Efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults: a network meta-analysis.

Annals of medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1080/07853890.2024.2357235
Runsheng Xie, Jiahui Li, Yuyu Jing, Jinhui Tian, Hui Li, Yefeng Cai, Yangyang Wang, Wenjia Chen, Feilong Xu
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Runsheng Xie, Jiahui Li, Yuyu Jing, Jinhui Tian, Hui Li, Yefeng Cai, Yangyang Wang, Wenjia Chen, Feilong Xu","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2024.2357235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> between the studies was low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).</p>","PeriodicalId":93874,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":"56 1","pages":"2357235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141314/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2357235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.

Results: We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity I2 between the studies was low.

Conclusions: Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).

简单止痛药治疗成人偶发性紧张型头痛的有效性和安全性:网络荟萃分析。
目的:紧张型头痛是最常见的原发性头痛类型,造成了巨大的社会经济负担。本网络荟萃分析(NMA)旨在比较单纯镇痛药治疗成人偶发性紧张型头痛(ETTH)的有效性和安全性:我们在 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、中国生物医学文献数据库和国际临床试验注册平台数据库中检索了符合条件的随机临床试验,这些试验均报告了单纯镇痛药的疗效和/或安全性。该研究采用贝叶斯非均质法比较相对疗效和安全性。计算累积排名曲线下表面值(SUCRA),对干预措施进行排名。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42018090554.Results:我们重点研究了六项研究,包括 3507 名患者。就 2 h 无痛率而言,SUCRA 排序为布洛芬 > 双氯芬酸-K > 酮洛芬 > 对乙酰氨基酚 > 萘普生 > 安慰剂。除萘普生外,所有药物的 2 小时无痛率均高于安慰剂,布洛芬的风险比 (RR) 为 2.86(95% 可信区间,CrI:1.62-5.42),双氯芬酸-K 为 2.61(1.53-4.88)。在不良事件发生率方面,SUCRA 的排名为:美他美唑 > 双氯芬酸-K > 布洛芬 > 鲁米昔布 > 安慰剂 > 阿司匹林 > 对乙酰氨基酚 > 萘普生 > 酮洛芬。除酮洛芬外,所有镇痛药的不良反应发生率均不高于安慰剂。此外,在总体疗效评估中,所有药物均优于安慰剂。其中,鲁米拉考昔布的RR值为2.47(1.57-4.57)。各研究之间的总体异质性I2较低:简单的镇痛药与安慰剂相比,对成人 ETTH 更为有效和安全。我们的研究结果表明,从综合角度来看,布洛芬和双氯芬酸-K可能是治疗ETTH患者的两种最佳选择(均为高质量证据)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信