Headache

An Algorithm of Migraine Treatment

Proceedings of a Symposium Presented at the XXI World Congress of Neurology in
Vienna, Austria, 24 September 2013
Expert Review by: Stefan Evers 1 and Carlo Lisotto 2
1. Professor of Neurology, University of Mnster and Director, Department of Neurology, Krankenhaus Lindenbrunn, Germany;
2. Neurologist, Headache Centre, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padua, Italy

Abstract
A satellite symposium at the XXI World Congress of Neurology 2013 presented the third edition of the International Classification of
Headache Disorders and summarised the main changes, which reflect the importance of diagnosis based on phenomenology rather than
aetiology. For this reason, a treatment algorithm for migraines has been created to assess the correct pathway and to reinforce the fact that
triptans are the most effective treatment option. The symposium also discussed new guidelines regarding efficacy parameters in clinical
trials, emphasising the importance of sustained pain free without relapse, an outcome measure that is important to patients. Crossover
patient preference trials represent a true intra-individual comparison and allow the assessment of multiple endpoints defined by the patient
preference, rather than the investigator. In clinical studies, frovatriptan has shown favourable tolerability and sustained effect with a lower
rate of relapse compared with other triptans. These findings were confirmed in a series of patients who participated in the preference trials.

Keywords
Headache classification, migraine, frovatriptan, triptans
Disclosure: Stefan Evers received honoraria from Menarini for consulting and as a speaker. Carlo Lisotto has occasionally served as scientific consultant for manufacturers.
Acknowledgements: Editorial assistance was provided by Katrina Mountfort at Touch Medical Media.
Received: 25 November 2013 Accepted: 2 December 2013 Citation: European Neurological Review, 2013;8(2):14952
Correspondence: Stefan Evers, Department of Neurology, Krankenhaus Lindenbrunn, Lindenbrunn 1, 31863, Coppenbrgge, Germany. E: [email protected]
Support: The publication of this article was supported by Menarini. The views and opinions expressed are those of the expert presenters and not necessarily those
of Menarini.

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder. In the

World Health Organization (WHO) Global Burden of Disease Survey
2010, it was ranked as the third most prevalent disorder and
seventh-highest specific cause of disability worldwide. 1,2 In 1991,
the first triptan was released in Europe for use in acute migraine,
followed by the US in 1993. Evidence-based treatment guidelines
state that triptans are a first-line treatment option for migraines.35
However, triptans continue to be underutilised. There remains a false
concern, among practitioners and patients, about possible safety
issues, despite the evidence that triptans are safe and generally
well tolerated. Following the publication of the third edition of the
International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), 6 a satellite
symposium, chaired by Stefan Evers, was held at the XXI World
Congress of Neurology, Vienna, 2126 September 2013. This article
summarises the proceedings of the symposium, including changes
to headache classifications, new guidelines regarding efficacy
parameters in clinical trials, the importance of patient preference
trials and clinical cases.

New Diagnostic and Severity Criteria for

Migraine and Other Headaches What is New?
Headache classification enables the implementation of a standardised
and evidence-based approach to carrying out and reporting of

TO U CH MEDICAL ME D IA 2013

Evers_Lisotto_AMc.indd 149

clinical trials. Classification also allows effective management of

migraine patients, especially when the diagnosis is uncertain. In the
past, headache classification was based on pathophysiology, which
was of limited use. More recent classifications have been based on
phenomenology rather than pathology or aetiology. The ICHD third
edition (ICHD-3 beta version) has recently been published.6 The beta
(preliminary) version has been published ahead of the final version to
enable field testing for inclusion in the WHO International Classification
of Diseases, ICD-11, in 2016.
The following is a brief summary of what is new in ICHD-3 beta.

Primary and Secondary Headaches

It is important to classify syndromes and not patients, such as

avoiding the use of the term migraineur, and to recognise that a
patient can have several headache types.
When classifying headaches, specificity is more important than
sensitivity: the aim is to have homogeneous patient groups and to
have no doubt about a migraine diagnosis.

Changes in Primary Headache

If patients fulfil the criteria for both chronic tension-type headache
and chronic migraine, the latter should be the only diagnosis.

149

24/01/2014 19:43

Headache
Figure 1: An Algorithm of Migraine Treatment
Is it migraine?

