A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression evaluating the adverse reactions to erenumab in the preventive treatment of migraine

References

• Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine: epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. 2019;37(4):631–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwedt TJ. Chronic migraine. BMJ. 2014;348:g1416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S, et al. Patterns of diagnosis and acute and preventive treatment for migraine in the United States: results from the american migraine prevalence and prevention study. Headache. 2007;47:355–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacco S, Bendtsen L, Ashina M, et al. European headache federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor for migraine prevention. J Headache Pain. 2019;20:6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Headache Society. The American headache society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 2019;59:1–18.
   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;14:338–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo AF. Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP): a new target for migraine. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;55:533–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen LH, Haderslev PA, Jacobsen VB, et al. CGRP may play a causative role in migraine. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:54–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen J, Burstein R, Ashina M, et al. Origin of pain in migraine: evidence for peripheral sensitisation. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:679–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L, Lehto SG, Zhu DX, et al. Pharmacologic characterization of AMG 334, a potent and selective human monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016;356:223–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar S, Ossipov MH, Johnson KW. The role of calcitonin gene-related peptide in peripheral and central pain mechanisms including migraine. Pain. 2017;158:543–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun H, Dodick DW, Silberstein S, et al. Safety and efficacy of AMG 334 for prevention of episodic migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:382–390.
   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;16:425–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Hoon J, Van Hecken A, Vandermeulen C. Phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, and multiple-dose studies of erenumab in healthy subjects and patients with migraine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103:815–825.
   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;377:2123–2132.
   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;38:1026–1037.
   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;392:2280–2287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu C, Guan J, Xiao H, et al. Erenumab safety and efficacy in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e18483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kudrow D, Pascual J, Winner PK, et al. Vascular safety of erenumab for migraine prevention. Neurology. 2020;94:e497–e510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Official Journal of the European Union [Internet]. Directive 2010/84/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 15 December 2010. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2010_84/dir_2010_84_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med. 2010;29:3046–3067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggerstaff BJ, Jackson D. The exact distribution of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic in one-way random effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27:6093–6110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baujat B, Mahé C, Pignon JP, et al. A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med. 2002;21:2641–2652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith RF. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1988;7:889–894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21:1559–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duval S, Tweedie R. A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of erenumab: three-plus year results from a five-year open-label extension study in episodic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2019;39:1455–1464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashina M, Dodick D, Goadsby PJ, et al. Erenumab (AMG 334) in episodic migraine: interim analysis of an ongoing open-label study. Neurology. 2017;89:1237–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakai F, Takeshima T, Tatsuoka Y. A randomized Phase 2 study of Erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine in Japanese adults. Headache. 2019;59:1731–1742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper SJ, Ashina M, Reuter U, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from a 52-week, open-label extension study. Cephalalgia. 2020;40:543–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera-Mancilla E, Villalón CM, MaassenVanDenBrink A. CGRP inhibitors for migraine prophylaxis: a safety review. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2020;19:1237–1250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Trinka E, et al. Erenumab for preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. Drugs. 2019;79:417–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibney MA, Arce CH, Byron KJ, et al. Skin and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness in adults with diabetes at sites used for insulin injections: implications for needle length recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:1519–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan L. Pharmacokinetic modeling of the subcutaneous absorption of therapeutic proteins. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:1890–1905.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vu T, Ma P, Chen JS, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of erenumab (AMG 334) and capsaicin-induced dermal blood flow in healthy and migraine subjects. Pharm Res. 2017;34:1784–1795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilton LV, Freemantle SN, Martin R, et al. Is the incidence of upper respiratory tract infection independent of drug treatment in large cohort studies of longer term use drugs? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1998;7(Suppl 1):S4–S10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salvana EM, Salata RA. Infectious complications associated with monoclonal antibodies and related small molecules. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22:274–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, et al. Safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals approved in the United States and the European Union. JAMA. 2008;300:1887–1896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seong SS, Choi CB, Woo JH, et al. Incidence of tuberculosis in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): effects of RA itself and of tumor necrosis factor blockers. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:706–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gklinos P, Mitsikostas DD. Galcanezumab in migraine prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2020;13:1756286420918088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deen M, Correnti E, Kamm K, et al. Blocking CGRP in migraine patients - a review of pros and cons. J Headache Pain. 2017;18:96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar