Search

The small molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication‐overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo‐controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy. Plain Language Summary: A new class of migraine medicines, the gepants, does not cause medication‐overuse headache; these drugs can be taken in periods of increased headache risk, even before symptoms begin, to keep headaches from coming on. This new way of treating migraine is called "situational prevention." Experience in clinical practice suggests that treating migraine patients without current symptoms during times of increased headache risk, for example in connection with the menstrual cycle, travel, stress, or relaxation after stress, may be good times for situational prevention, but studies are needed to confirm when this strategy is most likely to be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed. Objective To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed. Methods This multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed. Results Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%). Conclusions Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co-administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]