Suppr超能文献

成人偏头痛预防性随机对照试验中普遍缺乏安慰剂的使用。一项系统评价。

General lack of use of placebo in prophylactic, randomised, controlled trials in adult migraine. A systematic review.

作者信息

Hougaard Anders, Tfelt-Hansen Peer

机构信息

Danish Headache Center and Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Department of Neurology, North Zealand Hospital in Hillerød, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Denmark.

出版信息

Cephalalgia. 2016 Sep;36(10):960-9. doi: 10.1177/0333102415616880. Epub 2015 Nov 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) recommends that a placebo arm is included in comparative randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of multiple prophylactic drugs due to the highly variable placebo response in migraine prophylaxis studies. The use of placebo control in such trials has not been systematically assessed.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all comparative RCTs of prophylactic drug treatment of migraine published in English from 2002 to 2014. PubMed was searched using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying reports of RCTs.

RESULTS

A placebo arm was used in <10% (three of 31) of prophylactic RCTs in migraine. In only 7.1% (two of 28) of the comparative RCTs without placebo was one drug superior to another drug. Thus in 26 RCTs, including one study requiring more than 75,000 patient days, no difference was identified across treatment arms and conclusions regarding drug superiority could not be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of comparative, prophylactic migraine RCTs do not include a placebo arm. Failure to include a placebo arm may result in failure to demonstrate efficacy of potentially effective migraine-prophylactic agents. In order to benefit current and future patients, the current strong tendency to omit placebo-controls in these RCTs should be replaced by adherence to the guidelines of the IHS.

摘要

背景

国际头痛协会(IHS)临床试验小组委员会建议,由于偏头痛预防研究中安慰剂反应高度可变,在多种预防性药物的比较随机临床试验(RCT)中应设置安慰剂组。此类试验中安慰剂对照的使用尚未得到系统评估。

方法

我们对2002年至2014年以英文发表的所有偏头痛预防性药物治疗的比较RCT进行了系统评价。使用Cochrane高灵敏度检索策略在PubMed中检索以识别RCT报告。

结果

偏头痛预防性RCT中<10%(31项中的3项)使用了安慰剂组。在没有安慰剂的比较RCT中,只有7.1%(28项中的2项)一种药物优于另一种药物。因此,在26项RCT中,包括一项需要超过75000患者日的研究,各治疗组之间未发现差异,无法得出药物优越性的结论。

结论

大多数比较性偏头痛预防性RCT未设置安慰剂组。未设置安慰剂组可能导致无法证明潜在有效的偏头痛预防药物的疗效。为了使当前和未来的患者受益,目前这些RCT中省略安慰剂对照的强烈倾向应以遵守IHS指南取而代之。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验