Literature DB >> 17537184

Times to pain relief and pain freedom with rizatriptan 10 mg and other oral triptans.

D S Ng-Mak1, X H Hu, Y Chen, L Ma, G Solomon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the clinical trial setting, oral rizatriptan 10 mg has greater efficacy than other oral triptans in freedom from migraine headache pain 2 h after dosing.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to compare the effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg and other oral triptans for acute migraine attack in a naturalistic setting.
METHODS: A total of 673 patients took rizatriptan 10 mg or their usual-care oral triptans for two migraine attacks in a sequential, cross-over manner and recorded outcomes using a diary and a stopwatch. Mean and median times to pain relief (PR) and pain freedom (PF) for rizatriptan and other oral triptans were compared. The effect of rizatriptan on times to PR and PF, adjusting for potential confounding factors (treatment sequence, treatment order and use of rescue medication), was computed via a Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: Significantly, more patients taking rizatriptan achieved both PR and PF within 2 h after dosing than other oral triptans. Times to PR and PF were shorter with rizatriptan than with other oral triptans (median time to PR: 45 vs. 52 min, p < 0.0001; median time to PF: 100 vs. 124 min, p < 0.0001). The adjusted proportional hazard ratios (rizatriptan vs. other oral triptans) for times to PR and PF were 1.32 (95% CI: 1.22-1.44) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.16-1.39) respectively.
CONCLUSION: The times to PR and PF in a 'naturalistic' setting were significantly shorter for patients treating a migraine attack with rizatriptan 10 mg than with other oral triptans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17537184      PMCID: PMC1974799          DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01400.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pract        ISSN: 1368-5031            Impact factor:   2.503


What's known

Triptans are efficacious migraine-specific therapy for acute migraine. Rizatriptans, as compared with other oral triptans, have shown greater efficacy in treatment outcomes.

What's new

This article addresses an important question whether rizatriptan 10 mg is more effective than other oral triptans in aborting acute migraine in a real-world setting. With regard to research methodology, we strived for better measurement of time to treatment end-points (using stopwatch methodology) and minimising intra-patient variations by adopting cross-over study design.

Introduction

Population-based surveys indicate that the 1-year prevalence rate of migraine is 18.2% for women and 6.5% for men (1), indicating that about 30 million people in the United States currently suffer from this condition. Migraine is typically manifest by episodic disabling headache lasting hours or days, with an average attack frequency of one per month (2). Triptans, the ergot alkaloids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the three main classes of drugs used to treat the pain and associated symptoms of a migraine attack (3). The US Headache Consortium recommends a migraine-specific drug (triptan or ergotamine) for patients with severe migraine or for patients whose migraines respond poorly to NSAIDs or to combination analgesics (4). Several oral triptans (rizatriptan 10 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg and eletriptan 40–80 mg) have been shown to have greater efficacy than ergotamines in double-blind randomised clinical trials (5–7). In randomised trials comparing different oral triptans head-to-head, rizatriptan 10 mg appears to have the greatest efficacy (8,9). A large randomised clinical trial (n = 1268) reports significant superior treatment efficacy of pain relief (PR) at 2 h and pain freedom (PF) at 2 h after dosing for rizatriptan 10 mg over sumatriptan 100 mg (9). No differences in PR and PF rates at 2 h are observed between rizatriptan 5 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg (9). Using freedom from pain 2 h after dosing as the outcome measure, which is recommended by the International Headache Society as the standard end-point for efficacy measurement (10), rizatriptan 10 mg has greater efficacy than sumatriptan 25 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, sumatriptan 100 mg, naratriptan 2.5 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (8,11). In addition, patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg report more proportions of 24-h sustained PF rates than other oral triptans (8). Overviews of placebo-controlled trials of individual oral triptans (12,13) indicate that rizatriptan 10 mg and eletriptan 80 mg exhibit placebo-subtracted values of PF at 2 h that are significantly higher than those for the benchmark sumatriptan 100 mg, whereas values of PF for other triptan dosages – almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 20 and 40 mg, naratriptan 2.5 mg, sumatriptan 25 and 50 mg, zolmitriptan 2.5 and 5 mg – do not differ significantly from those for sumatriptan 100 mg (13). It is unclear whether greater efficacy in randomised clinical trials translates into greater effectiveness in treating an acute migraine in a patient's everyday setting. Although there have been several open-label naturalistic studies of triptans (almost invariably rizatriptan) in comparison with patients’ usual treatments, the ‘usual treatment’ comparator either non-triptans (14–16) or combined triptans with other non-triptan drugs (17). A recent open-label cross-over trial reports that rizatriptan 10 mg has enhanced PF rates at 2 h than almotriptan 12.5 mg (18). No naturalistic study has focused on a comparison of rizatriptan with other oral triptans, with time to headache PF at 2 h as an end-point. The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg compared with the oral triptans usually taken by patients in a naturalistic setting. Given the bioavailability differences exist among oral triptans, comparison group was further categorised into (1) other oral triptans (2), sumatriptan only (3), fast-acting oral triptans (i.e. almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan), and (4) slow-acting oral triptans (i.e. frovatriptan and naratriptan). The primary outcomes were times to achieve PR and PF.

Methods

Study overview

The methods of this trial have been reported in detail elsewhere (17). In brief, this was a multi-site, prospective, open-label, two-migraine-attack, cross-over study. Patients from across the United States were recruited in their primary care physicians’ offices (see Appendix 1 for a list of participating physicians). After providing informed consent, consecutive rizatriptan-naïve patients completed a baseline questionnaire recording their demographic characteristics, migraine history and the use of acute and preventive migraine medications. Patients were then provided with a take-home kit containing two patient diaries, a stopwatch, two tablets of standard formulation oral rizatriptan 10 mg, instructions for data collection, and a stamped addressed envelope. Patients were instructed to treat their next two migraine attacks sequentially with either rizatriptan 10 mg or their usual migraine medication, in a cross-over manner. The sequence of medication use was left to the patient's discretion. Patients were asked to start the stopwatch upon taking the study medication, and to record in the diary the time to onset of PR and the time to PF. At the end of each treatment diary, patients recorded how satisfied they were with the prescription medication used to treat their migraine. At the conclusion of the cross-over phase, they were asked to indicate which acute migraine medication they would prefer to use in treating their next migraine. Patients treated their migraines as they usually would, so that additional prescription or over-the-counter medications were allowed. The study protocol and all patient materials used in this study were reviewed and approved by Schulman Associates Institutional Review Board, Inc. The study was carried out between September 2003 and February 2004.

Patients

Men and women were eligible to enter the study if they were 18 years of age or older, had physician-diagnosed migraine and a recent history of one or more migraines per month, were rizatriptan-naïve, had been prescribed an oral medication intended for the acute treatment of migraine, and were fluent in English. The criteria for exclusion from the study were pregnancy or any contraindication for the triptans used in the study.

Outcome measures

The primary study outcome measures were the times, in minutes, to migraine PR and PF, recorded by stopwatch. Patients recorded these exact times in the diaries provided in response to the questions ‘After you took the first prescription drug, how long did it take before you started to feel onset of headache relief, i.e. you felt that the drug started working?’ and ‘After you took the first prescription drug, how long did it take before you felt your headache was completely gone?’ Secondary outcome measures were patient satisfaction and patient medication preference. Patient satisfaction was measured on a five-point Likert scale (1, very satisfied; 2, satisfied; 3, neither; 4, dissatisfied and 5, very dissatisfied) and patient preference was evaluated in three categories (1, rizatriptan; 2, other oral triptan and 3, no preference).

Statistical analysis

This analysis is limited to patients whose previously prescribed migraine medication was an oral triptan (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, sumatriptan or zolmitriptan, but not rizatriptan) in standard tablet formulation, and who used the stopwatch provided to record the times to PR and PF. The characteristics of patients who used rizatriptan for their first migraine attack and those who used rizatriptan for their second attack were compared and the statistical significance of differences between these two patient sets was determined using an independent t-test for continuous variables and a chi-squared test for proportions. Times to PR and PF were analysed both as categorical variables and as continuous. Comparisons were made between the following groups: (i) rizatriptan vs. all other oral triptans; (ii) rizatriptan vs. sumatriptan only; (iii) rizatriptan vs. fast-acting oral triptans (including almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan) and (iv) rizatriptan vs. slow-acting oral triptans (including frovatriptan and naratriptan). For categorical measurement of time, statistical significance of differences in proportion of patients achieving PR and PF within 2 h after dosing was evaluated using McNemar's test. For continuous measurement of time, times to PR and PF were capped and censored at 3 days (i.e. 72 h or 4320 min) for patients who either achieved PF beyond 3 days or did not achieve PR and/or PF. The rationale of 3-day censoring was chosen because most migraine patients achieved PF within 3 days of attack. A paired t-test was applied to test treatment differences (e.g. rizatriptan vs. other oral triptans) in mean times to PR and PF. As the distributions of times to PR and PF were skewed, and parametric methods (which assume a normal distribution) are not strictly valid, non-parametric and semi-parametric methods were deemed more appropriate. Median times to PR and PF were presented by treatment groups, and the p-value associated with the treatment comparison was obtained from the Score Statistic in the Cox model, adjusting for clustering. Cox proportional hazards modeling was considered the appropriate tool for testing treatment differences in times to PR and PF. To account for the clustering effect as a result of patients serving as their own controls in this cross-over study, the Cox proportional hazards model employed an independent working assumption and used a robust sandwich covariance matrix estimate. The variables controlled for included treatment sequence, treatment order and the use of rescue medications. Treatment sequence was a dichotomous variable that measured taking rizatriptan in the first attack. Treatment order was also a binary-coded variable that assessed the numerical order of treatment sequence. Use of rescue medication was coded as ‘1’ if an affirmative response was given to the question ‘Did you take any non-prescription medication after you took their prescription drug(s) to help relieve the migraine attack?’ Patient satisfaction with rizatriptan in comparison with other oral triptans was evaluated in a cumulative logit model, in which the dependent variable was the satisfaction rating and the variables controlled for included treatment sequence, treatment order and the use of rescue medications. The proportion of patients indicating their preference for rizatriptan, other oral triptans and no preference was described. All analyses were performed with SAS, version 8. A p-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Patient sample

A total of 2368 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients who did not follow the study protocol, who did not use a stopwatch, or who did not use an oral triptan as their comparator treatment were excluded, so that 673 patients, with 1346 migraine attacks, were included in the analysis presented here (Figure 1). The excluded population had a statistically significantly greater frequency of migraine-associated vomiting (22.6% vs. 14.3%), diarrhoea (10.7% vs. 6.2%) and blurred vision (32.5% vs. 26.5%). Stopwatch users and non-users were similar in terms of their educational levels, recent headache severity, health insurance coverage and treatment sequence. There were a slightly greater proportion of women among stopwatch non-users (90.9%), than among stopwatch users (83.4%).
Figure 1

Patient sample

Patient sample The characteristics of the population included in the analysis are presented in Table 1. The mean age was 41.3 years, 83.4% were women, and the mean age at first diagnosis was 28.2 years. Patients’‘usual care’ oral triptans were sumatriptan (49.6%), zolmitriptan (15.2%), eletriptan (13.8%), almotriptan (11.7%), frovatriptan (5.1%) and naratriptan (4.6%). A total of 386 patients (57.4%) used rizatriptan to treat their first migraine attack and 287 (42.6%) used rizatriptan to treat their second migraine attack (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences between these two groups in age, gender, age at first diagnosis, migraine type, education, recent headache severity, number of headaches in the previous month or the use of rescue medications.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

Sequence

Total (n = 673)Took rizatriptan for first attack (n = 386)Took rizatriptan for second attack (n = 287)p-value
Age, mean years (SD)41.3 (11.5)42.0 (11.4)40.3 (11.6)0.06*
Women (%)83.481.885.60.19
Age at first diagnosis, years (mean, SD)28.2 (11.1)28.6 (11.6)27.7 (10.4)0.29*
Migraine type (%)
 Without aura53.352.354.80.76
 With aura39.339.938.6
 Other7.37.86.6
Education (%)
 Less than eighth grade0.30.30.40.83
 Some high school3.94.23.5
 High school graduate24.322.626.7
 Some college29.729.430.2
 College graduate29.430.727.7
 Postgraduate12.312.911.6
Recent headache severity (%)
 Mild4.04.44.50.08
 Moderate45.248.740.1
 Severe50.646.955.4
Number of headaches in past month (mean, SD)5.5 (5.6)5.6 (5.7)5.4 (5.4)0.55*
Use of rescue medication (%)
 None86.484.988.40.18
 Used for one attack8.28.38.1
 Used for both attacks5.46.83.5

t-test.

Chi-square test.

Patient characteristics t-test. Chi-square test.

Times to pain relief and pain freedom

Proportions of achieving pain relief within 2 h after dosing

Using the International Headache Society's standard treatment end-points, proportions of patients achieved PR and PF within 2 h after dosing was shown in Table 2. Significantly more patients taking rizatriptan (88.1%) achieved PR within 2 h after dosing than patients taking other oral triptans (81.9%; p = 0.0003). Approximately nine of 10 patients taking either rizatriptan (89.2%) or sumatriptan (87.1%) achieved PR within 2 h after dosing. Patients taking rizatriptan disproportionately attained PR within 2 h of dosing than patients taking either fast- or slow-acting oral triptans.
Table 2

Proportions of patients achieving pain relief and pain freedom within 2 h after dosing

Achieved pain relief within 2 h after dosingAchieved pain freedom within 2 h after dosing


Treatment groups%p-value*%p-value*
Rizatriptan (n = 673)88.10.000360.9<0.0001
Other oral triptans (n = 673)81.949.9
Rizatriptan (n = 334)89.20.3561.10.02
Sumatriptan (n = 334)87.154.2
Rizatriptan (n = 274)87.20.001159.10.0008
Fast-acting oral triptans (n = 274)78.147.1
Rizatriptan (n = 65)86.20.01267.70.0007
Slow-acting oral triptans (n = 65)70.840.0

McNemar's test.

Fast-acting oral triptans include almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan.

Slow-acting oral triptans include frovatriptan and naratriptan.

Proportions of patients achieving pain relief and pain freedom within 2 h after dosing McNemar's test. Fast-acting oral triptans include almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan. Slow-acting oral triptans include frovatriptan and naratriptan.

Proportions of achieving pain freedom within 2 h after dosing

With regard to PF, significantly more patients taking rizatriptan achieved PF within 2 h after dosing (60.9%), than patients taking other oral triptans (49.9%; p < 0.0001) (see Table 2). Across all subgroup comparisons (i.e. sumatriptan, fast- and slow-acting oral triptans), patients disproportionately attained PF within 2 h after taking rizatriptan.

Mean and median times of pain relief

The mean and median times to PR by treatment groups were displayed in Table 3a. The mean time to PR was statistically significantly shorter with rizatriptan (87.2 min) than with other oral triptans (162.3 min), a mean difference of 75.1 min (95% CI: 31.5–118.7) (Table 3a). Median time to PR was statistically shorter for rizatriptan (45 min) than other oral triptans (52 min, p < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in mean or median times to PR between rizatriptan and sumatriptan, although there were some numeric advantages for rizatriptan. Patients taking rizatriptan, as compared with either fast- or slow-acting oral triptans, reported significantly shorter mean and median times to PR.
Table 3

Treatment differences in times to pain (a) relief and (b) freedom

Treatment comparisonsMean (SD)Mean differences (95% CI)p-value*Median (95% CI)p-value
(a)
Rizatriptan (n = 673)87.2 (248.8)75.1 (31.5–118.7)0.0008 45 (40–45)<0.0001
Other oral triptans (n = 673)162.3 (546.9) 52 (45–60)
Rizatriptan (n = 334)90.0 (294.8)20.3 (−27.2 to 67.7)0.40 45 (40–45)0.12
Sumatriptan (n = 334)110.3 (370.8) 45 (42–48)
Rizatriptan (n = 274)89.2 (211.5)131.4 (46.9–215.9)0.002 45 (40–45)<0.0001
Fast-acting oral triptans (n = 274)220.6 (702.9) 60 (48–60)
Rizatriptan (n = 65)64.2 (79.9)119.3 (−13.9 to 252.6)0.078 45 (40–45)0.0003
Slow-acting oral triptans (n = 65)183.6 (538.3) 70 (60–90)
(b)
Rizatriptan (n = 673)261.5 (637.6)96.8 (33.8–159.9)0.003100 (90–110)<0.0001
Other oral triptans (n = 673)358.3 (776.7)124 (120–135)
Rizatriptan (n = 334)268.4 (689.8)71.4 (−15.1 to 157.8)0.11100 (90–110)0.009
Sumatriptan (n = 334)339.8 (798.3)120 (112–128)
Rizatriptan (n = 274)279.9 (636.4)93.2 (−12.9 to 93.2)0.08100 (90–110)<0.0001
Fast-acting oral triptans (n = 274)373.2 (767.3)130 (120–147)
Rizatriptan (n = 65)148.2 (223.9)242.9 (65.6–420.1)0.008100 (90–110)0.006
Slow-acting oral triptans (n = 65)391.1 (709.3)180 (120–210)

Paired t-test.

p-value was obtained from the Score Statistic of the Cox model, adjusting for patient clustering.

Treatment differences in times to pain (a) relief and (b) freedom Paired t-test. p-value was obtained from the Score Statistic of the Cox model, adjusting for patient clustering.

Mean and median times of pain freedom

The mean and median times to PF by treatment groups were displayed in Table 3b. The mean time to PF was statistically significantly shorter with rizatriptan (261.5 min) than with other oral triptans (358.3 min), a mean difference of 96.8 min (95% CI: 33.8–159.9). Likewise, the median time to PF was statistically shorter for rizatriptan (100 min) than other oral triptans (124 min, p < 0.0001). Compared with sumatriptan, patients taking rizatriptan reported shorter median time to PF and similar mean time to freedom. Patients taking rizatriptan, as compared with either fast- or slow-acting oral triptans, reported significantly shorter mean and median times to PF.

Multivariate analyses

In the Cox proportional hazards model comparing rizatriptan and other oral triptans (Table 4a), the adjusted time to PR was 32% faster with rizatriptan (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% CI: 1.22–1.44; p < 0.0001), after adjusting for treatment sequence, treatment period and the use of rescue medications. The adjusted time to PR was consistently faster with rizatriptan than all other subgroup comparisons (i.e. sumatriptan, fast- and slow-acting oral triptans).
Table 4

Multivariate proportional hazards models of times to pain (a) relief and (b) freedom for rizatriptan relative to other oral triptans

Treatment group comparisonsAdjusted hazard ratio*95% CIp-value
(a)
 Rizatriptan vs. other oral triptans (n = 673)1.321.22–1.44<0.0001
 Rizatriptan vs. sumatriptan (n = 334)1.141.02–1.290.023
 Rizatriptan vs. fast-acting oral triptans (n = 274)1.481.3–1.7<0.0001
 Rizatriptan vs. slow-acting oral triptans§ (n = 65)1.671.33–2.11<0.0001
(b)
 Rizatriptan vs. other oral triptans (n = 673)1.271.16–1.39<0.0001
 Rizatriptan vs. sumatriptan (n = 334)1.191.07–1.340.002
 Rizatriptan vs. fast-acting oral triptans§ (n = 274)1.311.16–1.49<0.0001
 Rizatriptan vs. slow-acting oral triptans§ (n = 65)1.461.19–1.780.0003

Adjusted variables included treatment sequence, treatment order and use of rescue medications.

Chi-square test.

Fast-acting oral triptans include almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan.

Slow-acting oral triptans include frovatriptan and naratriptan.

Multivariate proportional hazards models of times to pain (a) relief and (b) freedom for rizatriptan relative to other oral triptans Adjusted variables included treatment sequence, treatment order and use of rescue medications. Chi-square test. Fast-acting oral triptans include almotriptan, electriptan and zolmitriptan. Slow-acting oral triptans include frovatriptan and naratriptan. Compared with other oral triptans (Table 4b), the adjusted time to PF was 27% faster with rizatriptan (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% CI: 1.16–1.39; p < 0.0001), after adjusting for treatment sequence, treatment period and the use of rescue medications. The adjusted time to PF was consistently faster with rizatriptan than all other subgroup comparisons (i.e. sumatriptan, fast- and slow-acting oral triptans).

Satisfaction and preference

A total of 668 patients completed the diary questions about their satisfaction with their current medication (Table 5). A greater proportion of patients indicated that they were very satisfied when treating a migraine attack with rizatriptan compared with other oral triptans (29.5% vs. 19.5%). A smaller proportion of patients reported that they were dissatisfied (12.3% vs. 14.9%) or very dissatisfied (5.4% vs. 7.0%) when treating a migraine attack with rizatriptan compared with other oral triptans. In the cumulative logit multivariate model, patients were 52% more satisfied when treating their attack with rizatriptan than when treating with another oral triptan (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI: 1.25–1.85; p < 0.0001), after adjusting for treatment sequence, treatment order and the use of rescue medications. Of the 652 patients, who responded to the diary question regarding medication preference, 304 (46.6%) expressed a preference for rizatriptan, 220 (33.7%) preferred another oral triptan and 128 (19.6%) expressed no preference.
Table 5

Patient satisfaction with rizatriptan and with other oral triptans

Rizatriptan, n (%)Other oral triptans, n (%)
Very satisfied197 (29.5)130 (19.5)
Satisfied253 (37.9)277 (41.5)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied100 (14.9)114 (17.1)
Dissatisfied82 (12.3)100 (14.9)
Very dissatisfied36 (5.4)47 (7.0)
Patient satisfaction with rizatriptan and with other oral triptans

Tolerability

One adverse event was reported by a 30-year-old female patient who experienced hives and itchy skin the day after taking rizatriptan. The symptoms subsided when treated with methylprednisolone. No other adverse events were reported for rizatriptan.

