Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 125–132

Acute treatment of migraine and the role of triptans

  • Frederick G. Freitag


The use of triptans has improved the ability to treat migraine successfully compared with older treatments. Speed of relief, consistency of effect, and good tolerability have been the hallmarks of these agents. All of the currently available triptans have comparable efficacy and tolerability. Variables between the agents may lead to one agent or dose form being preferred over another in various clinical scenarios. The triptans that are forthcoming may improve on these options through enhanced efficacy rates, tolerability, and headache recurrence rates. There exist increasing options for migraine treatment that may further improve the clinical effects of the older and newer triptans through early treatment of migraine at the stages of mild migraine pain, or even during the prodromal phase of the attack. Additionally, recent work suggests that mini-prophylaxis of migraine at the menses is a highly successful treatment option with the triptans. In this age of managed care, providing cost-effective treatment of headache will take on increasing importance. Techniques such as stratification of acute treatments may enhance cost-effective care, whereas ready availability of the triptans may lead to significant improvements in utilization of parameters such as office visits, emergency room treatment, and even hospitalization.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (1988). Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgia, and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988, 8:1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friberg L, Oleson J, Iversen, HK, et al.: Migraine pain associated with middle cerebral artery dilation: reversal by sumatriptan. Lancet 1991, 338:13–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeVries P, Heiligers JP, Villalon CM, et al.: Blockade of porcine carotid vascular response to sumatriptan by GR127935, a selective 5HT1D receptor antagonist. Br J Pharmacol 1996, 118:85–92.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacLennan SJ, Cambridge D, Whiting MV, et al.: Cranial vascular effects of zolmitriptan, a centrally active 5HT1B/1D receptor partial agonist for the acute treatment of migraine. Eur J Pharmacol 1998, 361:191–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willems E, DeVries JP, Heiligers JP, et al.: Porcine carotid vascular effects of eletriptan (UK-116,044): a new 5HT1B/1D receptor agonist with anti-migraine activity. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol 1998, 358:212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maassen VanDenBrink A, Reekers M, Bax WA, et al.: Coronary side-effect potential of current and prospective antimigraine drugs. Circulation 1998, 98:25–30. Although done in vitro, this study demonstrated the relatively small effects the triptans have on producing coronary artery constriction by themselves.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tepper SJ, Rapoport AM: The triptans: a summary. CNS Drugs 1999, 12:403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahlöf C, Lines C: Rizatriptan: a new 5HT1B/1D receptor agonist for the treatment of migraine. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1999, 8:671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perry CN, Markham A: Sumatriptan. An updated review of its use in migraine. Drugs 1998, 55:889–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rolan PE, Martin GR: Zolmitriptan: a new acute treatment for migraine. Exp Opin Ivest Drugs 1998, 7:633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freitag F, Diamond S, Diamond M, et al.: Subcutaneous sumatriptan in patients treated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors and other prophylactic agents. Headache Quarterly 1998, 9:165–171. This article demonstrated the low likelihood of significant clinical evidence of drug interaction, not just with the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, but also the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressants.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saxena PR, Ferrari MD: 5HT1-like receptor agonists and the pathophysiology of migraine. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1989, 10:200–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moskowitz MA: Neurogenic versus vascular mechanisms of sumatriptan and ergot alkaloids in migraine. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1992, 13:307–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goadsby PJ: Current concepts of pathophysiology of migraine. Neurol Clin 1997, 15:27–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elkind A, McDaris HL, Sati L, Keywood C: The cardiovascular safety of frovatriptan in patients at high risk of or with known coronary artery disease during a migraine attack. 9th Congress of the International Headache Society, Barcelona, Spain, June 22–26, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cady R: Importance of early intervention in migraine. Advances in the understanding of migraine. A satellite education program of Headache Update 2000. Lake Buena Vista, FL, July 19, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tepper SJ, Donnan GA, Dowson GA, et al.: A long-term study to maximize relief with zolmitriptan. Curr Med Res Opin 1999, 15:254–271. First major article to demonstrate the advantages of early intervention in migraine.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luciani R, Carter D, Mannix L, et al.: Prevention of migraine during prodrome with naratriptan. Cephalalgia. 2000, 20:122–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newman LC, Lipton RB, Lay CL, Solomon S: A pilot study of oral sumatriptan as intermittent prophylaxis of menstruationrelated migraine. Neurology 1998, 51:307–309. Showed the safety and efficacy of short courses of prophylaxis with the triptans in specific migraine scenario.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Newman LC, Mannx LK, Silberstein SD, et al.: Naratriptan as prophylaxis for menstrually-associated migraine: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Headache 2000, 40:422–423.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen JA, Beall D, Beck A, et al.: Sumatriptan treatment for migraine in a health maintenance organization: economic, humanistic, and clinical outcomes. Clin Ther 1999, 21:190–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lofland JH, Johnson NE, Batenhorst AS, Nash DB: Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan: a managed care perspective. Arch Intern Med 1999, 26:857–863. Demonstrates the reduction in healthcare utilization because of migraine specific interventions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldfarb SD, Duncan BS, Dans PE, Sloan AS: HMO direct costs and health care resources use after implementation of a monthly limit on sumatriptan. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999, 56:2206–2210. Shows the downside to managed-care regulation of amounts of triptans per prescription period on healthcare utilization.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Sawyer J: Stratified care is a more effective migraine treatment strategy than stepped care: results of a randomized clinical trial. Neurolgy 2000, 54(suppl 3):A14. Demonstrates the clinical and pharmacoeconomic advantages of stratified care versus stepped care for acute migraine in a clinical trial model.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lipton RB: American Academy of Neurology, San Diego, CA, April 30-May 5, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick G. Freitag
    • 1
  1. 1.Diamond Headache ClinicChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations