A and sumatriptan reduced the CFA-evoked peripheral allodynia and DNI. BoNT/A prevented the inflammatory cell infiltration, and counteracted the increase of CGRP levels in dura. After toxin peripheral application, BoNT/A-cleaved SNAP-25 colocalized with CGRP in intracranial dural nerve endings. Injection of axonal transport blocker colchicine into trigeminal ganglion prevented the occurrence of cleaved SNAP-25 in dura. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Apparently, pericranially injected BoNT/A is taken up by local sensory nerve endings, axonally transported to trigeminal ganglion, and transcytosed to dural afferents. Colocalization of cleaved SNAP-25 and migraine mediator CGRP in dura suggests that BoNT/A may prevent DNI by suppressing the CGRP transmission. This might explain BoNT/A action in TMJ inflammation as well as in migraine and some other headaches.

BACKGROUND: High altitude illness (HAI) is a term used to describe a group of mainly cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to elevations above 2500 metres (˜ 8200 feet). Acute mountain sickness (AMS), high altitude cerebral oedema (HACE) and high altitude pulmonary oedema (HAPE) are reported as potential medical problems associated with high altitude ascent. In this second review, in a series of three about preventive strategies for HAI, we assessed the effectiveness of five of the less commonly used classes of pharmacological interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and adverse events of five of the less commonly used pharmacological interventions for preventing acute HAI in participants who are at risk of developing high altitude illness in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) in May 2017. We adapted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. We used a combination of thesaurus‐based and free‐text search terms. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews that we identified for further references to additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in any setting where one of five classes of drugs was employed to prevent acute HAI: selective 5‐hydroxytryptamine(1) receptor agonists; N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) antagonist; endothelin‐1 antagonist; anticonvulsant drugs; and spironolactone. We included trials involving participants who are at risk of developing high altitude illness (AMS or HACE, or HAPE, or both). We included participants with and without a history of high altitude illness. We applied no age or gender restrictions. We included trials where the relevant medication was administered before the beginning of ascent. We excluded trials using these drugs during ascent or after ascent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures employed by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (334 participants, 9 references) in this review. Twelve studies are ongoing and will be considered in future versions of this review as appropriate. We have been unable to obtain full‐text versions of a further 12 studies and have designated them as 'awaiting classification'. Four studies were at a low risk of bias for randomization; two at a low risk of bias for allocation concealment. Four studies were at a low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We considered three studies at a low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. We considered most studies at a high risk of selective reporting bias. We report results for the following four main comparisons. Sumatriptan versus placebo (1 parallel study; 102 participants) Data on sumatriptan showed a reduction of the risk of AMS when compared with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, CI 95% 0.21 to 0.84; 1 study, 102 participants; low quality of evidence). The one included study did not report events of HAPE, HACE or adverse events related to administrations of sumatriptan. Magnesium citrate versus placebo (1 parallel study; 70 participants) The estimated RR for AMS, comparing magnesium citrate tablets versus placebo, was 1.09 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.13; 1 study; 70 participants; low quality of evidence). In addition, the estimated RR for loose stools was 3.25 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.99; 1 study; 70 participants; low quality of evidence). The one included study did not report events of HAPE or HACE. Spironolactone versus placebo (2 parallel studies; 205 participants) Pooled estimation of RR for AMS was not performed due to considerable heterogeneity between the included studies (I² = 72%). RR from individual studies was 0.40 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.31) and 1.44 (95% CI 0.79 to 2.01; very low quality of evidence). No events of HAPE or HACE were reported. Adverse events were not evaluated. Acetazolamide versus spironolactone (1 parallel study; 232 participants) Data on acetazolamide compared with spironolactone showed a reduction of the risk of AMS with the administration of acetazolamide (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.70; 232 participants; low quality of evidence). No events of HAPE or HACE were reported. Adverse events were not evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review is the second in a series of three providing relevant information to clinicians and other interested parties on how to prevent high altitude illness. The assessment of five of the less commonly used classes of drugs suggests that there is a scarcity of evidence related to these interventions. Clinical benefits and harms related to potential interventions such as sumatriptan are still unclear. Overall, the evidence is limited due to the low number of studies identified (for most of the comparison only one study was identified); limitations in the quality of the evidence (moderate to low); and the number of studies pending classification (24 studies awaiting classification or ongoing). We lack the large and methodologically sound studies required to establish or refute the efficacy and safety of most of the pharmacological agents evaluated in this review.

