Meta-regression to explain the placebo effects in clinical trials of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention

References

• Stovner LJ, Hagen K, Linde M, et al. The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):34. doi: 10.1186/S10194-022-01402-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP, et al. Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet. 2021;397(10283):1485–1495. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32160-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husøy A, Katsarava Z, Steiner TJ. The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 3 attack frequency is the dominating variable. J Headache Pain. 2023;24(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01546-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Burstein R, et al. Migraine. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):2. doi: 10.1038/s41572-021-00328-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edvinsson L, Haanes KA, Warfvinge K, et al. CGRP as the target of new migraine therapies—successful translation from bench to clinic. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(6):338–350. doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0003-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiang CC, Schwedt TJ. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies as preventive and acute treatments for migraine—the monoclonal antibodies and gepants. Progress in Brain Research. Vol 255. Elsevier B.V.; 2020:143–170. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.06.019.
   Google Scholar
• Masoud AT, Hasan MT, Sayed A, et al. Efficacy of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor blockers in reducing the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs): a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neurol Sci. 2021;427:117505. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Bravo-Rodrigo J, Pascual-Morena C, Flor-García A, et al. The safety and efficacy of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine: a protocol for multiple-treatment systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1753. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YY, Ye XQ, Tang TC, et al. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies versus botulinum neurotoxin a in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: an adjusted indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12(671845):671845. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.671845.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alasad YW, Asha MZ. Monoclonal antibodies as a preventive therapy for migraine: a meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;195:105900. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fawsitt CG, Thom H, Regnier SA, et al. Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration. J Comp Eff Res. 2023;12(7):e230021. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund K, Vase L, Petersen GL, et al. Randomised controlled trials may underestimate drug effects: balanced placebo trial design. PLOS One. 2014;9(1):e84104. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam-Hansen S, Jakubowski M, Kelley JM, et al. Altered placebo and drug labeling changes the outcome of episodic migraine attacks. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(218):218ra5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vase L, Wartolowska K. Pain, placebo, and test of treatment efficacy: a narrative review. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e254–e262. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt K, Berding T, Kleine-Borgmann J, et al. The beneficial effect of positive treatment expectations on pharmacological migraine prophylaxis. Pain. 2022;163(2):e319–e327. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macedo A, Farré M, Baños JE. A meta-analysis of the placebo response in acute migraine and how this response may be influenced by some of the characteristics of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(3):161–172. doi: 10.1007/s00228-005-0088-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swerts DB, Benedetti F, Peres MFP. Different routes of administration in chronic migraine prevention lead to different placebo responses: a meta-analysis. Pain. 2022;163(3):415–424. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes RB, McCarron M, Cardwell CR. Efficacy and contextual (placebo) effects of CGRP antibodies for migraine: systematic review and meta-analysis. Headache. 2020;60(8):1542–1557. doi: 10.1111/head.13907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick DW, Ashina M, Brandes JL, et al. ARISE: a phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(6):1026–1037. doi: 10.1177/0333102418759786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Saper J, Cady R, et al. Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1). Cephalalgia. 2020;40(3):241–254. doi: 10.1177/0333102420905132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Smith J, et al. Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine: PROMISE-2. Neurology. 2020;94(13):e1365–e1377. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Soft. 2010;36(3):1–48. Accessed April 13, 2022 doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Published 2022. Accessed April 13, 2022. https://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q, et al. Evaluation of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(9):1080–1088. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, et al. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: results of the EVOLVE-2 phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(8):1442–1454. doi: 10.1177/0333102418779543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, Lanteri-Minet M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine in whom two-to-four previous preventive treatments were unsuccessful: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study. Lancet. 2018;392(10161):2280–2287. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32534-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, et al. A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(22):2123–2132. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1705848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Bigal ME, et al. Effect of fremanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic migraine: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(19):1999–2008. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.4853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Bigal ME, et al. Fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(22):2113–2122. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper S, Ashina M, Reuter U, et al. Safety and efficacy of erenumab for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(6):425–434. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30083-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detke HC, Goadsby PJ, Wang S, et al. Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study. Neurology. 2018;91(24):e2211–e2221. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000006640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrari MD, Diener HC, Ning X, et al. Fremanezumab versus placebo for migraine prevention in patients with documented failure to up to four migraine preventive medication classes (FOCUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10203):1030–1040. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31946-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulleners WM, Kim BK, Láinez MJA, et al. Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(10):814–825. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30279-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures (DELIVER): a multi-arm, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol. 2022;21(7):597–607. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00185-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Tepper S, Brandes JL, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in chronic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: a subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(10):1611–1621. doi: 10.1177/0333102418788347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruff DD, Ford JH, Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, et al. Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure. Cephalalgia. 2019;39(8):931–944. doi: 10.1177/0333102419847957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruff DD, Ford JH, Tockhorn‐Heidenreich A, et al. Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure: results from two global randomized clinical trials. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27(4):609–618. doi: 10.1111/ene.14114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goadsby PJ, Paemeleire K, Broessner G, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in episodic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: a subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2019;39(7):817–826. doi: 10.1177/0333102419835459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper SJ, Cirillo J, Kim E, et al. The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression. J Headache Pain. 2023;24(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01587-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenbussche N, Pisarek K, Paemeleire K. Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review. J Headache Pain. 2023;24(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS, . The American headache society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 2021;61(7):1021–1039. doi: 10.1111/head.14153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacco S, Amin FM, Ashina M, et al. European headache federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention – 2022 update. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01431-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitsikostas DD, Alexoudi A, Arvaniti C, et al. Hellenic headache society recommendations for the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway for the prevention of migraine and cluster headache—2023 update. SN Compr Clin Med. 2023;5(1):118. doi: 10.1007/s42399-023-01452-w.
   Google Scholar
• Khanal S, Underwood M, Naghdi S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01492-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. process and methods [PMG36]; 2022. Accessed July 23, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/economic-evaluation#modelling-methods.
   Google Scholar
• CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa (Canada): CADTH; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Overton PM, Shalet N, Somers F, et al. Patient preferences for subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of treatment for chronic immune system disorders: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:811–834. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S303279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santus P, Ferrando M, Baiardini I, et al. Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: a cross-sectional observational survey study. World Allergy Organ J. 2019;12(4):100030. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2019.100030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Ajona D, Villar-Martínez MD, Goadsby PJ. New generation gepants: migraine acute and preventive medications. J Clin Med. 2022;11(6):1656. doi: 10.3390/jcm11061656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenfeld A, Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, et al. Method of injection of onabotulinumtoxina for chronic migraine: a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment paradigm based on the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50(9):1406–1418. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01766.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar