, Volume 63, Issue 21, pp 2285–2305 | Cite as

Newer Formulations of the Triptans

Advances in Migraine Management
Review Article


Migraine is a common, frequently incapacitating, headache disorder that imposes a substantial burden on both the individual patient and society. The last two decades have witnessed an explosion in our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine, and in our development of an efficacious and diverse therapeutic armamentarium.

There are several routes of drug administration available to patients with migraine. All the serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists (triptans) are available as oral tablets (sumatriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, frovatriptan and eletriptan). Only sumatriptan is available as a subcutaneous injection. Some triptans are also available via newer routes of administration, including orally disintegrating tablets (rizatriptan and zolmitriptan), rectal suppositories (sumatriptan) and intranasal sprays (sumatriptan and zolmitriptan).

Oral disintegrating tablets and other non-oral triptan routes (subcutaneous, intranasal, rectal) are a useful alternative to conventional oral tablets for patients who have difficulty swallowing pills or prefer not to do so, and for patients whose nausea and/vomiting precludes swallowing tablets and/or makes the likelihood of complete absorption unpredictable. This is important because epidemiological studies in migraine reveal that the vast majority of patients (>90%) have experienced nausea during a migraine attack and more than 50% have nausea with the majority of attacks. Similarly, most (almost 70%) have vomited at some time during an attack and of these patients, almost one-third vomit in the majority of attacks.

The newer formulations, rapidly dissolving tablets and intranasal sprays, afford patients the opportunity to use abortive therapy without the need for liquids, at anytime and anywhere, at the onset of a migraine attack. Furthermore, the intranasal sprays are absorbed rapidly and have a prompt onset of action allowing for significant pain free rates versus placebo as early as 15 minutes post administration. The ability to administer treatment early in a migraine attack and have a rapid onset of action is particularly important in acute migraine treatment in order to prevent the development of central sensitisation.

While many patients and physicians choose conventional oral tablets because of familiarity and ease of administration, the newer formulations, oral disintegrating tablets and intranasal sprays, should be given consideration as first-line agents in selected patients.


