Skip to content

Acute treatment

TL;DR — Effective acute therapy should restore function rapidly, sustain benefit and minimize adverse effects and medication-overuse risk. Across 137 double-blind trials and 89,445 participants, all 17 licensed oral monotherapies beat placebo for 2-hour pain freedom; eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan and zolmitriptan ranked above lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant, although confidence ranged from high to very low and individual contraindications matter (Karlsson 2024, PMID 39293828). NSAIDs and triptans remain evidence-rich first options; gepants provide non-vasoconstrictive choices with absolute 2-hour pain-freedom advantages over placebo of roughly 7–10 percentage points in pivotal single-attack trials (Croop 2019, PMID 31311674; Lipton 2019, PMID 31742631). Lasmiditan also avoids vasoconstriction but produces dose-related dizziness and driving impairment concerns (Krege 2019, PMID 31166697). Opioid evidence is weak and their repeated use adds dependence, recurrence and medication-overuse hazards (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998).

Outcomes that should not be conflated

Endpoint Definition What it misses
Pain relief at 2 h Moderate/severe pain becomes mild/none Residual pain and recurrence
Pain freedom at 2 h No pain without rescue medication Functional/sensory symptoms
Most-bothersome-symptom freedom Absence of preselected nausea, photophobia or phonophobia Other symptoms and pain
Sustained pain freedom Pain-free at 2 h and remains so to 24/48 h without rescue Later recurrence and next-day function
Meaningful relief/function Patient-defined improvement or normal function Less standardized across trials
Consistency Response across multiple attacks Single-attack registration trials cannot estimate it

A medicine can rank well for 2-hour relief but poorly for sustained freedom or tolerability. Absolute differences are essential: a relative improvement can coexist with most treated participants remaining in pain.

Comparative evidence

The 2021 JAMA evidence review synthesized 15 systematic reviews of triptans/NSAIDs plus 115 trials (28,803 participants) of other interventions. Triptans, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, DHE, gepants and lasmiditan improved pain versus placebo; evidence for opioids was low or insufficient (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998).

The 2024 network meta-analysis compared licensed oral monotherapies. Odds ratios versus placebo for 2-hour pain freedom ranged from 1.73 (95% CI 1.27–2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25–6.33) for eletriptan. Eletriptan was more effective than other active drugs in head-to-head network contrasts (OR range 1.46–3.01), followed by rizatriptan, sumatriptan and zolmitriptan (Karlsson 2024, PMID 39293828). Network ranking does not erase route, onset, cardiovascular suitability, prior response, cost or within-person variation.

Class Main strength Main constraint
Acetaminophen Accessible, familiar safety profile Lower efficacy in severe attacks; liver-dose ceiling
NSAIDs Strong evidence, low cost, anti-inflammatory analgesia Gastrointestinal, renal and cardiovascular risk
Triptans High efficacy; multiple molecules/routes Vasoconstrictive pharmacology and class contraindications
Gepants Migraine-specific, non-vasoconstrictive Smaller pivotal absolute differences; cost/access; interactions
Lasmiditan 5-HT1F agonism without vasoconstriction CNS adverse effects and post-dose activity restrictions
DHE/ergots Useful route/long-duration options in selected attacks Nausea, interactions and vascular contraindications
Antiemetics Treat nausea; some have independent analgesic activity Akathisia, sedation, extrapyramidal effects by agent
Opioids Sometimes used when options unavailable Weak evidence, recurrence, dependence and MOH risk

NSAIDs and acetaminophen

NSAID choice is shaped by prior response, speed, formulation and comorbidity more than proof of large between-drug differences. Aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac have placebo-controlled efficacy in systematic reviews (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998). Early dosing while pain is mild often improves response, but treatment should not be taken for every ambiguous prodromal sensation because frequency itself creates exposure risk.

Acetaminophen is effective versus placebo with moderate strength of evidence and may be used alone or in combinations, but combination caffeine products can complicate overuse (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998). A person-level plan should specify maximum dose, other products containing the same ingredient and class-specific contraindications.

Triptans

Triptans are 5-HT1B/1D agonists that inhibit trigeminovascular signaling and can constrict cranial/coronary vessels. Oral sumatriptan has a large randomized evidence base across systematic reviews, and route changes onset and tolerability (McCrory 2003, PMID 12917936; Derry 2012, PMID 22336849).

Route Practical advantage Tradeoff Evidence anchor
Oral Convenience and broad molecule choice Slower/variable absorption during gastric stasis Derry 2012, PMID 22336849
Subcutaneous Fastest and highest efficacy for severe rapid attacks Injection and more triptan sensations Derry 2012, PMID 22336869
Nasal Option with nausea/vomiting or early attack Taste; much sumatriptan absorption remains gastrointestinal Derry 2012, PMID 22336867
Rectal Avoids swallowing Acceptability and availability Derry 2012, PMID 22336868

Zolmitriptan review confirms efficacy across oral and nasal formulations, with dose–adverse-effect tradeoffs (Bird 2014, PMID 24848613). Eletriptan has both a placebo-controlled systematic review and a safety synthesis spanning more than 11,000 participants and 74,000 treated attacks, but trials generally excluded high-risk cardiovascular populations (McCrory 2003, PMID 11687056; Mathew 2003, PMID 14511273).

Triptans are contraindicated in established coronary/cerebrovascular disease and uncontrolled hypertension under product labels. Serious vascular events are rare in appropriately selected trial/postmarketing populations, yet absence of randomized evidence in excluded high-risk patients is not proof of safety (Dodick 2004, PMID 15149490). Chest/neck pressure can be non-cardiac, but new concerning symptoms require clinical assessment.

Failure of one triptan does not establish class failure. Dose, route, timing and another molecule may change response. Combining a triptan with an NSAID can improve sustained response in recurrent attacks, while duplicating two triptans or combining with an ergot in the restricted interval raises vascular exposure.

Gepants

Gepants antagonize the CGRP receptor without 5-HT1B-mediated vasoconstriction; ditans and gepants were developed partly to address incomplete triptan response and cardiovascular contraindications (Negro 2019, PMID 31081399; de Vries 2020, PMID 33369482). Their pivotal outcomes show real but modest absolute effects:

Trial Treatment 2-h pain freedom 2-h MBS freedom Frequent specific harm
Rimegepant ODT phase 3 75 mg vs placebo 21% vs 11%; RD 10% (95% CI 6–14) 35% vs 27%; RD 8% (3–13) Nausea 2% vs <1% (Croop 2019, PMID 31311674)
ACHIEVE II Ubrogepant 50 mg vs placebo 21.8% vs 14.3%; RD 7.5% (2.6–12.5) 38.9% vs 27.4%; RD 11.5% (5.4–17.5) Nausea 2.0% vs 2.0% (Lipton 2019, PMID 31742631)
Zavegepant phase 3 Nasal 10 mg vs placebo 24% vs 15%; RD 8.8% (4.5–13.1) 40% vs 31%; RD 8.7% (3.4–13.9) Dysgeusia 21% vs 5% (Lipton 2023, PMID 36804093)

Rimegepant and ubrogepant oral trials treated a single moderate/severe attack, so day-to-day consistency and rare harms rely on extension and real-world evidence. Zavegepant provides a non-oral route when nausea, vomiting or gastric stasis impairs tablets, at the price of taste/nasal adverse effects.

Gepants are metabolized through drug-specific pathways, commonly involving CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein; interaction and hepatic/renal restrictions are molecule-specific. “No vasoconstriction” should not be translated into “risk-free for every vascular patient,” because pivotal trials still selected participants.

Lasmiditan

Lasmiditan is a selective 5-HT1F agonist that inhibits trigeminal signaling without the 5-HT1B vasoconstrictive mechanism (Rubio-Beltrán 2018, PMID 29352859). SAMURAI and SPARTAN established acute efficacy, including among participants using preventives (Loo 2019, PMID 31340760).

Dizziness is the signature harm and is dose-related; pooled analyses characterize onset and duration rather than dismissing it as a generic adverse event (Tepper 2019, PMID 31152441). Integrated phase-3 safety also identified somnolence, paresthesia and fatigue (Krege 2019, PMID 31166697). A second dose did not provide a simple universal rescue solution; recurrence and rescue analyses must account for selection after the first dose (Loo 2019, PMID 31409292).

The live PubMed search through 2026-08-30 identified indirect network comparisons but no direct randomized gepant-versus-lasmiditan trial in triptan-unsuitable patients. CNS tolerability and the need to drive/work after dosing often decide more than average efficacy (Beauchene 2021, PMID 34752575).

Nausea, vomiting and route

Gastric stasis and vomiting can delay or prevent oral absorption. Non-oral triptan, DHE, zavegepant or an antiemetic route may be more rational than repeatedly escalating an oral dose. Dopamine-antagonist antiemetics can reduce nausea and may relieve headache independently, particularly in emergency settings; akathisia and dystonia require attention (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998).

Route should be matched to attack kinetics:

  • rapid-onset attacks: faster nasal/subcutaneous options;
  • prominent early nausea/vomiting: non-oral option or antiemetic;
  • long recurrent attacks: sustained efficacy and recurrence matter;
  • waking attacks: formulation immediately accessible at bedside;
  • menstrual attacks: longer duration/recurrence may favour longer-acting or combination plans (Maasumi 2017, PMID 27910087).

