Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration

Christopher G. Fawsitt, Howard Thom, Stephane A. Regnier, Xin Ying Lee*, Steven Kymes, Lene Vase

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthly migraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere230021
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume12
Issue7
ISSN2042-6305
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2023

Keywords

  • indirect treatment comparisons
  • intravenous
  • migraine
  • mode of administration
  • network meta-analysis
  • network meta-regression
  • placebo response
  • subcutaneous
  • unanchored simulated treatment comparison

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this