Xing Wang1, Qiang He1, Dingke Wen1, Lu Ma1, Chao You2,3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, St. Guoxuexiang, No. 37, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, St. Guoxuexiang, No. 37, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. dr.chaoyou@outlook.com. 3. West China Brain Research Centre, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. dr.chaoyou@outlook.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Overall, 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
BACKGROUND: To 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Overall, 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
Authors: Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Messoud Ashina; Peter J Goadsby; Uwe Reuter; Stephen Silberstein; David W Dodick; Fei Xue; Feng Zhang; Gabriel Paiva da Silva Lima; Sunfa Cheng; Daniel D Mikol Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Peter J Goadsby; Uwe Reuter; Yngve Hallström; Gregor Broessner; Jo H Bonner; Feng Zhang; Ian K Wright; Denise E Chou; Jan Klatt; Hernan Picard; Robert A Lenz; Daniel D Mikol Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Aubrey Manack Adams; Daniel Serrano; Dawn C Buse; Michael L Reed; Valerie Marske; Kristina M Fanning; Richard B Lipton Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 6.292