Daily exposure to light synchronizes the circadian clock, located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), to external day/night cycles. These responses to light can be modified by serotonergic drugs, such as serotonin 5HT1B receptor agonists. Triptans are specific 5HT1B agonists prescribed to treat migraines. Here, we examined the effects of two triptans (zolmitriptan and sumatriptan) on photic phase resetting in Syrian hamsters. Pre-treatment with intra-SCN sumatriptan significantly attenuates, and at higher doses completely blocks, phase advances to light during the late night. Pre-treatment with systemic zolmitriptan significantly attenuates both light-induced phase advances and phase delays. Neither of these drugs, nor their vehicles, causes phase shifts on their own. Pre-treatment with zolmitriptan also significantly reduces the expression of light-induced c-fos in the SCN. Neither zolmitriptan nor vehicle alone induces significant c-fos expression in the SCN. Finally, pre-treatment with zolmitriptan does not attenuate phase shifts to intra-SCN N-methyl-d-aspartate injections, indicating that the mechanism of action for zolmitriptan is likely to be through activation of presynaptic 5HT1B receptors on retinal terminals, thereby decreasing light-induced neurotransmitter release. As triptans are commercially available medications, there is potential for their use in blocking unwanted photic phase shifting during shift-work or jet-lag. Additionally, triptans may also affect the circadian clock in patients receiving them regularly for migraines. Finally, our results may hint at the mechanism by which triptans can alleviate the photophobia that frequently accompanies migraines, namely by activating 5HT1B receptors on retinal terminals elsewhere in the brain, and thereby diminishing visually-evoked neurotransmitter signalling in those areas.

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of AVP-825, an investigational bi-directional breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing low-dose (22 mg) sumatriptan powder, vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan for acute treatment of migraine in a double-dummy, randomized comparative efficacy clinical trial allowing treatment across multiple migraine attacks. Background In phases 2 and 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 provided early and sustained relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults, with a low incidence of triptan-related adverse effects. Methods This was a randomized, active-comparator, double-dummy, cross-over, multi-attack study (COMPASS; NCT01667679) with two ≤12-week double-blind periods. Subjects experiencing 2-8 migraines/month in the past year were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated sequences to AVP-825 plus oral placebo tablet or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablet for the first period; patients switched treatment for the second period in this controlled comparative design. Subjects treated ≤5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 hour of onset, even if pain was mild. The primary end-point was the mean value of the summed pain intensity differences through 30 minutes post-dose (SPID-30) using Headache Severity scores. Secondary outcomes included pain relief, pain freedom, pain reduction, consistency of response across multiple migraines, migraine-associated symptoms, and atypical sensations. Safety was also assessed. Results A total of 275 adults were randomized, 174 (63.3%) completed the study (ie, completed the second treatment period), and 185 (67.3%) treated at least one migraine in both periods (1531 migraines assessed). There was significantly greater reduction in migraine pain intensity with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes post-dose (least squares mean SPID-30 = 10.80 vs 7.41, adjusted mean difference 3.39 [95% confidence interval 1.76, 5.01]; P

