Dataset Information

Comparison of New Pharmacologic Agents With Triptans for Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).

Objective

To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.

Data sources

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.

Study selection

Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.

Results

A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.

Conclusions and relevance

For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.

SUBMITTER: Yang CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8506232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients.MethodsThe Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsNineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model.ConclusionsCompared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.

Project description:ImportanceMigraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).ResultsTwenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.Conclusions and relevanceProphylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Project description:BackgroundAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.MethodsWe searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.ResultsEighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.ConclusionsOverall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.RegistrationPROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.