Numthavaj Pawin, Anothaisintawee Thunyarat, Attia John, McKay Gareth, Thakkinstian Ammarin
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
BMJ Open. 2024 Mar 1;14(3):e077916. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077916.
Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure).
Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure).
This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42020171843.
偏头痛是一个严重的健康问题,影响着患者的心理健康和生活质量。多项网状荟萃分析(NMA)比较了偏头痛预防性药物的疗效。然而,一些分析仅关注口服药物,而其他分析则局限于注射用药物。此外,这些NMA均未对初治患者和既往治疗失败患者进行分层分析。因此,本系统评价和NMA将比较偏头痛预防性所有治疗方法之间的疗效,并根据患者的治疗状态(即初治和既往治疗失败)进行分层。
纳入慢性或发作性偏头痛患者的随机对照试验,评估口服或注射用偏头痛预防性治疗的疗效,并将每月偏头痛天数、每月头痛天数、偏头痛相关残疾、健康相关生活质量或药物不良事件作为结局指标,将符合条件纳入本评价。自数据库建立至2023年8月15日,将从Medline、Scopus、美国国立卫生研究院注册库和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(WHO-ICTRP)数据库中检索相关研究。将使用一种修订工具对随机试验中的偏倚风险进行评估。将应用两阶段NMA比较偏头痛预防性所有治疗方法之间的相对治疗效果。将应用累积排序曲线下面积来估计和排序成为最佳治疗方法的概率。将使用设计-治疗交互模型评估一致性假设。将通过比较调整漏斗图评估发表偏倚。所有分析将根据患者状态(即初治和既往治疗失败)进行分层。
本研究是一项从已发表文献中收集数据的系统评价方案,无需机构审查委员会批准。本系统评价的结果将发表在同行评审期刊上。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42020171843。