Triptans are first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe migraine headaches, and sumatriptan (a 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist) is the most commonly prescribed drug in this class.1 The efficacy and safety profiles of various routes of sumatriptan delivery, including subcutaneous, intranasal, transdermal, oral, and rectal, have been extensively characterized in clinical trials, and multiple formulations are in widespread use.1 Although oral administration is the most common route used for triptans, variability in gastric emptying during migraine and the resulting delay in absorption may contribute to inconsistent effectiveness, including delayed onset and reduced magnitude of relief.2 In an effort to overcome the limitations of oral delivery while maintaining a similar level of convenience, intranasal delivery (in the form of nasal sprays) aims at improving the speed and consistency of drug absorption while avoiding issues associated with self-administering an injection (eg, pain and aversion).3–5 Currently available intranasal treatments employ standard single-dose nasal-spray pumps that characteristically deposit a substantial fraction of the liquid dose along the floor of the nasal cavity, proximal to the nasal valve.6,7 A substantial portion of the dose delivered through liquid sprays either drips out of the nose and is wiped away, or accumulates at the floor of the nasal cavity, and is sniffed toward the pharynx and swallowed.8 Active sniffing during actuation further narrows the slit-like nasal valve and results in additional drug being sucked along the floor of the nasal cavity toward the oropharynx and swallowed. The swallowed portion of the dose is then subject to the same challenges of variable intestinal absorption associated with oral delivery. This “dual route” of absorption from standard liquid nasal-spray delivery is shown in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies of sumatriptan.9–12 A small peak in plasma concentration is observed at ∼20 minutes post-dose (nasal absorption), followed by a delayed peak at ∼90 minutes post-dose (intestinal absorption). AVP-825 (formerly “OptiNose Sumatriptan”) is an investigational drug–device combination containing sumatriptan powder that is being developed by Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura. It employs a novel closed-palate, Breath Powered intranasal drug-delivery system (OptiNose US, Inc., Yardley, PA, USA) designed to take advantage of specific features of nasal anatomy and physiology in order to overcome the deficiencies of conventional liquid nasal sprays. Closure of the soft palate and opening of the nasal valve during AVP-825 intranasal delivery of sumatriptan powder allows targeted deposition deep into and throughout the nasal cavity while helping to avoid sumatriptan deposition in the oropharynx or lungs.12,13 The device includes a mouthpiece for exhalation, connected to a device body, and a nosepiece, designed to seal the nasal opening to improve the extent and reproducibility of drug dosing.7,11,14 Exhalation into the device causes air flow resistance and positive air pressure in the oropharynx that naturally elevates the soft palate, separating the nasal and oral cavities. The shaped, sealing nosepiece redirects the exhaled air into the nasal cavity, without creating obstructive compression by soft tissues, to balance the pressure across the soft palate and gently expand the narrow, slit-like nasal passages, including the nasal valve. Under balanced pressure, a pathway located deep in the nasal cavity behind the nasal septum remains open between the two nostrils. With these dynamic circumstances, powdered drug particles emitted into the airflow enter via one nostril and are deposited deeply throughout the nasal cavity before the air delivering the particles exits through the other nostril (Bi-Directional delivery).6,7 Drug deposition studies in humans using radiolabeled lactose powder delivered using the closed-palate, Breath Powered device have demonstrated significantly greater delivery to the deeper nasal regions beyond the nasal valve, compared with radiolabeled liquid delivered with a conventional nasal spray-pump (Fig. 1).6,7 Greater initial deposition to more superior and posterior regions of the nasal cavity beyond the nasal valve following Breath Powered delivery of powder is consistent with decreased anterior drip-out and less swallowed drug.6,10 Fig 1 Gamma camera image of deposition 2 minutes after delivery of a solution of 99mTcO4 in saline using a conventional liquid spray device (A) and 99mTc-labeled lactose powder delivered using the Breath Powered device (B). The image of the nasal cavity is ... The advantages of this delivery method have been demonstrated in a phase 1 bioavailability crossover study in 20 healthy participants where AVP-825 (delivered dose 16 mg) produced a greater and earlier peak plasma concentration and significantly higher systemic drug exposure within the first 30 minutes than sumatriptan nasal spray (delivered dose 20 mg sumatriptan) and significantly lower systemic drug exposure than Imitrex oral (100 mg) or subcutaneous injection (6 mg) (Imitrex Nasal Spray and Imitrex Tablet, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA).10,12 The delivery method benefits were observed in a phase 2 placebo-controlled study in 117 patients with acute migraine, where AVP-825 produced high and sustained pain relief, relief of migraine-associated symptoms, and no reported systemic triptan-related adverse events (AEs).13 Taken together, the randomized comparative PK study and the initial placebo-controlled efficacy study showed that AVP-825 may address unmet needs of migraine sufferers by efficiently delivering a low dose of sumatriptan deep into the nasal passages, which may provide fast and sustained migraine relief with a low potential for systemic AEs. This phase 3 study (the TARGET study, NCT01462812) was designed to expand the clinical data in a larger patient cohort by comparing the efficacy and safety of AVP-825 with a placebo-containing Breath Powered device (placebo device) in adults with migraine headache with or without aura.

