药物干预对成人偏头痛发作急性期治疗的比较效果:系统综述和网络荟萃分析

The BMJ Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1136/bmj-2024-080107
William K Karlsson, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Zixuan A Zhuang, Lili Kokoti, Rune H Christensen, Haidar M Al-Khazali, Christina I Deligianni, Anneka Tomlinson, Håkan Ashina, Elena Ruiz de la Torre, Hans-Christoph Diener, Andrea Cipriani, Messoud Ashina
{"title":"药物干预对成人偏头痛发作急性期治疗的比较效果:系统综述和网络荟萃分析","authors":"William K Karlsson, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Zixuan A Zhuang, Lili Kokoti, Rune H Christensen, Haidar M Al-Khazali, Christina I Deligianni, Anneka Tomlinson, Håkan Ashina, Elena Ruiz de la Torre, Hans-Christoph Diener, Andrea Cipriani, Messoud Ashina","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2024-080107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023. Methods Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Results 137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework <https://osf.io/kq3ys/>. The full dataset and information for the vitruvian plots are freely available online at GitHub (<https://github.com/EGOstinelli/NMA-on-migraine/>).","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"William K Karlsson, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Zixuan A Zhuang, Lili Kokoti, Rune H Christensen, Haidar M Al-Khazali, Christina I Deligianni, Anneka Tomlinson, Håkan Ashina, Elena Ruiz de la Torre, Hans-Christoph Diener, Andrea Cipriani, Messoud Ashina\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmj-2024-080107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023. Methods Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Results 137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework <https://osf.io/kq3ys/>. The full dataset and information for the vitruvian plots are freely available online at GitHub (<https://github.com/EGOstinelli/NMA-on-migraine/>).\",\"PeriodicalId\":22388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The BMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 比较所有用于成人偏头痛发作急性期口服单药治疗的许可药物干预措施。设计 系统综述和网络荟萃分析。数据来源 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心、Medline、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、欧盟临床试验注册中心、WHO 国际临床试验注册平台,以及监管机构和制药公司的网站(截至 2023 年 6 月 24 日,无语言限制)。方法 筛选、数据提取、编码和偏倚风险评估均独立进行,一式两份。主要分析采用随机效应网络荟萃分析。主要结果是在不使用抢救药物的情况下,用药后两小时内无疼痛的参与者比例和用药后两小时至 24 小时内持续无疼痛的参与者比例。使用置信度网络荟萃分析(CINeMA)在线工具对证据的确定性进行分级。维特鲁威图用于总结研究结果。一个由临床医生和偏头痛患者组成的国际小组共同设计了这项研究,并对研究结果进行了解释。选择研究的资格标准 根据《国际头痛疾病分类》,对诊断为偏头痛的成年人(≥18岁)进行双盲随机试验。结果 共纳入 137 项随机对照试验,89 445 名参与者被分配到 17 种积极干预措施或安慰剂中的一种。与安慰剂相比,所有积极干预措施在两小时内缓解疼痛的疗效均优于安慰剂(几率比从纳拉曲普坦的1.73(95%置信区间(CI)1.27至2.34)到依利普坦的5.19(4.25至6.33)不等),其中大多数干预措施在24小时内持续缓解疼痛的疗效也优于安慰剂(几率比从塞来昔布的1.71(1.07至2.74)到布洛芬的7.58(2.58至22.27)不等)。在积极干预措施之间的正面比较中,依立普坦是在两小时内缓解疼痛最有效的药物(几率比从 1.46(1.18 至 1.81)到 3.01(2.13 至 4.25)不等),其次是利舒伐他汀。25)),其次是利扎曲普坦(1.59(1.18 至 2.17)至 2.44(1.75 至 3.45))、舒马曲普坦(1.35(1.03 至 1.75)至 2.04(1.49 至 2.86))和佐米曲普坦(1.47(1.04 至 2.08)至 1.96(1.39 至 2.86))。就持续无痛而言,最有效的干预措施是依立普坦和布洛芬(几率比从 1.41(1.02 至 1.93)到 4.82(1.31 至 17.67)不等)。符合 CINeMA 标准的可信度从高到非常低不等。仅对食品药品管理局许可剂量、高剂量与低剂量、偏倚风险以及基线时中度至重度头痛进行的敏感性分析证实了主要结果和次要结果的主要结论。结论 总体而言,依立普坦、利扎曲普坦、舒马曲普坦和佐米曲普坦的疗效最好,而且比最近上市的药物拉斯米坦、利美格潘和乌布格潘更有效。尽管有必要进行成本效益分析,并应慎重考虑心血管疾病高危患者,但应将最有效的三苯氧胺类药物视为偏头痛急性期治疗的首选药物,并将其纳入世界卫生组织的《基本药物清单》,以促进全球范围内的可及性和统一的治疗标准。系统综述注册 开放科学框架 .完整的数据集和葡萄图信息可在 GitHub()上免费在线获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Objective To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023. Methods Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Results 137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework . The full dataset and information for the vitruvian plots are freely available online at GitHub ().
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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