Open Access

Pharmacogenomics and migraine: possible implications

The Journal of Headache and Pain20089:9

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-008-0009-y

Received: 19 February 2007

Accepted: 12 December 2007

Published: 24 January 2008

Abstract

Pharmacogenomics is the science about how inherited factors influence the effects of drugs. Drug response is always a result of mutually interacting genes with important modifications from environmental and constitutional factors. Based on the genetic variability of pharmacokinetic and in some cases pharmacodynamic variability we mention possible implications for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Pharmacogenomics will most likely in the future be one part of our therapeutic armamentarium and will provide a stronger scientific basis for optimizing drug therapy on the basis of each patient’s genetic constitution.

Keywords

Migraine Pharmacogenomics Pharmacokinetics Pharmacodynamics

Introduction

The human genome consists of approximately three billion base pairs, and the number of coding sequences (“genes”) ranges from 20 to 25,000 [1]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs (pronounced “snips”) are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide (A, T, C, or G) in the genome sequence is altered in at least 1% of the population. SNPs, which make up about 90% of all human genetic variation, occur every 100–300 bases along the 3-billion-base human genome. SNPs can occur in both coding (gene) and noncoding regions of the genome. Many SNPs have no effect on cell function, but some could predispose people to disease or influence their response to a drug. Pharmacogenomics is the science about how inherited factors influence the effects of drugs [2]. It is a new science about how the systematic identification of all the human genes, their products, interindividual variation, intraindividual variation in expression and function over time may be used both to predict the right treatment in individual patients and to design new drugs.

Drug response is always to some extent determined by genetic factors. It is never determined by a single gene alone or by a group of genes. Drug response is always a result of mutually interacting genes with important modifications from environmental and constitutional factors.

Genotyping before treatment is of possible value if drug response mainly is determined by a single or just a few genes characterized for all clinically relevant SNPs, and when all clinically relevant environmental and constitutional influences are known and measurable both when treatment is initiated and during treatment.

The classical phenotype definition of genetic polymorphism is a phenotypic trait that exists in the population in at least two phenotypes (and presumably in at least two genotypes) the rarest of whom exist in say 1% of the population.

In the past, pharmacogenetics mostly dealt with genetic polymorphism in drug metabolism. The main enzyme system responsible for drug metabolism is the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system. In humans there are 57 CYP genes and 33 pseudogenes. They are organized into 18 families and 42 subfamilies. The CYP enzymes that metabolize drugs belong to families 1, 2 and 3.

The pharmacogenomic research ultimately aims of developing better and safer drugs and/or better and safer use of currently available drugs.

Migraine can be regarded as an episodic–chronic disorder [3] and in the treatment of migraine one should consider treatment of the migraine attacks and in many cases also preventive treatment. Therefore the possible implications of pharmacogenomics will be dealt with in the following separately for acute and preventive migraine treatment. In each of these sections the possible pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic implications will be described.

Very little has been achieved until the recent demonstration in cluster headache that the response to triptans is related to polymorphism in the G protein β3 [4].

In 2001 it was stated: as migraine has been demonstrated to have a strong, but complex, genetic component, pharmacogenetics bears great promise in providing new targets for drug development and optimization of individual specific therapy [5]. Better, preferably prophylactic, treatment of migraine patients is desired because the drugs now used are not effective in all patients, allow recurrence of the headache in a high percentage of patients and sometimes have severe adverse events [5].

Acute migraine treatment

The anti-migraine, specific triptans, 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, are generally regarded, as very effective acute migraine drugs [6]. This fact, however, is not always evident in current randomised clinical trials with oral triptans [79]. One could argue that this is so because only the most severely afflicted patients participate in these randomised clinical trials. However, in migraine patients with infrequent attacks recruited by general practitioners and by advertisement the results are quite similar [10].

It was recently stated that many patients have no response to triptans and complete pain relief is the exception rather than the rule [11]. How high is then the maximum effect of triptans? After subcutaneous naratriptan 10 mg the pain-free response was 87% [12, 13]. Hence, with parenteral naratriptan one gets near the maximum for pain-free.

Pharmacogenomics and pharmacokinetics

Eletriptan is metabolised by CYP3A4 and the oral bioavailability (OBA) is 50%. Sumatriptan (OBA 14%), rizatriptan (OBA 40%), almotriptan (OBA 80%) are all metabolised by monoamine oxidase (MAO)-A [9, 14, 15]. Zolmitriptan (OBA 39%) is metabolised by CYP 1A2 and the active metabolite 183C91 by MAO-A [16]. Naratriptan (OBA 74%) is excreted by the kidney and metabolism represents only a minor route of elimination of the drug [17].

The Cmax after oral 200 mg sumatriptan varied from 52 to 227 ng/ml in healthy volunteers [18]. In migraine patients outside attacks the 2 h plasma levels of zolmitriptan varied from 3 to 27 ng/ml and during attacks the plasma levels varied from 0 to 15 ng/ml after zolmitriptan 10 mg [19]. Such large variability in plasma levels suggests heterogeneity in the metabolism in the liver most likely due to heterogeneity of MOA-A and CYP1A2.

Clinical comments

Ideally, one could try whether the migraine patient respond to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg, the currently most effective available treatment [8, 9]. If the patient respond to subcutaneous sumatriptan one could then because can be inconvenient and because of the high cost of the subcutaneous sumatriptan (35 Euro per injection) try oral administration of a triptan. In theory genotyping of the patient may be useful, if the patient is not responding, and depending on the triptan in question it could in theory be genotyping of MAO-A, CYP 1A2 and CYP3A4 (see above). However, genotyping for these three enzymes is not relevant in clinical practice because the prediction of the phenotype is poor.

A CGRP antagonist BIBN079BS was effective when given intravenously [11] and CGRP antagonists are now being developed for oral use. The CGRP antagonist MK-0974 300 mg (68%) was superior to placebo (46%) for headache relief in a phase II study [20]. The pharmacokinetic profile of MK-0974 and variability of its metabolic pass way is currently unknown.

Pharmacogenomics and pharmacodynamics

Freedom of pain after 2 h is the currently suggested primary efficacy parameter in randomised, clinical trials in migraine [21]. Treatment with an oral triptan results in pain-free responses from 30 to 40% of the patients in randomised, clinical trials when the headaches are moderate or severe [7]. When the migraine attacks are treated in the mild phase of headache the 2 h pain-free responder rate increases considerably. Thus, the pain-free response was 43% after zolmitriptan 2.5 mg [22], 51–66% after sumatriptan 50–100 mg [23, 24], and 70% after rizatriptan 10 mg [25].

For subcutaneous naratripan the dose-response curve was established in one early study in the development programme of the drug, see Fig. 1 [12]. The mere fact that a dose-response could be established in this relatively small study (n = 34–69 per dose) and that a high maximum response of 87% (95% confidence intervals: 78–93%)[12, 13] was found suggest homogeneity in the pharmacodynamic response to naratriptan.
Fig. 1

Pain-free response after 2 h for placebo (n = 63), and subcutaneous naratriptan (Na) (0.5 mg (n = 69), 1 mg (n = 55), 2.5 mg (n = 42), 5 mg (n = 34), 10 mg (n = 34), and sumatriptam 6 mg (n = 47) [12]

The pain-free response was lower for sumatriptan: −33% (95% confidence intervals: −15 to −51%) [12]. The high maximum effect for naratriptan 10 mg, 87% pain-free [12], could be inherent to this drug because it is 2–3 times more potent than sumatriptan at the 5-HT1B/1D receptor in some animal models relevant to migraine [26, 27] but, at present, this remains a matter of speculation.

The CGRP receptor on human middle meningeal artery is CGRP (1) [28]. There is no information about possible genetic heterogeneity of this receptor in man. In coronary arteries there is heterogeneity of the CGRP receptor CGRP (1), CGRP (2) and unknown [29].

