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
  • [11] The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review
    Millward, Christopher P.
    Keshwara, Sumirat M.
    Armstrong, Terri S.
    Barrington, Heather
    Bell, Sabrina
    Brodbelt, Andrew R.
    Bulbeck, Helen
    Dirven, Linda
    Grundy, Paul L.
    Islim, Abdurrahman I.
    Javadpour, Mohsen
    Koszdin, Shelli D.
    Marson, Anthony G.
    Mcdermott, Michael W.
    Meling, Torstein R.
    Oliver, Kathy
    Plaha, Puneet
    Preusser, Matthias
    Santarius, Thomas
    Srikandarajah, Nisaharan
    Taphoorn, Martin J. B.
    Turner, Carole
    Watts, Colin
    Weller, Michael
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Zadeh, Gelareh
    Najafabadi, Amir H. Zamanipoor
    Jenkinson, Michael D.
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY ADVANCES, 2024, 6 (01)
  • [12] Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review
    Cordoba, Gloria
    Schwartz, Lisa
    Woloshin, Steven
    Bae, Harold
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 341 : 381
  • [13] Statistical approaches for evaluating surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: A systematic review
    Ensor, Hannah
    Lee, Robert J.
    Sudlow, Cathie
    Weir, Christopher J.
    JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2016, 26 (05) : 859 - 879
  • [14] Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review
    Mathioudakis, Alexander G.
    Fally, Markus
    Hashad, Rola
    Kouta, Ahmed
    Hadi, Ali Sina
    Knight, Sean Blandin
    Bakerly, Nawar Diar
    Singh, Dave
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Felton, Tim
    Vestbo, Jorgen
    LIFE-BASEL, 2020, 10 (12): : 1 - 32
  • [15] The analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health trials: a methodological systematic review
    Stringer, Dominic
    Payne, Mollie
    Carter, Ben
    Emsley, Richard
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [16] Focus on trial endpoints of clinical relevance and the use of almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine
    Sandrini, G
    Dahlöf, CG
    Mathew, N
    Nappi, G
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2005, 59 (11) : 1356 - 1365
  • [17] Ketorolac in the Treatment of Acute Migraine: A Systematic Review
    Taggart, Erin
    Doran, Shandra
    Kokotillo, Andrea
    Campbell, Sandy
    Villa-Roel, Cristina
    Rowe, Brian H.
    HEADACHE, 2013, 53 (02): : 277 - 287
  • [18] Variation in Endpoints in FDA Approvals for Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications
    Vanderpluym, Juliana H.
    NEUROLOGY, 2023, 101 (10) : 417 - 419
  • [19] Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis
    Fabian, Alexander
    Domschikowski, Justus
    Letsch, Anne
    Schmalz, Claudia
    Freitag-Wolf, Sandra
    Dunst, Juergen
    Krug, David
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2022, 174 : 123 - 131
  • [20] Composite endpoints in COVID-19 randomized controlled trials: a systematic review
    Martins, Pedro Nascimento
    Lourenco, Mateus Henrique Toledo
    Mota, Gabriel Paz Souza
    Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
    Antonio, Ana Carolina Pecanha
    Diaz-Quijano, Fredi Alexander
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2025, 22 (01) : 77 - 87