PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15853613

Zolmitriptan (Zomig).

Alan M Rapoport·Marcelo E Bigal·Stewart J Tepper·Fred D Sheftell
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

New triptans are being released in rapid succession with each addition demonstrating some specific pharmacokinetic properties, which may be translated into clinical advantages. Zolmitriptan (Zomig) offers a range of alternatives to migraine sufferers. The conventional tablet is consistently effective across a wide range of migraine subtypes. The orally disintegrating tablet offers an effective option for those migraineurs who are nauseated or need to take their medication earlier in the course of their migraine. Since it can be taken without fluid, the orally disintegrating tablet may be consistently used early in the migraine attack when the pain is still mild. The nasal spray aggregates all the benefits of the oral formulations and has a faster onset of action. The 5-mg dose of all three forms of zolmitriptan offers additional benefits over the 2.5-mg dose at early time points. The physician can now choose the optimum route of delivery of zolmitriptan to stop the headache, increase the likelihood of reducing disability and restore the patient to complete functionality.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugHeadacheHumansMigraine DisordersOxazolidinonesSerotonin Receptor AgonistsTreatment OutcomeTryptaminesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alan M Rapoport, Marcelo E Bigal, Stewart J Tepper, Fred D Sheftell. 2004. Zolmitriptan (Zomig).. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737175.4.1.33

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

A comparison of three different models for estimating relative risk in meta-analysis of clinical trials under unobserved heterogeneity.

We focus on the comparison of three statistical models used to estimate the treatment effect in meta-analysis when individually pooled data are available. The models are two conventional models, namely a multi-level and a model based upon an approximate likelihood, and a newly developed model, the profile likelihood model which might be viewed as an extension of the Mantel-Haenszel approach. To exemplify these methods, we use results from a meta-analysis of 22 trials to prevent respiratory tract infections. We show that by using the multi-level approach, in the case of baseline heterogeneity, the number of clusters or components is considerably over-estimated. The approximate and profile likelihood method showed nearly the same pattern for the treatment effect distribution. To provide more evidence two simulation studies are accomplished. The profile likelihood can be considered as a clear alternative to the approximate likelihood model. In the case of strong baseline heterogeneity, the profile likelihood method shows superior behaviour when compared with the multi-level model.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

A comparison of adaptive allocation rules for group-sequential binary response clinical trials.

In clinical trials to compare two or more treatments with dichotomous responses, group-sequential designs may reduce the total number of patients involved in the trial and response-adaptive designs may result in fewer patients being assigned to the inferior treatments. In this paper, we combine group-sequential and response-adaptive designs, extending recent work on sample size re-estimation in trials to compare two treatments with normally distributed responses, to analogous binary response trials. We consider the use of two parameters of interest in the group-sequential design, the log odds ratio and the simple difference between the probabilities of success. In terms of the adaptive sampling rules, we study two urn models, the drop-the-loser rule and the randomized Pólya urn rule, and compare their properties with those of two sequential maximum likelihood estimation rules, which minimize the expected number of treatment failures. We investigate two ways in which adaptive urn designs can be used in conjunction with group-sequential designs. The first method updates the urn at each interim analysis and the second method continually updates the urn after each patient response, assuming immediate patient responses. Our simulation results show that the group-sequential design, which uses the drop-the-loser rule, applied fully sequentially, is the most effective method for reducing the expected number of treatment failures and the average sample number, whilst still maintaining the nominal error rates, over a range of success probabilities.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