ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2011
Frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian studies.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of dexketoprofen for migraine attack: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy of frovatriptan as compared to other triptans in migraine with aura.The journal of headache and pain · 2015Pooled it
- Early (≤ 1-h) vs. late (>1-h) administration of frovatriptan plus dexketoprofen combination vs. frovatriptan monotherapy in the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura: a post hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, parallel group study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2015Trial
- Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.The journal of headache and pain · 2013Trial
- Retrospective analysis of the tolerability and effectiveness of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine in adolescents.Headache · 2026Article
- Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- The predictive role of the dietary phytochemical index in relation to the clinical and psychological traits of migraine headaches.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Spotlight on frovatriptan: a review of its efficacy in the treatment of migraine.Drug design, development and therapy · 2016Review
- A review of frovatriptan for the treatment of menstrual migraine.International journal of women's health · 2014Review
- A review of the use of frovatriptan in the treatment of menstrually related migraine.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2013Article
- Review
- Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version.The journal of headache and pain · 2012Article
- Suggested randomised, controlled trial with frovatriptan.The journal of headache and pain · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. 414 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F 2.5 mg or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting not more than 3 months. The number of pain free (PF) and pain relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and the number of sustained pain free (SPF) and recurrent episodes within the 48 h were the efficacy endpoints. 346 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 30% with F and 34% with comparators (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 55% for F and 59% for comparators (p = NS). SPF episodes at 48 h were also similar between the two groups (22% F vs. 21% comparators). Rate of recurrence was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under F (27 vs. 40% comparators). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F, particularly cardiovascular symptoms. Our systematic analysis of individual studies suggests that F has a similar immediate efficacy, but a more sustained effect and a better tolerability than R, Z and A.
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.