Triptan non-response in a London tertiary headache centre: What can we learn? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Triptans revolutionized the acute treatment of migraine; however, varied responses to triptans, as a result of poor efficacy and tolerability, are reported. A standardized definition of triptan non-response was recently proposed by the European Headache Federation (EHF). There is currently limited data available on the prevalence of triptan non-response. METHODS: We used clinic letters over a two-year duration to evaluate the triptan response and triptan efficacy or tolerability failure, or both, in a London-based tertiary headache service. RESULTS: In total, 419 adult migraine patients (females: 83.8%, age: 46 ± 18 years, chronic migraine: 88.5%) were included in a service evaluation. In line with the EHF definitions, "triptan non-response" was seen in 63.8% of patients (264/414), whereas 37.7% of patients (156/414) had failed at least two triptans (EHF "triptan resistant") and 4.6% of patients (19/414) had failed at least three triptans, including a subcutaneous formulation (EHF "triptan refractory"). Notably, 21.3% of patients (88/414) had failed at least three triptans inclusive and exclusive of subcutaneous triptan use. Advancing age (p < 0.001) and the presence of medication overuse (p = 0.006) increased the probability of triptan response, whereas an increased number of failed preventives (p < 0.001) and the use of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (p = 0.022) increased the probability of triptan non-response. The largest proportion of patients responded to eletriptan (49.5%), followed by nasal zolmitriptan (44.4%) and rizatriptan (35.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight an alarming prevalence of triptan non-response among adult migraineurs receiving treatment in a London-based tertiary headache service. It is imperative for clinicians to explore methods to optimize acute medication efficacy, whether this comprises changing to a triptan with a superior response rate, advocating for early intervention or considering alternative acute medication classes, such as gepants or ditans.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication.

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Comparative retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive treatments: A nationwide registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the comparative effects of migraine preventive drugs. We aimed to estimate treatment retention and effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs in a nationwide registry-based cohort study in Norway between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: We assessed retention, defined as the number of uninterrupted treatment days, and effectiveness, defined as the reduction in filled triptan prescriptions during four 90-day periods after the first preventive prescription, compared to a 90-day baseline period. We compared retention and efficacy for different drugs against beta blockers. Comparative retention was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for covariates, using Cox regression, and effectiveness as odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression, with propensity-weighted adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: We identified 104,072 migraine patients, 81,890 of whom were female (78.69%) and whose mean (standard deviation) age was 44.60 (15.61) years. Compared to beta blockers, botulinum toxin (HR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.44) and calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway antibodies (CGRPabs; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) were the least likely to be discontinued, while clonidine (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.88-3.02) and topiramate (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37) were the most likely to be discontinued. Patients on simvastatin, CGRPabs, and amitriptyline were more likely to achieve a clinically significant reduction in triptan use during the first 90 days of treatment, with propensity score-adjusted ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38), 1.23 (95% CI 0.79-1.90), and 1.13 (95% CI 1.08-1.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found a favorable effect of CGRPabs, amitriptyline, and simvastatin compared with beta blockers, while topiramate and clonidine were associated with poorer outcomes.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Real-world approaches to outpatient treatment of status migrainosus: A survey study.

OBJECTIVES: Identify how the American Headache Society (AHS) membership manages status migrainosus (SM) among outpatients. BACKGROUND: SM is defined as a debilitating migraine attack lasting more than 72 h. There is no standard of care for SM, including whether a 72-h duration is required before the attack can be treated as SM. METHODS: The Refractory Headache Special Interest Group from AHS developed a four-question survey distributed to AHS members enquiring (1) whether they treat severe refractory migraine attacks the same as SM regardless of duration, (2) what their first step in SM management is, (3) what the top three medications they use for SM are, and (4) whether they are United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) certified. The survey was conducted in January 2022. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 196 of 1859 (10.5%) AHS members; 64.3% were UCNS certified in headache management. Respondents treated 69.4% (136/196) of patients with a severe refractory migraine attack as SM before the 72-h period had elapsed. Most (76.0%, 149/196) chose "treat remotely using outpatient medications at home" as the first step, 11.2% (22/196) preferred procedures, 6.1% (12/196) favored an infusion center, 6.1% (12/196) sent patients to the emergency department (ED) or urgent care, and 0.5% (1/196) preferred direct hospital admission. The top five preferred medications were as follows: (1) corticosteroids (71.4%, 140/196), (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (50.1%, 99/196), (3) neuroleptics (46.9%, 92/196), (4) triptans (30.6%, 60/196), and (5) dihydroergotamine (DHE) (21.4%, 42/196). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals with expertise in headache medicine typically treated severe migraine attacks early and did not wait 72 h to fulfill the diagnostic criteria for SM. Outpatient management with one or more medications for home use was preferred by most respondents; few opted for ED referrals. Finally, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, neuroleptics, triptans, and DHE were the top five preferred treatments for home SM management.

