Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39293828›Full record

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.

William K Karlsson, Edoardo G Ostinelli, Zixuan A Zhuang, Lili Kokoti, Rune H Christensen, Haidar M Al-Khazali, Christina I Deligianni, Anneka Tomlinson, Håkan Ashina, Elena Ruiz de la Torre and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative StudyNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

William K KarlssonDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Edoardo G OstinelliDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Zixuan A ZhuangDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lili KokotiDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rune H ChristensenDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Haidar M Al-KhazaliDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christina I DeligianniDepartment of Neurology, Athens Naval Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Anneka TomlinsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Håkan AshinaDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elena Ruiz de la TorreEuropean Migraine and Headache Alliance, Brussels, Belgium.
Hans-Christoph DienerDepartment of Neuroepidemiology, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK andrea.cipriani@psych.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321
Messoud AshinaDepartment of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Migraine DisordersAdultHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeTryptaminesTryptamines

Identifiers

PMID39293828
PMCPMC11409395

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.