Comment

This was a prospective, open-label, cross-over study, in which patients took either oral rizatriptan 10 mg or their usual-care oral triptans sequentially for two consecutive migraine attacks, and timed the course of their migraine pain using a stopwatch. Compared with patients’ usual oral triptans therapy, the mean time to PR was approximately 75 min shorter with rizatriptan 10 mg, and the mean time to PF was approximately 97 min shorter. Median times to PR and PF were, respectively, 7 and 24 min shorter with rizatriptan. Replicating the results in clinical trials, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved PR and PF within 2 h of dosing with rizatriptan than with other oral triptans. The results of this naturalistic study are consistent with those of double-blind, randomised clinical trials, in which rizatriptan 10 mg has equal or greater efficacy for PF at 2 h postdose than all other triptan dosages (8,9). The extent to which rizatriptan is a more effective acute migraine therapy than other oral triptans in a naturalistic setting has not been reported. Rizatriptan has previously been compared with patients’ usual medications, which were either non-triptans or a mixture of triptans and non-triptans. These studies showed that rizatriptan had better treatment outcomes than non-triptan medications (15,16). In a study of the orally disintegrating formulation of rizatriptan, the percentage of patients reporting PR and PF at 2 h was more than twice as great with rizatriptan as with patients’ usual, non-triptan medication (15). In a pharmacy-based study comparing patients who took rizatriptan with patients who took a non-triptan, the percentage of patients reporting PR and PF at 2 h was significantly greater with rizatriptan (16). The US Migraine Assessment Protocol study compared rizatriptan 10 mg with patients’ non-triptan usual medication (14,19). Significantly more patients were symptom free at 2 h after dosing with rizatriptan than with patients’ usual treatment (19). In studies in which the comparator included both oral triptans and non-triptan, rizatriptan was again found to have better treatment outcomes (17). In the previous publication by Bell et al. (17), ‘usual treatment’ included both triptan (80.6%) and non-triptan migraine medications (19.4%). Not surprisingly, when non-triptans were included in the usual treatment, a greater treatment benefit was observed with rizatriptan: the mean times to onset of PR and PF with rizatriptan compared to usual treatment were 85 vs. 107 min and 222 vs. 298 min respectively (17). Our study refines Bell et al. analysis by comparing rizatriptan with other oral triptans only. Consistent with the existing literature of treatment in naturalistic settings, we found that rizatriptan 10 mg provided shorter times to PR and PF than other oral triptans. This report has made a number of improvements in terms of study design, outcome measurement and appropriate statistical analysis. Studies of triptans employing pretest to post-test or parallel group designs are vulnerable to certain biases. A pretest to post-test design is vulnerable to temporal drift in variables that might influence the results. A patient's migraine profile may change spontaneously from one attack to the next and changes in the migraine profile may be attributed incorrectly to the effect of the post-test intervention. In a non-randomised parallel-group design, a patient selection bias may result in non-comparable patient sets. The cross-over design employed in this and other studies (14,17,19) is meant to minimise these potential biases. A cross-over design reduces intraperson variability, because patients serve as their own controls. With this control for patient variability built into the study design, one can more confidently attribute differences in outcomes to differences in the intervention rather than to extraneous factors. With respect to the measurement of the primary end-points, we strove to time events precisely by asking patients to use a stopwatch. Thus, in contrast to previous studies, which categorised patients according to their pain status at fixed time points (14–16,19), we were able to document events continuously in real time. Precise measurement of the dependent variable enhances the ability to detect differences between treatments. Both times to PR and PF were not normally distributed, but were skewed to the right, as a small proportion (3.8–5.9%) of migraine patients were not pain free 200 min after therapy (17). Mean times to events may be more intuitive, but results derived from means and parametric tests of statistical significance (e.g. t-test) may be inaccurate. In addition to mean times to events, we reported median times using semi-parametric (Cox proportional hazards modeling) methods. Our findings that patients taking rizatriptan for acute migraine had significantly shorter times to PR and PF than patients taking other oral triptans, were supported by statistical tests of both mean and median time differences. There are several caveats to the interpretation of these results. For unknown reasons, a majority of patients entering the study did not complete the protocol, introducing the possibility that the included and excluded populations may not have been comparable. We have noted that patients who were not included in the analysis because of protocol violations had a statistically significantly greater frequency of migraine-associated symptoms (17). In addition, there were a slightly greater proportion of women among stopwatch non-users (90.9%), than among stopwatch users (83.4%). Our results, therefore, are only strictly applicable to the migraine patients who followed the research protocol and used a stopwatch to track their time to headache events. Secondly, our definition of PR was different from the one generally used in clinical trials. In clinical trials, PR is typically defined as a reduction in headache pain severity from moderate/severe to mild/none (10). In this study, we asked patients to record the moment when they felt the onset of headache relief. Although both definitions are subjective, our definition may have exaggerated the degree of PR. It is reasonable to assume that patients evaluated their PR similarly whether taking rizatriptan or other oral triptans. Any non-differential exaggeration of PR would increase the noise in the estimation, thus decreasing the chance of finding any statistically significant difference. Thirdly, the open-label study design, in which patients were aware of the specific medications used for each attack, may have introduced a bias between treatments, so that subjectivity and/or loyalty to a particular brand name medication are potential threats to validity. We attempted to control for this type of artefact, by creating a numeric variable of the order of treatment options and adjusting for its effect in the multivariate analysis. In conclusion, to the best of our knowledge, this was the first naturalistic study to compare rizatriptan 10 mg with other oral triptans using stopwatch methodology. The study employed a multi-centre, prospective, cross-over study design, with use of a stopwatch to measure the primary study end-points precisely. Rizatriptan was associated with shorter times to PR and PF than were other oral triptans. This study reproduced in a naturalistic setting the results of double-blind, randomised clinical trials, in which rizatriptan 10 mg has greater efficacy in terms of PF at 2 h postdose than the majority of other triptan dosages. Patients were more satisfied with rizatriptan than with other oral triptans and more patients preferred rizatriptan than other oral triptans for their next migraine attack.
Table 1

