Use Of Triptans Research Articles

Acute migraine management in the emergency department: experience from a large Spanish tertiary hospital.

To assess the characteristics of the management of patients with migraine who present to the emergency department (ED) with a migraine attack. Retrospective, observational study analyzing demographic, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic characteristics of patients with migraine diagnosis presenting to ED for a migraine attack between 2016 and 2019. We reviewed the clinical records of 847 cases. 82.2% were women with mean age of 34.9years. 87.2% had episodic migraine and 12.2% chronic migraine. 62.3% (528/847) had taken analgesics before visiting the ED [non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (300/528; 56.9%) and triptans (261/528; 49.5%)]. 25.4% (215/847) received blood testing and 6.4% (55/847) received cranial CT. Medication was administered in 77.2% cases (654/847). The median time-to-treatment was 70min (IQR 42-120). NSAIDs (81%, 530/654), antiemetics (43.1%, 282/654) and metamizole (39% 255/654) were the most used. Triptans were administered in 7 cases (1.1%) and opioids in 84 (12.8%). At discharge, preventive treatment was prescribed or modified in 8.2% of cases (69/839) and triptans were prescribed in 129 cases (15.3%). 70.5% (592/839) were instructed to follow-up with their primary care provider (PCP), 21.5% (181/839) with a general neurologist and 7.9% (66/839) with a headache specialist. The majority of migraine patients were not receiving the recommended acute migraine-specific medication, both in the outpatient and in the ED setting, being especially remarkable the rare use of triptans in the ED. Furthermore, we found an elevated use of urgent complementary tests, mainly blood tests.

Twenty-five years of triptans - a nationwide population study.

The efficacy of triptans as the main acute treatment strategy for migraine headache at the population-wide level needs to be understood to inform clinical decision-making. We summarise key trends in triptan use using more than 25 years of Danish nationwide data. We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study based on all Danish residents with access to public healthcare between 1 January 1994 and 31 October 2019 and summarise informative trends of all purchases of triptans in Denmark in the same period. Complete purchase records of Sumatriptan, Naratriptan, Zolmitriptan, Rizatriptan, Almotriptan, Eletriptan, and Frovatriptan were used. Over a 25-year period, triptan use increased from 345 to 945 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per year and the yearly prevalence of triptan use increased from 5.17 to 14.57 per 1000 inhabitants. Between 2014 and 2019, 12.3% of the Danish migraine population purchased a triptan. Following their initial purchase, 43% of patients had not repurchased triptans within 5 years. At most, 10% of patients indicating triptan discontinuation tried more than one triptan. The prevalence of triptan overuse, defined as having purchased at least 20 DDDs of triptans per month for 3 consecutive months, increased in parallel with the prevalence of triptan use, prevalent in 56 of every 1000 triptan users every year between 2014 and 2019. In a cohort with access to free clinical consultations and low medication costs, we observed low rates of triptan adherence, likely due to disappointing efficacy and/or unpleasant side effects rather than economic considerations. Triptan success continues to be hindered by poor implementation of clinical guidelines and high rates of treatment discontinuance.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Drug-Resistant Chronic Cluster Headache.

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main endpoint was the reduction the rate of attacks per week. We also evaluated the pain intensity through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient overall perceived improvement and decrease in oral medication intake. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (4.5–9.0), patients decreased from a median of 30 weekly attacks to 22.5 (5.6–37.5, p = 0.012), 7.5 at 1 year (p = 0.006) and 15.0 at the end of follow-up (p = 0.041). The VAS decreased from a median of 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.011) at three months, to 7.0 (p = 0.008) at twelve months and 7.0 (p = 0.003) at the end of the follow-up. A total of 23.5% had an overall perceived improvement of ≥70% at 3 months, 41.2% at 1 year and 27.8% at the end of follow-up. Reducing prophylactic oral medication was possible in 76.5% and it was stopped in 17.7%. Triptan use decreased in all the responder patients and 17.7% stopped its intake. A total of 41.2% presented mild adverse events. In conclusion, our long-term experience suggests that ONS could be an interesting option for drCCH-selected patients, as it is a beneficial and minimally invasive procedure with no serious adverse events.

