Dataset Information

Indirect Comparison of Topiramate and Monoclonal Antibodies Against CGRP or Its Receptor for the Prophylaxis of Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Head-to-head comparator trials between first-line oral migraine preventatives and the new monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have not been published to date.

Objectives

This study aimed to indirectly compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mAbs against CGRP or its receptor (CGRPR) and topiramate in episodic migraine prophylaxis using meta-analysis.

Methods

We included controlled trials testing efficacy and safety of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and topiramate in adults diagnosed with episodic migraine. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to November 2020. We used the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the risk of bias and report pooled mean effects (mean difference and risk ratio) as estimated in a random effect model. For efficacy analysis, we determined the reduction of monthly migraine days (MMDs), reduction of days with acute medication (AMDs), and 50% responder rates (50% RR). For safety, we determined adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥ 2% of study participants and the number of patients who discontinue treatment due to AEs (DAEs). The number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) were estimated as well as the likelihood to help or harm (LLH).

Results

We included 13 trials involving 7557 patients: three trials with erenumab, two trials with galcanezumab, two trials with fremanezumab, one trial with eptinezumab, and five trials with topiramate, for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. The placebo-subtracted reduction (pooled mean difference) of MMDs were - 1.55 (95% CI - 1.86 to - 1.24; active drug n = 3326 vs placebo n = 2219, 8 studies) for the CGRP(R) mAb and - 1.11 (95% CI - 1.62 to - 0.59; active drug n = 1032 vs placebo n = 543, 4 studies) for topiramate (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). 'Cognitive' and 'sensory & pain'-related adverse events occurred more often in patients treated with topiramate compared with those treated with a CGRP(R) mAb (p for subgroup difference 0.03 and < 0.001, respectively). Based on the 50% RR and DAE, the NNT, NNH, and LHH for the CGRP(R) mAbs were 6, 130, and 24.3:1, respectively. For topiramate, these values were 7, 9, and 1.8:1, respectively.

Conclusion

The efficacy of CGRP(R) mAbs to reduce migraine days does not differ from topiramate. However, the safety profile is in favor of the CGRP(R) mAbs, with a higher likelihood to help than to harm compared with topiramate. The diversity of endpoint determination and the heterogeneity between studies for some endpoints cause some limitations for this study.

SUBMITTER: Overeem LH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8354912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND:The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on-treatment adverse events (AEs). METHODS:This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study in adults with 2-14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2-8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks. RESULTS:The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4-week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ?1 on-treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ?2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment-related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION:Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundCriteria, including clinical features and effective outcomes, for access and persistence of novel but costly treatments may vary between countries, thus affecting the health of patients. Monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) for migraine treatment are currently prescribed following strict criteria.ObjectiveThe aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of three anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab) in consecutive resistant chronic migraine patients presenting at our Headache Center and the impact of criteria set by the Italian Medicines Agency to start and continue (achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] score) with treatment under the reimbursement program.MethodsA monocentric, prospective, cohort study was conducted, enrolling 203 severe (resistant to three or more preventive treatments) chronic migraine patients (84.7% with medication overuse) treated with erenumab (47.2%), galcanezumab (36.5%), or fremanezumab (16.3%), with up to 12 months follow-up. Patients completed a headache diary that included monthly migraine days (MMDs), number of analgesics and days with analgesic use, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires (MIDAS, Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6] questionnaires, and the Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC] scale). Moreover, percentages of patients showing ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% reduction in MMDs (responder rates) were calculated at different follow-ups. A subgroup analysis was performed for patients with 12-month follow-up. Potential predictors of response were assessed at different follow-ups.ResultsIn the overall population, all three anti-CGRP mAbs were similarly effective and dropouts were 17.2%. The percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs (min-max 36.4-56.8%) and in monthly analgesic consumption (51.1-75.7%) was inferior to the percentage of patients who reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score (89.5-100%). HIT-6 score was also consistently reduced at all follow-ups. In patients with a 12-month follow-up, MIDAS and HIT-6 scores were also reduced at all follow-ups compared with baseline, with 84.4-100% of patients achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score, and patients with a ≥ 50% response rate ranging from 36.4 to 66.6%. No severe adverse events were recorded. Fewer migraine days at baseline were associated with ≥ 50% response rate at 1 month and fewer MMDs, years of chronic migraine, and monthly analgesic use at 6 months.ConclusionIn resistant chronic migraine patients, anti-CGRP mAbs are effective and safe. A ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score seems to be the most advantageous outcome measure in this setting, which allows most severe migraine patients to persist with treatment.