Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9617601›Full record

ReviewDrugs1998

Sumatriptan. An updated review of its use in migraine.

C M Perry, A Markham

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Glassy Carbon Electrode Modified with CB/TiOSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Acute treatment of migraine and the role of triptans.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2001
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

C M PerryAdis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
A Markham

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledSumatriptan is a selective agonist at serotonin 5-HT1-like receptors, including 5-HT1B/1D subtypes. It is an effective treatment for acute migraine attacks and the injectable form has also shown efficacy in the treatment of cluster headaches. In placebo-controlled clinical trials, sumatriptan, administered subcutaneously, orally, intranasally or rectally was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving migraine headache and in producing resolution or reduction of other symptoms associated with migraine, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. Improvements in clinical disability were also significantly greater after sumatriptan than after placebo. Headache recurred in 21 to 57% of patients who received oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan, but most patients responded to a second dose of the drug. Results of comparative trials showed that subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg was significantly more effective than either patients' usual antimigraine treatments or intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate 1 mg in relieving migraine headache. Subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg and subcutaneous dihydroergotamine mesylate 1 mg provided similarly effective migraine relief, but the headache recurrence rate was significantly higher after sumatriptan than after this formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate. Response rates achieved after oral sumatriptan were similar to those reported after treatment with oral naratriptan, rizatriptan or lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide. Treatment of acute migraine attacks with oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan leads to less loss of workplace productivity than other antimigraine therapies. Several pharmacoeconomic analyses showed that gains in workplace productivity in sumatriptan recipients ranged from 12.1 to 89.8 hours per patient per year. Significant improvements from baseline in overall health-related quality-of-life scores were also experienced by sumatriptan recipients. Sumatriptan is generally well tolerated. Nausea, vomiting, malaise and fatigue are the most common adverse events with oral sumatriptan. Injection site reactions occur in 10 to 40% of patients receiving the drug subcutaneously. A bitter taste at the back of the mouth occurs frequently after intranasal administration. Serious adverse events occur in about 0.14% of patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan. As the drug is associated with the rare development of cardiovascular effects, it is contraindicated in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.

conclusionsDespite its relatively high acquisition cost, reductions in lost workplace productivity experienced by patients treated with sumatriptan may result in savings in the overall cost of migraine to society. Thus, sumatriptan is a useful first- or second-line treatment option for patients with moderate or severe migraine.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAdministration, OralAdministration, RectalCerebrovascular CirculationCluster HeadacheCoronary CirculationDrug InteractionsEconomics, PharmaceuticalHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMigraine DisordersSerotonin Receptor AgonistsSumatriptanVasoconstrictor AgentsSerotonin Receptor AgonistsSumatriptanVasoconstrictor Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.