不同药物疗法对用药过度性头痛的疗效和安全性比较:网络荟萃分析。

IF 7.3 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Headache and Pain Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1186/s10194-024-01878-0
Fanyi Kong, Dawn C Buse, Guoliang Zhu, Jingjing Xu
{"title":"不同药物疗法对用药过度性头痛的疗效和安全性比较:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Fanyi Kong, Dawn C Buse, Guoliang Zhu, Jingjing Xu","doi":"10.1186/s10194-024-01878-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Controversy exists whether prophylactic drugs are necessary in the treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine comparative benefits and safety of available drugs for the treatment of MOH including elimination of medication overuse (MO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials though an extensive literature search comparing different drug effects on MOH. A random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted to rank comparative effects of interventions. Outcome improvements from baseline include responder rate defined as ≥ 50% reduction of headache frequency, proportion of patients who revert to no acute medication overuse (nMO), and reduction in monthly headache and acute medication intake frequency. Certainty of evidence was classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 8,248 screened publications, 28 were eligible for analysis. Topiramate was found to be beneficial based on its responder rate (odds ratios [OR] 4.93), headache frequency (weighted mean difference [WMD] -5.53) and acute medication intake frequency (WMD - 6.95), with fewer safety issues (i.e., tolerability, or more adverse events) than placebo (OR 0.20). Fremanezumab, galcanezumab and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) were beneficial for increased responder rates (OR 3.46 to 3.07, 2.95, and 2.57, respectively). For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and BTA were superior to placebo (OR 2.75 to 2.64, 1.87 to1.57, and 1.55, respectively). Eptinezumab, fremanezumab, erenumab 140 mg, and BTA were more efficacious than erenumab 70 mg (OR 3.84 to 3.70, 2.60 to 2.49, 2.44 and 2.16, respectively) without differences in safety and tolerability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite lower safety and greater intolerability issues, topiramate has large beneficial effects probably on increasing responder rates, reducing headache frequency, and might reduce monthly medication intake frequency. Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab are promising for increasing responder rates. For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab has large beneficial effects, fremanezumab has a smaller effect. BTA might have a moderate effect on responder rates and probably has a small effect on reversion to nMO.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42021193370.</p>","PeriodicalId":16013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Headache and Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457448/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy and safety of different pharmacological therapies to medication overuse headache: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Fanyi Kong, Dawn C Buse, Guoliang Zhu, Jingjing Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s10194-024-01878-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Controversy exists whether prophylactic drugs are necessary in the treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine comparative benefits and safety of available drugs for the treatment of MOH including elimination of medication overuse (MO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials though an extensive literature search comparing different drug effects on MOH. A random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted to rank comparative effects of interventions. Outcome improvements from baseline include responder rate defined as ≥ 50% reduction of headache frequency, proportion of patients who revert to no acute medication overuse (nMO), and reduction in monthly headache and acute medication intake frequency. Certainty of evidence was classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 8,248 screened publications, 28 were eligible for analysis. Topiramate was found to be beneficial based on its responder rate (odds ratios [OR] 4.93), headache frequency (weighted mean difference [WMD] -5.53) and acute medication intake frequency (WMD - 6.95), with fewer safety issues (i.e., tolerability, or more adverse events) than placebo (OR 0.20). Fremanezumab, galcanezumab and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) were beneficial for increased responder rates (OR 3.46 to 3.07, 2.95, and 2.57, respectively). For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and BTA were superior to placebo (OR 2.75 to 2.64, 1.87 to1.57, and 1.55, respectively). Eptinezumab, fremanezumab, erenumab 140 mg, and BTA were more efficacious than erenumab 70 mg (OR 3.84 to 3.70, 2.60 to 2.49, 2.44 and 2.16, respectively) without differences in safety and tolerability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite lower safety and greater intolerability issues, topiramate has large beneficial effects probably on increasing responder rates, reducing headache frequency, and might reduce monthly medication intake frequency. Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab are promising for increasing responder rates. For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab has large beneficial effects, fremanezumab has a smaller effect. BTA might have a moderate effect on responder rates and probably has a small effect on reversion to nMO.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42021193370.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Headache and Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457448/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Headache and Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01878-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Headache and Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01878-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在治疗药物滥用性头痛(MOH)时是否需要使用预防性药物存在争议:在治疗药物滥用性头痛(MOH)时是否有必要使用预防性药物存在争议:确定现有药物治疗包括消除药物过度使用(MO)在内的过度用药头痛的比较效益和安全性:方法:通过广泛的文献检索,我们系统地回顾了随机对照试验,比较了不同药物对 MOH 的疗效。我们采用随机效应网络荟萃分析法对干预措施的比较效果进行了排序。与基线相比,结果改善情况包括头痛频率减少≥50%的应答率、恢复到无急性药物过度使用(nMO)的患者比例以及每月头痛和急性药物摄入频率的减少。采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)对证据的确定性进行分类:在筛选出的 8,248 篇出版物中,有 28 篇符合分析条件。根据其应答率(几率比[OR]4.93)、头痛频率(加权平均差[WMD]-5.53)和急性药物摄入频率(WMD -6.95),发现托吡酯是有益的,其安全性问题(即耐受性或更多不良事件)少于安慰剂(OR 0.20)。Fremanezumab、galcanezumab和A型肉毒毒素(BTA)有利于提高应答率(OR值分别为3.46至3.07、2.95和2.57)。在逆转为 nMO 方面,eptinezumab、fremanezumab 和 BTA 优于安慰剂(OR 分别为 2.75 至 2.64、1.87 至 1.57 和 1.55)。在安全性和耐受性方面没有差异的情况下,埃妥珠单抗、fremanezumab、埃利珠单抗140毫克和BTA的疗效优于埃利珠单抗70毫克(OR值分别为3.84至3.70、2.60至2.49、2.44和2.16):结论:尽管托吡酯的安全性较低,不耐受性较高,但它在提高应答率、减少头痛频率方面可能有很大的益处,并可减少每月服药次数。Fremanezumab、galcanezumab和eptinezumab有望提高应答率。在逆转为 nMO 方面,eptinezumab 有较大的疗效,而 Fremanezumab 的疗效较小。BTA可能对应答率有适度影响,对逆转为nMO的影响可能较小:prospero,CRD42021193370。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative efficacy and safety of different pharmacological therapies to medication overuse headache: a network meta-analysis.

