SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024
Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of AAC and ibuprofen versus lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraine in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Increased infection risk in patients on preventive CGRP-targeting therapies- a meta-analysis and clinical effect assessment.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction models for treatment response in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Comorbidities and Clinical Overlap of Cluster Headache with Other Primary Headache Disorders: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Classic Psychedelics for Treating Chronic Pain: Mechanism and Clinical Translation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global, regional, and national burden of migraine in postmenopausal women: a 32-year analysis from the global burden of disease study 1990-2021.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- Pharmacological mechanisms underlying neurovascular alterations related to resistant and refractory migraine: CGRP pathways and beyond.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Review
- Novel optimization of multi-mechanistic approaches for the acute treatment of a migraine attack: A review.Headache · 2026Review
- Review
- Evolution of use and overuse of triptans in Austria - What has changed in the last 15 years?The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Abnormal imaging features of episodic cluster headache and episodic migraine: a multimodal 7T MRI study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Triptan Initiation and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients With Migraine: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Observational
- Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Migraine: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.Neurology · 2026Observational
- 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
- Mendelian Randomization Uncovers Potential Repurposable Medications for Neuropsychiatric Disorders.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Article
- Emerging pharmacological targets in migraine therapy: CGRP and beyond.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- A review on gut microbiota and migraine severity: a complex relationship.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- CGRP and Migraine: Real-World Insights and Future Therapeutic Directions.Annual review of medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023.
methodsScreening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders.
results137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes.
conclusionsOverall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kq3ys/.
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.