Managing Cluster Headache in Patients with Medical, Psychiatric, and Surgical Comorbidities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: What should a provider know about medications and other treatments in patients with cluster headache who have medical, psychiatric, and surgical comorbidities? What conversations should providers have with patients about living with and managing cluster headache? RECENT FINDINGS: While the number of treatments used in cluster headache is relatively small, numerous considerations were identified related to managing patients with comorbidities. Many of these touch on cardiac, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular health, but full histories are needed to guide safe and effective treatment. Both older and newer treatments may be contraindicated in certain patients with cluster headache or should be considered carefully. In addition to incorporating medical, psychiatric, and surgical histories in the management plan, collaboration with other providers may be beneficial. Providers should also inquire about patient practices and discuss participation in clinical trials that might be a good fit for the individual.

Triptans in the Acute Migraine Management of Children and Adolescents: An Update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent findings regarding triptan use in the acute treatment of pediatric migraine. RECENT FINDINGS: Prevalence of pediatric migraine is rising. The American Headache Society and American Academy of Neurology updated guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in youth. In the setting of a dearth of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we review current guidelines, triptan use in the emergency department, and an era of secondary analyses. Measuring the efficacy of triptans in pediatric migraine has been challenged by high placebo response rates. Secondary analyses, combining data from multiple RCTs, support that triptans are safe and effective in the treatment of migraine. Triptans are a vital tool and the only FDA-approved migraine-specific treatment available in pediatrics. There is a need for further studies and funding support in pediatric headache medicine.

Biotransformation of Sumatriptan by Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica.

This study aimed at the biotransformation of sumatriptan by Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica and the identification of the drug metabolites by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The drug was incubated with the organisms in tryptic soya broth at 37 °C. The broth was filtered and subjected to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The metabolites identified by the use of mass spectral (+ve ion mode) fragmentation patterns were (3-methylphenyl)methanethiol (Bacillus subtilis), 1-(4-amino-3-ethylphenyl)-N-methylmethanesulfonamide (Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica) and 1-{4-amino-3-[(1E)-3-(dimethylamino)prop-1-en-1-yl]phenyl}methanesulfinamide (Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus). These metabolites exhibit high gastrointestinal absorption, no blood-brain barrier permeability (except (3-methylphenyl)methanethiol), a bioavailability score of 0.55 and no inhibitory effect on CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A4 or cytochrome P450 1A2 (except (3-methylphenyl)methanethiol), as determined by SwissADME software ver. 2024. The metabolites appear to be more toxic than the parent drug, as suggested by their calculated median lethal dose values. All four organisms under investigation transformed sumatriptan to different chemical substances that were more toxic than the parent drug.

Triptan use in elderly over 65 years and the risk of hospitalization for serious vascular events.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have focused on the use of triptan and the risk of acute vascular events but the existence of such association is still debated and has never been quantified in patients over 65 years. To assess whether triptan use among older is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for acute vascular events. METHODS: A propensity score-matched cohort study was designed using the French national health insurance database linked to hospital stays. Patients aged ≥ 65 years, newly treated by triptans between 2011 and 2014, were included… The primary event was hospitalization for an acute ischemic vascular event within de 90 days following triptan initiation. Association with triptan exposure was investigated through cox regression model, considering exposure at inclusion, and with exposure as a time-varying variable A case-crossover (CCO) and a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were also conducted to address potential residual confounding. RESULTS: The cohort included 24, 774 triptan users and 99 096 propensity matched controls (mean (SD) age: 71 years (5.9), 74% of women). Within 90 days after cohort entry, 163 events were observed in the triptan group, and 523 in the control group (0.66% vs. 0.53%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) exposed/not exposed 1.25 95%CI [1.05-1.49]; aHR time-varying 8.74 [5.21-14.66]). The association was significant (CCO) for all events (adjusted odds ratio (aOR1.63 [1.22-2.19]) with a more consistent association with cerebral events (aOR 2.14 [1.26-3.63]). The relative incidence (RI) for all events was 2.13 [1.76-2.58] in the SCCS, for cardiac (RI: 1.67 [1.23-2.27]) and for cerebral events (RI: 3.20, [2.30-4.45]). CONCLUSION: The incidence of acute vascular events was low among triptan users. We found that triptan use among older may be associated with a low increased risk for acute vascular events, which may be more marked for cerebral events such as stroke, than for cardiac events.

Trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in nine major cities in China from 2018 to 2022: a retrospective prescription analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in China. METHODS: The prescription data of outpatients diagnosed with migraine between 2018 and 2022 were extracted from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project of China. The demographic characteristics of migraine patients, prescription trends, and corresponding expenditures on antimigraine medicines were analyzed. We also investigated prescribing patterns of combination therapy and medicine overuse. RESULTS: A total of 32,246 outpatients who were diagnosed with migraine at 103 hospitals were included in this study. There were no significant trend changes in total outpatient visits, migraine prescriptions, or corresponding expenditures during the study period. Of the patients who were prescribed therapeutic medicines, 70.23% received analgesics, and 26.41% received migraine-specific agents. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 28.03%), caffeine-containing agents (22.15%), and opioids (16.00%) were the most commonly prescribed analgesics, with corresponding cost proportions of 11.35%, 4.08%, and 19.61%, respectively. Oral triptans (26.12%) were the most commonly prescribed migraine-specific agents and accounted for 62.21% of the total therapeutic expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving analgesic prescriptions increased from 65.25% in 2018 to 75.68% in 2022, and the proportion of patients receiving concomitant triptans decreased from 29.54% in 2018 to 21.55% in 2022 (both P <  0.001). The most frequently prescribed preventive medication classes were calcium channel blockers (CCBs; 51.59%), followed by antidepressants (20.59%) and anticonvulsants (15.82%), which accounted for 21.90%, 34.18%, and 24.15%, respectively, of the total preventive expenditures. Flunarizine (51.41%) was the most commonly prescribed preventive drug. Flupentixol/melitracen (7.53%) was the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The most commonly prescribed anticonvulsant was topiramate (9.33%), which increased from 6.26% to 12.75% (both P <  0.001). A total of 3.88% of the patients received combined therapy for acute migraine treatment, and 18.63% received combined therapy for prevention. The prescriptions for 69.21% of opioids, 38.53% of caffeine-containing agents, 26.61% of NSAIDs, 13.97% of acetaminophen, and 6.03% of triptans were considered written medicine overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine treatment gradually converges toward evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatment. Attention should be given to opioid prescribing, weak evidence-based antidepressant use, and medication overuse in migraine treatment.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose. RESULTS: In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Treatment pattern and response for cluster headache in Korea: A prospective multicenter observation study.

BACKGROUND: Only limited data are available regarding the treatment status and response to cluster headache in an Asian population. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a real-world treatment pattern of cluster headache and the response rate of each treatment in an Asian population. METHODS: Patients with cluster headache were recruited between September 2016 and January 2019 from 16 hospitals in Korea. At the baseline visit, we surveyed the patients about their previous experience of cluster headache treatment, and acute and/or preventive treatments were prescribed at the physician's discretion. Treatment response was prospectively evaluated using a structured case-report form at 2 ± 2 weeks after baseline visit and reassessed after three months. RESULTS: Among 295 recruited patients, 262 experiencing active bouts were included. Only one-third of patients reported a previous experience of evidence-based treatment. At the baseline visit, oral triptans (73.4%), verapamil (68.3%), and systemic steroids (55.6%) were the three most common treatments prescribed by the investigators. Most treatments were given as combination. For acute treatment, oral triptans and oxygen were effective in 90.1% and 86.8% of the patients, respectively; for preventive treatment, evidence-based treatments, i.e. monotherapy or different combinations of verapamil, lithium, systemic steroids, and suboccipital steroid injection, helped 75.0% to 91.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our data provide the first prospective analysis of treatment responses in an Asian population with cluster headache. The patients responded well to treatment despite the limited availability of treatment options, and this might be attributed at least in part by combination of medications. Most patients were previously undertreated, suggesting a need to raise awareness of cluster headache among primary physicians.

