ReviewClinical drug investigation2009
Clinical and economic comparison of frovatriptan versus other oral triptans in the treatment of acute migraine in the real-world setting.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.The journal of headache and pain · 2013Trial
- A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2011Trial
- A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine.The journal of headache and pain · 2011Trial
- Real-world evidence data on the monoclonal antibody erenumab in migraine prevention: perspectives of treating physicians in Germany.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists) such as frovatriptan have been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with acute migraine. However, the large number of available triptans has led to the issue of how best to decide which triptan should be prescribed at an individual patient level. This review focuses on frovatriptan and highlights parameters that affect oral triptan choice, discusses the results of several open-label clinical and post-marketing surveillance studies of frovatriptan, and compares these naturalistic data with those from similar studies of other oral triptans. Efficacy data obtained from these trials are used to compare costs of treating migraine with frovatriptan and other oral triptans in four European countries. Studies of triptans in migraine have used several outcomes deemed important to patients, including complete pain relief, absence of recurrence, rapid onset of action, no side effects, restoration of functional ability, improvements in quality of life, and cost. In contrast to indirect evidence from some individual randomized, double-blind studies, results from open-label naturalistic studies and a meta-analysis of 31 placebo-controlled efficacy studies suggest that frovatriptan is associated with a lower rate of migraine recurrence than with other triptans in a real-world clinical setting (17% for frovatriptan 2.5 mg vs 23-40% for other triptans in the meta-analysis). It is likely that this may be due to the terminal elimination half-life of this agent (about 26 hours), which is longer than that of other triptans. Naturalistic studies indicate that the long duration of action of frovatriptan appears to confer other benefits such as greater patient satisfaction, with over 90% of patients and doctors rating frovatriptan therapy as 'very good' or 'good'. The cost of treatment with different triptans based on the number of tablets required per episode varies widely in each of the four countries analysed (Great Britain Pound 4.95-7.98 in France, Great Britain Pound 6.78-12.58 in Germany, Great Britain Pound 4.32-9.73 in the UK and Great Britain Pound 6.69-10.36 in Italy, based on lowest possible costs for branded versions in 2008) due to differences in both the acquisition costs of these agents and in the headache recurrence rates. Frovatriptan compares favourably with other available triptans with regard to cost per migraine attack on this basis, although head-to-head studies are required to confirm these data. The low rate of headache recurrence with frovatriptan compared with other oral triptans, and the associated lower treatment costs, deserve consideration when choosing an oral triptan for the treatment of patients with acute migraine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.