Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34013992›Full record

Trial reportHeadache2021

Patient-identified most bothersome symptom in preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab: A novel patient-centered outcome.

Richard B Lipton, David W Dodick, Jessica Ailani, Lora McGill, Joe Hirman, Roger Cady

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Richard B LiptonDepartment of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2652-2897
David W DodickDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9486-6790
Jessica AilaniDepartment of Neurology, Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8106-4927
Lora McGillCNS HealthCare, Memphis, TN, USA.
Joe HirmanPacific Northwest Statistical Consulting, Woodinville, WA, USA.
Roger CadyLundbeck La Jolla Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine · USCNS Healthcare · USGeorgetown University · USLa Jolla Alcohol Research · USPacific Northwest Research Station · USWinnMed · US

Funding

H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the methodology and implications of the patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS) measure used in the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group PROMISE-2 trial and to evaluate the contribution of this measure to the assessment of the preventive migraine benefits of treatment.

backgroundAlthough freedom from MBS is a coprimary endpoint in acute migraine treatment trials, its evaluation in preventive migraine trials is limited. The PROMISE-2 study assessed a unique PI-MBS measure as a secondary endpoint.

methodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from the PROMISE-2 study. Adults with chronic migraine (CM) were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo, administered on day 0 and every 12 weeks. At the screening visit, patients were asked to verbally describe the MBS associated with their CM; the question format was open ended. At subsequent visits, patients were asked to rate the overall change in severity of their MBS from study inception to that time point, using a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from "very much worse" (-3) to "very much improved" (+3). Patients completed the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment during the same visits, using an identical rating scale and recall period. Endpoints were summarized descriptively; post hoc correlations using the methodologies of Pearson and Spearman were calculated to evaluate relationships between PGIC and PI-MBS and between PGIC and mean monthly migraine days (MMDs; primary efficacy endpoint in PROMISE-2).

resultsAltogether, 1072 patients received treatment (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 356; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) and were included in the analysis. There were 23 unique MBS identified; those reported by ≥10 patients included light sensitivity (18.7%), nausea/vomiting (15.1%), pain with activity (13.7%), pain (12.4%), headache (11.2%), sound sensitivity (7.3%), throbbing/pulsating pain (4.7%), cognitive disruption (4.1%), fatigue (2.4%), mood changes (1.5%), and sensitivity to smell (0.9%). Four weeks after the first dose (week 4), the rates of much or very much improvement in PI-MBS were higher with eptinezumab 100 mg (45%) and 300 mg (57%) than with placebo (29%). Four weeks after the second dose (week 16), the proportions with much or very much improvement in PI-MBS had increased to 58%, 65%, and 36%, respectively. At each time point, the percentages of patients with PGIC ratings of much or very much improved were similar to those for patient-reported improvement in PI-MBS. Patient ratings of changes in PI-MBS and PGIC correlated strongly across time points (Pearson, r range, 0.83-0.88; Spearman, r range, 0.83-0.89); the absolute value of the correlations was greater than the correlation among changes in MMDs and PGIC (Pearson, r range, -0.49 to -0.52; Spearman, r range, -0.49 to -0.52).

conclusionsAmong patients with CM in the PROMISE-2 study, a broad range of PI-MBS was reported at baseline. Throughout the study, patients treated with eptinezumab reported greater improvement in their PI-MBS severity compared with placebo recipients, and this improvement correlated strongly with PGIC findings. Collectively, these results indicate that PI-MBS is a promising and novel outcome measure for preventive trials of CM and thus may provide a unique patient-centered approach for identifying and measuring the burden of migraine symptoms that matter most to each patient, as well as the benefits of treatment.

Indexed as

AdultAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMigraine DisordersPatient-Centered CareTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedeptinezumabchronic migraineefficacyeptinezumabpatient-reported outcomesprevention

Identifiers

PMID34013992
PMCPMC8251621
OpenAlexW3161711994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.