The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lampl, Christian
Data de Publicação: 2023
Outros Autores: 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
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