Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37723470›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of headache and pain2023

Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Guanglu Li, Shaojie Duan, Tiantian Zhu, Zhiying Ren, Hui Xia, Ziyao Wang, Lei Liu, Zunjing Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of headache and pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy and safety of Dingluo nasal drops for the acute treatment of migraine: a pilot randomized trial.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Clinical evaluation of zavegepant for the acute treatment of migraine.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Guanglu Li *Graduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Shaojie Duan *Department of Geriatrics, Taizhou Central Hospital (Taizhou University Hospital), Taizhou, China.
Tiantian ZhuBeijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhiying RenGraduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Hui XiaGraduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ziyao WangGraduate School of Beijing, University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Lei LiuDepartment of Neurology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China. neurologyliulei@126.com.
Zunjing LiuDepartment of Neurology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. liuzunjing@163.com.
China-Japan Friendship Hospital · CNBeijing University of Chinese Medicine · CNBeijing Tian Tan Hospital · CNPeking University People's Hospital · CNTaizhou Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients.

methodsThe Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

resultsNineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model.

conclusionsCompared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersOxazolidinonesAdultHumansNasal SpraysTryptaminesNasal SpraysOxazolidinonesTryptamineszolmitriptanAcute treatmentIntranasal agentsMigraineNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID37723470
PMCPMC10506288
OpenAlexW4386839556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.