• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

成人偏头痛发作急性期药物干预的比较效果:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Danish Headache Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

BMJ. 2024 Sep 18;386:e080107. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-080107.

DOI:10.1136/bmj-2024-080107
PMID:39293828
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11409395/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023.

METHODS

Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders.

RESULTS

137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kq3ys/.

摘要

目的

比较所有已许可的药物干预措施作为口服单药治疗成人偏头痛发作的急性治疗。

设计

系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

数据来源

Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Medline、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、EU 临床试验注册中心、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,以及监管机构和制药公司的网站,无语言限制,检索时间截至 2023 年 6 月 24 日。

方法

筛选、数据提取、编码和偏倚风险评估均由独立的两人小组进行。主要分析采用随机效应网络荟萃分析。主要结局指标为:给药后两小时无疼痛的参与者比例;给药后两小时至 24 小时无疼痛缓解且无使用解救药物的参与者比例。使用置信度网络荟萃分析(CINeMA)在线工具对证据的确定性进行分级。使用 Vitruvian 图总结研究结果。一个由临床医生和偏头痛患者组成的国际小组共同设计了这项研究,并解释了研究结果。

入选研究的标准

根据国际头痛疾病分类,对成年人(≥18 岁)进行双盲随机对照试验。

结果

纳入了 137 项随机对照试验,共 89445 名参与者被分配到 17 种活性干预措施或安慰剂组。与安慰剂相比,所有活性干预措施在两小时内疼痛缓解方面均显示出更好的疗效(比值比从纳曲普坦的 1.73(95%置信区间 1.27 至 2.34)到依替立坦的 5.19(4.25 至 6.33)),并且大多数在 24 小时内持续缓解疼痛方面也显示出更好的疗效(比值比从塞来昔布的 1.71(1.07 至 2.74)到布洛芬的 7.58(2.58 至 22.27))。在活性干预措施的头对头比较中,依替立坦是两小时内最有效的药物(比值比从 1.46(1.18 至 1.81)到 3.01(2.13 至 4.25)),其次是利扎曲坦(1.59(1.18 至 2.17)到 2.44(1.75 至 3.45))、舒马曲坦(1.35(1.03 至 1.75)到 2.04(1.49 至 2.86))和佐米曲坦(1.47(1.04 至 2.08)到 1.96(1.39 至 2.86))。在持续缓解疼痛方面,最有效的干预措施是依替立坦和布洛芬(比值比从 1.41(1.02 至 1.93)到 4.82(1.31 至 17.67))。与 CINeMA 相符的信心范围从高到非常低。仅对食品和药物管理局许可剂量、高剂量与低剂量、偏倚风险以及基线时中度至重度头痛的敏感性分析,确认了主要和次要结局的主要发现。

结论

总体而言,依替立坦、利扎曲坦、舒马曲坦和佐米曲坦的效果最好,它们比最近上市的药物拉米替坦、rimegepant 和ubrogepant 更有效。虽然需要进行成本效益分析,并应仔细考虑心血管风险较高的患者,但应将最有效的曲坦类药物视为偏头痛的首选急性治疗药物,并将其纳入世界卫生组织基本药物清单,以促进全球可及性和统一的护理标准。

系统评价注册

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kq3ys/。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/125fa742f429/karw080107.f7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/94a755097aa0/karw080107.va.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/ad7b963dcc92/karw080107.f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/bd87fb04699e/karw080107.f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/a624c6fb939f/karw080107.f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/07f0c03632da/karw080107.f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/f9db78aff2bb/karw080107.f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/5b0897c6e116/karw080107.f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/125fa742f429/karw080107.f7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/94a755097aa0/karw080107.va.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/ad7b963dcc92/karw080107.f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/bd87fb04699e/karw080107.f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/a624c6fb939f/karw080107.f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/07f0c03632da/karw080107.f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/f9db78aff2bb/karw080107.f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/5b0897c6e116/karw080107.f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a3a/11409395/125fa742f429/karw080107.f7.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis.成人偏头痛发作急性期药物干预的比较效果:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2024 Sep 18;386:e080107. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-080107.
2
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
3
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
4
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
5
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块型银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 23;5(5):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub5.
6
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.抗癫痫药物单药治疗癫痫:一项个体参与者数据的网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 1;4(4):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4.
7
Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.戒烟药物和电子烟:系统评价、网络荟萃分析和成本效益分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Oct;25(59):1-224. doi: 10.3310/hta25590.
8
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.抗抑郁药治疗成人慢性疼痛的疼痛管理:一项网络荟萃分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948.
9
Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis.湿疹的全身治疗:一项网状Meta分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 14;9(9):CD013206. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013206.pub2.
10
Symptomatic treatment of migraine in children: a systematic review of medication trials.儿童偏头痛的对症治疗:药物试验的系统评价
Pediatrics. 2005 Aug;116(2):e295-302. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2742.