New therapeutic agents marketed in 2020: Part 1

New therapeutic agents marketed in 2020: Part 1

Association between response to triptans and response to erenumab: real-life data

BackgroundTriptans and erenumab are both migraine-specific agents acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway. Therefore, response to triptans might be associated with response to erenumab.Main bodyIn our study, consecutive patients referring to the Headache Centers of the Abruzzo region from January 2019 to March 2020 and treated with erenumab were interviewed about past use and efficacy of triptans. Triptan users were classified as ‘triptan responders’ if they were headache-free 2 h after treating ≥3 migraine attacks with ≥1 triptan. We considered patients as ‘erenumab responders’, if they had a ≥ 50% mean reduction in monthly migraine days between the 4th and the 6th month from treatment start compared with baseline. Of 91 triptan users, 73 (80.2%) were triptan responders and 58 (63.7%) were erenumab responders. The odds ratio of being erenumab responder was 3.64 (95% CI, 1.25–10.64) for triptan users as compared to non-users. (P = 0.014). Besides, starting erenumab improved triptan response in both erenumab responders and non-responders.ConclusionsOur data of an association between response to triptans and response to erenumab can be useful for patient advice and to improve the understanding of migraine pathophysiology and treatment.

Safety of select headache medications in patients with cerebral and spinal cavernous malformations

Background: Patients with cerebral or spinal cavernous malformations (CM) and a primary headache disorder are often limited in medication options due to concern for bleeding risk. Methods: From a prospective cohort of CM patients (2015–2020), demographics, mode of clinical presentation, and radiographic data were collected. Follow up of patients was performed with electronic medical record review, in person visits and/or written surveys. Select medication use was ascertained from the time of the CM diagnosis to a censor date of first prospective symptomatic hemorrhage, complete surgical excision of sporadic form CM, or death. The influence of non-aspirin NSAID (NA-NSAID), triptan, or OnabotulinumtoxinA on prospective hemorrhage risk was assessed. Results: As of August 20, 2020, 329 patients with spinal or cerebral CM (58% female; 20.1% familial; 42.2% initial presentation due to hemorrhage; 27.4% brainstem) were included. During a follow-up of 1799.9 patient years, 92 prospective hemorrhages occurred. Use of NA-NSAIDs, triptans, and OnabotulinumtoxinA after the diagnosis of CM was unassociated with an increased risk of prospective hemorrhage. Conclusions: Use of triptans and NA-NSAIDs, does not precipitate CM hemorrhage. Similarly, we did not find that OnabotulinumtoxinA precipitated CM hemorrhage in a limited number of patients at doses <200 units per session.

What´s left and new in the management of migraine?

INTRODUCTION Migraine is a neurological disorder that generally manifests in the form of headache. The treatment of migraine is based on changes in lifestyle, symptomatic treatment and preventive therapies. The pharmacotherapeutic approach to migraine is based on widely-used drugs and novel drugs, which include monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which emerge as an alternative for patients with poor response to standard preventive treatments. PURPOSE The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of the medications employed for the symptomatic and preventive treatment of migraine. Another objective is to determine its place in therapeutics and identify the best treatment based on the type of migraine and characteristics of the patient. METHODS A A search was performed of clinical practice guidelines, documents from regulatory agencies, systematic reviews and primary studies assessing symptomatic and preventive treatments of migraine. Data related to the use of triptans in Navarra, Spain, was extracted from the prescription database of the Navarre Health Service. Data about patients receiving mAb therapy in our community and their progress was extracted from electronic medical records and the Navarre Health Service pharmacotherapy management system. CONCLUSIONS The symptomatic treatment of choice for mild-moderate migraine includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), whereas triptans are frequently reserved for moderate-severe migraine. Oral drugs are the first-line preventive treatment, with ß-blockers and topiramate as the first choice. Botulinum toxin A is used in patients with chronic migraine who are unresponsive to oral preventive therapies. mAbs emerge as an alternative to prevent chronic or episodic migraine in patients unresponsive to previous treatments. These treatments, however, have a modest efficacy as compared to placebo. In addition, no comparative studies have been published to date about other first-line preventive therapies. The long-term safety and efficacy of mAbs have not yet been established, and their cost is high. MAbs are funded by the public health system only as fourth-line prophylactic therapy for chronic or high-frequency episodic migraine.

