Posted by pinksharkmark (126.96.36.199) on July 14, 2000 at 20:44:07:
In Reply to: Maxalt mystery posted by annemarie on July 14, 2000 at 03:57:21:
I understand what you are saying, Bob and Annemarie.
I can understand why, for example, cafergot might work for one person, but Imitrex does nothing for the same person, or vice versa.
Or, oxygen may work wonders for someone else, but cafergot is totally useless for them. Or, again, vice versa.
After all, the fundamental abortive mechanisms of cafergot, oxygen, and Imitrex differ from each other.
But, to my way of thinking, either none of the triptans should work for a given individual, or all of them should work, since the fundamental mechanism is the same.
Even though the second-generation triptans are effective at lower doses, and seem to have less cardio-related side-effects than sumatriptan (Imitrex/Imigran) does, I think it highly unlikely that the primary reason for their development was to improve on sumatriptan. Rather, it was to get around Glaxo-Wellcome's patent on sumatriptan. By engineering a close analog, the other pharmaceutical companies can sell to an already established market at a fraction of Glaxo's original development cost. I have no doubt we will see even more analogs over the next few years, as well as inhalable and injectable versions of Zomig, Maxalt, etc.
But, precisely BECAUSE these analogs are such near copies of sumatriptan, they perforce work their wonders by the same path... which is why I can't come up with an explanation as to why Maxalt won't work for me.
I would be very interested to know if anyone else out there has found that some, but not all, of the triptans work for them, or am I the only one?
And, yes, I agree that the ways of the beast are many and varied - damn it!
Post a Followup