New diagnostic and treatment criteria for migraine

Migraine with or
without aura
Episodic
Mild/moderate

Chronic
Moderate/severe

With MOH
Without MOH

Analgesics
NSAIDS

Prophylactic
treatment
Failure

Prophylactic
treatment
Triptans

Chronic tension-type headache should be the leading diagnosis over

new daily persistent headache.
Within the short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks
group, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with
cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA) has been included with shortlasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival
injection and tearing (SUNCT).
Hemicrania continua is now to be included as a trigeminal
autonomic cephalalgia.
A miscellaneous group includes new entities: cold-stimulus
headache associated with the ingestion of cold food (e.g. eating ice
cream) or inhalation of cold air, and external pressure headache
resulting from external compression (e.g. a hat) or external traction.
Nummular headache, a headache on the skull in the shape of a
coin, has been included as a new entity.
Epicrania fugax, a brief stabbing headache that stems from a particular
area of the head, is included in the appendix and may be a discrete
headache entity, but more studies are needed to confirm this.

Changes in Migraine

Chronic migraine is now a specific subtype, rather than a

complication of episodic migraine.
Basilar migraine has been renamed migraine with brainstem aura,
since symptoms originate from the brainstem.
A new section of specific subtypes of migraine has been added: episodic
syndromes that may be associated with migraine. These are regarded
as precursors of migraine and may evolve in childhood or adolescence.
They include recurrent gastrointestinal disturbances, cyclical vomiting
syndrome, abdominal migraine and benign paroxysmal torticollis.
Alternating hemiplegia may also be a precursor of migraine and is
also included in the appendix.

Changes in Chronic Migraine

Migraine with aura is now included in this category. This has

been subdivided into migraine with typical aura, with or without
headache, migraine with brainstem aura (previously termed
basilar aura), hemiplegic migraine (now includes familial/sporadic
subtypes) or retinal migraine.
Chronic migraine may be diagnosed as a double diagnosis if
medication overuse headache is also present (this was not allowed
in the previous classification). However, withdrawal of medication
overuse is recommended in order to make a final diagnosis.

150
Evers_Lisotto_AMc.indd 150

Defining parameters to assess drug efficacy within clinical trials is

important. In addition, it has to be considered that the priorities of the
patient often differ from those of the investigator. In recently published
guidelines,7 the recommended primary endpoint in trials for acute
migraine treatment is now the percentage of patients who are pain
free within 2 hours. This has important implications for clinical studies
for triptans. Most pivotal trials submitted for approval of acute migraine
therapy in the US used pain response at 2 hours rather than other
endpoints as primary measure of efficacy.

Withdrawal

MOH = medication overuse headache; NSAIDs = non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Source: Evers et al., 2013.13

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Migraine

Treatment New Guidelines

Important secondary endpoints include the incidence of relapse.

According to the latest IHS definition, after 2 hours of pain freedom,
any headache pain occurring from 2 to 48 hours after the study drug
administration, regardless of its severity, should be considered a
relapse. The concept of relapse has evolved as an outcome measure
to evaluate symptomatic treatment. The first edition of the guidelines
for controlled trials of drugs in migraines did not include relapse in
their efficacy criteria.8 The second edition placed relapse sixteenth of
18 criteria.9 In the third edition, relapse is in third place, emphasising its
increasing importance as an efficacy parameter.7
Another important secondary endpoint is sustained pain freedom, i.e.
pain free by two hours after drug intake, no recurrence of migraine
headache and no intake of rescue medication within the duration of
an attack (2448 hours). This is an ideal endpoint as it best reflects
the patients expectations. Measures of pain response at 2hours may
allow some treatments to appear effective at a single point in time.
However, measures of sustained response incorporate not only speed
of response but also duration of action. Analysis of this endpoint is
robust and independent of fluctuations in pain response.
Two other recommended secondary endpoints merit particular
attention. Functional disability, i.e. assessing quality of life and the
burden of the disease, is an important treatment outcome and reflects
an increasingly patient-centred approach. Subjective patient preference
will be further discussed below.

A New Algorithm of Migraine Treatment

New classifications have led to a new algorithm of migraine treatment
(see Figure 1). First, it is necessary to establish whether a primary
headache is migraine or not and to classify the migraine according to
the new diagnostic criteria and treatment recommendations as episodic
migraine with or without aura or chronic migraine with or without aura.
For episodic migraine of mild to moderate severity, analgesics such as
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be considered
as first-line treatment. If these medications fail, triptans should be used.
For moderate to severe migraine attacks, triptans are the first choice
treatment. In case of high frequency of attacks (three or more per
month), prophylactic treatment (i.e. the preventative use of medications
to prevent attacks) should be used. There is a general underuse of
prophylactic drugs in migraine; only about 10% of individuals eligible
for prophylaxis receive it.
The treatment of chronic migraine with medication overuse should
commence with withdrawal of current acute drugs. The treatment of
chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse, should include
the possibility of a prophylactic approach. Triptans should be the firstline treatment, but only on a maximum 10 days per month.