Utilization patterns, cardiovascular risk, and concomitant serotoninergic medications among triptan users between 2008 and 2018: A gender analysis in one Italian region, Tuscany.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of triptan use by gender in Tuscany, Italy, focusing on special user populations in which evidence on triptan safety is still not conclusive. BACKGROUND: Growing evidence supports the role of gender differences in migraine pathophysiology and treatment. However, gender impact on triptan real-word utilization has been poorly investigated. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study was performed using the population-based Administrative Healthcare Database of Tuscany region (Italy). Subjects registered in the database on the January 1 of each year between 2008 and 2018 were identified. New users (NU) of triptans (ATC:N02CC*) were patients with one or more triptan dispensation during the year of interest and none in the past. Age, cardiovascular comorbidities representing an absolute or a possible contraindication to triptan utilization, concomitant serotonergic medications, and pattern of triptan use during 1-year follow-up were described by gender. RESULTS: A total of 86,109 patients who received one or more triptan dispensing were identified. Of 64,672 NU (men = 17,039; women = 47,633), 10.2% (6823/64,672) were aged >65 years, who were mostly women (n = 4613). Among NU, men and women with absolute cardiovascular contraindications were 4.3% (740/17,039) and 2.1% (1022/47,633), respectively, while those concomitantly taking serotonergic medications were 17.2% (267/1549) and 21.9% (949/4330), respectively (949/4330). Regular users (two or more dispensing with ≥3 months between first and last observed dispensing) accounted for 26.4% of women (12,597/47,633) and 19.11% of men (3250/17,039); frequent users (≥15 dosage units/month during ≥3 consecutive months) were overall 0.1% (94/64,672) and 62.0% (58/94) of them concomitantly received serotonergic medications. CONCLUSION: Considering gender differences in triptan use highlighted here, large scale observational studies are warranted to better define what populations are safe to use triptans and whether it is appropriate to tighten or relax certain recommendations on triptan use. In the meantime, any suspected adverse drug reaction observed in the special user populations highlighted in this study should be promptly reported.

Patterns of anti-CGRP mAbs use and variation of triptan consumption following treatment initiation: A descriptive drug utilization study in the Tuscany region, Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) utilization in the Tuscany region, Italy, and the variation of triptan consumption after treatment initiation. BACKGROUND: Given the recent commercialization of anti-CGRP mAbs as migraine preventive medications, real-world evidence on their patterns of utilization and their impact on migraine abortive medication use is still limited. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study on the real-world utilization of anti-CGRP mAbs was performed using the population-based regional administrative database of Tuscany. Patients with ≥1 anti-CGRP mAb dispensing (namely erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were identified. The first dispensing was the cohort entry (CE). New users (NUs) were patients with no anti-CGRP mAb dispensing before CE. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were plotted to describe the cumulative probability of remaining with the initial anti-CGRP mAb during a 15-month follow-up period as a measure of treatment persistence. Among NUs with ≥2 triptan dispensings during the 6 months before CE (i.e., baseline), the mean monthly number of triptan dosage units dispensed was measured in five consecutive follow-up time windows (months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) and the difference from the baseline was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 624 NUs (erenumab = 295, galcanezumab = 223, fremanezumab = 106) were identified, of whom 188 (78%) were women. Mean age was 49.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12.6). The survival to discontinuation at 6, 12, and 15 months was about 69%, 48%, and 6%, respectively. The survival to switch was about 6% at 15 months. The observed variation of triptan consumption at 3/6/9/12/15 months and the corresponding SD was -4.4 [8.2]/-5.2 [9.0]/-5.5 [9.2]/-5.4 [9.2]/-4.5 [10.0], respectively. CONCLUSION: Patient demographics reflect the place of these medications in therapy. Overall, findings seem to indicate a favorable tolerability and effectiveness profile. Further studies are warranted to better establish the long-term comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs compared to other preventive medications.

Post-stroke Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stroke is a major health concern and a leading cause of long-term disability. Persistent post-stroke headache (PPSH) is a common complication of stroke yet little is known about its specific characteristics or optimal management. The purpose of this review is to discuss the epidemiology, presentation, and hypothesized pathophysiology of PPSH. Acute and preventive treatment options, as well as specific concerns regarding triptans and the newer CGRP antagonists, will be discussed in detail as well. RECENT FINDINGS: The 2018 International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) was the first headache diagnostic manual to include criteria for PPSH and defines this disorder as an acute headache that develops in close temporal relation to stroke and persists beyond 3 months. Recent literature estimates the prevalence of PPSH to be somewhere between 1 and 23% of patients post-stroke. Presentation is variable, but most often mimics tension-type headache. There are no evidence-based guidelines on the optimal treatment of PPSH. PPSH is a common but poorly understood complication of stroke. Given the significant disability burden that PPSH carries, the epidemiology and pathophysiology of PPSH, as well as the efficacy and safety of potential treatment options, warrant further investigation.

