1526-4610/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=21f1b7d4f2c4359aaf47df570ce3e86bae828611)
1526-4610/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=457ac636b692c34a480c656754b5858bd52359be)
Rizatriptan 10-mg Wafer Versus Usual Nontriptan Therapy for Migraine: Analysis of Return to Function and Patient Preference
Article first published online: 15 SEP 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.00237.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Pascual, J., García-Moncó, C., Roig, C., Yusta Izquierdo, A., López-Gil, A. and on behalf of the eMAX Study Group (2005), Rizatriptan 10-mg Wafer Versus Usual Nontriptan Therapy for Migraine: Analysis of Return to Function and Patient Preference. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 45: 1140–1150. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.00237.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 15 SEP 2005
- Article first published online: 15 SEP 2005
- Accepted for publication January 24, 2005.
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- migraine;
- functional disability;
- rizatriptan;
- 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist;
- triptan;
- nontriptan therapy
Background.—More than half of patients with migraine suffer moderate to severe functional disability during migraine attacks.
Objective.—To compare effects on functional disability at 2 hours after treating a migraine with rizatriptan 10-mg wafer versus usual nontriptan therapy for triptan-naïve patients with migraine.
Design.—Open-label, prospective, two-attack study conducted at 111 neurology clinics.
Methods.—Adult patients with migraine treated two migraine attacks, the first with their usual nontriptan therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 57%; analgesics, 27%; or ergot derivatives, 16%) and the second with rizatriptan 10-mg wafer. Patients recorded pain intensity and functional disability at the start, and functional disability at 2 hours, as well as the time of return to normal function.
Results.—A total of 1353 patients, 76% of them female, completed the study and were considered evaluable. During first and second migraine attacks, 55% and 63% of patients, respectively, reported severe disability or requiring bed rest. At 2 hours after treatment, the likelihood of experiencing any disability was more than five times greater after usual nontriptan therapy than after rizatriptan (odds ratio, 5.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.66 to 6.94; P < .001). Rizatriptan was twice as likely to return patients to normal function than usual nontriptan therapy after adjusting for confounding factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.92 to 2.25; P < .001). Assessed over all time points up to 6 hours, the speed of return to normal function was 52% faster after rizatriptan therapy (P < .001). Significantly more patients preferred rizatriptan than usual nontriptan therapy (78.8% vs. 21.2%; P < .001). The most common reasons cited for preference for rizatriptan were faster relief of headache pain and faster return to normal function.
Conclusions.—Patients in this study were more likely to experience a return to normal function at 2 hours after receiving rizatriptan than after their usual nontriptan therapy for migraine. The results of this study, using patient-oriented, clinically relevant endpoints such as functional disability and preference, will help to guide practitioners in making recommendations for acute migraine treatment.