Comparison of Lasmiditan 200 mg Versus 100 mg for Migraine Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.

IF 0.8 4区医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Clinical Neuropharmacology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-18 DOI:10.1097/WNF.0000000000000567

Chuan Zhong, Xuanqin Zhang, Guoyong Qin, Jixiang Wu, Yongpan Tian

{"title":"Comparison of Lasmiditan 200 mg Versus 100 mg for Migraine Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.","authors":"Chuan Zhong, Xuanqin Zhang, Guoyong Qin, Jixiang Wu, Yongpan Tian","doi":"10.1097/WNF.0000000000000567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The ideal dose of lasmiditan for migraine is not clear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients.Methods: We have searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library Databases and selected the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients. This meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model.Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with lasmiditan 100-mg group in migraine patients, lasmiditan 200-mg group was associated with substantially increased pain free at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.44; P = 0.0002) and pain free at 24 hours (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.60; P = 0.007) but demonstrated no obvious impact on pain relief at 2 hours (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16; P = 0.72) or MBS free at 2 hours (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52). In addition, the incidence of adverse events was higher in lasmiditan 200-mg group than that in lasmiditan 100-mg group (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001).Conclusions: Lasmiditan 200 mg is better for the treatment of migraine patients than lasmiditan 100 mg.","PeriodicalId":10449,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNF.0000000000000567","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The ideal dose of lasmiditan for migraine is not clear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients.

Methods: We have searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library Databases and selected the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients. This meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model.

Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with lasmiditan 100-mg group in migraine patients, lasmiditan 200-mg group was associated with substantially increased pain free at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.44; P = 0.0002) and pain free at 24 hours (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.60; P = 0.007) but demonstrated no obvious impact on pain relief at 2 hours (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16; P = 0.72) or MBS free at 2 hours (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52). In addition, the incidence of adverse events was higher in lasmiditan 200-mg group than that in lasmiditan 100-mg group (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Lasmiditan 200 mg is better for the treatment of migraine patients than lasmiditan 100 mg.

查看原文本刊更多论文

偏头痛患者服用 Lasmiditan 200 毫克与 100 毫克的比较：随机对照研究的 Meta 分析。

简介治疗偏头痛的理想剂量尚不明确。本荟萃分析旨在比较拉斯米丹 200 毫克与 100 毫克对偏头痛患者的疗效：我们检索了多个数据库，包括PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、EBSCO和Cochrane Library Databases，并选择了比较拉斯米迪坦200毫克和100毫克对偏头痛患者疗效的随机对照试验。这项荟萃分析采用随机效应模型进行：本次荟萃分析共纳入了五项随机对照试验。与偏头痛患者服用拉斯米坦 100 毫克组相比，服用拉斯米坦 200 毫克组患者 2 小时内无疼痛的几率大幅增加（几率比 [OR]，1.27；95% 置信区间 [CI]，1.12-1.44；P = 0.0002）和 24 小时无痛（OR，1.31；95% CI，1.08-1.60；P = 0.007），但对 2 小时疼痛缓解（OR，1.02；95% CI，0.91-1.16；P = 0.72）或 2 小时无 MBS（OR，0.94；95% CI，0.77-1.14；P = 0.52）无明显影响。此外，拉斯米迪坦 200 毫克组的不良反应发生率高于拉斯米迪坦 100 毫克组（OR，1.29；95% CI，1.15-1.45；P <0.0001）：拉斯米坦200毫克比拉斯米坦100毫克更适合治疗偏头痛患者。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Neuropharmacology 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical Neuropharmacology is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the pharmacology of the nervous system in its broadest sense. Coverage ranges from such basic aspects as mechanisms of action, structure-activity relationships, and drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, to practical clinical problems such as drug interactions, drug toxicity, and therapy for specific syndromes and symptoms. The journal publishes original articles and brief reports, invited and submitted reviews, and letters to the editor. A regular feature is the Patient Management Series: in-depth case presentations with clinical questions and answers.