EUR OP EAN NE U ROLOG ICA L RE VIE W

24/01/2014 19:44

An Algorithm of Migraine Treatment

Evaluating patient preferences is a useful supplement to traditional

methods of measuring efficacy in clinical trials. Furthermore, a greater
understanding of the factors that affect patient preference may guide
individualised treatment decisions in clinical practice, enabling the
clinician to select the best drug for the individual patient, rather than
the best drug for the disease. Crossover patient preference trials are
increasingly employed in the evaluation of migraine treatment, and allow
a true intra-individual comparison of drugs. The trials are double-blinded,
and each patient compares two drugs over three attacks. The patients
express their preference on a 5-point scale, where 0 is no preference and
5 is extremely positive. The drug is therefore assessed on a wide range of
attributes, and the patient can personally prioritise the outcomes, allowing
for multiple endpoints. By contrast, parallel group trials assess drugs on
a single endpoint defined by the investigator rather than by the patient.

Figure 2: A Meta-analysis of Three Randomised,

Double-blind Crossover Trials of Frovatriptin
and Other Triptans in the Treatment of
Migraine Incidence of Relapse at 48 Hours
p<0.001
40

27
30
25
20
15
10

Management of Migraine Patients in Clinical

Practice A Case-based Approach
There is a large inter-individual variety of migraine attacks in terms of
duration, severity and associated symptoms. Furthermore, individual
patients can also suffer from heterogeneous headaches profiles,
thus requiring treatment tailored to each individual attack. In order
to illustrate the importance of individualised treatment and the
utility of patient preference trials, four cases were presented from a series
of Italian, randomised, double-blind, crossover patient preference
trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan for the
symptomatic treatment of migraine.1012

40

35

% relapse at 48 hours

Crossover Patient Preference Trials

5
0
Other triptans

Frovatriptan
Source: Evers et al., 2013.13

Figure 3: Efficacy of Frovatriptan versus

Other Triptans in the Acute Treatment of
Menstrual Migraines
30

p<0.05

26

Case 1 was a woman aged 33 years who had experienced disabling

headaches (one to three per month) with migraine features since
24 years of age. The headaches were severe in intensity, associated
with phonophobia, photophobia and nausea, without vomiting. As a
consequence, she was unable to work during attacks. The headaches
built to their maximum intensity in 1 to 2 hours and usually lasted 48
to 72 hours if untreated, occasionally lasting for 5 days. The migraines
responded only to triptans. However, the pain consistently relapsed
within 8 to 10 hours of the previous drug intake and additional doses
of acute medications were needed, sometimes five to six in 3 days. The
patient expressed a preference for frovatriptan 2.5 mg, owing to its
sustained effect with a lower rate of relapse and reduced number of
acute medications needed to treat prolonged attacks.
The experience of Case 1 was supported by a meta-analysis of three
randomised, double-blind crossover trials, aimed at comparing the
incidence of relapse between frovatriptan and other triptans. This
study included 346 intention-to-treat patients, who treated 987 attacks
with frovatriptan and 986 attacks with other triptans. Frovatriptan was
associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with other
treatments (see Figure 2).13
Case 2 was a man aged 36 years, who had experienced migraines since
the age of 25 years, almost exclusively on weekends. Initially, their
frequency was low, on average one every 2 months, but over time they
had progressively increased: for the last 3 years they occurred on at
least three out of four weekends per month. They were either present
on awakening in the morning or started by noon, and built in intensity,
forcing him to miss leisure activities. Usually the attacks occurred on
Saturday, less frequently on Sunday and not uncommonly on both days.
NSAIDs, in particular ibuprofen, were partially effective, but their intake
was associated with an unpleasant gastric burning sensation.

