Journal of Neurology

, Volume 252, Issue 9, pp 1026–1032 | Cite as

The use of multiattribute decision models in evaluating triptan treatment options in migraine

  • M. D. FerrariEmail author
  • P. J. Goadsby
  • R. B. Lipton
  • D. W. Dodick
  • F. M. Cutrer
  • D. McCrory
  • P. Williams



The physician treating patients with migraine is now able to choose from among seven triptans–almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan and zolmitriptan. These differ, to greater or lesser degrees, on a range of clinical attributes important for treatment selection.


To outline the basic principles of Multiattribute Decision Making (MADM) and describe how one such method–TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution)–can be applied to evaluate the currently available triptans.


In an example application, summary data from a recent meta–analysis of 53 published and unpublished placebo–controlled trials of the oral triptans were combined in TOPSIS models with computer–generated attribute importance weights representing the entire range of possible values, That is, the relative performance of the triptans was explored across all logically possible combinations of relative importance of the treatment attributes available from the meta–analysis, and uncertainty was assessed based on the confidence intervals from the meta–analysis.


When compared across the entire range of values for relative attribute importance, almotriptan, eletriptan and rizatriptan were more similar to a hypothetical ideal triptan and were more likely to appear in the top three closest to the hypothetical ideal, than were naratriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan.


Using the TOPSIS model, almotriptan, eletriptan and rizatriptan were more likely to appear in the top three closest to the hypothetical ideal triptan.

Key words

decision model triptans migraine 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ (2001) Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 358:1668–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dolan JG (1989) Medical decision making using the analytic hierarchy process: choice of initial antimicrobial therapy for acute pyelonephritis. Med Decis Making 9:51–56 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barriere SL (1991) Formulary evaluation of second-generation cephamycin derivatives using decision analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm 48:2146–2150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schumacher GE (1991) Multiattribute evaluation in formulary decision making as applied to calcium-channel blockers. Am J Hosp Pharm 48: 301–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eriksen S, Keller LR (1993) A multiattribute- utility-function approach to weighing the risks and benefits of pharmaceutical agents. Med Decis Making 13:118–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dolan JG, Bordley DR (1994) Isoniazid prophylaxis: the importance of individual values. Med Decis Making 14: 1–8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brodie MJ, Kwan P (2001) The Star Systems: overview and use in determining antiepileptic drug choice. CNS Drugs 15:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipton RB, Hamelsky SW, Dayno JM (2002) What do patients with migraine want from acute migraine treatment? Headache 42:S3-S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 38–40Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF (1999) Acute migraine therapy: do doctors understand what patients with migraine want from therapy? Headache 39(Suppl 2):S20–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barron FH, Barrett BE (1996) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag Sci 42:1515–1523Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolan JG, Isselhardt BJ, Jr. , Cappuccio JD (1989) The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: a tutorial. Med Decis Making 9:40–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1987) Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abi-Zeid I, Belanger M, Guitouni A, Martel JM, Jabeur K (1998) A Multicriteria Method for Evaluating Courses of Action in Canadian Airspace Violation Situations. Available at: http://www. dodccrp. org/Proceedings/ DOCS/wcd00000/wcd091. htm. Accessed 14 Jan 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hwang CL, Yoon KP (1981) Multiattribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 128–140Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azar F (2000) Multi-attribute decision making: use of three scoring methods to compare the performance of imaging techniques for breast cancer detection. Available at: http://www. seas. upenn. edu/be/Tech_Reports/fredazar_ rechreport_MS_BE_00_01. PDF. Accessed 21 Oct 2002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alberto C, Carignano C, Fultot M (2000) Evaluacion de la eficinecia de los sistemas de salud publica provincial en Argentina. Available at: http://selene. uab. es/dep-economiaempresa/ documents/tema_2. rtf. Accessed 21 Oct 2002Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeleny M (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Intercompany comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computer Operations Res 27:963–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dodick D, Cutrer FM, Ferrari M, et al. (2002) Prioritization of treatment attributes in selecting an oral triptan: a survey of US neurologists. Headache 42:392Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cutrer FM, Goadsby PJ, Ferrari M, et al. (2002) Prioritization of treatment attributes in selecting an oral triptan: a survey of US primary care physicians. Headache 42:392–393Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lipton RB, Liberman J, Goadsby PJ, et al. (2002) An assessment of the priorities of US migraineurs with respect to prespecified triptan treatment attributes. Headache 42:394–395Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hess G (2002) The use of multiattribute analyses, multi-dimensional scaling and pairwise comparisons for group decision-making. ISPOR News 8:4–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Ferrari
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. J. Goadsby
    • 2
  • R. B. Lipton
    • 3
  • D. W. Dodick
    • 4
  • F. M. Cutrer
    • 5
  • D. McCrory
    • 6
  • P. Williams
    • 7
  1. 1.Dept. of NeurologyLeiden University Medical CentreRC LeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Hospital of Neurology and NeurosurgeryLondonUK
  3. 3.Albert Einstein College of MedicineBronx, New YorkUSA
  4. 4.Mayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA
  5. 5.Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  6. 6.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  7. 7.PAREXEL MMSUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations