scholarly journals Calcitonin Gene–Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibody Versus Botulinum Toxin for the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Migraine: Evidence From Indirect Treatment Comparison

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiajie Lu ◽  
Quanquan Zhang ◽  
Xiaoning Guo ◽  
Wei Liu ◽  
Chunyang Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Botulinum Toxin ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Calcitonin Gene ◽  
Indirect Treatment

Background: The previously approved botulinum toxin and nowadays promising calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody have shown efficacy for preventing chronic migraine (CM). However, there is no direct evidence for their relative effectiveness and safety. In this study, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison to compare the efficacy and safety of CGRP monoclonal antibody with botulinum toxin for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.Methods: Up to August 31, 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central). Weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) software was used to conduct indirect treatment comparison.Results: Ten studies were pooled with 6,325 patients in our meta-analysis. Both botulinum toxin and CGRP monoclonal antibody demonstrated favorable efficacy in the change of migraine days, headache days, HIT-6 score, and 50% migraine responder rate compared with placebo. In indirect treatment comparison, CGRP monoclonal antibody was superior to botulinum toxin in the frequency of acute analgesics intake (WMD = −1.31, 95% CI: −3.394 to 0.774, p = 0.02113), the rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (RR = 0.664, 95% CI: 0.469 to 0.939, p = 0.04047), and the rate of treatment-related serious adverse events (RR = 0.505, 95% CI: 0.005 to 46.98, p < 0.001).Conclusion: For chronic migraine patients, CGRP monoclonal antibody was slightly better than botulinum toxin in terms of efficacy and safety. In the future, head-to-head trials would be better to evaluate the efficacy and safety between different medications in the prevention of chronic migraine.

Galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay M Frerichs ◽  
Deborah I Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Related Peptide ◽  
Calcitonin Gene

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder affecting approximately 1.02 billion people worldwide. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as playing an important role in the pathophysiology of migraine and several migraine-specific therapies targeting the CGRP ligand or its receptor have been approved since 2018 for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety/tolerability of galcanezumab, an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody approved for the prevention of migraine.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab and Benralizumab in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Ando ◽  
Akihiko Tanaka ◽  
Hironori Sagara
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Eosinophil Count ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Blood Eosinophil Count ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy and safety between the licensed dosage and administration dosage of dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to estimate differences in the efficacy and safety between dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma using the Bayesian approach. The primary efficacy endpoint was annual exacerbation rate (AER). A subgroup analysis by blood eosinophil count was also performed. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of any adverse events (AAEs). The results demonstrate that there was no significant difference in the AER between dupilumab and benralizumab in overall patients and the subgroup with the blood eosinophil count of <150. However, the AER was significantly lower in the dupilumab group than in the benralizumab group in the subgroup with a blood eosinophil count of ≥150 but <300, and ≥300 with the rate ratio and 95% credible interval of 0.51 (0.29–0.92) and 0.58 (0.39–0.84), respectively. There was no significant difference in the AAEs between the dupilumab and benralizumab groups. This indirect treatment comparison indicates that dupilumab is superior to benralizumab in patients with inadequately controlled asthma having higher blood eosinophil counts. A direct comparison is required to provide definitive evidence. Systematic Review Registration: UMIN-CTR no. UMIN000036256.

Indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy and safety of olaparib 300 mg tablets BID and talazoparib 1 mg once daily in the treatment of patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCA) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12570-e12570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles McCrea ◽  
Robert Hettle
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

e12570 Background: PARP inhibitor treatment with olaparib or talazoparib has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCA) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis was performed to simulate the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative PARP treatment in this setting. Methods: Bayesian fixed effects ITCs of data published for OlympiAD (NCT02000622) and EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was conducted using the gemtc package in R. Efficacy analyses were performed on the primary endpoint of PFS by blinded independent central review. Safety analyses included the odds ratio (OR) of adverse event (AE)-related discontinuations, and common AEs of any grade reported in each study. All analyses compared olaparib with talazoparib. Results: Efficacy analyses show no significant difference in PFS across treatments (PFS hazard ratio of 1.09, 95% credible interval [0.72; 1.65]). Safety analyses predict differences in AEs across PARP treatment, including hematological events, alopecia, nausea and vomiting (Table). No difference in AE-related discontinuations was observed (0.93 [0.25–3.42]). Conclusions: Results of the ITC suggest that olaparib and talazoparib are equally efficacious on PFS, and differ in AE risk profile, with olaparib predicted to have fewer common hematological and alopecia events, but an increased risk of nausea and vomiting versus talazoparib. Observed differences require confirmation in comparative studies. Limitations of the analysis include heterogeneity in study design, reporting of AEs, and mix of chemotherapies used in the control arm of the studies. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document