One large study in cluster headache was recently published [4]. In 231 cluster headache patients the GNB3 genotype and allele frequency were indistinguishable from other cross-sectional German samples [4]. A total of 180 patients used a triptan, of whom 71% reported treatment success. The adjusted odds ratio for treatment response to triptans for heterozygotous carriers of the GNB3 825T allele was 2.96 (95% confidence interval 1.34–6.56; P = 0.0074) versus carriers of the 825CC genotype [4]. The C825TC polymorphism had a positive predictive value for triptan response of 0.82 and a negative predictive value of 0.35. The C825T polymorphism has been associated with an enhanced signal transduction via G protein-coupled receptors [4]. The same polymorphism has been associated with hypertension [30, 31], with the response to antidepressant [32] and with the venous response to nitroglycerin [33].

In another study with same patient population it was found that the G1246A polymorphism in the hypocretin receptor 2 gene was not associated with treatment response [34].

Previously, no evidence for involvement of the 5-HT1F receptor gene in the response to sumatriptan in migraine patients was found [35]. Similarly, in the same migraine patient population there was no association of drug response and 5-HT1B receptor polymorphism [36]. A recent study found no evidence that variants F124C and A-161T of the 5-HT receptor are major determinants in the clinical response to sumatriptan [37]. One recent study suggested that the DRD2/NcoI allele may be considered a susceptibility factor heralding a good response to oral rizatriptan [38].

Clinical comments

The results for G protein β3 polymorphism in cluster headache [4] should be investigated in migraine patients. If there is an association between the response in migraine patients to triptans and the polymorphism then genotyping for this gene will be an option in the future.

There is heterogeneity of the 5-HT1B receptor but this was not linked to treatment response

Preventive migraine treatment

The majority of drugs currently used in migraine prevention were not developed for migraine prophylaxis [3942]. The serotonin antagonists methysergide and pizotifen were developed 40–50 years ago for migraine prophylaxis [43]. Preventive drugs for migraine, beta-blockers, serotonin antagonists, calcium blockers, antiepileptics, NSAIDs, and antidepressants, are not universally effective. The responder rates (a 50% decrease in incidence) range from 40 to 50% [3942, 44]. Ideally, preventive treatment should results in no or one attack per month [43] but this cannot be obtained with current unspecific therapy. In the future, one can hope that migraine specific preventive therapy will be developed.

Pharmacogenetics and pharmacokinetics

The two beta-blockers propranolol and metoprolol have very varied pharmacokinetics, in both cases most likely due to differences in the first-passage effect and metabolic excretion by CYP enzymes. The recommended doses vary considerable, for example in essential tremor: 60–800 mg propranolol daily [45]. In migraine the recommended doses are 40–320 mg propranolol and 50–200 mg metoprolol [39].

Propranolol is highly lipophilic and it is well absorbed. Most of the drug is metabolized by the liver during its first passage through the portal circulation resulting in 25% oral bioavailability [39]. There is great interindividual variation in the presystemic clearance of propranolol resulting in enormous variability in plasma concentration after oral administration of the drug (approximately 20-fold). Propranolol is extensively metabolized and one of the products of hepatic metabolism is 4-hydroxypropranolol, which posses some β-blocking effect.

Propranolol is metabolised mainly by the P450 isozyme CYP1A2 [46]. CYP1A2 displays considerable interindividual variability, and this is due mainly to genetic factors [46]. So far no SNP or haplotype in the CYP1A2 has yet been identified that can unequivocally be used to predict the metabolic phenotype in any individual patient [47]. CYP1A2 and CYP2D6 hydroxylate propranolol and they exhibit racial differences [48]. The genotype responsible for the more than 60-fold interindividual differences in human hepatic CYP1A2 constitutive expression is not known [47]. There is a racial difference in the expression of CYP1A2 [49].

