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
  • [11] Endpoints for Clinical Trials of Acute Kidney Injury
    Palevsky, Paul M.
    NEPHRON, 2018, 140 (02) : 111 - 115
  • [12] Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review
    Alonso-Moreno, Marta
    Rodriguez-de Francisco, Lupe
    Ciudad-Gutierrez, Pablo
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (06):
  • [13] Spinal manipulations for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials
    Posadzki, P.
    Ernst, E.
    CEPHALALGIA, 2011, 31 (08) : 964 - 970
  • [14] Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series
    Brown, Leo R.
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Yule, Michael S.
    Baracos, Vickie E.
    Mcmillan, Donald C.
    Arends, Jann
    Balstad, Trude R.
    Bye, Asta
    Dajani, Olav
    Dolan, Ross D.
    Fallon, Marie T.
    Greil, Christine
    Hjermstad, Marianne J.
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    Maddocks, Matthew
    Mcdonald, James
    Ottestad, Inger O.
    Phillips, Iain
    Sayers, Judith
    Simpson, Melanie R.
    Vagnildhaug, Ola M.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2024, 15 (03) : 816 - 852
  • [15] Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series
    Vagnildhaug, Ola Magne
    Balstad, Trude R.
    Ottestad, Inger
    Bye, Asta
    Greil, Christine
    Arends, Jann
    Baracos, Vickie
    Brown, Leo R.
    Dajani, Olav F.
    Dolan, Ross D.
    Fallon, Marie
    Fraser, Eilidh
    Grzyb, Aleksandra
    Hjermstad, Marianne J.
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    Kaasa, Stein
    McDonald, James
    Philips, Iain
    Sayers, Judith
    Simpson, Melanie R.
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2024, 15 (02) : 513 - 535
  • [16] Review of Acute Treatment of Migraine Trial Results With the New FDA Endpoints: Design Implications for Future Trials
    Hindiyeh, Nada A.
    Kellerman, Donald J.
    Schmidt, Peter C.
    HEADACHE, 2019, 59 (05): : 819 - 824
  • [17] Systematic review of clinical trials of magnesium for acute stroke
    Muir, K
    STROKE, 2000, 31 (11) : 2811 - 2811
  • [18] Outcomes and endpoints of relevance in gynecologic cancer clinical trials
    Madariaga, Ainhoa
    Sanchez-Bayona, Rodrigo
    Herrera, Fernanda G.
    Ramirez, Pedro T.
    Martin, Antonio Gonzalez
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2023, 33 (03) : 323 - 332
  • [19] Outcomes in acute pain trials: systematic review of what was reported?
    Barden, J
    Edwards, JE
    Mason, L
    McQuay, HJ
    Moore, RA
    PAIN, 2004, 109 (03) : 351 - 356
  • [20] Acute Kidney Injury Biomarkers and Endpoints for Clinical Trials
    Murray, Patrick T.
    HEMODIALYSIS: NEW METHODS AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 171 : 208 - 212