, Volume 11, Supplement 1, pp 11–23 | Cite as

A Multinational Investigation of the Impact of Subcutaneous Sumatriptan

I: Design, Methods and Clinical Findings
  • J. Heywood
  • J. Bouchard
  • P. Cortelli
  • C. Dahlöf
  • J.-P. Jansen
  • S. Pham
  • J. Hirsch
  • C. E. Edwards
  • J. Adams
  • P. Berto
  • B. Brueggenjuergen
  • A. L. Nyth
  • P. Lindsay
  • K. L. Price


This report describes the design, methods and clinical results of a prospective sequential multinational (5 countries) study conducted to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan on health-related quality of life, workplace productivity, clinical parameter5 and patit:lli satisfaction.

Adult patients with moderate to severe migraine initially received customary therapy for migraine episodes for 12 weeks, followed by 24 weeks’ treatment with self-administered subcutaneous sumatriptan 6mg. Demographic, baseline, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction rating data were collected during visits to the clinic. Data relating to migraine symptoms, migraine therapy, work productivity and non-work activity time were collected on diary cards filled out by the patients.

749 patients were recruited to the study and 637 received at least I dose of sumatriptan. Overall, 75.5% of migraines were successfully treated within 2 hours with sumatriptan compared with 3 I.9% with customary therapy; 36% of patients reported complete relief at 2 hours with sumatriptan treatment compared with 1% of patients receiving customary therapy. 69% of patients successfully treated 70% of their migraines with sumatriptan within 2 hours, compared with 12% of patients with customary therapy. No serious adverse events were reported; 50% of patients reported an adverse event during the 12-week customary therapy phase and 89% of patients during the 24-week sumatriptan phase.

These clinical results, which are consistent with those reported in randomised blinded studies of subcutaneous sumatriptan, suggest that relief of migraine symptoms occurs more often, and in less time, in patients receiving subcutaneous sumatriptan rather than customary therapy as their primary medication.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    De Lissovoy G Lazaru SS. The economic cost of migraine. Nuerology 1994; 44 Suppl. 4: 56–62Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greiner DL Addy SN. Sumatriptan use in a large group-model maintenance organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1940: 53:633–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart WE Lipton RB, The economic an social impact of migraine. Euro Neurol 1994;34 Suppl. 2: 12–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clouse JC, Osterhaus JT. Healthcare resource use and costs asssociated with migraine in a managed healthcare setting. Ann Pharma cother 1994; 28: 659–64Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cull RE, Wells NEJ, Miocevich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992; 2: 103–15Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Rnijen L Essink-Bot ML. Koopmanschap MA. Societal perspective on the hurden of migraine in The Netherlands.Pharmaco Economics 1995; 7 (2): 170–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke CE, MacMillan L. Sondi S, t al. EconomiC and social impact of migraine. Q J Med 1996; 89: 77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prevalence of chronic migraine headaches–United Slales, 1980-1989. MMWR Morh Mortal Wkly Rep 1991; 40: 331Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Health-related quality of life in headache research. Headache 1995;35 (8); 447–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group.Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan.N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wendt JK. Kirchner JF. et al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265:2831–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoen J, Bulcke J, Caekebeke J. et al. Self-treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumaatriptan using an auto-injectordevice: comparison with customary treatment in an open.longitudinal study. Cephalalgia 1994; 14: 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Sumatriptan Auto-Injector Study Group. Self-treatment ofacute migraine with suix-ulaneous sumatriptan using an autoinjector device. Eur Neural 1991; 31: 323–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller DW. Clements W. et al. Impact of sumatriptan on workplace productivity, non-work activities.and health-related quality of life among hospital employees with migraine.Headache 1996; 36: 137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jhingren P. Cady RK. Ruhino J. et al. Improvements in healthrelated quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine.J Fam Pract 1996; 42 (1): 36–42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouchard J. Cortelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: health related quality of life. Pharmaco Economics 1997; 11 Suppl.1: 24–34Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortelli P. Bouchard J. Dahlöf C. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan III:workplace productivity and non-workplace activity.Pharmaco Economics1997;11 Suppl. 1: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouchard J. Cortelli P. Dahlöff C. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan IV: patientsatisfaction Pharmaco Economics 1997; 11 Suppl. 1: 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headachedisorders. cranial neuralgias and facial pain Cephalalgia1988; 8 Suppl. 7: 1–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston. MA: New England Medical Center. 1993Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sherbourne CD. The MOS-36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey ISF-36). Med Care 1992; 30: 474–83Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller DW. Kirchdoerfer LJ. Shepherd MD. et al. A disease specific instrument to measure quality of life effects attributableto migraine. Poster presentation at the Health ServicesResearch Association 10th Annual Meeting; Jun 27-29. 1993:Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beall DG. Miller DW. et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic. economic and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996; 28: 171–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chazot G. Emile J. et al. Comparison of subcutaneous sumatriptan with usual acute treatments for migraine.French Sumatriptan Study Group. Eur Neurol 1995; 35 (5):264–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Migraine: clinical. therapeutic. conceptual and researchaspects. London: Chapman & Hall. 1987: 3–30Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anthony M. Some clinical aspects of migraine: a prospective survey of 500 patients. Arch Neurol 1966; 15:356–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chazot G. Boureau F. Emile I. et al. Comparison of sumatriptan with usual acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1993; 13Suppl. 13: 162Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller DW. Osterhaus JT. Hirsch JD. et al. Quality of life assessment among migraineurs treated with sumatriptan: preliminary findings. 35th Annual Scientific Meeting for theAmerican Association for the Study of Headache (AASH). Headache 1993; 33 (8): 278Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Heywood
    • 1
  • J. Bouchard
    • 2
  • P. Cortelli
    • 3
  • C. Dahlöf
    • 4
  • J.-P. Jansen
    • 5
  • S. Pham
    • 6
  • J. Hirsch
    • 7
  • C. E. Edwards
    • 8
  • J. Adams
    • 9
  • P. Berto
    • 10
  • B. Brueggenjuergen
    • 11
  • A. L. Nyth
    • 12
  • P. Lindsay
    • 13
  • K. L. Price
    • 14
  1. 1.Royal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Clinical Research DepartmentSt Joseph HospitalLa MalbaieCanada
  3. 3.Clinica NeurologicaUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.The Gothenburg Migraine ClinicSociala Huset, GothenburgSweden
  5. 5.Schmerz-Zentrum Berlin GmbHBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Medical AffairsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  7. 7.Hirsch Reid ConsultingTrabuco CanyonUSA
  8. 8.Glaxo Wellcome Research and DevelopmentCNS-IMA, Stockley Park WestUxbridge, MiddlesexEngland
  9. 9.Glaxo Wellcome Inc.MississaugaCanada
  10. 10.Glaxo WellcomeVeronaItaly
  11. 11.CelieGermany
  12. 12.Glaxo Wellcome ABMoIndalSweden
  13. 13.Glaxo Wellcome Australia LtdBoroniaAustralia
  14. 14.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Pharmacoeconomic ResearchGreenford, MiddlesexEngland

Personalised recommendations