The aim of this prospective sequential multinational (5 countries) study was to concurrently evaluate the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan on clinical parameters. health-related quality-of-Iife (HRQOL) measures. workplace productivity and patient satisfaction. This report presents the HRQOL results.
582 patients (aged 18 to 65 years) with moderate to severe migraine received their customary anti migraine therapy for 12 weeks and then subcutaneous sumatriptan for 24 weeks. The Short Form-36 Health Survey and the MigraineSpecitic Quality of Life Questionnaire were completed at a screening visit (baseline). at the end of the 12-week customary therapy phase. and at 12 and 24 weeks of the sumatriptan phase.
Scores for most of the Short Form-36 dimensions improved significantly (p < 0.(5) after 12 and 24 weeks of sumatriptan therapy compared with 12 weeks of customary therapy. in each country. Similarly. scores on all Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire dimensions were signiticantly (p < 0.05: paired t-test) improved after 12 weeks (in all countries) and 24 weeks (in 4 of5 countries) of sumatriptan therapy compared with 12 weeks of customary therapy.
This study demonstrates that. in 5 countries. treatment of migraine attacks with subcutaneous sumatriptan compared with customary therapy was associated with improvements in HRQOL. as measured by both general health status and diseasespecific instruments.
Migraine Sumatriptan Migraine Attack Life Questionnaire General Health Perception
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Kongpatanakul S. Strum RI Quality of life, health status, and clinical drug research. Pharmaco Economics 1992; 2: 8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cady RK, Wendt JK. Kirchner JR, et al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265:2831–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Oral Sumatriptan Dose-Defining Study Group. Sumatriptan–an oral dose-defining study. Eur Neurol 1991; 31: 300–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Oral Sumatriptan International Multiple-Dose Study Group. Evaluation of a multiple-dose regimen of oralsumatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine. Eur Neurol1991; 31: 306–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mushet GR, Miller O, Clements B, et al. Impact of sumatriptan on workplace productivity. nonwork activities. and health-re-lated quality of life among hospital employees with migraine.Headache 1996; 36: 137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen JA. Beall DG. Miller OW, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic, economic.and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996; 28: 171–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
Heywood J. Bouchard J. Cortelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. I: design.methods and clinical findings. Pharmaco Economics 1997; 11 Suppl.1: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortelli P. Dahlöf C. Bouchard J. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. III: workplaceproductivity and nonworkplace activity. Pharmaco Economics1997; 11 Suppl. 1: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard J. Cortelli P. Dahlof C. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. IV: patientsatisfaction. Pharmaco Economics 1997; 11 Suppl. 1: 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society Classification and diagnostic criteria for headachedisorders. cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988; 8: 1–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware Jr JE. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretalion Guide. Boston: The Health Institute. New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc., 1993Google Scholar
Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and itemselection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller OW, Kirchdoerfer LJ, Shepherd MD, et al. A diseasespecific instrument 10 measure quality of life effects altributableto migraine. Poster presentation at the HealthServices Research Association 10th Annual Meeting: 1993June 27-29: Washington.Google Scholar
Reese PRO Joseph AJ. Quality translations–no substitute for psychometric evaluation lposterl. 2nd Meeting of the InternationalSociety for Quality of Life Research: 1995 Oct14-17; MontrealGoogle Scholar
Solomon GO. Skobieranda FG. Genzen JR. Quality of life assessment among migraine patients treated with sumatriptan.Headache 1995; 35: 449–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon GD. Nielsen K. Miller W. The effetcs of sumatripan on migraine: health-related quality of life. Med Interface(June); 134–41Google Scholar
Dahlof C. Edwards C, Toth L. Sumatriptan injection is superior to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine–with regard toboth efficacy and general well-heing. Cephalalgia 1992; 12:214–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lissovoy G. Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 4:56–62Google Scholar