https://doi.org/10.55788/79085db1
The need for a consensus arose from the lack of a standardised definition of triptan failure, according to Prof. Uwe Reuter (CharitĂ© University Hospital of Berlin, Germany), who presented the EHF consensus [1,2]. âWhen you talk to your colleagues, you find that everybody has their own opinion of what triptan failure is,â Prof. Reuter said. The various definitions used in the literature preclude solid epidemiological estimates of triptan failure and hamper the comparison of study results. The lack of response to 1 triptan during a single migraine attack does not justify the conclusion that response to all triptans will be poor; less than two-thirds of patients have a response in 3 out of 3 attacks. Triptan failure is also affected by factors such as dosing, timing, and formulation, as well as accompanying symptoms and medication overuse headache (MOH).
The advantages of defining triptan non-response are that it can 1) create a standardised algorithm for acute therapy in case of failure to 1 triptan; 2) identify a population of non-responders and provide them with guidelines-adherent treatment strategies; and 3) standardise definitions for clinical trials to study factors associated with triptan failure. The consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round, and a subsequent open discussion by the EHF Expert Consensus Group.
Since triptan failure cannot be defined without defining response, the Consensus Panel first proposed a definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack. This definition is patient-centred. In contrast to clinical trials, the pivotal concept is patient-reported well-being. The definition of effective treatment reads: âReaching within 2 hours of drug intake, and maintaining for at least 24 hours, a state of well-being, as defined by: a) improvement of headache from severe or moderate to mild or absent; b) absent or minimal disturbances due to migraine-related non-pain symptoms; and c) no meaningful drug-related adverse events.â
A migraine patient is considered a triptan-responder when the triptan they take is effective in at least 3 out of 4 acute migraine attacks. Triptan failure is defined as not meeting the definition of triptan-response. The Consensus Panel broke down this definition of triptan failure into 4 definitions:
- Triptan non-response: Failure of a single triptan (i.e. not matching the definition of triptan-responder).
- Triptan resistance: Failure of at least 2 different triptans (i.e. both not matching the definition of triptan-response).
- Triptan refractory: Failure of at least 3 different triptans, including subcutaneous formulation (i.e. none of them meeting the definition of drug-response).
- Triptan ineligibility: Presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use as reported in the summary of product characteristics. The main contraindications that may vary across countries and drugs include coronary artery disease or angina, peripheral artery disease, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, and severe renal and hepatic insufficiency. In this case, other treatment options beyond triptans are advisable, including NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or novel upcoming drugs such as ditans and gepants.
The preliminary literature review on triptans revealed a high heterogeneity in design, definition of outcomes, and results. This explains why most of the proposed definitions resulted from open discussion and personal experience of the Consensus Panel rather than from study results. The proposed definitions are primarily aimed at clinical practice for the assessment of acute migraine treatments. However, the definitions could also help to standardise research on the care of acute migraine.
- Reuter U. EHF Consensus on âEffective Treatment of a Migraine Attack and of Triptan Failureâ. PleSe 8, EHC 2022, 07â10 December, Vienna, Austria.
- Sacco S, et al. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):133.
Copyright ©2022 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
Previous Article
« Sustained long-term effect of occipital nerve stimulation in MICCH Next Article
Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine »
« Sustained long-term effect of occipital nerve stimulation in MICCH Next Article
Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine »
Table of Contents: EHC 2022
Featured articles
EHF consensus on effective migraine treatment and triptan failure
IHS President: âIt is time for operationalisation of ICHDâ
Headache Prophylaxis
Intervention
EHF consensus on effective migraine treatment and triptan failure
Sustained long-term effect of occipital nerve stimulation in MICCH
Onabotulinumtoxin A effective in older patients with chronic migraine
What to do when conventional treatment of headache fails in children
Predicting response to medical and surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia
Breakthroughs in Understanding Headache
IHS President: âIt is time for operationalisation of ICHDâ
GWAS identifies 7 loci for cluster headache
Towards precision medicine: salivary CGRP and erenumab response
Persistent headache after stroke: not rare and often overlooked
Additional effects of gepants on top of erenumab
Headache Prevention
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: key factors influencing visual outcomes
Patients with migraines smoke less, drink less, and use fewer illicit drugs than general population
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
HEAD OFFICE
Laarderhoogtweg 25
1101 EB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 85 4012 560
E: publishers@medicom-publishers.com