SynthesisJAMA network open2021
Comparison of New Pharmacologic Agents With Triptans for Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of remote electrical neuromodulation in migraine: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Saudi clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prevention of migraine headache.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025Guideline
- The efficacy and safety of zavegepant nasal inhalation versus oral calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor antagonists in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan and CGRP-antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Receptor Antagonists and Selective Serotonin Receptor Agonist in the Management of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of different treatments for menstrual migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Pooled it
- Prescription of therapeutic exercise in migraine, an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Guideline
- Imaging the brain and vascular reactions to headache treatments: a systematic review.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Pooled it
- Safety evaluation of oral calcitonin-gene-related peptide receptor antagonists in patients with acute migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Pooled it
- Safety of Rimegepant in Patients Using Preventive Migraine Medications: A Subgroup Analysis of a Long-Term, Open-Label Study Conducted in the United States.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Evaluating search approaches for a network meta-analysis: a case study of Epistemonikos Database of Trials, CENTRAL, and other sources.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Evolution of use and overuse of triptans in Austria - What has changed in the last 15 years?The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in Raynaud's phenomenon: a disproportionality study based on real data and drug-gene network analysis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Moderate to Severe Acute Migraine Attacks: An Opinion Paper on the Use of Triptans and Triptan-NSAIDs Combinations in Individualized Treatment Plans.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- CGRP and Migraine: Real-World Insights and Future Therapeutic Directions.Annual review of medicine · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of rimegepant in vestibular migraine: a prospective self-controlled cohort study.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant). Objective: To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches. Data Sources: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020. Study Selection: Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events. Results: A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists. Conclusions and Relevance: For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.