EUROPEA N N EUROL OG ICA L RE VIE W

Evers_Lisotto_AMc.indd 151

% relapse at 48 hours

25
20
15
15
10
5
0
Frovatriptan

Other triptans

Source: Allais et al., 2012.18

The patients preference was for frovatriptan 2.5 mg, because of its
protracted activity, lack of side effects and prevention of aggravation.
At follow up, the patient noticed that when premonitory symptoms
occurred such as irritability, restlessness, yawning, food craving and
cold feeling the day before headache onset, he could prevent the attack
of the following day by taking frovatriptan at bedtime. Occasionally he
preferred to take frovatriptan prophylactically, rather than acutely.
The occurrence of weekend migraines highlighted in this case was
analysed in a study that evaluated 3,415 migraine patients from
2006 to 2011. Of these, 5 % experienced attacks almost exclusively
on weekends. Weekend migraines were more common in males
(52.6%). Attacks were severe and disabling in most cases, responding
only to triptans in 56.7 % of patients. A short-term prophylaxis with
frovatriptan was attempted in a subgroup of 36 patients and was
effective in 75%.14,15
These types of migraine attacks were further studied in a retrospective
analysis of individual data taken from three Italian, randomised, doubleblind, crossover studies that evaluated the efficacy of frovatriptan
compared with other triptans to treat weekend versus workday

151
23/01/2014 13:28

Headache
migraines.16,17 A total of 569 attacks occurred during weekends and
1,281 during workdays. The proportion of patients pain free at 2hours
did not significantly differ between weekend and workday attacks for
frovatriptan (26% versus 27%) or for other triptans (34% versus 32%).
Conversely, the relapse rate within 48 hours for weekend attacks was
significantly lower for frovatriptan (17 % versus 30 % on workdays;
p<0.05), whereas this was not the case for other triptans (weekends
34% versus workdays 40%). The low relapse rate may be associated
with the early intake of frovatriptan, due to the consistent predictability
of the attacks. Thus, frovatriptan may represent a favourable option for
treating weekend migraine attacks.

once a week, began in the late morning and lasted for 24 to 36 hours;
if treatment was delayed, NSAIDs were almost completely ineffective.
Ergot derivatives were not tolerated because of severe nausea and
tightness of the chest. Triptans were effective, especially if taken in the
early phase of the attacks. She tried sumatriptan tablets, zolmitriptan
orally disintegrating tablets (ODT), rizatriptan ODT and eletriptan tablets,
reporting an almost identical efficacy, but also a similar pattern of
significant adverse events (AEs), which she considered to be intolerable.
These included a sense of constriction of throat and chest, palpitations,
drowsiness, fatigue and dizziness. The disability due to these AEs was
reported to be similar to that caused by actual migraines.

Case 3 was a woman aged 42 years who had experienced headaches

since 21 years of age. Her attacks had gradually increased in frequency
and intensity over time. For the last 5 years she had noticed that the
severe migraines occurred constantly with her menstrual period. They
were severe, disabling and could last up to 3 days. Impairment of
activity or the requirement for bed rest were reported when the pain
was severe. During menstrually related migraines (MRM) she missed
at least 1 day of work and in the other days her work productivity
was reduced by at least 50 %. The headaches did not respond to
paracetamol and NSAIDs.

The patient preferred frovatriptan 2.5mg, mainly due to its significantly

better tolerability. Frovatriptan shows an excellent tolerability compared
with other triptans as shown in a pooled analysis of the Italian
preference trials. A significantly lower incidence of AEs with frovatriptan
compared with other triptans (5 % versus 8 %, respectively; p<0.05),
particularly cardiovascular symptoms, was observed.19 This finding was
confirmed in a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled, parallel
group, exploratory study of 75 patients with a history of migraine who
were at high risk of coronary artery disease (Framingham score 14),
or with previously documented risk of coronary artery disease. In these
patients, frovatriptan 2.5mg was well tolerated and was not associated
with an increase in cardiovascular monitoring abnormalities.20

The patient noticed that frovatriptan and other triptans were effective
for the treatment of her MRM, but frovatriptan required a reduced
number of doses to treat each MRM attack compared with other
triptans. In a pooled analysis of 401 cases of MRM taken from the Italian
preference trials,14,18 frovatriptan was associated with significantly
fewer relapses (15% versus 26%) compared with other triptans in the
acute treatment of MRM (see Figure 3). In evidence-based guidelines
regarding the prophylactic pharmacological treatment of migraine in
adults, including the revised American Academy of Neurology/American
Headache Society guidelines,5 the National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines4 and the Italian guidelines for primary
headaches,3 frovatriptan was classified as a level A medication, i.e. a
drug with established evidence (2 class I trials), specifically indicated
for the short-term prophylaxis of MRM.
Case 4 was a woman aged 39 years who had experienced episodic,
severely disabling migraine attacks since her late teens. These occurred

1. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al., Years lived with disability

(YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries
19902010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2010, Lancet, 2012;380:216396.
2. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Birbeck GL, Migraine: the seventh
disabler, J Headache Pain, 2013;14:1.
3. Sarchielli P, Granella F, Prudenzano MP, et al., Italian guidelines
for primary headaches: 2012 revised version, J Headache Pain,
2012;13(Suppl. 2):S3170.
4. Carville S, Padhi S, Reason T, et al., Diagnosis and management
of headaches in young people and adults: summary of NICE
guidance, BMJ, 2012;345:e5765.
5. Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, et al., Evidence-based
guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic
migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality
Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of
Neurology and the American Headache Society, Neurology,
2012;78:133745.
6. Headache Classification Committee of the International
Headache Society (HIS). The International Classification of
Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version), Cephalalgia,
2013;33:629808.
7. Tfelt-Hansen P, Pascual J, Ramadan N, et al., Guidelines for
controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for

152
Evers_Lisotto_AMc.indd 152

Summary and Concluding Remarks

Improved classification of headache disorders enables better research
and, ultimately, management of a set of disabling neurological disorders.
The new headache classification system has stressed the importance
of symptoms rather than pathophysiology, and now considers chronic
migraine as a separate entity, reinforcing the complex nature of this
condition. The ideal aim of treatment should be pain freedom within
2 hours that is sustained over the following 24 to 48 hours. Triptans
remain the treatment option preferred by the majority of patients
and physicians. It is important to take into account patient priorities
when prescribing anti-migraine drugs. Frovatriptan shows favourable
tolerability and sustained effect with a lower relapse rate compared
with other triptans. These findings were confirmed in different patient
preference trials. Such trials reflect the need to evaluate patientcentred outcomes in the assessment of migraine treatment. n

investigators, Cephalalgia, 2012;32:638.

8. International Headache Society Committee on Clinical Trials in
Migraine. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine.
First edition, Cephalalgia, 1991;11:112.
9. Tfelt-Hansen P, Block G, Dahlf C, et al., Guidelines for
controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition,
Cephalalgia, 2000;20:76586.
10. Tullo V, Allais G, Curone M, et al., Frovatriptan versus
zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine with aura: a
subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter,
Italian study, Neurol Sci, 2012;33(Suppl. 1):S614.
11. Bartolini M, Giamberardino MA, Lisotto C, et al., A double-blind,
randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus
almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine, J Headache
Pain, 2011;12:3618.
12. Savi L, Omboni S, Lisotto C, et al., A double-blind, randomized,
multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan
for the acute treatment of migraine, J Headache Pain,
2011;12:21926.
13. Evers S, Summ O, Ferrari MD, et al., Relapse in acute migraine
treatment: comparison of frovatriptan with other triptans
[Abstract], J Neurol Sci, 2013;333(Suppl. 1):e500.
14. Lisotto C, Mainardi F, Mampreso E, et al., Weekend
migraine: myth or reality? [Abstract], J Headache Pain,

2012;(Suppl. 13):S30.
15. Lisotto C, Mainardi F, Maggioni F, et al., Weekend incidence of
migraine is more common in men than in women [Abstract],
Neurol Sci, 2012;(Suppl. 33):S13.
16. Savi L, Lisotto C, Pinessi L, et al., Efficacy of frovatriptan vs.
other triptans in weekend migraine: pooled analysis of three
double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter, Italian
studies [Abstract], Cephalalgia, 2013;33(Suppl. 8):32.
17. Savi L, Lisotto C, Pinessi L, et al., Efficacy of frovatriptan vs.
other triptans in weekend migraine: pooled analysis of three
double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicentre, Italian
studies [Abstract], J Headache Pain, 2013;(Suppl. 14):S323.
18. Allais G, Tullo V, Omboni S, et al., Efficacy of frovatriptan
versus other triptans in the acute treatment of menstrual
migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized,
crossover, multicenter studies, Neurol Sci, 2012;33
(Suppl. 1):S659.
19. Cortelli P, Allais G, Tullo V, et al., Frovatriptan versus other
triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: pooled analysis of
three double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian
studies, Neurol Sci, 2011;32(Suppl. 1):S958.
20. Elkind AH, Satin LZ, Nila A, et al., Frovatriptan use in
migraineurs with or at high risk of coronary artery disease,
Headache, 2004;44:40310.

EUR OP EAN NE U ROLOG ICA L RE VIE W

23/01/2014 13:28