Cargando…

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vandenbussche, Nicolas, Pisarek, Karolina, Paemeleire, Koen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Milan 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37344811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3
_version_ 1785061741547225088
author Vandenbussche, Nicolas
Pisarek, Karolina
Paemeleire, Koen
author_facet Vandenbussche, Nicolas
Pisarek, Karolina
Paemeleire, Koen
author_sort Vandenbussche, Nicolas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the “National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group”. RESULTS: Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as “good” quality and 13 studies were graded as “fair”. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10286407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Milan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102864072023-06-23 Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review Vandenbussche, Nicolas Pisarek, Karolina Paemeleire, Koen J Headache Pain Review BACKGROUND: Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine. METHODS: The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the “National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group”. RESULTS: Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as “good” quality and 13 studies were graded as “fair”. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3. Springer Milan 2023-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10286407/ /pubmed/37344811 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Vandenbussche, Nicolas
Pisarek, Karolina
Paemeleire, Koen
Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title_full Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title_fullStr Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title_short Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
title_sort methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the cgrp-pathway for migraine: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37344811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10194-023-01611-3
work_keys_str_mv AT vandenbusschenicolas methodologicalconsiderationsonrealworldevidencestudiesofmonoclonalantibodiesagainstthecgrppathwayformigraineasystematicreview
AT pisarekkarolina methodologicalconsiderationsonrealworldevidencestudiesofmonoclonalantibodiesagainstthecgrppathwayformigraineasystematicreview
AT paemeleirekoen methodologicalconsiderationsonrealworldevidencestudiesofmonoclonalantibodiesagainstthecgrppathwayformigraineasystematicreview