Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: Third edition. A guide for investigators

The triptans, selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists, are very effective acute migraine drugs with a well- developed scientific rationale. Seven different triptans will soon be clinically available, making evidence-based selection guidelines necessary. Triptan trials have similar designs, facilitating meta-analysis; this will provide a foundation for using triptans in clinical practice. We asked pharmaceutical companies and the principal investigators of company-independent trials for raw patient data of all double-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trials of oral triptans in migraine. We calculated summary estimates across studies for important efficacy and tolerability parameters, and separately summarised direct comparator trials. 53 clinical trials (12 unpublished) involving 24089 patients, met the criteria for inclusion. Mean results for 100 mg sumatriptan were 59% (95% CI 57-60) for 2 h headache response (improvement from moderate or severe to mild or no pain); 29% (27-30) for 2 h pain free (improvement to no pain); 20% (18-21) for sustained pain free (pain free by 2 h and no headache recurrence or use of rescue medication 2-24 h post dose); and 67% (63-70) for consistency (response in at least two of three treated attacks); placebo-subtracted proportions for patients with at least one adverse event (AE) were 13% (8-18), for at least one central nervous system AE 6% (3-9), and for at least one chest AE 1.9% (1.0-2.7). Compared with these data, 10 mg rizatriptan showed better efficacy and consistency, and similar tolerability; 80 mg eletriptan showed better efficacy, similar consistency, but lower tolerability; 12.5 mg almotriptan showed similar efficacy at 2 h but better other results; 2.5 mg naratriptan and 20 mg eletriptan showed lower efficacy and (the first two) better tolerability; 2.5 mg and 5 mg zolmitriptan, 40 mg eletriptan, and 5 mg rizatriptan showed very similar results. The results of the 22 trials that directly compared triptans show the same overall pattern. We received no data on frovatriptan, but publicly available data suggest lower efficacy. At marketed doses, all oral triptans were effective and well tolerated. 10 mg rizatriptan, 80 mg eletriptan, and 12.5 mg almotriptan provide the highest likelihood of consistent success.

Background The WHODAS-2 is a disability assessment instrument based on the conceptual framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). It provides a global measure of disability and 7 domain-specific scores. The aim of this study was to assess WHODAS-2 conceptual model and metric properties in a set of chronic and prevalent clinical conditions accounting for a wide scope of disability in Europe. Methods 1,119 patients with one of 13 chronic conditions were recruited in 7 European centres. Participants were clinically evaluated and administered the WHODAS-2 and the SF-36 at baseline, 6 weeks and 3 months of follow-up. The latent structure was explored and confirmed by factor analysis (FA). Reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and reproducibility (intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by correlating the WHODAS-2 and SF-36 domains, and comparing known groups based on the clinical-severity and work status. Effect size (ES) coefficient was used to assess responsiveness. To assess reproducibility and responsiveness, subsamples of stable (at 6 weeks) and improved (after 3 moths) patients were defined, respectively, according to changes in their clinical-severity. Results The satisfactory FA goodness of fit indexes confirmed a second order factor structure with 7 dimensions, and a global score for the WHODAS-2. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.77 (self care) to 0.98 (life activities: work or school), and the ICC was lower, but achieved the recommended standard of 0.7 for four domains. Correlations between global WHODAS-2 score and the different domains of the SF-36 ranged from -0.29 to -0.65. Most of the WHODAS-2 scores showed statistically significant differences among clinical-severity groups for all pathologies, and between working patients and those not working due to ill health (p < 0.001). Among the subsample of patients who had improved, responsiveness coefficients were small to moderate (ES = 0.3-0.7), but higher than those of the SF-36. Conclusions The latent structure originally designed by WHODAS-2 developers has been confirmed for the first time, and it has shown good metric properties in clinic and rehabilitation samples. Therefore, considerable support is provided to the WHODAS-2 utilization as an international instrument to measure disability based on the ICF model.