Analysis of NOS Gene Polymorphisms in Relation to Cluster Headache and Predisposing Factors in Sweden.

Cluster headache is characterized by activation of the autonomic-trigeminal reflex. Nitric oxide can trigger headaches in patients, and nitric oxide signaling is known to be affected in cluster headache. Based on the hypothesis of nitric oxide being involved in cluster headache pathophysiology we investigated nitric oxide synthases as potential candidate genes for cluster headache. We analyzed eight variants in the three forms of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) genes, inducible NOS (iNOS), endothelial NOS (eNOS) and neuronal NOS (nNOS), and tested for association with cluster headache. Swedish cluster headache patients (n = 542) and controls (n = 581) were genotyped using TaqMan® assays on an Applied Biosystems 7500 qPCR cycler. This is the largest performed genetic study on NOS involvement in cluster headache so far. We found an association between cluster headache and one iNOS haplotype consisting of the minor alleles of rs2297518 and rs2779249 (p = 0.022). In addition, one of the analyzed nNOS variants, rs2682826, was associated with reported triptan use (p = 0.039). Our data suggest that genetic variants in NOS genes do not have a strong influence on cluster headache pathophysiology, but that certain combinations of genetic variants in NOS genes may influence the risk of developing the disorder or triptan use.

Triptanophobia in migraine: A case-control study on the causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine patients

ABSTRACT Background: Triptanophobia is the excessive and inadequately justified concern about potential risks of triptans. We evaluated causes and consequences of nonuse of triptans in chronic migraine (CM) Methods: Case-control study. We included CM patients firstly referred to aheadache unit. Patients were cases or controls depending on whether they were triptan naïve, or not. We analyzed if nonuse of triptans was justified by formal contraindications or adverse events. We assessed if triptan naïve patients had higher frequency of vascular risk factors (VRF), contraceptive drugs or older age. Results: We included 941 patients, 247 (26.2%) triptan users. Triptans had been discontinued due to tolerability in 116 patients (12.3%), being 578 patients (61.4%) triptan naïve. Formal contraindications were found in 23 patients (2.4%). Frequency of VRF, contraceptive drugs or age did not differ between the groups (p > 0.1). Triptan users consumed symptomatic medications fewer days/month (13.9 vs 17.1, p < 0.001), were under prophylactic treatment more frequently (79.4% vs 34.8%, p < 0.001) and had medication overuse headache less frequently (55.1% vs. 63.0%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Triptans were not used by three-quartersof CM patients. Nonuse of triptans was not justified by tolerability, frequency of contraindications, or frequency of VRF. Expert opinion: In the present study, we evaluated causes and consequences of the nonuse of triptans in CM sufferers. We analyzed frequency of triptan use in CM patients. We compared, between triptan users and triptan naïve patients, the presence of contraindications, frequency of vascular risk factors, and differences in management prior to the referral to a headache unit.

Evaluation of Patients with Insufficient Efficacy and/or Tolerability to Triptans for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Literature Review.

IntroductionUse of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30–40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation.MethodsA comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans.ResultsThirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression.ConclusionsIrrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01494-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consideration of Migraines Among Risk Factors for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

The impact of migraine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is controversial, and few studies have focused on their relationship. Thus, we investigated the impact of migraine, among other risk factors, on PONV in a large retrospective study. We analyzed 10 years of clinical data from the Smart Clinical Data Warehouse of Hallym University Medical Center. PONV was defined as nausea or vomiting within the first 24 h after surgery. Patients diagnosed by a neurologist and with a history of triptan use before surgery were enrolled into the migraine group. We enrolled 208,029 patients aged > 18 years who underwent general anesthesia (GA), among whom 19,786 developed PONV within 24 h after GA and 1982 had migraine. Before propensity score matching, the unadjusted and fully adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for PONV in subjects with versus without migraine were 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34–1.72; p < 0.001) and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.21–1.56; p < 0.001), respectively. The OR for PONV in patients with migraine was also high (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13–1.66; p = 0.001) after matching. Our findings suggest that migraine is a significant risk factor for PONV.

Erenumab in Chronic Migraine: An Australian Experience.