Objective To better familiarize the reader with a migraine-related disorder, cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) in adults, and to discuss its diagnosis and treatment. Background CVS is a profoundly disabling disorder characterized by recurrent, stereotypic episodes of incapacitating nausea and vomiting, separated by completely asymptomatic intervals. CVS episodes tend to start at the same time of day, persist for the same duration, and present with the same intensity and associated symptoms. Most patients experience prodromal symptoms and can identify triggers that precipitate attacks, such as menstruation, lack of sleep, certain foods, physical exertion, and stress. The prevalence of CVS in adults is unknown, but since its occurrence in this age group has been little recognized, patients typically experience lengthy delay in diagnosis or misdiagnosis. Method Literature review, case reports, and discussion. Results Given genetic links of CVS to migraine, as well as its comorbidity, typical migraine triggers, and response to similar acute and preventive medications, CVS likely represents a disorder on the migraine spectrum. Conclusion Adult CVS is not only highly comorbid with migraine, but it responds to migraine preventives, and in some cases to injectable sumatriptan even in the absence of headache.

Objectives To monitor for a signal of major teratogenicity by determining the risk of all birth major defects following in utero exposure to sumatriptan, naratriptan, and the sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination product (tablets marketed in the United States as Treximet [GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA]), and to monitor for unusual patterns of defects that might suggest teratogenicity. Background The prevalence of migraine is highest in women of childbearing age. Coupled with the recurrent nature of migraine attacks and the high proportion of unplanned pregnancies, intentional and inadvertent exposure to anti-migraine drugs in pregnancy is likely. The Sumatriptan, Naratriptan, and Treximet Pregnancy Registry captured data on women exposed to those drugs during pregnancy to monitor for evidence of major teratogenicity. Methods In this primarily prospective, observational study, health care professionals from anywhere in the world enrolled, on a voluntary basis, women exposed to sumatriptan, naratriptan, or the sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination product during their pregnancies. Only pregnancies with unknown outcomes at the time of enrollment were included in the analysis. The proportion of infants or fetuses with major birth defects was calculated as the total number of infants/fetuses with major birth defects divided by the sum of the number of infants/fetuses with major birth defects + the number of live births without defects. The risk of major birth defects was further stratified by earliest trimester of pregnancy exposure. Results The registry enrolled 680 evaluable exposed pregnant women, which resulted in 689 infants and fetuses (outcomes). Of these outcomes, 626 were exposed to sumatriptan, 57 were exposed to naratriptan (seven were exposed to both sumatriptan and naratriptan), and six were exposed to the sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination product. Twenty outcomes with major birth defects were reported among 528 outcomes exposed in the first trimester to sumatriptan. The estimated risk of major birth defects following first-trimester sumatriptan exposure is 4.2% (20/478 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6%–6.5%]). Among 52 first-trimester exposures to naratriptan, major birth defects were reported in one outcome, an infant with exposure to both sumatriptan and naratriptan [birth defect risk of 2.2% (1/46 [95% CI 0.1%–13.0%]). No major defects were reported among the five outcomes with first-trimester exposure to the sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination products. Conclusions The Sumatriptan, Naratriptan, and Treximet Pregnancy Registry detected no signal of teratogenicity associated with major birth defects for sumatriptan. This finding is consistent with results from other observational studies using a variety of control groups. Enrollment in the registry was insufficient to permit definitive conclusions of the risks associated with naratriptan or sumatriptan/naproxen sodium tablets, or to assess the risk of individual birth defects in any of the products studied. Low enrollment and high rates of loss to follow up within the registry over an extended period of time led the registry's scientific advisory committee to conclude that continuation of the registry beyond its 16 years would offer little additional power to rule out more moderate increases in the risk of birth defects. Data from the other ongoing surveillance sources constitute an important element of post-marketing surveillance of these medications. The lack of a signal of major teratogenicity with sumatriptan across these several sources of data is encouraging.

