Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans vs other classes of acute migraine medication - A review

Richard B. Lipton, M. E. Bigal, P. J. Goadsby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although the migraine clinical trials literature is enormous, we identified only nine published double-blind studies which compare an oral triptan with a non-triptan acute treatment. Of the nine comparative trials that met inclusion criteria for this review, six compared sumatriptan with other drugs, zolmitriptan was studied in two trials and eletriptan in one trial. In seven of the nine studies reviewed herein, differences between active treatments on the primary endpoints were not dramatic. Experience in clinical practice suggests that, for many patients, oral triptans are superior to non-specific acute treatments, creating a discrepancy between clinical trials results and clinical practice experience. Four possible explanations for the disparities between clinical trials and clinical practice are likely: (i) statistically significant differences may not have emerged because the studies lack adequate statistical power; (ii) patients treated with triptans in clinical practice may be relatively more responsive to triptans and relatively less responsive to other agents than those who participate in clinical trials (patient selection); (iii) headache response at 2 h, as measured in clinical trials, may not fully capture the benefits of triptans relative to other therapies, as assessed in clinical practice; (iv) waiting until pain is moderate or severe, as required in clinical trials, may disadvantage triptans relative to comparators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)321-332
Number of pages12
JournalCephalalgia
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2004

Fingerprint

Tryptamines
Migraine Disorders
Clinical Trials
zolmitriptan
Sumatriptan
Therapeutics
Double-Blind Method
Patient Selection
Headache
Pain
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Analgesics
  • Clinical trial
  • Ergotamine
  • Non-steroidal medication
  • Triptans

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans vs other classes of acute migraine medication - A review. / Lipton, Richard B.; Bigal, M. E.; Goadsby, P. J.

In: Cephalalgia, Vol. 24, No. 5, 05.2004, p. 321-332.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fb3ad5b9bbf54a95958dd9a7fd4dcff9,
title = "Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans vs other classes of acute migraine medication - A review",
abstract = "Although the migraine clinical trials literature is enormous, we identified only nine published double-blind studies which compare an oral triptan with a non-triptan acute treatment. Of the nine comparative trials that met inclusion criteria for this review, six compared sumatriptan with other drugs, zolmitriptan was studied in two trials and eletriptan in one trial. In seven of the nine studies reviewed herein, differences between active treatments on the primary endpoints were not dramatic. Experience in clinical practice suggests that, for many patients, oral triptans are superior to non-specific acute treatments, creating a discrepancy between clinical trials results and clinical practice experience. Four possible explanations for the disparities between clinical trials and clinical practice are likely: (i) statistically significant differences may not have emerged because the studies lack adequate statistical power; (ii) patients treated with triptans in clinical practice may be relatively more responsive to triptans and relatively less responsive to other agents than those who participate in clinical trials (patient selection); (iii) headache response at 2 h, as measured in clinical trials, may not fully capture the benefits of triptans relative to other therapies, as assessed in clinical practice; (iv) waiting until pain is moderate or severe, as required in clinical trials, may disadvantage triptans relative to comparators.",
keywords = "Analgesics, Clinical trial, Ergotamine, Non-steroidal medication, Triptans",
author = "Lipton, {Richard B.} and Bigal, {M. E.} and Goadsby, {P. J.}",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2982.2003.00690.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "321--332",
journal = "Cephalalgia",
issn = "0333-1024",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans vs other classes of acute migraine medication - A review

AU - Lipton, Richard B.

AU - Bigal, M. E.

AU - Goadsby, P. J.

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Although the migraine clinical trials literature is enormous, we identified only nine published double-blind studies which compare an oral triptan with a non-triptan acute treatment. Of the nine comparative trials that met inclusion criteria for this review, six compared sumatriptan with other drugs, zolmitriptan was studied in two trials and eletriptan in one trial. In seven of the nine studies reviewed herein, differences between active treatments on the primary endpoints were not dramatic. Experience in clinical practice suggests that, for many patients, oral triptans are superior to non-specific acute treatments, creating a discrepancy between clinical trials results and clinical practice experience. Four possible explanations for the disparities between clinical trials and clinical practice are likely: (i) statistically significant differences may not have emerged because the studies lack adequate statistical power; (ii) patients treated with triptans in clinical practice may be relatively more responsive to triptans and relatively less responsive to other agents than those who participate in clinical trials (patient selection); (iii) headache response at 2 h, as measured in clinical trials, may not fully capture the benefits of triptans relative to other therapies, as assessed in clinical practice; (iv) waiting until pain is moderate or severe, as required in clinical trials, may disadvantage triptans relative to comparators.

AB - Although the migraine clinical trials literature is enormous, we identified only nine published double-blind studies which compare an oral triptan with a non-triptan acute treatment. Of the nine comparative trials that met inclusion criteria for this review, six compared sumatriptan with other drugs, zolmitriptan was studied in two trials and eletriptan in one trial. In seven of the nine studies reviewed herein, differences between active treatments on the primary endpoints were not dramatic. Experience in clinical practice suggests that, for many patients, oral triptans are superior to non-specific acute treatments, creating a discrepancy between clinical trials results and clinical practice experience. Four possible explanations for the disparities between clinical trials and clinical practice are likely: (i) statistically significant differences may not have emerged because the studies lack adequate statistical power; (ii) patients treated with triptans in clinical practice may be relatively more responsive to triptans and relatively less responsive to other agents than those who participate in clinical trials (patient selection); (iii) headache response at 2 h, as measured in clinical trials, may not fully capture the benefits of triptans relative to other therapies, as assessed in clinical practice; (iv) waiting until pain is moderate or severe, as required in clinical trials, may disadvantage triptans relative to comparators.

KW - Analgesics

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Ergotamine

KW - Non-steroidal medication

KW - Triptans

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442428493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442428493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2003.00690.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2003.00690.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 15096220

AN - SCOPUS:2442428493

VL - 24

SP - 321

EP - 332

JO - Cephalalgia

JF - Cephalalgia

SN - 0333-1024

IS - 5

ER -