To determine the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine in the real-world setting of 3 headache centers in Australia. Patients with migraine were prescribed erenumab (70 or 140mg) in the setting of either a product familiarization program or paid access to the medication in 3 headache centers in Australia. We obtained baseline and monthly prospective data on monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, monthly triptan use days, monthly codeine use days, Headache Impact Test-6 scores, and adverse reactions. In this paper, we present our data at 3 and 6months in our subgroup of patients with chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. A total of 170 patients with chronic migraine were prescribed erenumab in the 3 headache centers. At 3months, 100/170 (58.8%) had 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days. At 6months, 79/170 (46.5%) had 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days. At 6months, there was a mean reduction in monthly headache days of 9.2days, a mean reduction in monthly migraine days of 10.2days. There were few adverse events reported. This is the first report from 3 Australian headache centers about erenumab in the real world. Our analysis has supported erenumab as an effective and well-tolerated migraine preventative therapy for patients with chronic migraine who have failed many preventative therapies.

Economic burden and risk factors of migraine disease progression in the US: a retrospective analysis of a commercial payer database

Aims To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of migraine progression and to assess the incremental burden of migraine progression on healthcare systems. Materials and methods Adult patients were required to have a migraine diagnosis in IQVIA’s US adjudicated claims database between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2016, continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the index date (i.e. the first observed migraine diagnosis), and ≥1 additional migraine diagnosis claim during the 12-month post-index period. A previously-developed algorithm identified patients with prevention-eligible episodic migraine (EM). All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were evaluated at baseline, over the follow-up period and pre/post progression from prevention-eligible EM to chronic migraine. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with progression. Results, limitations, and conclusions Of the 125,436 patients with prevention-eligible EM that were initially identified, 5,790 (4.6%) were further identified as progressed. Patients who progressed had higher healthcare costs and higher medication use at baseline compared to patients that did not progress. Mean (SD) all-cause total costs per patient per month were $1,790 ($3,788), significantly higher in the post-progression period compared to $1,414 ($2,456) in the pre-progression period in patients who progressed (p < .0001). Younger age, female sex, initial diagnosis by a neurologist, chronic pain, and use of triptans and/or non-specific acute medications were all significant progression risk factors. Results are limited by the use of a heterogeneous population (incident, prevalent, treated, and untreated patients), coding biases, and lack of information on non-prescription drug utilization and plan limits. Limitations aside, there are substantial HCRU and cost burden associated with migraine progression. Younger age, female sex, and the use of specific drug classes are likely to increase migraine disease progression risk.

Overuse of opioids for acute migraine in an Australian emergency department.

Acute migraine is associated with significant personal, economic and work-related disability. Management guidelines advise the use of simple analgesia, triptans, chlorpromazine and anti-emetics based on severity, with avoidance of opioids. We aimed to determine consistency of prescribing patterns in our ED with national guidelines. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of migraine presentations (ICD-10-AM G439) between 2012 and 2016. Exclusion criteria included migraine without headache, other primary headaches and secondary headaches. Demographic and prescribing data were extracted from medical records. Results have been reported as proportions. Of 4769 headache presentations, the application of exclusion criteria led to a total of 744 patients who received a migraine diagnosis (G439). Most were female (558/744, 75%), young (mean age 36.4 years) and had a self-reported migraine history (558/744, 75%). There were 54 different medications prescribed. Paracetamol was more frequently prescribed (385/744, 52%) than aspirin (134/744, 18%). Opioid prescription occurred in nearly half of all presentations (345/744, 46%). Similar opioid prescriptions were also observed in those with a documented history of migraines (253/558, 45%). A minority of patients received triptans (51/744, 7%). Overall, a quarter of patients (189/744, 25%) received no guideline-recommended medications. We observed considerable polypharmacy in ED migraine management with inconsistent prescribing patterns. Recommended medications were infrequently used and opioid use was common. Factors influencing prescribing patterns require further investigation in order to improve rates of guideline recommended treatment.