Migraine Sumatriptan Migraine Attack Zolmitriptan Rizatriptan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr Gawel has served as an advisor for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and AstraZeneca. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Goadsby PT, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine: current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(4): 257–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silberstein SD. Migraine symptoms: results of a survey of selfreported migraineurs. Headache 1995; 35: 387–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rasmussen BK, Olesen J. Migraine with aura and migraine without aura: an epidemiological study. Cephalalgia 1992; 12: 221–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rasmussen BK, Olesen J. Symptomatic and nonsymptomatic headaches in a general population. Neurology 1992; 42: 1225–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamelsky SW, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Epidemiology of migraine. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2001; 5(2): 189–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlof CGH, Solomon G. The burden of migraine to the individual sufferer: a review. Eur J Neurol 1998; 5: 525–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, et al. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine II Study. Headache 2001; 41(7): 646–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kryst S, Scherl E. A population-based survey of the social and personal impact of headache. Headache 1994; 34: 344–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lipton RB, Hamelsky S,KolodnerK, et al. Migraine, quality of life, and depression: a population-based case-control study. Neurology 2000; 55: 629–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith R. Impact of migraine on the family. Headache 1998; 38: 423–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD, Tijhuis M, et al. The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology 2000; 55: 624–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menken M, Munsat TL, Toole JF. The global burden of disease study: implications for neurology. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 418–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 813–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ. Historical introduction. In: Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, editors. Headache in clinical practice. Oxford: Isis Medical Media Ltd, 1998: 1–10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giammarco R, Edmeads J, Dodick D. Headache in history. In: Giammarco R, Edmeads J, Dodick D, editors. Critical decisions in headache management. Hamilton (BC): Decker Inc., 1998: 1–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isler H, Rose FC, Historical background. In: Olesen J, T felt-Hansen, Welch KMA, editors. The headaches. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000: 1–7Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bove FJ. The story of ergot. Basel, New York: Karger, 1970Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silberstein SD, Hargreaves RJ. The history and pharmacology of ergotamine and dihydroergotamine. In: Diener HC, editor. Drug treatment of migraine and other headaches. Basel: Karger, 2000: 52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Humphrey PPA. How it started. Cephalalgia 2001; 21 Suppl. 1: 2–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perry CM, Markham A. Sumatriptan: an updated review of its use in migraine. Drugs 1998; 55(6): 889–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gladstone JP, Dodick DW. Current and emerging treatment options for migraine and other primary headache disorders. Exp Rev Neurotherapeutics. In PressGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cady RK, Wendt JK, Kirchner JF, et al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265: 2831–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silberstein SD. Practice parameter: evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache. Neurology 2000; 55: 754–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dahlof CGH, Hargreaves RJ. Pathophysiology and pharmacology of migraine: is there a place for antiemetics in future treatment strategies. Cephalalgia 1998; 18: 593–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pringsheim T, Gawel M. Triptans: are they all the same? Curr Pain Headache Rep 2002; 6: 140–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salonen R, Scott A. Triptans: do they differ? Curr Pain Headache Rep 2002; 6: 133–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rapoport AM, Tepper SJ. Triptans are all different. Arch Neurol 2001; 58: 1479–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saper JR. What matters is not the differences between triptans, but the differences between patients. Arch Neurol 2001; 58(9): 1481–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rapoport AM, Tepper SJ. All triptans are not the same. J Headache Pain 2001; 2: S87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, et al. Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT1b/1d agonist) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 2001; 538: 1668–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gawel MJ, Worthington I, Maggisano A. A systematic review of the use of triptans in acute migraine. Can J Neurol Sci 2001; 28: 30–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Logemann CD, Rankin LM. Newer intranasal migraine medications. Am Fam Physician 2000; 61(1): 180–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hussain AA. Intranasal drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 29(1–2): 39–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Quraishi MS, Jones NS, Mason JD. The nasal delivery of drugs. Clin Otolaryngol 1997; 22(4): 289–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones NS, Quraishi S, Mason JD. The nasal delivery of systemic drugs. Int J Clin Pract 1997; 51(5): 308–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Habib W, Khankari R, Hontz J. Fast-dissolve drug delivery systems. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 2000; 17(1): 61–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Slowson M, Slowson S. What to do when patient’s can’t swallow their medications. Pharm Times 1985; 51: 90–6Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doheny K. You really expect me to swallow those horse pills? Am Drug 1993; 209: 34–5Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Becker WL. Migraine-associated symptoms: clinical significance and management. Can J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 6 Suppl. A: 15A–9APubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boyle R, Behan PO, Sutton JA. A correlation between severity of migraine and delayed gastric emptying measured by an epigastric impedance method. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 30: 405–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Volans GN. Migraine and drug absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet 1978; 3: 313–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zagami AS, Rasmussen BK. Symptomatology of migraine without aura. In: Olesen J, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA, editors. The headaches. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000: 337–44Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moes AJ. Suppositories formulation and drug release. Boll Chim Farm 1989; 128(1): 5–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Hoogdalem EJ, de Boef AG, Breimer DD. Pharmacokinetics of rectal drug administration. Part 1: general considerations and clinical applications of centrally acting drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 1991; 21(1): 11–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van Hoogdalem EJ, de Boef AG, Breimer DD. Pharmacokinetics of rectal drug administration: Part II. clinical applications of peripherally acting drugs, and conclusions. Clin Pharmacokinet 1991; 21(2): 110–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sayfan J. Ergotamine-induced anorectal strictures. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45(2): 271–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bertin J, Brion N, Farkkila M, et al. A dose-defining study of sumatriptan suppositories in the acute treatment of migraine. Int J Clin Pract 1999; 53(8): 593–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kunka RL, Hussey EK, Shaw S, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan suppositories following single and multiple doses in healthy volunteers. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 532–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tepper SJ, Cochran A, Hobbs S, et al. Sumatriptan suppositories for the acute treatment of migraine. Int J Clin Pract 1998; 52(1): 31–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ward TN, Scott G. Dihydroergotamine suppositories in a headache clinic. Headache 1991; 31(7): 465–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jones EB, Gonzalez ER, Boggs JG, et al. Safety and efficacy of rectal prochlorperazine for the treatment of migraine in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24(2): 237–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tfelt-Hansen P, Olesen J, Aebelholt-Krabbe A, et al. A double-blind study of metoclorpramide in the treatment of migraine attacks. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1980; 43(4): 369–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Klapper JA, O’Connor S. Rizatriptan wafer: sublingual vs placebo at the onset of acute migraine. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 585–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Allen C, Dayno J, Lines C, et al. Rizatriptan wafer: sublingual vs. placebo at the onset of acute migraine [letter]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21(1): 77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schoenen J. When should triptans be taken during a migraine attack? CNS Drugs 2001; 15: 483–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Burstein R, Cutrer MF, Yarnitsky D. The development of cutaneous allodynia during a migraine attack: clinical evidence for the sequential recruitment of spinal and supraspinal nociceptive neurons in migraine. Brain 2000; 123: 1703–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Burstein R, Collins B, Bajwa Z, et al. Triptan therapy can abort migraine attacks if given before the establishment or in the absence of cutaneous allodynia and central sensitization: clinical and preclinical evidence [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42: 390Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Winner P, Mannix L, McNeal S, et al. Treatment of migraine at the first sign of pain: prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter studies of sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg versus placebo [abstract]. Neurology 2002; 58 Suppl. 3: A415Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Klapper JA, Charlesworth B, Jergenson AP, et al. Treatment of mild migraine with oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg prevents progression to more severe migraine and reduces the impact on normal activities in patients with significant migraine-related disability [abstract]. Neurology 2002; 58 Suppl. 3: A291–2Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    International Headache Society Committee on Clinical Trials in Migraine. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. 1st ed. Cephalalgia 1991; 11: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tfelt-Hansen P, Rsamussen BH. Conduct of clinical trials in acute migraine treatment and their interpretation. In: Diener HC, editor. Drug treatment of migraine and other headaches. Basel: Karger, 2000: 24–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Acute migraine therapy: do doctors understand what patients with migraine want from therapy? Headache 1999; 39 Suppl. 2: S20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lipton RB, Liberman JN, Goadsby PJ, et al. An assessment of the priorities of US migraineurs with respect to pre-specified triptan treatment attributes [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 396Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cutrer FM, Goadsby PJ, Ferrari M. Prioritization of treatment attributes in selecting an oral triptan: a survey of US primary care physicians [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 393Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Ferrari M, et al. Prioritization of treatment attributes in selecting an oral triptan: a survey of US neurologists [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 393Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Davies GM, Santanello N, Lipton R. Determinants of patient satisfaction with migraine therapy. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 554–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Loder E. Routes of administration of acute migraine therapy. Headache 1999; 39 Suppl. 2: S35–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dahlof C. How to assess patient preference of migraine treatments. Cephalalgia 1999; 19 Suppl. 24: 2–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ferrari MD. Tripstar: a comprehensive patient-based approach to compare triptans. Headache 2002; 42 Suppl. 1: S18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ryan RE. Patient treatment preferences and the 5-HT1b/d agonists. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 2545–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dahlof C. Assessing patient preference in migraine. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 791–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dayno JM, Lipton RB. Acute migraine treatment: factors affecting therapeutic decision making. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 318–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hamelsky SW, Lipton RB, Stewart WF. An assessment of the burden of migraine using the willingness to pay model [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21(4): 336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Merck & Co. Maxalt/Maxalt-MLT (rizatriptan): product information [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2002 Aug 6]
  77. 77.
    Astra Zeneca. Zomig/Zomig-ZMT (zolmitriptan): production information [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2002 Aug 6]
  78. 78.
