Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Problematic presentation and use of efficacy measures in current trials of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for episodic migraine prevention: A mini-review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Diagnostic delay of cluster headache: A cohort study from the Danish Cluster Headache Survey

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. PACAP27 induces migraine-like attacks in migraine patients

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Exploration of purinergic receptors as potential anti-migraine targets using established pre-clinical migraine models

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Proposed new diagnostic criteria for chronic migraine

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. The Emperor's New Gepants: Are the Effects of the New Oral CGRP Antagonists Clinically Meaningful?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Further Questioning of the Significance of the Gepants: A Response

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

  3. Misused and Misleading: "100% Response Rate" to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

  4. Neurologisk undersøgelse i almen praksis: en oversigt baseret på hjemmsiden neurous.dk

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Neurous.dk: en hjemmeside til brug i uddannelse eller efteruddannelse i neurologisk undersøgelsesteknik

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: In trials of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor for prevention of episodic migraine, we observed two problematic aspects: a) The graphic presentations; b) the methods of calculating "response rates" (≥50% decrease of monthly migraine days from baseline).

OBSERVATIONS: Decrease in monthly migraine days is presented, over time, in figures on a downward (negative) scale from zero at baseline, with the ordinate stopped just beyond the maximum effect of the active drugs. In one trial, decreases in monthly migraine days were -1.8 after placebo, -3.2 after erenumab 70 mg and -3.7 after erenumab 140 mg, with the ordinate stopped at -4.5. The reader can perceive only a relative 2-fold benefit of erenumab versus placebo. If, however, treatment periods are compared with baseline in bar charts, MMDs persisting after treatment in the same trial can be illustrated as follows, creating a different perception: 78% for placebo, 61% for erenumab 70 mg, and 55% for erenumab 140 mg. In the nine trials, "response rates" defined as above were calculated in five different ways, taking different numbers of treatment months into account in comparisons with the one-month baseline. This makes comparisons impossible.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS: Mean monthly migraine days before and after treatment should be presented in a bar chart. Such figures, presenting persisting MMDs, are more clinically relevant and less misleading than decreases from baseline. The definition and methods of calculating and presenting "50% response rates" should be standardized by the Drug Trial Committee of the International Headache Society.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftCephalalgia : an international journal of headache
Vol/bind40
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)122-126
Antal sider5
ISSN0333-1024
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2020

ID: 58955791