Metoprolol is well absorbed but there is considerable first-pass metabolism resulting in about 40% oral bioavailability [40]. Plasma-concentrations of the drug vary widely (up to 17-fold). Metoprolol is metabolised by CYP2D6 and there is a 30-fold difference between the highest and lowest clearance values [50] and a 30-fold variability in AUC for the extensive metabolisers of metoprolol [51]. For CYP2D6 there is genetic polymorphism with autosomal recessive heritage. Seven percent of white Caucasians and 1–2% of Blacks and Orientals [39, 52] do not express this enzyme and are “poor metabolisers”. There is a pronounced allelic heterogeneity: approximately 80 known variants, mainly in the form of single nucleotide polymorphisms’s. CYP2D6*3, *4 and *5 together predict about 90% of poor metabolisers [53].

Results in cardiovascular patients suggested that pharmacogenomic measures could be used to design more individualized metoprolol dosage regimen for patients [50]. In hypertensive patients, however, there was no association between variable pharmacokinetics or CYP2D6 genotypes and beta-blocker-induced adverse events or efficacy [51].

Topiramate is not extensively predominately metabolised and 50% is excreted by the kidneys as unmetabolised drug [54]. Valproate is metabolised in the liver mainly by glucuronidation but also by oxidation by several CYP [54]. The calcium entry blocker flunarizine is metabolised by CYP2D [55]. Methysergide is a prodrug and is metabolised with demethylation in the liver during the first-passage to an active metabolite methylergometrine [56]. After oral administration the AUC is 10 times greater for methylergometrine than for methysergide [56]. Amitriptyline is metabolised by N-demethylation by to nortiptyline by CYP2C19, CYP1A2 and CYP3A4 [53].

Clinical comments

Preventive treatment in migraine is generally started with low doses that are then, if necessary, increased over weeks or months [39], the “start low go slow” dictum. With genotyping of relevant metabolic enzymes one can probably in an advance design more individualized drug dosage regimen for patients. Whether such regimens results in better treatment depends on whether there is an association between plasma levels and drug response. So far, this has only been investigated in a small (n = 17) open study for propranolol where no correlation was found [57].

For valproate determination of plasma levels is a routine and one normally tend to titrate the dose to the levels used in epilepsy.

Amitriptyline is N-demethylated to nortriptyline via CYP1A2, CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 and 10-hydroxylated by CYP2D6 [53]. All four enzymes are under genetic control, but there is not a single genotype test, which predicts the plasma levels of amitriptyline and nortriptyline.

Pharmacogenomics and pharmacodynamics

A variety of genetic and nongenetic factors determine β1-blocker response [58]. Besides inherited differences in the metabolism and disposition of drugs, gene polymorphisms in the targets of drug therapy, for example receptors, can have a significant influence on the efficacy and toxicity of medications [59]. As mentioned above, there was no association between variable pharmacokinetics or CYP2D6 genotypes and beta-blocker-induced adverse events or efficacy [51]. In contrast, polymorphisms of the β1-adrenoceptor determined the response to metoprolol in hypertension in two studies [58, 59].

The mode of action of β-blockers in migraine is unknown but is most likely via an effect on the brain, probably on the central catecholaminergic system, as indicated by the effect of β-blockers on contingent negative variation in migraineurs [39, 60].

Clinical comments

If the effect of β-blockers in migraine is exerted by an effect on the β1-receptor genotyping for this receptor could possibly in advance predict responders and nonresponders confer the results in hypertension [58, 59].

For the other preventive medications in migraine, serotonin antagonists, calcium entry blockers, antiepileptic drugs, antidepressants, their mode of action in migraine is unknown [4043] and one can thus not for the moment suggest what genes one should type in order to predict response.

Final comments

Until now attempts to use pharmacogenomics in migraine have been few and most have fail. In the future this will be different. Pharmacogenomics will most likely in the future be one part of our therapeutic armamentarium. Before use of medication we will in some cases ask for genotyping of relevant pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic genotypes and then tailor the drug regimen to the individual patient. The need for genotyping is most likely greatest in preventive treatment also in order to minimize the adverse events, which frequently occur with this treatment [3942, 44]. Pharmacogenomics will thus provide a stronger scientific basis for optimizing drug therapy on the basis of each patient’s genetic constitution [61] and will be an integral determination of drug therapy [2]. This is most likely to be the case when new migraine-specific, better preventive drugs based on knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine have been developed.

Declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Danish Headache Centre, Department of Neurology, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup Hospital
(2)
Institute of Public Health, Clinical Pharmacology, University of Southern Denmark

References

  1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
  2. Giacomini KM, Brett CM, Altman RB, Benowitz WL, Dolan ME, Flockhart DA et al, for the Pharmacogenetic Research Network (2007) The pharmacogenetics research network: from SNP to clinical drug response. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81:328–345, 17339863, 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100087, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXktl2ltbs%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Stewart WF (2005) Clinical trials of acute treatment for migraine including multiple attacks studies of pain, disability, and health-related quality of life. Neurology 65(Suppl 4):S50–S58, 16385104, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2Mnps1agsA%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Schürks M, Kurth T, Stude P, Rimmbach C, de Jesus J, Jonjic M, Diener H-C, Rosskopf D (2007) G protein β3 polymorphism and triptan response in cluster headache. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82:396–401, 17361120, 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100159, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtFKjsr7MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ophoff RA, van den Maagdenberg AM, Roon KI, Ferrari MD, Frants RR (2001) The impact of pharmacogenetics for migraine. Eur J Pharmacol 413:1–10, 11173058, 10.1016/S0014-2999(00)00949-3, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXhtFensrs%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Goadsby PJ (2004) Double-blind clinical trials of oral triptans versus other classes of acute migraine medication—a review. Cephalalgia 24:321–322, 15096220, 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2003.00690.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c3kt12ltw%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ (2001) Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT1B/!D agonists) in acute migraine: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 358:1668–1675, 11728541, 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06711-3, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXos1ajsro%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Tfelt-Hansen P, De Vries P, Saxena PR (2000) Triptans in migraine. A comparative review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Drugs 60:1259–1287, 11152011, 10.2165/00003495-200060060-00003, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXktFarsA%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Saxena PR, Tfelt-Hansen P (2006) Triptans, 5HT1B/1D agonists in the acute treatment of migraine. In: Olesen J, Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 469–503Google Scholar
  10. Tfelt-Hansen P, Bach F, Daugaard D, Tsiropoulos I, Riddersholm B (2006) Treatment with sumatriptan 50 mg in the mild phase of migraine attacks in patients with infrequent attacks. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Headache Pain 7:389–394, 17164991, 10.1007/s10194-006-0333-zPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Olesen J, Diener H-C, Husstedt IW, Goadsby PJ, Hall D, Meier U, Pollentier S, Lesko LM, for the BIBN 4096 BS Clinical Proof of Concept Study Group (2004) Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist BIBN 4096 BS for the acute treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 350:1104–1110, 15014183, 10.1056/NEJMoa030505, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXitV2qur0%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlöf C, Hogenhuis L, Olesen J, Petit H, Ribbat J, Schoenen J et al (1998) Early clinical experience with subcutaneous naratriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: a dose-ranging study. Eur J Neurol 5:469–477, 10210876, 10.1046/j.1468-1331.1998.550469.