A list of participating physicians

Last nameFirst nameTitleCityState
AaronMaureenMDMartinsvilleVA
Abdul-WahabMuhammedMDLos AngelesCA
AbsherJohnMDGreenvilleSC
AdamsQuentinMDArlingtonTX
AdkinsEdwardMDMansfieldOH
AgrawalAnjulaMDWashingtonDC
AlexanderMichaelMDPlantationFL
AlexandrovaNataliaMDArlingtonVA
AlhabianOulaMDSylvaniaOH
AllenChrisMDPittsburghPA
AllenThomasMDOverland ParkKS
AlwayDavidMDAlexandriaVA
AndrewsRobertaMDMaconGA
AndrusDanMDTemeculaCA
AnsellJacquelineMDNorthportAL
AnstadtDavidMDWarrenOH
AnthonyJeffDOSan DiegoCA
AokiJeffreyMDClovisCA
ArastuJameelMDNew HartfordNY
ArikawaTerryDOGranite BayCA
ArkinKarenMDOverland ParkKS
AuldHeatherMDFort MyersFL
AvanzatoJosephMDYorktown HgtsNY
AveyJosephMDLehigh AcresFL
AwerbuchGavinMDBay CityMI
BaierCharlesMDMandevilleLA
Bailey-WaltonPaulaMDBeverly HillsCA
BaillCoriMDOrlandoFL
BakerKeithDOCape CoralFL
BallengerClarenceMDJacksonvilleNC
BarbozaBeverlyMDLos GatosCA
BarrettAmeliaMDLonetreeCO
BarringtonPatriciaDOLawrencevilleGA
BartkowiakAnthonyMDAltoonaPA
BartnickDavidMDPiquaOH
BartosPaulMDNorth CantonOH
BartosSaraMDAustinTX
BaurichterJohnDOSpringfieldMO
BaylissRobertMDGreenvilleSC
BaylorMelissaDODoverPA
BeardMaryMDSalt Lake CityUT
BeckBrianDODavisonMI
BeckerJeffreyDOScottsdaleAZ
BeckerTeresaMDFriendshipTX
BeckertJohnDOKahokaMO
BehmJohnMDWexfordPA
BeloteRobertMDLeesburgVA
BenavidesAngelaMDOttawaIL
BenchimolGeorgeMDGainesvilleFL
BennettNathanMDPittsburghPA
BennettSuzanneDOPhoenixAZ
BenzaquenMaxMDChesterfieldMO
BerriesfordGaryMDKingwoodTX
BerrimanKatherineMDMonroeOH
BertrandVDOFrankfortIL
BeversWilliamMDOklahoma CityOK
BhupalamRukmaiahMDLouisvilleKY
BirkHarvinderMDReddingCA
BirkmannLewistonMDLincolnNE
BlackRossMDCuyahoga FallsOH
BladyDavidMDGlen RidgeNJ
BlanchardSusanMDMobileAL
BlankBenjaminDOGlendoraNJ
BloodworthJamesMDGreenvilleSC
BlumeWilliamMDEvansvilleIN
BodemannDianeMDHot SpringsAR
BodemannStephenMDHot SpringsAR
BolingerJonyMDEasleySC
BorsheimMarkMDHayden LakeID
BoulwareWilliamMDFlorenceSC
BowhayThomasMDJacksonCA
BrandstaterCherryMDRedlandsCA
BraunEdwardMDTampaFL
BreitenbachRayMDWaterfordMI
BresslerJillMDEnglewood CliffsNJ
BrewerRaymondMDUniversal CityTX
BrodskyHalMDGainesvilleFL
BrooksMarkMDAnderson IslandWA
BrownCarlDOOdessaTX
BrownDavidMDFayettevilleAR
BrownMorrisMDDaytonOH
BrownRaymondMDClevelandTN
BrownThomasMDSan AntonioTX
BrownWilliamMDTylerTX
BryanAngelaMDCape CoralFL
BurnetteThomasMDBrewsterNY
Butler-SumnerSusanMDCave SpringGA
BuynakRobertMDPortageIN
C QuaglieriFrankMDRenoNV
CagleMaryMDGreenvilleSC
CalisePaulMDFt LauderdaleFL
CallandAnnDOWestervilleOH
CameronDanielMDMount KiscoNY
CampbellJamesDOBroken ArrowOK
CarliniWalterMDMedfordOR
CarmichaelPatrickMDGainesvilleFL
CarterJohnMDTucsonAZ
CastaldoJohnMDAllentownPA
CastorTerranceMDWorthingtonOH
CavalierStevenMDBaton RougeLA
CerboneTraceyMDPort Saint LucieFL
CevascoRobertMDMedinaOH
ChamiklesJasonDOMiddle VlgNY
ChanKahingMDOpelikaAL
ChanKennethDOJonesboroAR
CharaniKimyDOTucsonAZ
CharneyJonathanMDNew YorkNY
ChehrenamaMahanDOAlexandriaVA
ChequerRosemaryMDLancasterCA
ChessinVickiMDAlmaMI
ClarkJamesMDProvoUT
ClemensMichaelMDPalm HarborFL
ClendeningMarilynMDNorth CantonOH
ConardScottMDIrvingTX
CookCharlesDOBedfordTX
CookJolandaMDAbihgdohVA
CooleyRichardMDBaton RougeLA
CooperKirstenMDStanleyNC
CostaRalphMDVoorheesNJ
CostinScottMDBellefontaineOH
CottingimGaryMDGreenvilleSC
CounceDianeMDAlabasterAL
CrabtreeYvetteMDMissionKS
CraigWilliamMDGreenvilleSC
CrawfordEdgarMDPortlandOR
CrosnoeJannaMDCape GirardeauMO
CrumpWilliamMDChicagoIL
CsepanyEmericoMDCerritosCA
CuellarJamesMDWentzvilleMO
CushmanKennethMDTylerTX
CzuladaGaryDODoverPA
DavisDavidMDFayettevilleAR
DavisLloydMDDes PlainesIL
De ArmittDonMDHarrisburgPA
De GarmoRonaldDOGreerSC
De HavenJosephMDSavannahGA
De SantisMichaelMDHickoryNC
DebinSusanMDOrangeCA
DeckerAndrewMDYorktown HtsNY
DelpRobertMDClawsonMI
DeyarminBrianMDBethel ParkPA
DibertStevenMDGastoniaNC
DoehringLarryDONorthglennCO
DoghramjiPaulMDPottstownPA
DoranAnneMDMidlothianVA
DoreshowLarryDOPhiladelphiaPA
DoughertyRichardMDCharlotteNC
DoughertyNancyMDPortlandOR
DowneyKathleenMDCincinnatiOH
DrakeAlanMDSpartaTN
DrakeRobertMDSomersetKY
DresserLeeMDNewarkDE
DrinnenJeffreyMDKnoxvilleTN
DruzakKarenMDNapervilleIL
DuganThomasMDMonacaPA
Dugano-DaphnisPamelaMDLeague CityTX
DumbacherPerriMDLake MaryFL
Duncan GarciaStephanieDOCoral GablesFL
Dure-SmithBelindaMDSan DiegoCA
D’ CruzAMDLubbockTX
EbersolePhilipMDTemeculaCA
EckJeffreyMDElkhartIN
EdelmannKarlMDAnn ArborMI
ElderRobertMDHartsvilleSC
ElkindArthurMDMount VernonNY
EllisBrianMDMelbourneFL
EllisPaulMDAlpharettaGA
EmersonRussellMDStanleyNC
EnglertJackMDHuntsvilleAL
EnnsRichardMDHuntington BeachCA
EntinErikMDPlainviewNY
EppinetteJamesMDWest MonroeLA
ErbayCelalMDGainesvilleFL
EshenaurOliverDOOrrvilleOH
EslamiNasrollahMDChicagoIL
EspositoAnthonyMDAnnistonAL
Estrada-MasseyAdahliMDAuburnAL
EubankGeoffreyMDColumbusOH
EvansBryanMDHuntsvilleAL
FaheyPatriciaMDEnglewoodCO
FasonJeffMDFlorissantMO
FeldmanLudmilaMDStaten IslandNY
FeslerWilliamMDBartlesvilleOK
FieldsCarolynMDGreenvilleSC
FifeTerryMDScottsdaleAZ
FinchJohnDOSeattleWA
FinkAlanMDWilmingtonDE
FirstBrianMDSan DiegoCA
FischerCalvinDOHoffman EstatesIL
FisherRobertMDFort SmithAR
FisherTobinMDHuntsvilleAL
FisherToddMDMiddletownPA
FlechasJorgeMDHendersonvilleNC
FlemingFrankMDGreenvilleNC
FlemingPeterMDWatertownMA
FleshmanDanielMDHilliardOH
FlitmanStephenMDPhoenixAZ
FordDonMDSugar LandTX
FordJackMDColorado SpgsCO
FornerStephenMDChicoCA
FosterCarolMDPhoenixAZ
FoxKennethDOLevittownPA
FranklinMichaelMDSaint PetersburgFL
FrebergDanielDOMesaAZ
FriedmanAaronMDNew OrleansLA
FriedrichBrianDODrexel HillPA
FriendHaroldMDBoca RatonFL
FritzJohnDOJersey CityNJ
FullemannSusanMDBurlingameCA
FungWilsonMDSanta ClaritaCA
FureyWilliamDOStratfordNJ
GaddisKennethMDThibodauxLA
GaikwadShilpaMDOxnardCA
GardnerJackMDDallasTX
GardnerRaymondMDMansfieldOH
GargRamMDWoodhavenMI
GarrettDavidMDBentonvilleAR
GatiwalaIndravadanMDLumbertonNC
GayaWilliamMDOcalaFL
GebelMichaelMDWinter ParkFL
GehiChandraMDAnnistonAL
GerardWilliamDOMilwaukeeWI