Background: Controversy exists whether prophylactic drugs are necessary in the treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH).

Objectives: To determine comparative benefits and safety of available drugs for the treatment of MOH including elimination of medication overuse (MO).

Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials though an extensive literature search comparing different drug effects on MOH. A random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted to rank comparative effects of interventions. Outcome improvements from baseline include responder rate defined as ≥ 50% reduction of headache frequency, proportion of patients who revert to no acute medication overuse (nMO), and reduction in monthly headache and acute medication intake frequency. Certainty of evidence was classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE).

Results: Of 8,248 screened publications, 28 were eligible for analysis. Topiramate was found to be beneficial based on its responder rate (odds ratios [OR] 4.93), headache frequency (weighted mean difference [WMD] -5.53) and acute medication intake frequency (WMD - 6.95), with fewer safety issues (i.e., tolerability, or more adverse events) than placebo (OR 0.20). Fremanezumab, galcanezumab and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) were beneficial for increased responder rates (OR 3.46 to 3.07, 2.95, and 2.57, respectively). For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and BTA were superior to placebo (OR 2.75 to 2.64, 1.87 to1.57, and 1.55, respectively). Eptinezumab, fremanezumab, erenumab 140 mg, and BTA were more efficacious than erenumab 70 mg (OR 3.84 to 3.70, 2.60 to 2.49, 2.44 and 2.16, respectively) without differences in safety and tolerability.

Conclusion: Despite lower safety and greater intolerability issues, topiramate has large beneficial effects probably on increasing responder rates, reducing headache frequency, and might reduce monthly medication intake frequency. Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab are promising for increasing responder rates. For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab has large beneficial effects, fremanezumab has a smaller effect. BTA might have a moderate effect on responder rates and probably has a small effect on reversion to nMO.

Trial registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021193370.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Headache and Pain
Journal of Headache and Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
13.50%
发文量
143
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Headache and Pain, a peer-reviewed open-access journal published under the BMC brand, a part of Springer Nature, is dedicated to researchers engaged in all facets of headache and related pain syndromes. It encompasses epidemiology, public health, basic science, translational medicine, clinical trials, and real-world data. With a multidisciplinary approach, The Journal of Headache and Pain addresses headache medicine and related pain syndromes across all medical disciplines. It particularly encourages submissions in clinical, translational, and basic science fields, focusing on pain management, genetics, neurology, and internal medicine. The journal publishes research articles, reviews, letters to the Editor, as well as consensus articles and guidelines, aimed at promoting best practices in managing patients with headaches and related pain.
期刊最新文献
Morphological similarity and white matter structural mapping of new daily persistent headache: a structural connectivity and tract-specific study. Reduction of neck pain severity in patients with medication-overuse headache. Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine. Correction: PACAP-38 and sex hormones in women with migraine: exploratory analysis of a cross-sectional, matched cohort study. Regional distribution of unbound eletriptan and sumatriptan in the CNS and PNS in rats: implications for a potential central action.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1