Real-life data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab in the Abruzzo region, central Italy

BackgroundWe aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibiting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRPr), for the prevention of migraine in a real-life setting.Main bodyWe included in our observational study all patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with erenumab during the year 2019 in the Abruzzo region, central Italy, and with a 6-month follow-up. We included 89 patients; 76 (85.4%) received 6 doses of erenumab, 11 (12.4%) autonomously withdrew the drug due to perceived inefficacy, and 2 (2.2%) due to adverse events. Seventy-eight patients (87.6%) were female, with a mean age of 46.8 ± 11.2 years; 84 (94.4%) had chronic migraine, and 64 (71.9%) medication overuse. All patients had ≥2 prior preventive treatment failures. Fifty-three patients (69.7%) had a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) within the first three doses; 46 (71.9%) of 64 patients withdrew medication overuse. In the 76 patients who completed a 6-dose treatment, erenumab decreased median MMDs from 19 (interquartile range [IQR] 12–27.5) to 4 (IQR 2–9.5; P < 0.001), median monthly days of analgesic use from 10 (IQR 4.5–20) to 2 IQR 0–5; P < 0.001), and median monthly days of triptan use from 5 (IQR 0–15.5) to 1 (IQR 0–4; P < 0.001). We recorded 27 adverse events in 20 (22.5%) patients, the most common being constipation (13.5%). One adverse event, i.e. allergic reaction, led to treatment discontinuation in one patient.ConclusionsOur real-life data confirm the efficacy and tolerability of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with a high prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse.

The Risks or Lack Thereof of Migraine Treatments in Vascular Disease.

Patients with migraine have a co-morbidity with vascular diseases such as hypertension, coronary heart disease, and stroke. This overview gives recommendations for the therapy of acute migraine attacks and for migraine prevention in patients with vascular diseases. In particular, the use of triptans in patients with vascular diseases is discussed. Currently, there is a contraindication for the use of the triptans in patients with vascular disease, although there is no evidence that triptans increase the risk of heart attacks or stroke.

The diagnosis and treatment of migraine among medical students in 2010–2011 and 2019

Background. Migraine prevalence in Lithuania is 18.8%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of migraine, quality of life, professionally confirmed diagnosis rate, and treatment among medical students (aged 18-28 years) in 2010-11 and in 2019.Materials and methods. 478 Vilnius university medicine and odontology students participated in the anonymous survey. 252 students were queried in 2010-11 study (aged 23.0±7.8) and 226 in 2019 (aged 23.0±1.5). Questionnaire consisted of questions, based on headache characteristics, triggers, impact on life, presence of confirmed diagnosis, and treatment. The data was analyzed by SPSS 23.0 software, a p value of &lt;0.05 was considered significant.Results. Based on questionnaire, prevalence of migraine with and without aura remained stable between the periods of 2010-11 (27.8%) and 2019 (27.9%) (p=0.98); women were affected more often (p=0.02). Pain remained moderately intense (p=0.07), but migraine disability worsened over the time (p=0.01). Migraine was professionally diagnosed more often in 2019 (10% vs. 25.4%, p=0.03); increased use of specific acute therapy (5.7% vs. 19%, p=0.03) and prophylaxis (0% vs 9.6%, p=0.003) was observed. Likelihood of diagnosis significantly increased with more intense pain (OR=2.7, p=0.006) and aura (OR=2.7, p=0.037). Presence of confirmed diagnosis was an independent determinant of increased triptans (OR=6.9, p=0.012) and prophylaxis (OR=30.3, p=0.036) use.Conclusions. Comparing the 2010-11 and 2019 periods, migraine prevalence is similar. Pain remains to be valued as moderate, but quality of life has worsened. Prevalence of professionally diagnosed migraine has increased over the time, what was accompanied by an increased use of triptans and prophylaxis, however, migraine still remains underdiagnosed and undertreated.

Pattern of triptans use: a retrospective prescription study in Calabria, Italy.

Triptans are 5-hydroxytryptamine 1B/1D receptor agonists used in moderate to severe migraine attacks as first line when non-specific, symptomatic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not effective. To gain insight in the treatment of migraine in the regional context, this retrospective (from January to August of the years 2017 and 2018) study aimed at monitoring the use of triptans approved by the regional health authority in Calabria. The data demonstrate that the overall treatment of migraine with triptans in the different provinces of Calabria falls in the average regional prescription/dispensation. Interestingly, Crotone showed a trend to an increased amount of defined daily dose/1000 inhabitants per day. The present analysis might stand for homogeneity of treatment of migraineurs in Calabria and highlights the need for better understanding the apparent differences in the local pattern of almotriptan use to improve the appropriateness.

Treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with major headache disorders: A retrospective claims analysis

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and health care costs among patients diagnosed with major headache disorders overall and by type (tension-type headache [TTH], migraine, cluster headache [CH], or &gt;1 primary headache type), and secondarily to evaluate drug treatment patterns among triptan initiators with a major headache diagnosis. Methods: Using US claims data from January 2012 through December 2017, we identified adults with evidence of a major headache disorder: TTH, migraine, or CH; the first diagnosis date was deemed the index date. To evaluate triptan use specifically, patients who initiated triptans were identified; the first triptan claim date was deemed the index date. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns (concomitant treatments, adherence, number of fills), and annual health care costs data were obtained. Results: Of the 418,779 patients diagnosed with major headache disorders, the following 4 cohorts were created: TTH (8%), migraine (87%), CH (1%), and &gt;1 primary headache type (4%). The majority used analgesic (54–73%) and psychotropic (57–81%) drugs, primarily opioids (36–53%). Headache-related costs accounted for one-fifth of all-cause costs. Of the 229,946 patients who initiated triptans, the following 7 study cohorts were analyzed: sumatriptan (68%), rizatriptan (21%), eletriptan (5%), zolmitriptan (3%), naratriptan (2%), frovatriptan (1%), and almotriptan (&lt;1%). The major concomitant analgesic medication classes were opioids (41%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (34%). Conclusion: The primary headache disorder treatment paradigm is complex, with significant variability. Predominant concomitant use of opioids and switching to opioids is of concern, necessitating solutions to minimize opioid use. Switching to non-oral/fast-acting or targeted preventive therapies should be considered.

A Brief Look at Urgent Care Visits for Migraine: The Care Received and Ideas to Guide Migraine Care in this Proliferating Medical Setting.

There has been a rise in urgent care centers throughout the country over the past 10years, leading to an increase in patients accessing medical care in these locations. These centers advertise an alternative to the Emergency Department (ED) for the evaluation and treatment of urgent medical conditions. The goal of this analysis was to examine the use of urgent care visits for migraine within 2 urgent care centers within a large academic medical system in New York City. We examined the trends in management and treatment of migraine in these urgent care settings, as well as prescriptions and instructions given to this patient population upon discharge. We paid particular attention to whether the medications administered and prescribed on discharge were those recommended by American Headache Society migraine management guidelines. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with migraine diagnoses at 2 different urgent care locations within 1 large urban medical center. We determined baseline patient demographics, previous migraine characteristics, frequencies of reasons for urgent care visits as well as various medications administered, medications prescribed on discharge, and characteristics of patient outcomes post-discharge. Of the 78 patients who visited urgent care with a migraine diagnosis, 20 (25.6%) had a known primary care provider within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. More than three-fourths of all patients (78.2%) had a self-reported history of either recurrent headache or migraine prior to the urgent care visit. Of those with a documented frequency of prior headaches, 94.1% (32/34) had episodic migraine and 79.4% (27/34) experienced at most 1-2 headache days per month. Of those presenting to the urgent care during an episode of migraine, 12.3% (9/73) were given intravenous metoclopramide and none were given subcutaneous sumatriptan or intravenous prochlorperazine. Of those with reported nausea or vomiting with their migraine, 46.2% (18/39) received an anti-emetic at the visit and 33.3% (13/39) were given an anti-emetic prescription. Only 11.1% (6/54) of patients who did not have a record of previous triptan use were given a triptan prescription at the urgent care visit. The majority of patients in our study who sought medical treatment for migraine in these 2 urgent care centers were not established patients within the urgent care centers' healthcare system. While 93.6% (73/78) of patients were experiencing current pain upon presentation to the urgent care centers, only 12.3% (9/73) received administration of the medications with the highest level of evidence by the American Headache Society (Level B) for acute migraine treatment in an ED. In addition, the majority of patients with a migraine history presenting to the urgent care setting were not given triptans or anti-emetic prescriptions upon discharge from their urgent care visit. Having these migraine-specific prescriptions may improve self-treatment at home should a migraine attack recur.