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tfelt-Hansen P. The maximum effect of triptans in migraine? A comment. Cephalalgia (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Wellington K, Plosker GL (2002) Rizatriptan: an update of its use in the management of migraine. Drugs 62:1539–1574, 12093318, 10.2165/00003495-200262100-00007, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XmsVGlt7o%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Keam SJ, Goa KL, Figgitt DP (2002) Almotriptan: a review of its use in migraine. Drugs 62:387–414, 11817980, 10.2165/00003495-200262020-00010, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XitVWqtr8%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goadsby PJ, Yates R (2006) Zolmitriptan intranasal: a review of pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy. Headache 46:138–149, 16412161, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00301.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. US package insert for naratriptanGoogle Scholar
  18. Lacey LF, Hussey EK, Fowler PA (1995) Single dose pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 47:543–548, 7768259, 10.1007/BF00193709, 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXmtVWntL8%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomsen LL, Dixon R, Lassen LH, Giboens M, Langemark M, Bendtsen L, Daugaard D, Olesen J (1996) 311C90 (zolmitriptan), a novel centrally and peripheral acting oral 5-hydroxytryptamine-1D agonist: a comparison of its absorption during a migraine attack and in a migraine-free period. Cephalalgia 16:270–275, 8792040, 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1996.1604270.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK28zosVWnsQ%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho TW, Mannix LK, Fan X, Assaid C, Furtek C, Jones C, Lines CJ, Rapoport AM, On behalf of the MK-0974 Protocol 004 study group (2007) Randomized controlled trial of an oral CGRP antagonist, MK-0974, in the acute treatment of migraine. Neurology [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  21. International Headache Society Clinical Trial Subcommittee (2000) Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine, 2nd edn. Cephalalgia 20:765–786, 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2000.00117.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Klapper J, Lucas C, Rosjo O, Charlesworth B, ZODIAC Study Group (2004) Benefits of treating highly disabled migraine patients with zolmitriptan in while pain is mild. Cephalalgia 24:918–924, 15482352, 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2004.00735.x, 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2crht1Citg%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nett R, Landy S, Schackelford S, Richardson MS, Ames M, Lener M (2003) Pain-free efficacy after treatment with sumatriptan in the mild phase of menstrually associated migraine. Obstet Gynecol 102:835–842, 14551015, 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00659-8, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXnvVKru70%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Winner P, Landy S, Richardson M, Ames M (2005) Early intervention in migraine with sumatriptan tablets 50 vs 100 mg: a pooled analysis of data from six trials. Clin Ther 27:1785–1794, 16368449, 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.11.009, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XntlWmsQ%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mathew NT, Kailasam J, Meadors I (2004) Early treatment of migraine with rizatriptan: a placebo-controlled study. Headache 44:669–673, 15209688, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04125.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Connor HE, Feniuk W, Beattie DT, North PC, Oxford AW, Saynor DA, Humphrey PPA (1997) Naratriptan: biological profile in animal models relevant to migraine. Cephalalgia 17:145–152, 9170336, 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1997.1703145.x, 1:STN:280:DyaK2szhtl2gtw%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphrey PP (2007) The discovery of a new drug class for the acute treatment of migraine. Headache 47(Suppl 1):S10–S19, 17425704, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00672.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gupta S, Mehrotra S, Avezaat CJ, Villalon CM, Saxena PR, Massenvandenbrink A (2006) Characterisation of CGRP receptors in the human isolated middle meningeal artery. Life Sci 79:265–271, 16458930, 10.1016/j.lfs.2006.01.003, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XltFyjsLs%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gupta S, Mehrotra S, Villalon CM,Garreld IM, de Vries R, van Kats JP et al (2006) Characterisation of CGRP receptors in human and pocine isolated coronary arteries: evidence for receptor heterogeneity. Eur J Pharmacol 530:107–116, 16375887, 10.1016/j.ejphar.2005.11.020, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XhsFeksQ%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Siffert W, Rosskopf D, Siffert G, Busch S, Moritz A, Erbel R et al (1998) Association of human G protein beta3 subunit variant with hypertension. Nat Genet 18:45–48, 9425898, 10.1038/ng0198-45, 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXivFeltw%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosskopf D, Schurks M, Rimmbach C, Shäfers R (2007) Genetic of arterial hypertension and hypotension. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 374:429–469, 17262198, 10.1007/s00210-007-0133-2, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhsVersrc%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Serreti A, Artioli P, Quartesan R (2005) Pharmacogenomics in the treatment of depression: pharmacodynamic studies. Phamacokinet Genomics 15:61–67, 10.1097/01213011-200502000-00001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell A, Bührman S, Seifert A, Nürnberger J, Wenzel RR, Siffert W et al (2003) Venous response to nitroglycerin is enhanced in young, healthy carriers of the 825T allele of the G protein β3 subunit gene (GNB3). Clin Pharmacol Ther 74:499–504, 14586390, 10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00230-3, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXos1Cjurk%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schürks M, Kurth T, Geiassler, Tessmann G, Diener H-C, Rosskopf D (2007) The G1246A polymorphism in the hypocretin receptor 2 gene is not associated with treatment response in cluster headache. Cephalalgia 27:363–367, 17376114, 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01287.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Massen VanDenBrink A, Vergouwe MN, Ophoff RA, Naylor SL, Dauwerse HG, Saxena PR, Ferrari MD, Frants RR (1998) Chromosomal localization of the 5-HT1F receptor gene: no evidence for involvement in response to sumatriptan in migraine patients. Am J Med Genet 77:415–420, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980605)77:5<415::AID-AJMG12>3.0.CO;2-LView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Massen VanDenBrink A, Vergouwe MN, Ophoff RA, Saxena PR, Ferrari MD, Frants RR (1998) 5-HT1B receptor polymorphism and clinical response to sumatriptan. Headache 38:288–291, 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1998.3804288.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Mehrotra S, Vanmolkot KR, Frants RR, van den Haagdenberg AM, Ferrari MD, Maassevandenbrink A (2007) The Phe-124-Cys and A-161 T variants of the human 5-HT (1B) receptor gene are not major determinant of the clinical response to sumatriptan. Headache 47:711–716, 17501853, 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00792.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Asuni C, Cherchi A, Congui D, Piccardi MP, Del Zompo M, Stochino ME (2007) Association study between clinical response to mrizatriptan and some candidate genes. J Headache Pain 8:185–189, 17563839, 10.1007/s10194-007-0388-5, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXnt1Kitrs%3DPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tfelt-Hansen P, Rolan P (2006) β-Adrenoceptor blocking drugs in migraine prophylaxis. In: Olesen J,Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 519–528Google Scholar
  40. Toda N, Tfelt-Hansen P (2006) Calcium antagonists in migraine prophylaxis. In: Olesen J, Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 539–544Google Scholar
  41. Silberstein SD, Tfelt-Hansen P (2006) Antiepileptic drugs in migraine prophylaxis In: Olesen J, Tfelt-Hansen P, Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 545–551Google Scholar
  42. Evers S, Mylecharane EJ (2006) Nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory and miscellaneous drugs in migraine prophylaxis. In: Olesen J, Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 553–565Google Scholar
  43. Tfelt-Hansen P. Stricter success criteria. Qualitative and quantitative end points. Acute versus preventive trials In: Olesen J, Ramadan NM (eds) Innovative drug development in headache. International Headache Research Seminar, March 2007 (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Tfelt-Hansen P, Saxena PR (2006) Antiserotonin drugs in migraine prophylaxis. In: Olesen J, Goadsby PJ, Ramadan NM, Tfelt-Hansen P, Welch KMA (eds) The headaches, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 529–537Google Scholar