    Wellington K, Plosker GL. Rizatriptan: an update of its use in the management of migraine. Drugs 2002; 62(10): 1539–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ahrens SP, Farmer MV, Williams DL, et al. Efficacy and safety of rizatriptan wafer for the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 525–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ahrens SP, Jiang K. Effect of rizatriptan wafer on migraine associated nausea [abstract]. Headache 1999; 39(5): 393Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cady R, Visser WH, Ahrens SP, et al. Long-term efficacy or rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablets for treating intermittent migraine attacks [abstract]. Headache 2000; 40(5): 400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Loder E, Brandes JL, Silberstein S, et al. Preference comparison of rizatriptan ODT-10mg and sumatriptan 50mg tablet in migraine. Headache 2001; 47: 745–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pascual J, Bussone G, Hernandez J, et al. Comparison of preference for rizatriptan 10mg wafer vs sumatriptan 50mg tablet in migraine. Eur Neurol 2001; 45(4): 275–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bohidar N, Loder E, Guerra F, et al. Relationship between patient preference for either rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) 10mg or sumatriptan tablet 50mg and speed of pain relief [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21(4): 422Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Von Seggern R, Allen C, Vrijens F, et al. Do drivers of patient preference for acute migraine therapies cross populations? Analysis from the rizatriptan-sumatriptan preference trials [poster]. American Headache Society Scientific Meeting; 2002 Jun 21–23; Seattle (WA)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Adelman JU, Mannix LK, Von Seggern RL. Rizatriptan tablet versus wafer: patient preference. Headache 2000; 40: 371–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cutrer M, Jamieson D, Hu XH, et al. Effectiveness of different oral formulations of rizatriptan in treating migraine in a naturalistic setting [abstract]. Headache 2000; 40(5): 405–6Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Dowson AJ, MacGregor EA, Purdy RA, et al. Zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet is effective in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 2002; 22: 101–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dowson AJ, Charlesworth B. Review of zolmitriptan and its clinical applications in migraine. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2002; 3(7): 993–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Loder E, Spierings E, Cady R, et al. Significant 1-hour pain-free rates with zolmitriptan 2.5mg orally disintegrating tablets in the treatment of migraine: results of a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 397Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Charlesworth B, Wasiewski W, Moran D. Migraine patients prefer the zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet to the rizatriptan wafer tablet: an assessment of taste and ease of use [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 391Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Homan RV. Transnasal butorphanol. Am Fam Physician 1994; 49(1): 188–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gillis JC, Benfield P, Goa KL. Transnasal butorphanol: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and the therapeutic potential in acute pain management. Drugs 1995; 50(1): 157–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hoffert MJ, Couch JR, Diamond S, et al. Transnasal butorphanol in the treatment of acute migraine. Headache 1995; 35(2): 65–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Silberstein SD, McCrory DC. Opioids. In: Diener HC, editors. Drug treatment of migraine and other headaches. Basel: Karger, 2000: 222–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Fisher MA, Glass S. Butorphanol (Stadol): a study in problems of current drug information and control. Neurology 1997; 48(5): 1156–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ziegler DK. Opioids in headache treatment: is there a role? Neurol Clin 1997; 15(1): 199–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ziegler D, Ford R, Kriegler J, et al. Dihydroergotamine nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine. Neurology 1994; 44: 447–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    The Dihydroergotamine Nasal Spray Multicenter Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dihydroergotamine nasal spray as monotherapy in the treatment of acute migraine. Headache 1995; 35: 177–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gallagher RM. Acute treatment of migraine with dihydroergotamine nasal spray. Arch Neurol 1996; 53: 1285–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Treves TA, Kuritzky A, Hering R, et al. Dihydroergotamine nasal spray in the treatment of acute migraine. Headache 1998; 38(8): 614–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Dahlof C, Goadsby PJ. Ergots-Therapy. In: Diener HC, editor. Drug treatment of migraine and other headaches. Basel: Karger, 2000: 66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ashford E, Salonen R, Saiers J, et al. Consistency of response to sumatriptan nasal across patient subgroups and migraine types. Cephalalgia 1998; 18: 273–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Dahlof C. Sumatriptan nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine: a review of clinical studies. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 769–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Black LK, Nielsen SY. Patient satisfaction with sumatriptan nasal spray [abstract]. Headache 1999; 39(5): 344Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dahlof CGH, Boes-Hansen S, Cederberg CG, et al. How does sumatriptan nasal spray perform in clinical practice? Cephalalgia 1998; 18: 278–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Duquesnoy C, Mamet JP, Sumner D,et al. Comparative clinical pharmacokinetics of single doses of sumatriptan following subcutaneous, oral, rectal and intranasal administration. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998; 6: 99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Bourea F, Kappos L, Schoenen J, et al. A clinical comparison of sumatriptan nasal spray and dihydroergoamine nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine. Int J Clin Pract 2000; 54(5): 281–6Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Nairn K, Yates R, Kemp J, et al. Rapid dose-proportional absorption of zolmitriptan nasal spray: comparison with the oral tablet formulation. Neurology 2001; 56 Suppl. 3: A356–7Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kemp J, Yates R. Zolmitriptan nasal spray exhibits rapid and dose-proportional absorption [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 418Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Yates R, Sorensen M, Bergstrom G, et al. Distribution and pharmacokinetics of zolmitriptan following administration by nasal spray. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 417–8Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Becker WJ, Lee D. Zolmitriptan nasal spray is effective, fastacting and well tolerated during both short- and long-term treatment [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Abu-Shakra S, Becker W, Lee D. Zolmitriptan nasal spray is effective, fast-acting and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42: 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Purdy A, Reunanen M, Lee D. High efficacy and tolerability nasal spray extends to long-term treatment of migraine [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 418–9Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Aung-Din R, Malatian ML, Pass MJ. Transdermal sumatriptan: effectiveness and convenience in migraineurs [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2001; 21: 412Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Aung-Din R. Transdermal sumatriptan: a novel dosage for efficacious in the treatment of migraine [abstract]. Headache 2002; 42(5): 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sunnybrook & Women’s College Health Sciences Centre, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations