Triptan Education and Improving Knowledge for Optimal Migraine Treatment: An Observational Study

Abstract

Background It is generally felt that patient education and patient knowledge regarding triptan use for acute migraine management is important for successful and safe treatment. It is unclear how knowledgeable triptan users are regarding their triptan, how much education occurs when triptans are prescribed, and the impact patient education has on actual patient knowledge regarding triptan use. Objective The primary objective was to compare triptan users’ self-perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about the triptans in patients who report having received triptan education vs. patients who report not having received triptan education. Methods This was a multi-center prospective observational study of 207 migraine patients who were using triptans for abortive therapy and who were being evaluated as new patients at academic headache specialty clinics in the United States. Patients completed standardized questionnaires regarding their self-perceived knowledge about the triptans, their actual knowledge regarding the triptans, and the perceived education about the triptan that they had received at the time of prescription. Results Although greater than 80% of subjects reported receiving education about when to take the triptan and the number of doses they could take for a headache, only 71.5% reported receiving education about triptan side effects, 64% for the number of triptan doses they could take each week/month, 64% for taking other medications with the triptan, and 49% for medical contraindications to triptan use. Compared to subjects who did not recall receiving education about when to take their triptan, subjects who recalled such education had a statistically significant greater actual knowledge for taking the triptan immediately after a headache begins (91% vs. 77%, p=.049; CI: .00-.33), treating when pain is mild (75% vs. 50%, p=.009; CI: .04-.45), understanding that they do not need to fail treatment with over-the-counter medications before taking a triptan (74% vs. 42%, p=.001; CI: .11-.51), and recognizing that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use (40% vs. 19%, p=.001; CI: .09-.34). Conclusion This study provides evidence that patients who recall having received education at the time of triptan prescribing have greater knowledge regarding optimal triptan use. Triptan users who recalled having received this education had greater recognition of the importance of taking the triptan immediately at the onset of a headache, treating when pain is mild, not needing to fail treatment with OTC medications before taking a triptan, and understanding that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use.

A Framework for Estimating the Eligible Patient Population for New Migraine Acute Therapies in the United States

“…Guidelines for acute treatment therefore stress the importance of ensuring that patients understand the condition and their treatment strategy, and that acute therapy be taken early in attacks [4,5]. Education initiatives may therefore help to minimize ineffective use of acute therapies and associated healthcare resource use (e.g., ED visits) [46,47].…”

Digital diary App use for migraine in primary care: Prospective cohort study

“…Apart from the aforementioned 'in-App' incentivisation approach [18], directed education of migraine patients concerning digital headache diary App capabilities may further improve take up and compliance. Amongst triptan users, researchers observed that those migraine patients who had previously received education on this family of medications did have better knowledge around their correct use [21]. Finally, in terms of clinicians potentially using digital headache diaries as part of management plans, a more selective approach to which migraine patients are offered an App may be one option.…”

Subjects at Risk for Genetic Late-Onset Neurological Diseases: Objective Knowledge

“…An overwhelming majority of scientists see the public's limited scientific knowledge as a problem for science [26] ; however, more knowledge may represent a less perceived benefit of testing and detailed information about genetic tests may result in concern and ambivalence unlike in other diseases, where the knowledge about a specific treatment implies a greater adherence to the therapy [27][28][29] .…”