Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022494›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

A Risk-Difference Meta-Analysis for the Prophylactic Treatments of Chronic Migraine.

Michalis Kodounis, Theodoros S Constantinidis, Konstantina Rizonaki, Eleni Drakou, Elias Zintzaras, Ioannis Stefanidis, Dimos-Dimitrios Mitsikostas, Efthimios Dardiotis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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.

Michalis KodounisFirst Neurology Department, Eginitio Hospital, School of Medicine, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, GRC.
Theodoros S ConstantinidisNeurology, Hellenic Headache Society, Athens, GRC.
Konstantina RizonakiDepartment of Biomathematics, University of Thessaly School of Medicine, Larissa, GRC.
Eleni DrakouSchool of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Larissa, GRC.
Elias ZintzarasDepartment of Biomathematics, University of Thessaly School of Medicine, Larissa, GRC.
Ioannis StefanidisDepartment of Nephrology, University of Thessaly School of Medicine, Larissa, GRC.
Dimos-Dimitrios MitsikostasFirst Neurology Department, Eginitio Hospital, School of Medicine, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, GRC.
Efthimios DardiotisNeurology, General University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, GRC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic migraine (CM) imposes significant personal, societal, and financial burdens, historically lacking specific prophylactic treatments. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) represent a novel, mechanism-based, and migraine-specific prophylactic approach. Four mAbs, namely, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, have been marketed, although head-to-head trials with standard anti-migraine treatments are absent. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of anti-CGRP mAbs with standard anti-migraine treatments using a cross-trial indirect model of the absolute risk difference (ARD) of a 50% responder rate, in order to express the final results in terms of the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Phase 3 and 2b randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CM prophylaxis were searched in the MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ARD between groups for the percentage of trial participants who reported a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and the differences in the number of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and participants who withdrew from each RCT were calculated, and subsequently, the NNT and NNH were calculated for each one of the outcome measures. In total, eight RCTs were considered eligible. A similar efficacy and safety have been demonstrated among CGRP mAbs and all standard CM treatments. The results of the ARD for the total number of studies concerning efficacy, total adverse events, serious adverse events, and dropout from the RCTs ranged from -0.688 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.821-(-0.513)) to -0.018 (95% CI: -0.044-(0.007)), from 0.032 (95% CI: -0.041, 0.104) to -0.380 (95% CI: -0.589, -0.126), from -0.025 (95% CI: -0.046, -0.006) to 0.014 (95% CI: -0.015, 0.42), from 0.048 (95% CI: -0.112, 0.014) to 0.232 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.458) correspondingly. All anti-CGRP mAbs showed a roughly equal statistically significant ARD and similar NNTs, ranging from 5 to 8, while the ARD of onbotulinum toxin A (oBTA) was not significant with an NNT 56. The two studies of topiramate showed contradictory results, the one significant while the other not, with NNTs 2 and 22, respectively. All four anti-CGRP mAbs showed an invariably high efficacy among their studies, in terms of the ARD and its derivative measure of NNT, in contrast to oBTA, while in topiramate, the results are contradictory between the two studies.

Indexed as

absolute risk differenceanti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (cgrp) monoclonal antibodieschronic migraine (cm)meta-analysisonabotulinumtoxinatopiramate

Identifiers

PMID39022494
PMCPMC11251938

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.