  45. Benito-Leon J, Louis ED (2007) Clinical update: diagnosis and treatment of essential tremor. Lancet 369:1152–1154, 17416247, 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60544-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasmussen BB, Brix TH, Kyvik KO, Brosen K (2002) The interindividual differences in the 3-demethylation of caffeine alias CYP1A2 is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. Pharmacogenetics 12:473–478, 12172216, 10.1097/00008571-200208000-00008, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XmslejtLk%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Jiang Z, Dragin N, Jorge-Nebert LF, Martin MV, Guengerich FP, Aklillu E et al (2006) Search for an association between the human CYP1A2 genotype and CYP1A2 metabolic phenotype. Pharmacogenet Genomics 16:359–367, 16609368, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XjtlCisr8%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson JA, Herring VL, Wolfe MS, Relling MV (2000) CYP1A2 and CYP2D4 4-hydroxylate propranolol and both exhibit racial differences. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 294:1099–1105, 10945865, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXmtFCntLs%3DPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ghobti R, Christensen M, Roh HK, Ingelman-sundberg M, Aklillu E, Bertilsson L (2007) Comparison of CYP1A2 genetic polymorphisms, enzyme activity and genotype–phenotype relationship in Swedes and Koreans. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63:537–546, 10.1007/s00228-007-0288-2, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXkslWns70%3DView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Ismail R, Teh LK (2006) The relevance of CYP 2D6 genetic polymorphism on chronic metoprolol in cardiovascular patients. J Clin Pharmacol Ther 31:99–109, 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2006.00699.x, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XjtlGhs7c%3DView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Zineh J, BeitelShees AL, Gaedigk A, Walker JR, Pauly DF, Eberst K et al (2004) Pharmacokinetics and CYP2D6 genotypes do not predict metoprolol adverse events or efficacy in hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76:536–44, 15592325, 10.1016/j.clpt.2004.08.020, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXhtVKlt7rKView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Johnson JA, Burlew BS (1996) Metoprolol metabolism via cytochrome P4502D6 in ethnic populations. Drug Metab Dispos 24:350–355, 8820427, 1:CAS:528:DyaK28Xhs1Gjur0%3DPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Brøsen K (2004) Some aspect of genetic polymorphism in the biotransformation of antidepressant. Therapie 59:5–12, 15199661, 10.2515/therapie:2004003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Patsalos PN (2005) Properties of antiepileptic drugs used in the treatment of generalized epiplepsies. Epilepsia 46(Suppl 9):140–148, 16302888, 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.00326.x, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtlamsrnOView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Todd PA, Benfield P (1989) Flunarizine. A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in neurological disorders. Drugs 38:481–499, 2684591, 10.2165/00003495-198938040-00002, 1:STN:280:DyaK3c%2FlvFOjsg%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Bredberg U, Eyjolfsdottir GS, Paalzow L, Tfelt-Hansen P, Tfelt-Hansen V (1986) Pharmacokinetics of methysergide and its metabolite methylergometrine in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 30:75–77, 3709634, 10.1007/BF00614199, 1:CAS:528:DyaL28XhvF2msLs%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Cortelli P, Sacquegna T, Albani F, Baldrati A, D’Alessandro R, Baruzi A et al (1985) Propranolol plasma levels and relief of migraine: relationship between plasma propranolol and 4-hydroxypropranolol concentrations and clinical effects. Arch Neurol 42:46–48, 3966884, 1:STN:280:DyaL2M%2Fps1ertw%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Johnson JA, Zineh I, Bucket BJ, McCorray SP, Yarandi HN, Pauly DF (2003) Beta 1-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms and antihypertensive response to metopolol. Clin Pharmacol Ther 74:44–52, 12844134, 10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00068-7, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXkvFGhsLc%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Liu J, Liu Z-Q, Yu B-N, Xu F-H, Mo W, Zhou G et al (2006) β1-Adrenoceptor receptor polymorphisms influence the response to metoprolol monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther 80:23–32, 16815314, 10.1016/j.clpt.2006.03.004, 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28Xms1enu70%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schoenen J, Maertens de Noordhout A, Timsit- Berthier M, Timsit M (1986) Contingent negative variation and efficacy of beta-blocking agents in migraine. Cephalalgia 6:229–233, 2879628, 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1986.0604229.x, 1:STN:280:DyaL2s7gt1ymsA%3D%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Evans WE, Relling MV (1999) Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapy. Science 286:487–491, 10521338, 10.1126/science.286.5439.487, 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXmvVOhtL0%3DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Springer-Verlag 2008