GervaisDonaldMDHoumaLA
GillNaurangMDWoodbridgeVA
GilsonPaulMDBrickNJ
GlapinskiRobertDOCapacMI
GlasserMichaelMDNew YorkNY
GluckmanRichardMDSan PedroCA
GoeringEdwardDOPortlandOR
GoldbergerDanielMDPortageMI
GoldsteinGaryMDPalm HarborFL
GolnickJanMDOmahaNE
GolubBariMDSaint LouisMO
GordonColetteMDChicagoIL
GordonNormanMDE ProvidenceRI
GoslingJohnMDClintonMI
GovindanSriniMDWheelingWV
GraffJustinMDBeldenMS
GrassDavidMDFairfaxVA
GravesChristyMDSlidellLA
GravesKurtMDBaton RougeLA
GreenPhillipMDKalamazooMI
GreenbergWilliamMDSaint PetersburgFL
GreenblattLawrenceDOBellevueWA
GreenwoodJohnMDLenexaKS
Greg ZoltaniJohnMDTacomaWA
Gregg HardyJMDGreenvilleNC
GrelletCatherineMDLos GatosCA
GrimballRogerMDSulphurLA
GrinerDonaldDOMesaAZ
GroteStewartDOLansingKS
GroverDanielMDGreenvilleSC
Guin JohnsonDarleneMDOklahoma CityOK
HagaEdwardMDHamptonVA
HallmarkBeltonMDCastle RockCO
Halper-ErkkilaRubyMDWhite House StationNJ
HalpernBettyMDHoustonTX
HalversonJamesDONewport NewsVA
HamoWaelMDSylacaugaAL
HanleyPatriciaMDAustinTX
HanleyThomasMDVoorheesNJ
HanrahanBethMDClearwaterFL
HansonJamesMDWaukeshaWI
HantosLiviaMDBuffalo GroveIL
HareEsterMDOrangeburgSC
HarrisMarkMDAtlantaGA
HarrisonStephenMDFultonIL
HarveyFrankMDWest CarthageNY
HatharasingheRogerMDStatesvilleNC
HeadGilbertMDOmahaNE
HegdeHemantMDOgdenUT
HendersonReggieMDLexingtonTN
HensonLoisDOVandaliaOH
HernandezRafaelMDFredericksbrgVA
HerroldJamesMDBoiseID
HiebertPamelaMDBozemanMT
HilgemanJosephMDManchesterMO
HirschJeffreyMDOklahoma CityOK
HoffmanDanielMDDunlapIL
HollemanKevinMDPortageMI
HoltWilliamDOPort CharlotteFL
HomanJamesDOTampaFL
Hosso-CooperJenniferDOOak LawnIL
HostetterCarolDOWestervilleOH
HowardJeromeMDCharlotteNC
HoweJeffreyMDElkhartIN
HoweSteveDOMariettaOH
HowellGregoryMDOcalaFL
HrabarchukEugeneMDFranklinNJ
HsuJuiMDElktonMD
HuddlestoneJohnMDChicagoIL
HudsonRonaldMDColumbusGA
HuntWadeMDNew HartfordNY
HusainMohammadMDValley StreamNY
HusidMarcMDAugustaGA
HutchisonEdwardMDBreaCA
InamineGaryMDHonoluluHI
IrelandCliffDOSkokieIL
Isenberg-RawlsJudyMDMadisonAL
IvyMaryMDLititzPA
IzzoTimothyDOGrand LedgeMI
J HolladayDawnettaMDAthensGA
JacksonRebeccaMDKnoxvilleTN
JacobusBrentDOCrown PointIN
JaoKedyDOLa MiradaCA
JeffriesNancyDOEphrataPA
JenckesGeorgeMDReadingPA
JirovecRichardMDLincolnNE
JohnsonConstanceMDClarksvilleTN
JohnsonJamesMDGreenvilleSC
JohnsonMarkMDSalt Lake CtyUT
JohnsonMichaelMDBucyrusOH
JohnsonMichaelMDSherwoodOR
JonesHelenMDFresnoCA
JoshiSanjeevMDChicago HtsIL
JurcikYvonneMDBuffalo GroveIL
JustizWilliamMDNaplesFL
KafkaChristopherDOGladstoneMO
KaganJeffreyMDNewingtonCT
KailasamJayasreeMDHoustonTX
KalahasthyAnnadoraiMDDaytonOH
KalraArunMDMonroeLA
KaplanRyanMDFayettevilleAR
KarimiKambizMDIndianapolisIN
KavilleRobertMDScrantonPA
KeehbauchJenniferMDOrlandoFL
KeinarthPaulMDAustinTX
KelemenJohnMDPlainviewNY
KellerDavidMDHersheyPA
KelseyAlanMDWhite House StationNJ
KentRobertDOArlingtonTX
KerstingClaytonMDNewportWA
KesslerThomasMDMobileAL
KhalidAijazMDColumbusGA
KieferPeterMDDes PlainesIL
KiloCharlesMDNaplesFL
KingstonCarolineMDSanta FeNM
KippJosephMDNewtownPA
KiserRoyMDRichardsonTX
KistlerCharlesDOColumbusOH
KleinJeffreyMDWestlake VlgCA
KnightRebeccaMDPeoriaIL
KnipferMarkMDSpartanburgSC
KnubleyWilliamMDFort SmithAR
KochStanleyMDMortonIL
KoffmanBrianMDDiamond BarCA
KoopmanAntonMDColumbusIN
KoppJamesMDNewport NewsVA
KordishTheresaDOKalamazooMI
KovacevicOlgaMDStrongsvilleOH
KovacsSuzanneMDSpartanburgSC
KristlKevinMDSouth BendIN
KritzDavidMDOrangeCA
KrupitskyAndrewDOAltamonte SpgFL
KruszJohnMDDallasTX
KumarAnsuyaMDPlanoTX
KumarSeemaMDAlexandriaVA
KunstEdwardMDManchesterMO
KurlanderRonaldMDPompano BeachFL
KurtzerYitzchokMDScrantonPA
KurzawaMarkMDClinton TownshipMI
Kwon-HongGraceMDModestoCA
LaegerJaneMDBangorME
LambChadMDAndersonIN
LambertLiseMDFt LauderdaleFL
LarrisonCharlesMDHot SpringsAR
LazarusKennethMDFayettevilleGA
LedetMichaelMDMobileAL
LeeDanielMDGreenvilleNC
LeeKangMDLudingtonMI
LeeKeungMDAsheboroNC
LeedsLeroyMDHoustonTX
LeitmanJeffreyDOStratfordNJ
LeitzingerLindaDOEriePA
LelandRichardMDGreenvilleSC
LeleAnjuMDMentorOH
LeleGeetaMDHobbsNM
LeleShreeniwasMDMentorOH
LevinKennethMDRidgewoodNJ
LewisonGaryMDEast DundeeIL
LiebentrittMatthewMDLongmontCO
LieuxTheodoreMDBaton RougeLA
LilloJosephDOScottsdaleAZ
LimAndrewMDWakefieldMA
LinCheng-TeMDLimaOH
LindholmKarinDOChicagoIL
LindleyMarkMDPlymouthMI
LipscombGeoffreyMDFoleyAL
LisgarHarveyDORichboroPA
LoftusBrianMDHoustonTX
LookMichelleMDSan DiegoCA
LucasCynthiaNPMaconGA
LumKatharineMDVero BeachFL
LuriaEricMDGig HarborWA
LynnLonDOTampaFL
MaSherryMDSaint LouisMO
MagpileMichaelMDLa MesaCA
MagreAnn-MarieMDFayettevilleAR
MaidaGeraldMDBloomingdaleIL
MajidAbdulMDMenashaWI
ManningRickeyMDKnoxvilleTN
MannixLisaMDWestchesterOH
MarlowRobertMDHuntsvilleAL
MarmelRichardMDSan AntonioTX
MarquinoReyMDDennisonOH
MarracciniLindaMDMiamiFL
MartinJohnMDEdmondOK
MathewNinanMDHoustonTX
MatthewsDaleMDWashingtonDC
MauridesPeterMDGreenvilleSC
MauskopAlexanderMDNew YorkNY
MayJamesMDShreveportLA
MayerDavidDOHuntsvilleAL
Mc CarrenTimothyMDCincinnatiOH
Mc CarthyChristopherMDSaint LouisMO
Mc ClainDavidMDAmerican ForkUT
Mc DanielGregoryMDYoungstownOH
Mc GheeTerrenceMDAshevilleNC
Mc Lean-BennettJacquelynDOAlbanyNY
McCallumGaryMDBellinghamWA
McpheeRobertDOCrystal RiverFL
MeltonGaryMDCrittendenKY
MenachemAllanMDWhitevilleNC
MentockSabrinaMDDurhamNC
MichelElliotMDNatrona HtsPA
MichelsenThomasDOJacksonvilleFL
MillerMichaelMDChesterlandOH
MillerRogerMDJacksonvilleFL
MillerTamaraMDFort CollinsCO
MillermaierEdwardMDPortageMI
MillermaierJanetMDPortageMI
MillsRichardMDMount PleasantSC
MingioneDonaldMDPortsmouthVA
MirSarimMDCumberlandMD
MoberlyHaroldMDWinchesterKY
MocklerKarenMDDadevilleAL
ModiSmitaMDIselinNJ
MogleDouglasMDMelbourneFL
MolterDarronMDN Myrtle BchSC
MonjeMarileMDCrystal LakeIL
MoonStevenMDFayettevilleAR
MooreHaroldMDColumbiaSC
MooreTerrenceMDDentonTX
MoranJosephMDStatesvilleNC
MorrillThomasDOGarlandTX
MorseMichaelMDFayettevilleAR
MuellerNancyMDEnglewood CliffsNJ
MullowneyJamesDOMesquiteTX
MunshowerJohnMDMarcus HookPA
MurilloGeorgeMDTomballTX
