Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials

被引:27
|
作者
Houts, Carrie R. [1 ]
McGinley, James S. [1 ]
Nishida, Tracy K. [1 ]
Buse, Dawn C. [1 ,2 ]
Wirth, R. J. [1 ]
Dodick, David W. [3 ]
Goadsby, Peter J. [4 ,5 ]
Lipton, Richard B. [2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Vector Psychometr Grp LLC, 847 Emily Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 USA
[2] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Dept Neurol, Phoenix, AZ USA
[4] Kings Coll London, NIHR Wellcome Trust Kings Clin Res Facil, London, England
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Neurol, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[6] Montefiore Med Ctr, 111 E 210th St, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
来源
HEADACHE | 2021年 / 61卷 / 02期
关键词
acute migraine; clinical outcome assessment; clinical trial design; endpoints; outcomes; patient‐ reported outcome measures; GUIDELINES; DRUGS; PREVALENCE;
D O I
10.1111/head.14067
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Objective To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials. Method A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices. Results Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined >= 1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or >= 1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed substantially across publications. Conclusion Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.
引用
收藏
页码:263 / 275
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in preventive migraine clinical trials
    McGinley, James S.
    Houts, Carrie R.
    Nishida, Tracy K.
    Buse, Dawn C.
    Lipton, Richard B.
    Goadsby, Peter J.
    Dodick, David W.
    Wirth, R. J.
    HEADACHE, 2021, 61 (02): : 253 - 262
  • [2] Intranasal lidocaine for acute migraine A protocol for the systematic review of randomized clinical trials
    Chi, Pei-Wen
    Hsieh, Kun-Yi
    Tsai, Chien-Wei
    Hsu, Chin-Wang
    Bai, Chyi-Huey
    Chen, Chiehfeng
    Hsu, Yuan-Pin
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (20)
  • [3] Evaluation of Endpoints Used in Clinical Trials on Adenomyosis-A Systematic Review
    Rathinam, Kiran Kumar
    Abraham, Justin Jacob
    Karuppaiah, Harish
    Selvaraj, Heema Preethy
    Samal, Sunita
    George, Melvin
    REVIEWS ON RECENT CLINICAL TRIALS, 2023, 18 (02) : 83 - 91
  • [4] Do We Measure the Right Endpoints? A Systematic Review of Primary Outcomes in Recent Neonatal Randomized Clinical Trials
    Barbara Schmidt
    Bo Zhang
    Pediatric Research, 1999, 45 : 223 - 223
  • [5] Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series
    Mcdonald, James
    Sayers, Judith
    Anker, Stefan D.
    Arends, Jann
    Balstad, Trude
    Baracos, Vickie
    Brown, Leo
    Bye, Asta
    Dajani, Olav
    Dolan, Ross
    Fallon, Marie T.
    Fraser, Eilidh
    Griel, Christine
    Grzyb, Aleksandra
    Hjermstad, Marianne
    Jamal-Hanjani, Mariam
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    Kaasa, Stein
    Mcmillan, Donald
    Maddocks, Matthew
    Philips, Iain
    Ottestad, Inger O.
    Reid, Kieran F.
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Simpson, Melanie R.
    Vagnildhaug, Ola Magne
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2023, : 1932 - 1948
  • [6] Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series
    Hjermstad, Marianne J.
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    Arends, Jann
    Balstad, Trude
    Brown, Leo R.
    Bye, Asta
    Coats, Andrew J. S.
    Dajani, Olav F.
    Dolan, Ross D.
    Fallon, Marie T.
    Greil, Christine
    Grzyb, Alexandra
    Kaasa, Stein
    Koteng, Lisa H.
    May, Anne M.
    Mcdonald, James
    Ottestad, Inger
    Philips, Iain
    Roeland, Eric J.
    Sayers, Judith
    Simpson, Melanie R.
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Vagnildhaug, Ola M.
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2024, 15 (03) : 794 - 815
  • [7] Oncological and Survival Endpoints in Cancer Cachexia Clinical Trials: Systematic Review 6 of the Cachexia Endpoints Series
    Dajani, Olav
    Philips, Iain
    Storkson, Ester Kristine
    Balstad, Trude R.
    Brown, Leo R.
    Bye, Asta
    Dolan, Ross
    Greil, Christine
    Hjermstad, Marianne
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    Kaasa, Stein
    Mcdonald, James
    Ottestad, Inger
    Sayers, Judith
    Simpson, Melanie
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Vagnildhaug, Ola Magne
    Yule, Michael S.
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    Stares, Mark
    Arends, Jann
    Cancer Cachexia Endpoints Working Group
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2025, 16 (02)
  • [8] Clinical trials: design, endpoints and interpretation of outcomes
    Megan Othus
    Mei-Jie Zhang
    Robert Peter Gale
    Bone Marrow Transplantation, 2022, 57 : 338 - 342
  • [9] Clinical trials: design, endpoints and interpretation of outcomes
    Othus, Megan
    Zhang, Mei-Jie
    Gale, Robert Peter
    BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 57 (03) : 338 - 342
  • [10] TRENDS IN UTILIZATION OF SURROGATE ENDPOINTS IN CONTEMPORARY CARDIOVASCULAR CLINICAL TRIALS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Patel, Ravi
    Vaduganathan, Muthiah
    Samman-Tahhan, Ayman
    Kalogeropoulos, Andreas
    Georgiopoulou, Vasiliki
    Fonarow, Gregg
    Gheorghiade, Mihai
    Butler, Javed
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2016, 67 (13) : 1973 - 1973