ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022
Efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: evidences from direct and indirect comparisons.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Migraine Prevention with Erenumab: Focus on Patient Selection, Perspectives and Outcomes.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo date, it remains challenging for clinicians to make informed decisions about which dosage of erenumab is more effective for treating adult patients with migraine. Thus, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of different doses of erenumab in this group of patients.
methodsWe searched several databases from inception to May 31, 2021, irrespective of language. We included only RCTs that compared erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, and placebo in migraine patients. The primary efficacy outcome was change in monthly migraine days (MMDs). The primary safety outcome was defined as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). We reported relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) from the analysis.
resultsOverall, eight trials comprising 4281 participants were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that both erenumab 70 mg (MD: - 1.43, 95% CrI: - 1.71 to - 1.16) and erenumab 140 mg (MD: - 1.78, 95% CrI: - 2.21 to - 1.45) were associated with decreased MMDs. Also, erenumab 140 mg was associated with significantly lower MMDs than erenumab 70 mg (MD: - 0.34, 95% CrI: - 0.68 to - 0.01). In terms of primary safety outcome, neither erenumab 70 mg (RR: 0.98, 95% CrI: 0.92 to 1.05) nor erenumab 140 mg (RR: 0.99, 95% CrI: 0.91 to 1.07) was associated with increased risk of TEAEs.
conclusionsThe results from this study suggested erenumab 140 mg might provide better efficacy than 70 mg among adult patients with migraine, without increasing TEAEs. Future elaborated RCTs with a larger number of participants are warranted to validate these discoveries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34731334What 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.