Objective The objective of this study was to validate the ease of assembly and application of the sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system (sumatriptan TDS, Zecuity®, NuPathe, Inc., Malvern, PA, USA) during a migraine attack. Background Iontophoresis is a noninvasive drug delivery method using low electrical current to move solubilized drugs across the skin to the underlying tissue. With sumatriptan TDS, a pre-programmed dose of sumatriptan is automatically delivered via a transdermal patch, allowing therapeutic drug levels to be reached without mechanical penetration or disruption of the skin. Because migraine attacks can be disabling, with many patients unable to perform their usual activities, it is important for prescribers and their patients to be confident that they will be able to assemble and apply sumatriptan TDS in the middle of an attack. A human factor use study was conducted to evaluate the ease of assembly and application of the sumatriptan TDS among migraineurs and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who are likely to instruct patients on how to use the patch. Methods This was a single-center, open-label study assessing a single use of sumatriptan TDS in adult migraineurs and HCPs. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: migraineurs trained to use sumatriptan TDS, migraineurs not trained to use sumatriptan TDS, and HCPs not trained to use sumatriptan TDS. Sixteen subjects (trained migraineurs and untrained HCPs) participated in a preliminary usability test, and 48 subjects (16 representing each of the 3 groups) participated in a formal final test. Subjects were 20–64 years old, inclusive, and 83% female. They rated usability on a scale of 1–7, with 1 being difficult and 7 being easy. Results Preliminary testing.—Of the 16 sumatriptan TDS patches assembled and applied, 100% (16/16) were assembled and applied successfully. The mean score for ease of assembly was 6.3, and the mean score for ease of application was 6.8 out of 7, with 1 being difficult and 7 being easy. No modifications were made to patient instructions for use, patient labeling, or patient video for the final phase of testing. Final testing.—Of the 48 sumatriptan TDS patches assembled and applied during final testing, 100% (48/48) were assembled and applied successfully, with no user errors, one close call, and no operational difficulties observed. Across all 3 groups, the mean score for ease of assembly was 6.1, and the mean score for ease of application was 6.8 out of 7, with 1 being difficult and 7 being easy. For migraineurs who were trained and subsequently returned to the testing facility for evaluation of usability while in distress of a mild to severe migraine attack, the number of days between training and testing ranged from 0 to 20, with a mean of 3.6. Among untrained and trained migraineurs, 3.1% had a mild attack, 68.8% had a moderate attack, and 28.1% had a severe attack. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that sumatriptan TDS can be assembled and applied successfully during a mild to severe migraine attack. Across all subject groups in both the preliminary and final testing, including trained and untrained migraineurs in distress of a migraine attack (96.9% moderate to severe) and untrained HCPs not experiencing a migraine attack, patch assembly and application was 100% successful. In the final test, subjects rated sumatriptan TDS very high for ease of assembly (6.1 out of 7, with 7 being easy) and ease of use (6.8 out of 7, with 7 being easy). These results indicate that patients and HCPs can be confident that patients can readily assemble and use sumatriptan TDS during a migraine attack. Short Summary A human factor use study evaluating ease of assembly and application of the sumatriptan transdermal system (TDS) among 64 migraineurs and HCPs found that patch assembly and application was 100% successful. Sumatriptan TDS scored 6.1 out of 7 for ease of assembly and 6.8 out of 7 for ease of use (with 7 being easy). Patients and HCPs can be confident that patients can assemble and use sumatriptan TDS during a migraine attack.

Most pharmacological trials deal with migraine as if it were a clinically homogeneous disease, and when detailing its characteristics, they usually report only the presence, or absence, of aura and attack frequency but provide no information on pain location, a non-trivial clinical detail. The past decade has witnessed growing emerging evidence suggesting that individuals with unilateral pain, especially those with associated unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms, are more responsive than others to trigeminal-targeted symptomatic and preventive therapy with drugs such as triptans or botulinum toxin. A simple way for migraine research treatment to take a step forward might be to step back, reappraise, and critically evaluate easily obtainable patient-reported clinical findings along with current knowledge on pain features.

Objective This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of sumatriptan (50 mg) plus promethazine (SPr) (25 mg) compared with sumatriptan (50 mg) plus placebo in patients with migraine attacks. Background Migraine is a chronic, disabling disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 10% in adults imposing substantial social and economic impact. Efficient treatment of migraine attacks could benefit patients by reducing their disability and the need for health care resources, and improving economic productivity. Design and Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial conducted at 5 university-affiliated research centers in Iran. Between January 2013 and April 2013, 350 individuals with a history of migraine were evaluated. Patients were diagnosed with migraine, with or without aura, as defined by the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria. The 242 patients meeting the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to SPr group (n = 121) or the sumatriptan plus placebo (SP) group (n = 121). The study medications were taken on an outpatient basis during the moderate to severe phase of migraine attack. Patients recorded details of the treated migraine on a diary card and rated pain severity immediately before dosing and 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours after dosing using a 4-point scale (0 = none to 3 = severe). Results Of 242 patients randomized, 216 were included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. In the SPr group, 39.6% of subjects experienced 2-hour headache-free response (primary outcome), which was significantly more effective than SP treatment (26.3%, odds ratio: 1.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.03–3.26, P = .038). Significantly more patients receiving SPr treatment (62.2%) had headache improvement compared with SP treatment (37.2%) at 2 hours (odds ratio: 2.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.60-4.81, P

