The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/41257 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants. |
id |
RCAP_78a7c4e9b3b321cee2c0d81d3a085d7a |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ucp.pt:10400.14/41257 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysisCGRP monoclonal antibodiesMigraineNetwork meta-analysisSystematic reviewOBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.Veritati - Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica PortuguesaLampl, ChristianMaassen van den Brink, AntoinetteDeligianni, Christina I.Gil-Gouveia, RaquelJassal, TanvirSanchez-Del-Rio, MargaritaReuter, UweUluduz, DeryaVersijpt, JanZeraatkar, DenaSacco, Simona2023-05-31T08:57:22Z2023-05-192023-05-19T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/41257eng1129-236910.1186/s10194-023-01594-185159715329PMC1019748937208596000991007200001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-12T17:46:50Zoai:repositorio.ucp.pt:10400.14/41257Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T18:33:55.243957Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
spellingShingle |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Lampl, Christian CGRP monoclonal antibodies Migraine Network meta-analysis Systematic review |
title_short |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_sort |
The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
author |
Lampl, Christian |
author_facet |
Lampl, Christian Maassen van den Brink, Antoinette Deligianni, Christina I. Gil-Gouveia, Raquel Jassal, Tanvir Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita Reuter, Uwe Uluduz, Derya Versijpt, Jan Zeraatkar, Dena Sacco, Simona |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Maassen van den Brink, Antoinette Deligianni, Christina I. Gil-Gouveia, Raquel Jassal, Tanvir Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita Reuter, Uwe Uluduz, Derya Versijpt, Jan Zeraatkar, Dena Sacco, Simona |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Veritati - Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica Portuguesa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lampl, Christian Maassen van den Brink, Antoinette Deligianni, Christina I. Gil-Gouveia, Raquel Jassal, Tanvir Sanchez-Del-Rio, Margarita Reuter, Uwe Uluduz, Derya Versijpt, Jan Zeraatkar, Dena Sacco, Simona |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
CGRP monoclonal antibodies Migraine Network meta-analysis Systematic review |
topic |
CGRP monoclonal antibodies Migraine Network meta-analysis Systematic review |
description |
OBJECTIVE: While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-05-31T08:57:22Z 2023-05-19 2023-05-19T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/41257 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/41257 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
1129-2369 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1 85159715329 PMC10197489 37208596 000991007200001 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799132065522778112 |