Triptan non-response in specialized headache care: cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are effective for many migraine patients, but some do not experience adequate efficacy and tolerability. The European Headache Federation (EHF) has proposed that patients with lack of efficacy and/or tolerability of ≥ 2 triptans ('triptan resistance') could be considered eligible for treatment with the novel medications from the ditan and gepant groups. There is little data on the frequency of 'triptan resistance'. METHODS: We used patient self-report data from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) Headache Registry to assess triptan response and triptan efficacy and/or tolerability failure. RESULTS: A total of 2284 adult migraine patients (females: 85.4%, age: 39.4 ± 12.8 years) were included. 42.5% (n = 970) had failed ≥ 1 triptan, 13.1% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 2 triptans (meeting the EHF definition of 'triptan resistance'), and 3.9% (n = 88) had failed ≥ 3 triptans. Compared to triptan responders (current use, no failure, n = 597), triptan non-responders had significantly more severe migraine (higher frequency (p < 0.001), intensity (p < 0.05), and disability (p < 0.001)), that further increased with the level of triptan failure. Responders rates were highest for nasal and oral zolmitriptan, oral eletriptan and subcutaneous sumatriptan. CONCLUSION: In the present setting (specialized headache care in Germany), 13.1% of the patients had failed ≥ 2 triptans. Triptan failure was associated with increased migraine severity and disability, emphasizing the importance of establishing an effective and tolerable acute migraine medication. Acute treatment optimization might include switching to one of the triptans with the highest responder rates and/or to a different acute medication class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Debate: differences and similarities between tension-type headache and migraine.

Tension-type headache (TTH) and migraine are two common primary headaches distinguished by clinical characteristics according to the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Migraine is identified by specific features such as being more prevalent in females, being aggravated by physical activity, certain genetic factors, having photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, or aura, and responding to specific drugs. Nonetheless, TTH and migraine share some common characteristics, such as onset occurring in the 20 s, and being triggered by psychological factors like stress, moderate pain severity, and mild nausea in chronic TTH. Both conditions involve the trigeminovascular system in their pathophysiology. However, distinguishing between TTH and migraine in clinical practice, research, and epidemiological studies can be challenging, as there is a lack of specific diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Moreover, both conditions may coexist, further complicating the diagnostic process. This review aims to explore the similarities and differences in the pathophysiology, epidemiology, burden and disability, comorbidities, and responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of TTH and migraine. The review also discusses future research directions to address the diagnostic challenges and improve the understanding and management of these conditions.

[Integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice (part 1) : management of acute migraine attack]. / Intégration des nouveaux anti-migraineux dans notre pratique clinique . Partie 1 : traitement de la crise de migraine.

Although migraine is one of the most common chronic diseases and is the subject of numerous studies, there is still a considerable proportion of patients who are not satisfied with their acute treatment. Left without any real new therapeutic option to offer patients since sumatriptan was introduced on the Belgian market 30 years ago, neurologists have recently seen a change in the therapeutic landscape with the advent of new specific acute treatments for migraine: gepants and ditans. Being the only ones currently available in Belgium, gepants (including the newly marketed rimegepant) bring added value to traditional treatments such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans. This is why it seemed useful to review the different therapeutic options available in Belgium today by including these new treatments and to propose a rational pharmacological approach to relieve acute migraine attack.

Bien que la migraine soit une des maladies chroniques les plus fréquentes et fasse l'objet de nombreuses recherches, il existe malheureusement encore une proportion importante de patients insatisfaits de leur traitement anti-douleur. Sans nouvelle vraie option thérapeutique à proposer aux patients depuis la mise sur le marché belge du sumatriptan voici 30 ans, le neurologue a vu récemment le paysage thérapeutique se modifier avec l'arrivée de nouveaux traitements spécifiques de la crise de migraine : les gépants et les ditans. Seuls disponibles pour le moment en Belgique, les gépants (avec notamment le rimégépant nouvellement commercialisé) apportent une plus-value aux traitements traditionnels que sont les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens et les triptans. C'est la raison pour laquelle il nous a semblé utile de refaire le point sur les différentes options thérapeutiques disponibles aujourd'hui en Belgique en intégrant ces nouveaux traitements et de proposer une approche pharmacologique rationnelle pour soulager la douleur de la crise de migraine.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only. METHODS: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication. RESULTS: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Triptan medication use among patients with migraine with contraindications in the US.

OBJECTIVE: 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. BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.