Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacologic Therapies for Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Ian S deSouza, Nicole Anthony, Henry Thode, Robert Allen, Jane Belyavskaya, Jessica Koos, Adam Singer
{"title":"Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacologic Therapies for Migraine in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ian S deSouza, Nicole Anthony, Henry Thode, Robert Allen, Jane Belyavskaya, Jessica Koos, Adam Singer","doi":"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to determine which pharmacologic therapies are relatively more effective and safer for migraine in adult patients who present to the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to February 9, 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult participants presenting to ED with migraine and compared one pharmacologic therapy to another or placebo. Outcomes were as follows: 1) adequate pain relief at 2 hours, 2) change in pain intensity at 1 hour, 3) need for rescue drug at 2 hours, and 4) significant adverse reaction. We extracted data according to PRISMA-network meta-analysis and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2. For dichotomous outcomes, we performed Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals; for continuous outcomes, we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed confidence using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis. We used Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank agents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chlorpromazine intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM) (SUCRA=87.3%) was most likely to be superior for \"adequate pain relief at 2 hours\" (24 trials; n=2,361); metoclopramide IV-ibuprofen IV (SUCRA=94.6%) was most likely to be superior for \"need for rescue drug\" (not needing rescue drug) at 2 hours (27 trials; n=2,942); dexamethasone IV (SUCRA=79.5%) was most likely to be superior for \"significant adverse reaction\" (not causing adverse reaction) (22 trials; n=2,450). The network for change in pain intensity demonstrated statistically significant incoherence at the overall level. Confidence in network meta-analysis estimates (certainty of evidence) varied and was mostly \"low\" or \"very low,\" limiting the validity of the probabilistic analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>According to Bayesian network meta-analysis, ibuprofen IV is definitely among the least effective for adequate pain relief; chlorpromazine IV/IM is definitely among the most effective; valproate IV is definitely among the least effective, and ketorolac IV/IM is possibly among the least effective as single agents. The relative safety of the pharmacologic therapies cannot be determined with sufficient certainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":8236,"journal":{"name":"Annals of emergency medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.11.004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objective: We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to determine which pharmacologic therapies are relatively more effective and safer for migraine in adult patients who present to the emergency department (ED).

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to February 9, 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult participants presenting to ED with migraine and compared one pharmacologic therapy to another or placebo. Outcomes were as follows: 1) adequate pain relief at 2 hours, 2) change in pain intensity at 1 hour, 3) need for rescue drug at 2 hours, and 4) significant adverse reaction. We extracted data according to PRISMA-network meta-analysis and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2. For dichotomous outcomes, we performed Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals; for continuous outcomes, we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed confidence using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis. We used Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank agents.

Results: Chlorpromazine intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM) (SUCRA=87.3%) was most likely to be superior for "adequate pain relief at 2 hours" (24 trials; n=2,361); metoclopramide IV-ibuprofen IV (SUCRA=94.6%) was most likely to be superior for "need for rescue drug" (not needing rescue drug) at 2 hours (27 trials; n=2,942); dexamethasone IV (SUCRA=79.5%) was most likely to be superior for "significant adverse reaction" (not causing adverse reaction) (22 trials; n=2,450). The network for change in pain intensity demonstrated statistically significant incoherence at the overall level. Confidence in network meta-analysis estimates (certainty of evidence) varied and was mostly "low" or "very low," limiting the validity of the probabilistic analyses.

Conclusions: According to Bayesian network meta-analysis, ibuprofen IV is definitely among the least effective for adequate pain relief; chlorpromazine IV/IM is definitely among the most effective; valproate IV is definitely among the least effective, and ketorolac IV/IM is possibly among the least effective as single agents. The relative safety of the pharmacologic therapies cannot be determined with sufficient certainty.

研究目的我们进行了一项系统综述和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,以确定哪些药物疗法对急诊科(ED)就诊的成年偏头痛患者相对更有效、更安全:我们检索了从开始到 2024 年 2 月 9 日的 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Web of Science。符合条件的研究均为随机对照试验,这些试验招募了因偏头痛而到急诊科就诊的成年患者,并对一种药物疗法与另一种药物疗法或安慰剂进行了比较。研究结果如下1)2 小时内疼痛得到充分缓解;2)1 小时内疼痛强度发生变化;3)2 小时内需要使用抢救药物;4)出现明显不良反应。我们根据 PRISMA 网络荟萃分析法提取数据,并使用 Cochrane RoB 2 对试验进行评估。对于二分结果,我们采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析法计算几率比,并得出 95% 的可信区间;对于连续结果,我们采用频数网络荟萃分析法计算平均差,并得出 95% 的可信区间。我们使用网络荟萃分析中的置信度来评估置信度。我们使用累积排序曲线下表面(SUCRA)对药物进行排序:氯丙嗪静脉注射(IV)/肌肉注射(IM)(SUCRA=87.3%)最有可能在 "2小时内充分缓解疼痛 "方面更具优势(24项试验;n=2,361);甲氧氯普胺静脉注射-布洛芬静脉注射(SUCRA=94.地塞米松静脉注射(SUCRA=79.5%)在 "明显不良反应"(未引起不良反应)方面最可能具有优势(22 项试验;n=2,450)。疼痛强度变化网络在总体水平上显示出统计学意义上的不一致性。网络荟萃分析估计值的置信度(证据的确定性)各不相同,大多为 "低 "或 "非常低",限制了概率分析的有效性:根据贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,布洛芬静脉滴注对充分止痛的效果肯定是最差的;氯丙嗪静脉滴注/IM肯定是最有效的;丙戊酸钠静脉滴注肯定是效果最差的,而酮咯酸静脉滴注/IM作为单一药物可能是效果最差的。药物疗法的相对安全性还不能完全确定。
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
Annals of emergency medicine
Annals of emergency medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
819
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics.
×
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