Sequencing and judging failure

Step Question Avoidable error
1 Was the diagnosis/attack phenotype correct? Treating secondary headache or aura alone as routine pain
2 Was treatment taken early enough at an effective dose? Declaring failure after delayed/partial dosing
3 Was the route absorbed? Repeating oral therapy during vomiting
4 Did pain freedom, function and recurrence improve? Counting transient mild relief as success
5 Was response consistent over ≥2–3 attacks? Generalizing one atypical attack
6 How many acute-treatment days/month result? Creating medication overuse while optimizing single attacks

Pediatric evidence cannot be copied from adults: systematic review found ibuprofen and some triptans effective, but placebo response, formulation, age approval and trial endpoints differ (Richer 2016, PMID 27091010).

Safety and overuse

Frequent use of analgesics, ergots and triptans can be associated with MOH; class thresholds are discussed separately (Tajti 2015, PMID 25773005). Opioids add constipation, sedation, respiratory/dependence risk and may promote repeated rescue use. Butalbital-containing combinations share dependence and overuse concerns and lack a favourable migraine-specific evidence position.

Safety is not class-only. NSAID renal/GI risk, acetaminophen cumulative dose, serotonergic combinations, pregnancy, hepatic metabolism and cardiovascular disease require drug-specific review. New agents widen options; they do not eliminate medication reconciliation.

Open questions

  • Which acute-treatment sequence maximizes sustained pain freedom per cost after failure of an NSAID or one triptan? (Karlsson 2024, PMID 39293828)
  • Do gepants have lower MOH liability at high-frequency real-world exposure, or is current reassurance limited by follow-up and selection? (Negro 2019, PMID 31081399)
  • Which treatment works best when taken during mild pain versus established moderate/severe pain in pragmatic trials? (VanderPluym 2021, PMID 34128998)
  • Can within-person multi-attack crossover trials replace average drug rankings with reliable individual selection? (Karlsson 2024, PMID 39293828)
  • What is the comparative vascular safety of gepants, lasmiditan and no migraine-specific treatment in genuinely high-risk populations excluded from pivotal trials? (Dodick 2004, PMID 15149490; Beauchene 2021, PMID 34752575)

References

  1. VanderPluym JH, et al. Acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021. PMID 34128998
  2. Karlsson WK, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for acute migraine: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024. PMID 39293828
  3. Derry CJ, et al. Sumatriptan (oral) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID 22336849
  4. Derry CJ, et al. Sumatriptan (subcutaneous) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID 22336869
  5. Derry CJ, et al. Sumatriptan (intranasal) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID 22336867
  6. Derry CJ, et al. Sumatriptan (rectal) for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID 22336868
  7. Bird S, et al. Zolmitriptan for acute migraine attacks in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. PMID 24848613
  8. Mathew NT, et al. Tolerability and safety of eletriptan in migraine. Headache. 2003. PMID 14511273
  9. Dodick DW, et al. Cardiovascular tolerability and safety of triptans: review of clinical data. Headache. 2004. PMID 15149490
  10. Croop R, et al. Rimegepant ODT for acute migraine: randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019. PMID 31311674
  11. Lipton RB, et al. Ubrogepant versus placebo in ACHIEVE II. JAMA. 2019. PMID 31742631
  12. Lipton RB, et al. Zavegepant 10 mg nasal spray for acute migraine: phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2023. PMID 36804093
  13. Negro A, et al. Gepants for treatment of migraine. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2019. PMID 31081399
  14. Rubio-Beltrán E, et al. Is selective 5-HT1F receptor agonism distinct from triptans? Pharmacol Ther. 2018. PMID 29352859
  15. Loo LS, et al. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety with concomitant preventive medication: SAMURAI and SPARTAN. J Headache Pain. 2019. PMID 31340760
  16. Tepper SJ, et al. Characterization of dizziness after lasmiditan: SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Headache. 2019. PMID 31152441
  17. Krege JH, et al. Safety findings from phase 3 lasmiditan studies. Cephalalgia. 2019. PMID 31166697
  18. Loo LS, et al. Rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan: SAMURAI and SPARTAN. BMC Neurol. 2019. PMID 31409292
  19. Beauchene JK, et al. Lasmiditan: acute migraine treatment without vasoconstriction. J Pharm Technol. 2021. PMID 34752575
  20. Tajti J, et al. Drug safety in acute migraine treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015. PMID 25773005
  21. Negro A, et al. Novel synthetic treatment options for migraine. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021. PMID 33369482
  22. Richer L, et al. Drugs for acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID 27091010
  23. Maasumi K, et al. Menstrual migraine and treatment options. Headache. 2017. PMID 27910087
  24. Smith LA, et al. Eletriptan for acute migraine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001. PMID 11687056
  25. McCrory DC, et al. Oral sumatriptan for acute migraine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003. PMID 12917936