MurphyAnnDOOverland ParkKS
MurphyDuffyMDLogansportIN
MuseDerekMDSalt Lake CtyUT
NakanoKennethMDKailuaHI
NaplesRobertDOCortlandOH
NatrajanPuthugramamMDAugustaGA
NavarroEvelynMDGrand RapidsMI
NayyarManmohanMDApple ValleyCA
NazarioLilianaMDOverland ParkKS
NeelyKathrynMDCantonGA
NelsonRobertMDNorcoCA
NestorGregoryMDSaint PetersburgFL
NewmanStephenMDPlainviewNY
NgKenMDOcalaFL
NievesAlfredoMDChattanoogaTN
NormanHowardDOAvondaleAZ
NorysJamesMDFayettevilleAR
O'CarrollChristopherMDNewport BeachCA
OdioAlbertoMDSimi ValleyCA
OhashiGaryMDWestminsterCA
OlsonMichaelMDSioux FallsSD
OndrejickaJohnMDJacksonville BeachFL
OppyJamesMDConnellsvillePA
OsioAntonioMDWichitaKS
OttleyBarbara-JeanMDHaysKS
Owusu-YawVictorMDDanvilleVA
PaleyJudithMDDenverCO
PalmerMadelynMDLittletonCO
ParcellsPatrickMDNewport NewsVA
PareBernardMDMount JulietTN
ParkRichardMDUniversal CtyTX
ParkerDavidDONorthglennCO
ParkerRichardDOSan DiegoCA
ParmerKeithMDRomeGA
ParsleyDonnaDOPickeringtonOH
PatelAlpaMDJacksonvilleFL
PatelMrugendraMDRichlandsVA
PattersonBrianMDBellinghamWA
PaulAlanMDTylerTX
PayneRichardMDEncinitasCA
PeacockMarkMDJacksonvilleFL
PearlmanEricMDSavannahGA
Peggy JonesMaryMDTucsonAZ
PerdikisGeorgeMDLancasterCA
PerelAllanMDStaten IslandNY
PerlmanNeilMDVernon HillsIL
PerryWilliamMDCentreAL
PhamKhoiMDAuroraCO
PhelanJamesMDKingwoodTX
PiercePaulMDVicksburgMS
PillowDeborahMDAddystonOH
PolyhronopoulosSpiroMDLebanonKY
PorterAndrewMDGilbertsvilleKY
PosgaiScottMDOrlandoFL
PottsGregoryMDLouisvilleKY
PraterFredricDOSaint LouisMO
PrattJosephMDCorinthMS
PrinceVickieMDJacksonvilleFL
PugachNeilMDChesapeakeVA
PutlandKennethMDNewport NewsVA
QuickRobertMDCreteNE
R HoltRaymondMDBaldwinsvilleNY
R RaybourneSusanMDMaconGA
R. BullardBranchMDMonte VistaCO
RabovetskayaYevgeniyaMDBrooklynNY
RaikhelMarinaMDTorranceCA
RajJosephMDNew HartfordNY
RakowskiTaraMDMilwaukeeWI
RalphLeeMDSan DiegoCA
RandallWilliamMDDaytonOH
RanieriJosephDOPhiladelphiaPA
RasorDanielMDAustinTX
RatcliffKeithMDWashingtonMO
ReevesRobertMDJohnson CityTN
RehmCharlesMDSaint LouisMO
ReidRandalMDAustinTX
RendziperisArthurDOWhite LakeMI
ResnickHarveyMDLake JacksonTX
ReynaOscarMDLatrobePA
ReznickLouisDOGlendaleNY
RhodesRichardDONorth CharlestonSC
RingwalaKirtidaMDOshkoshWI
RiskeTerranceMDHayden LakeID
RobinJosephMDBellevueWA
RodbergNadiaMDSouthboroughMA
RodgersRobertMDApopkaFL
RoeshmanRobertDOAllentownPA
RogersDavidMDEasleySC
RolfsenMichaelMDBaton RougeLA
RollerDonMDTulsaOK
RolstonBMDCovingtonLA
RosemoreMichaelDOHueytownAL
RosenbergMarkDOSterling HeightsMI
RosenfeldJackMDLansdalePA
RossDavidMDPlantationFL
RothBarbaraMDByesvilleOH
RubensteinRobertMDBremertonWA
RyanRogerMDLittle RockAR
S AsinGeraldMDPhoenixAZ
S LabelLorneMDThousand OaksCA
SalamYasserMDRacineWI
SalvatoPatriciaMDHoustonTX
SarfrazNaeemMDNorwalkCT
SarnaPaulMDTexarkanaTX
SatterfieldBentonMDRaleighNC
SaviaPhilipMDDraperUT
Savic-DyrnasLydiaMDBelvidereIL
SavinAndrewMDChicagoIL
SchafferRobertMDCentervilleOH
SchechtHowardMDToledoOH
SchmidtClintonMDFayettevilleAR
SchmidtJayMDHudsonNC
SchneiderDonaldDOHighland RanchCO
SchwartzKennethMDSaratoga SpgsNY
ScrimentiMichaelMDMahwahNJ
ScrogginsJohnMDTylerTX
SeestedtRichardMDFairfaxVA
SeiferAlanMDMiamiFL
SengstockGregoryMDJacksonvilleFL
SettlesRichardDOScottsdaleAZ
SharfmanMarcMDWinter ParkFL
SharkeyJosephMDGoldenCO
SharlinKennethMDBransonMO
SharmanDarylMDMillsboroDE
SiddiquiUsmanMDLawrenceburgIN
Sidney WhiteErnestMDParisTX
SilvermanMarshallMDCharlotteNC
SilversteinBruceMDLiverpoolNY
SimmonsCalvinMDLewisvilleTX
SimmonsRonaldMDCadillacMI
SimsarianJamesMDFairfaxVA
SingerJerryMDAltoonaPA
SirkenDavidDOHuntington ValleyPA
SklaverNealMDDallasTX
SloanJerryMDNew HartfordNY
SmithDavidMDLincolnNE
SmithRobertDOSpringboroOH
SmithSallyMDTylerTX
SmithTheodoreMDSpartanburgSC
SmithThomasMDHoldregeNE
SnoddyNeilMDColumbusGA
SnyderMarijoMDKalamazooMI
SockolovRonaldMDSacramentoCA
SommersThomasMDO'FallenMO
SparacinoKathyMDDecaturAL
SpivackJonathanMDMilwaukeeWI
SpuhlerWandaMDFriendswoodTX
SquireKarenMDWest ChesterPA
StalterMarvinMDBryanOH
Stanton-ReidStephenMDFairportNY
StarkeKeithMDSt LouisMO
StarlingWandaMDLandrumSC
SteenSusanMDTampaFL
StephenAlbertMDTylerTX
StineSandraMDOrlandoFL
StoltzRandallMDEvansvilleIN
StonerDeborahMDHiawathaKS
StoneyScottMDNewport BeachCA
StoreyGeorgeMDHuntsvilleAL
StrutinDavidMDEugeneOR
SuetholzDavidMDTaylor MillKY
SukolRoxanneMDBedfordOH
SullivanLoriMDHilliardOH
SunterWilliamMDMelbourneFL
SutherlandKatherineMDMountain ViewCA
TaberLouiseMDPhoenixAZ
TalloDianeMDColumbusOH
TamHenryMDAikenSC
TambunanDanielMDOrlandoFL
TaradashMichaelMDBurlingameCA
TaylorMichaelMDRichmondVA
TaylorPeggyDOSaint LouisMO
TejadaAlbertMDPhoenixAZ
TellezLuisMDDaytonOH
ThorsenRobertMDSouthingtonCT
ThurmerRichardDOPortageMI
TidmanRaymondMDBlue RidgeGA
TitusBeverlyNPMerrivilleIN
TolgeBrunoMDSchenectadyNY
TomRobertMDMission ViejoCA
TranchinaSaraMDDallasTX
TruaxWalterMDMarreroLA
TurnerIraMDPlainviewNY
UkwadePhilomenaMDFriendswoodTX
UlmerLawrenceDOPortageMI
VackerMarkMDDaviesFL
VaismanSofiaMDWoodland HillsCA
ValoneCharlesDOFremontOH
Van SickleChrisMDTallahasseeFL
VanderzylJohnMDSugar LandTX
VarugheseThomasMDDouglasvilleGA
VashiDipakMDAtlantaGA
VerrillPeterMDWinter HavenFL
VogelWendyMDOberlinKS
WaghraySateshMDNorth OlmstedOH
WaldmanWendyMDDes MoinesIA
WallaceMarkMDPhoenixAZ
WanskerPamelaDOGreeneME
WardVirginiaMDNew BernNC
WareWilliamMDAstonPA
WarlickThomasMDBendOR
WestJamesMDRoswellGA
WhelessJamesMDConcordNC
WiggersAlanDOTwinsburgOH
WilcoxPatriciaMDChina SpringTX
WileLarryMDPortageMI
WilliamsBarryMDPlanoTX
WilliamsBenjaminMDLubbockTX
WilsonBarbaraCRNPPittsburghPA
WilsonIanMDColumbusOH
WinerNortonMDClevelandOH
WinigerDeborahMDBuffalo GroveIL
WireduAkuaMDLincolnRI
WittJohnMDMurfreesboroTN
WittMichaelMDChatsworthGA
WittersGregoryMDHermitageTN
WoanJin-MeiMDTracyCA
WolfeWarrenDOCherry HillNJ
WongGeneMDRichlandWA
WongjiradChatreeMDBismarckND
WrobelPeterMDWaycrossGA
YeeRobertMDBeckleyWV
YoelsonStephenMDTorringtonCT
ZelkowitzMarvinMDFlossmoorIL
ZhuJianhuaMDBowling GreenKY
ZwolinskiRalphMDPort OrangeFL
  19 in total

1.  Comparison of rizatriptan and other triptans on stringent measures of efficacy.

Authors:  J U Adelman; R B Lipton; M D Ferrari; H C Diener; K A McCarroll; K Vandormael; C R Lines
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2001-10-23       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  Practice parameter: evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Authors:  S D Silberstein
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2000-09-26       Impact factor: 9.910

3.  Crossover comparison of efficacy and preference for rizatriptan 10 mg versus ergotamine/caffeine in migraine.

Authors:  Suzanne Christie; Hartmut Göbel; Valentin Mateos; Christopher Allen; France Vrijens; Malathi Shivaprakash
Journal:  Eur Neurol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.710

Review 4.  Migraine: diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Giles Elrington
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 10.154

5.  Migraine treatment outcomes with rizatriptan in triptan-naive patients: a naturalistic study.

Authors:  S Solomon; B Frishberg; X H Hu; L Markson; M Berger
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.393

6.  Efficacy, tolerability and safety of oral eletriptan and ergotamine plus caffeine (Cafergot) in the acute treatment of migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison.

Authors:  Hans-Christoph Diener; Jan-Peter Jansen; Avinoan Reches; Julio Pascual; Daniela Pitei; Timothy J Steiner
Journal:  Eur Neurol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.710

7.  Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine Study II.

Authors:  R B Lipton; W F Stewart; S Diamond; M L Diamond; M Reed
Journal:  Headache       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.887

8.  Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials.

Authors:  M D Ferrari; K I Roon; R B Lipton; P J Goadsby
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-11-17       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Patient preference in migraine therapy. A randomized, open-label, crossover clinical trial of acute treatment of migraine with oral almotriptan and rizatriptan.

Authors:  Fernando Iglesias Díez; Andreas Straube; Giorgio Zanchin
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  Oral rizatriptan versus oral sumatriptan: a direct comparative study in the acute treatment of migraine. Rizatriptan 030 Study Group.

Authors:  P Tfelt-Hansen; J Teall; F Rodriguez; M Giacovazzo; J Paz; W Malbecq; G A Block; S A Reines; W H Visser
Journal:  Headache       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.887

View more
  4 in total

1.  Migraine strikes study: factors in patients' decision to treat early.

Authors:  Wendy Golden; Judith K Evans; Henry Hu
Journal:  J Headache Pain       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 7.277

Review 2.  Non-invasive neuromodulation in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Oliver Clark; Areej Mahjoub; Nily Osman; Ann-Marie Surmava; Saber Jan; Ana Marissa Lagman-Bartolome
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Dihydroergotamine (DHE) - Then and Now: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Stephen D Silberstein; Stephen B Shrewsbury; John Hoekman
Journal:  Headache       Date:  2019-11-17       Impact factor: 5.887

4.  Rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine: Consistency, preference, satisfaction, and quality of life.

Authors:  Farnaz Amoozegar; Tamara Pringsheim
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.711

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.