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
  • [31] Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series
    Yule, Michael S.
    Thompson, Joshua
    Leesahatsawat, Khachonphat
    Sousa, Mariana S.
    Anker, Stefan D.
    Arends, Jann
    Balstad, Trude R.
    Brown, Leo R.
    Bye, Asta
    Dajani, Olav
    Fallon, Marie
    Hjermstad, Marianne J.
    Jakobsen, Gunnhild
    McDonald, James
    McGovern, Josh
    Roeland, Eric J.
    Sayers, Judith
    Skipworth, Richard J. E.
    Ottestad, Inger O.
    Philips, Iain
    Simpson, Melanie R.
    Solheim, Tora S.
    Vagnildhaug, Ola Magne
    McMillan, Donald
    Laird, Barry J. A.
    Dolan, Ross D.
    JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 2024, 15 (03) : 853 - 867
  • [32] Efficacy endpoints in migraine clinical trials: the importance of assessing freedom from pain
    Silberstein, S. D.
    Newman, L. C.
    Marmura, M. J.
    Nahas, S. J.
    Farr, S. J.
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2013, 29 (07) : 861 - 867
  • [33] Efficacy Endpoints in Migraine Clinical Trials: The Importance of Assessing Freedom from Pain
    Silberstein, S.
    Marmura, M.
    Nahas, S. J.
    Newman, L.
    Farr, S.
    HEADACHE, 2012, 52 (05): : 877 - 878
  • [34] Methodologic issues in acute migraine clinical trials
    Lipton, RB
    NEUROLOGY, 2000, 55 (09) : S3 - S7
  • [35] ENDPOINTS IN CLINICAL TRIALS
    Priker, R.
    LUNG CANCER, 2009, 64 : S22 - S22
  • [36] Efficacy and tolerability of frovatriptan in acute migraine treatment: systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Poolsup, N
    Leelasangaluk, V
    Jittangtrong, J
    Rithlamlert, C
    Ratanapantamanee, N
    Khanthong, M
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 30 (06) : 521 - 532
  • [37] PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES AS PRIMARY ENDPOINTS IN CONFIRMATORY CLINICAL TRIALS
    Gnanasakthy, A.
    Lewis, S.
    Clark, M.
    Evans, E.
    Mordin, M.
    Demuro, C.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2012, 15 (04) : A200 - A200
  • [38] A Review of Clinical Endpoints and Use of Quality of Life Outcomes in Phase III Metastatic Breast Cancer Clinical Trials
    Tatla, R.
    Landaverde, D.
    Victor, J. C.
    Miles, D.
    Verma, S.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 48 : S109 - S109
  • [39] Non-invasive neuromodulation for migraine and cluster headache: a systematic review of clinical trials
    Reuter, Uwe
    McClure, Candace
    Liebler, Eric
    Pozo-Rosich, Patricia
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2019, 90 (07): : 796 - 804
  • [40] A systematic review of adverse events in placebo groups of anti-migraine clinical trials
    Amanzio, Martina
    Corazzini, Luca Latini
    Vase, Lene
    Benedetti, Fabrizio
    PAIN, 2009, 146 (03) : 261 - 269