Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison
Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and we...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Becaris Publishing Limited
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1797258437338333184 |
|---|---|
| author | Ronan Mahon Santosh Tiwari Mirja Koch Matias Ferraris Keith A Betts Yan Wang Sophie Gao Pascal Proot |
| author_facet | Ronan Mahon Santosh Tiwari Mirja Koch Matias Ferraris Keith A Betts Yan Wang Sophie Gao Pascal Proot |
| author_sort | Ronan Mahon |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function – restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:53:31Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-410b4842f364416c8d66e4061907ba36 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2042-6313 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:53:31Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | Becaris Publishing Limited |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-410b4842f364416c8d66e4061907ba362024-03-18T09:53:02ZengBecaris Publishing LimitedJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research2042-63132024-03-0113310.57264/cer-2023-0122Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparisonRonan Mahon0Santosh Tiwari1Mirja Koch2Matias Ferraris3Keith A Betts4Yan Wang5Sophie Gao6Pascal Proot7Novartis Ireland Limited, Dublin, D04A9N6, IrelandNovartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, 500081, IndiaNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, CH-4056, SwitzerlandNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, CH-4056, SwitzerlandAnalysis Group Inc, Los Angeles, CA 90071, USAAnalysis Group Inc, Los Angeles, CA 90071, USAAnalysis Group Inc, Los Angeles, CA 90071, USAGhent University Hospital, Ghent, 9000, BelgiumAim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function – restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.erenumabmatching-adjusted indirect comparisonmigraine preventionrimegepant |
| spellingShingle | Ronan Mahon Santosh Tiwari Mirja Koch Matias Ferraris Keith A Betts Yan Wang Sophie Gao Pascal Proot Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research erenumab matching-adjusted indirect comparison migraine prevention rimegepant |
| title | Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison |
| title_full | Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison |
| title_fullStr | Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison |
| title_short | Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison |
| title_sort | comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching adjusted indirect comparison |
| topic | erenumab matching-adjusted indirect comparison migraine prevention rimegepant |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ronanmahon comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT santoshtiwari comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT mirjakoch comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT matiasferraris comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT keithabetts comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT yanwang comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT sophiegao comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison AT pascalproot comparativeeffectivenessoferenumabversusrimegepantformigrainepreventionusingmatchingadjustedindirectcomparison |