Objectives To assess the consistency of improved functioning, productivity, and medication satisfaction in migraines treated with a single tablet of sumatriptan 85 mg/naproxen sodium 500 mg (S/NS) using an early intervention approach. Methods Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover, multi-attack, multi-center, outpatient studies of moderate to severe adult migraineurs were conducted to compare S/NS with placebo. Participants recorded outcome assessments in a diary during the 24 hours following study medication. Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population who treated at least 1 attack. Statistical significance between treatment groups used analysis of variance repeated measures models and the intent-to-treat population. There were no corrections for multiplicity. Results Almost half (48.5%) of migraineurs treated with S/NS returned to normal functioning at 2 hours and 73.3% at 4 hours postdose, compared with 28.7% (2 hours) and 43.3% (4 hours) of placebo-treated attacks. Total productivity loss over the 24 hours postdose was significantly reduced following S/NS treatment (2.5 hours on average) compared with placebo (4.0 hours). Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment resulted in significantly higher medication satisfaction scores on the efficacy, functionality, and total efficacy subscales compared with placebo in all attacks in both studies. Sumatriptan/naproxen treatment also provided significantly greater ease of use in 7 of the 8 attacks. Although tolerability was high in both treatment groups (over 90%), the placebo group was significantly less bothered by side effects in 6 of 8 attacks. Conclusion Results from these 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-attack, crossover studies demonstrated the rapid and consistent restoration of patients' functioning, the consistent reduction in productivity loss, and high satisfaction ratings from patients treating multiple migraine attacks with S/NS using an early intervention approach.

Objective To compare the use of a combination of 85 mg sumatriptan plus 500 mg naproxen sodium in a combination tablet with 500 mg naproxen sodium in an identically appearing tablet when used as a daily preventative and acute treatment for 1 month and episodic acute treatment for an additional 2 months in patients with chronic migraine. Background To date, there has been minimal study of acute medications for patients with chronic migraine. Consequently, there is a paucity of study methodology or evidence-based guidance on the use of acute treatment medications in patients with chronic migraine. Methods This two-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, comparator pilot trial of 28 subjects, 18 to 65 years of age, with ICHD-II defined chronic migraine, was designed to generate hypotheses about the efficacy of 2 established acute migraine medications used both as a daily preventive treatment (month 1) and episodic acute treatment (months 1, 2, and 3). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to treat daily with SumaRT/Nap (85 mg sumatriptan + 500 mg naproxen sodium) (group A) or naproxen sodium (500 mg) (group B) in a prophylactic strategy for 1 month followed by 2 months of the same medications used for episodic acute treatment. Results The combination of SumaRT/Nap used over a 3-month period did not appear to significantly reduce the number of migraine headache days. In the subset of subjects using naproxen sodium and completing the study per protocol, there was a marked reduction in migraine headache days (P

Nausea is a common symptom of migraine, and current treatment guidelines recommend non-oral formulations for nauseated or vomiting patients. Transdermal delivery of sumatriptan, a 5-hydroxytryptamine1B1D agonist with established efficacy in patients with migraine, represents a novel approach to acute treatment. The sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system circumvents the gastrointestinal tract by using low-level electrical energy to transport sumatriptan across the skin. In multiple well-controlled studies, the sumatriptan transdermal system has shown that it provides consistent drug delivery with low interpatient variability, rapid relief of migraine pain and associated symptoms, and an excellent overall safety profile, with a low incidence of triptan-sensation adverse events. Patients and health care professionals who have used the sumatriptan transdermal system give it high ratings for ease of use/application. The sumatriptan transdermal system will allow a wide range of patients, especially those who experience migraine-related nausea or vomiting, to receive the benefits of migraine-specific therapy.

Sumatriptan, a highly selective ligand for 5-HT1B/1D serotonin receptors, was the first registered triptan and remains widely used as an antimigraine drug. Multiple routes of administration for sumatriptan including subcutaneous injection, oral, suppository, and intranasal spray have been shown to be effective in relieving symptoms of migraine in placebo-controlled studies.1–4 Subcutaneous administration typically provides the fastest and most complete migraine symptom relief; however, the high incidence of side effects and patient resistance to the use of injections led to the development of alternative routes of administration.3,5 Oral administration is the most common route for the available triptans but is not satisfactory for many patients. A majority of migraine patients experience gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, which can be a readily apparent barrier to the use of oral medication. Less obviously, it has been shown empirically that migraineurs experience significantly delayed gastric emptying6–8 possibly because of autonomic dysfunction. Delayed gastric emptying can influence the therapeutic effects of orally administered drugs, and evidence specifically suggests that during a migraine attack, absorption of more than 1 class of antimigraine medication is delayed.9 Delayed or inconsistent absorption may reduce early exposure to medication, delay onset of action, and decrease the reliability or predictability of response. A liquid formulation delivered with a standard nasal spray device was developed as an alternative, seeking benefits such as faster onset of relief than oral dosage forms and fewer adverse effects than the injection. Unfortunately, conventional nasal sprays are suboptimal for true intranasal delivery and have been shown to deposit a large fraction of the delivered dose of a drug in the part of the nasal cavity anterior to the narrow nasal valve located about 2 cm into the nose.10–12 This anterior segment is largely lined with non-ciliated squamous epithelium that is less efficient at medication absorption than the respiratory mucosa beyond the nasal valve.12,13 Anterior deposition following a conventional nasal spray also results in a substantial portion of the delivered dose either dripping out of the nostril or being wiped off. Importantly, a large fraction of the remaining drug that is believed to enter the “deep” nasal cavity following standard nasal spray administration is actually drawn along the floor of the nasal cavity into the pharynx where it is swallowed.12 Swallowing affects such a significant portion of the medication delivered by conventional nasal sprays that a higher plasma peak can be produced via the unintended GI route than by nasal absorption.14 This phenomenon is clearly observed with sumatriptan in the bimodal absorption profile following nasal spray administration: a lower early peak, likely related to intranasal absorption, is produced after 20 minutes and is followed by a higher absorption peak consistent with GI absorption around 90 minutes.14 The OptiNose Breath Powered Bidirectional powder device (OptiNose US, Inc., Yardley, PA, USA) is a new nasal delivery system designed to overcome deficiencies of traditional nasal delivery. The delivery system consists of a device with a mouthpiece and a shaped sealing nosepiece that is designed to take advantage of unique aspects of nasal anatomy and physiology to improve the extent and reproducibility of drug delivery while protecting against the risk of lung inhalation.11,15 First, during oral exhalation against a resistance, a positive pressure is created in the oropharynx, naturally elevating and sealing the soft palate, and completely separating the nasal and oral cavities. Second, because of the sealing nosepiece, a slightly reduced positive oral pressure is transferred into the nasal cavity, where it expands narrow slit-like passages and balances the pressure across the soft palate to avoid over-elevation of the vellum and maintains patency of the communication pathway between the 2 nostrils that is located deep in the nasal cavity posterior to the nasal septum. Under these dynamic circumstances, it is possible for medication to be carried by air flow into 1 nostril, to be deposited throughout the deep nasal cavity, and for the air to escape by the other nostril (bidirectional delivery). Human in vivo deposition studies using Breath Powered delivery of radio-labeled lactose powder have demonstrated a superior pattern of delivery to the deep nasal regions beyond the nasal valve compared with radio-labeled liquid delivered with a conventional nasal spray pump (Fig. 1), with protection from lung deposition.11,16 Fig 1 Gamma camera images 2 minutes after delivery using a traditional liquid spray (a) and powder with OptiNose Breath Powered device (b) shown with a logarithmic hot iron intensity scale (reference). Deposition of spray was greatest anterior to the ... A significantly improved nasal delivery pattern, reducing conversion of nasal delivery to oral delivery, has potential to greatly improve the speed and efficiency of drug absorption with a goal of producing faster onset of migraine pain relief while using lower total doses of medication. Other hypothesized benefits potentially enabled by this form of delivery relate to local activity on deep intranasal nerve structures by both drug and CO2-containing breath, which may further augment treatment response.17 A pilot comparative bioavailability study found that intranasal administration of sumatriptan powder in divided doses using the Breath Powered device resulted in a rapid absorption profile.18 The aim of the current study was to directly compare the single dose bioavailability of 22-mg sumatriptan powder divided into 11 mg per nostril, delivered intranasally using a Breath Powered device vs a commercially approved 20-mg sumatriptan liquid nasal spray, a 100-mg sumatriptan tablet, and a 6-mg sumatriptan subcutaneous injection.