引用本文的文献

1
Neural signature of chronic migraine mice model and related photophobia in the primary visual cortex.慢性偏头痛小鼠模型及相关畏光在初级视觉皮层中的神经特征
J Headache Pain. 2025 Aug 12;26(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02123-y.
2
Shared neural signatures of photophobia in migraine and post-traumatic headache: a task-based fMRI study.偏头痛和创伤后头痛中畏光的共享神经特征:一项基于任务的功能磁共振成像研究。
J Headache Pain. 2025 Jul 3;26(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02088-y.
3
Prevalence, characteristics and management of migraine patients with triptan failure in primary care: the EMR France-Mig study.

本文引用的文献

1
Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction Among Initiators of Triptans.曲坦类药物使用者发生中风和心肌梗死的风险。
JAMA Neurol. 2024 Mar 1;81(3):248-254. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.5549.
2
Simultaneous Comparisons of 25 Acute Migraine Medications Based on 10 Million Users' Self-Reported Records From a Smartphone Application.基于智能手机应用程序 1000 万用户自我报告记录的 25 种急性偏头痛药物的同期比较。
Neurology. 2023 Dec 12;101(24):e2560-e2570. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207964. Epub 2023 Nov 22.
3
Migraine in older adults.老年人偏头痛。
初级保健中曲坦类药物治疗失败的偏头痛患者的患病率、特征及管理:法国电子病历偏头痛研究
J Headache Pain. 2025 Jul 2;26(1):153. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02086-0.
4
Hispidulin Isolated from the Leaves of Clerodendrum inerme (L.) Gaertn Suppresses Trigeminovascular System Activation in a Rat Model Mimicking Migraine.从假茉莉叶中分离得到的滨蓟黄素可抑制偏头痛大鼠模型中的三叉神经血管系统激活。
Pharm Res. 2025 May 9. doi: 10.1007/s11095-025-03864-w.
5
Increased infection risk in patients on preventive CGRP-targeting therapies- a meta-analysis and clinical effect assessment.预防性降钙素基因相关肽(CGRP)靶向治疗患者的感染风险增加——一项荟萃分析与临床效果评估
J Headache Pain. 2025 Apr 25;26(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02040-0.
6
Adoption of rimegepant in Denmark: a register-based study on uptake, prescribing patterns and initiator characteristics.丹麦瑞美吉泮的应用:一项基于登记册的关于使用情况、处方模式和起始使用者特征的研究。
J Headache Pain. 2025 Apr 18;26(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-02028-w.
7
Wuzhuyu Decoction Relieves Chronic Migraine by Regulating 5-HT1A and 3A Receptors-Mediated CREB Signaling Pathway in Brain and Intestine.吴茱萸汤通过调节脑和肠道中5-HT1A和3A受体介导的CREB信号通路缓解慢性偏头痛。
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2025 Mar 18;18(3):426. doi: 10.3390/ph18030426.
8
Ditans and Gepants: hope or false promise for menstrual migraine?双靶点5-HT1F激动剂和基因靶向药物:对月经性偏头痛是希望还是虚假承诺?
Neurol Sci. 2025 Jul;46(7):3333-3334. doi: 10.1007/s10072-025-08121-x. Epub 2025 Mar 19.
9
Prediction models for treatment response in migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.偏头痛治疗反应的预测模型:系统评价与荟萃分析。
J Headache Pain. 2025 Feb 12;26(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s10194-025-01972-x.
10
Regional distribution of unbound eletriptan and sumatriptan in the CNS and PNS in rats: implications for a potential central action.在大鼠中枢神经系统和周围神经系统中未结合的依来曲普坦和舒马曲普坦的区域分布:对潜在的中枢作用的影响。
J Headache Pain. 2024 Oct 30;25(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01894-0.
Lancet Neurol. 2023 Oct;22(10):934-945. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00206-5. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
4
Randomized Trials vs Real-world Evidence: How Can Both Inform Decision-making?随机试验与真实世界证据:二者如何为决策提供信息?
JAMA. 2023 Apr 25;329(16):1352-1353. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.4855.
5
Sex differences in clinical characteristics of migraine and its burden: a population-based study.偏头痛的临床特征及其负担的性别差异:一项基于人群的研究。
Eur J Neurol. 2023 Jun;30(6):1774-1784. doi: 10.1111/ene.15778. Epub 2023 Mar 26.
6
Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.拉米地坦、利扎曲普坦和ubrogepant 治疗偏头痛急性发作的疗效、安全性及间接比较:文献的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Cephalalgia. 2023 Mar;43(3):3331024231151419. doi: 10.1177/03331024231151419.
7
Management of chronic migraine.慢性偏头痛的管理。
BMJ. 2022 Oct 10;379:e067670. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067670.
8
Short-term stroke risk after emergency department treat-and-release headache visit.急诊科治疗后释放头痛就诊后的短期卒中风险。
Headache. 2022 Oct;62(9):1198-1206. doi: 10.1111/head.14387. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
9
Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.比较药物干预成人急性和长期失眠管理效果的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2022 Jul 16;400(10347):170-184. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9.
10
Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.利扎曲坦与rimegepant 和ubrogepant 作为偏头痛急性治疗药物的相对疗效:网络荟萃分析结果。
J Headache Pain. 2022 Jul 6;23(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01440-w.