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
  • [21] Current Endpoints of Clinical Trials in Ulcerative Colitis: Are They Valid?
    Robert Battat
    Parambir S. Dulai
    Christopher Ma
    Vipul Jairath
    Brian G Feagan
    William J Sandborn
    Reena Khanna
    Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, 2020, 18 (1) : 15 - 32
  • [22] Assessing Prognosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Recent Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
    Ye, Fan
    Winchester, David
    Jansen, Michael
    Lee, Arthur
    Silverstein, Burton
    Stalvey, Carolyn
    Khuddus, Matheen
    Mazza, Joseph J.
    Yale, Steven H.
    CLINICAL MEDICINE & RESEARCH, 2019, 17 (1-2) : 11 - 19
  • [23] Development of drugs for celiac disease: review of endpoints for Phase 2 and 3 trials
    Gottlieb, Klaus
    Dawson, Jill
    Hussain, Fez
    Murray, Joseph A.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY REPORT, 2015, 3 (02): : 91 - 102
  • [24] Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe on Major Cardiovascular Endpoints: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Battaggia, Alessandro
    Donzelli, Alberto
    Font, Maria
    Molteni, Davide
    Galvano, Antonio
    PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (04):
  • [25] Choosing endpoints in clinical studies and trials
    Chauhan, B. C.
    EYE, 2007, 21 (Suppl 1) : S34 - S37
  • [26] Endpoints for Clinical Trials Testing Treatment of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease: A Joint Statement
    Martin, Paul J.
    Bachier, Carlos R.
    Klingemann, Hans-Georg
    McCarthy, Philip L.
    Szabolcs, Paul
    Uberti, Joseph P.
    Schuster, Michael W.
    Weisdorf, Daniel
    Chao, Nelson J.
    Kebriaei, Partow
    Shpall, Elizabeth J.
    MacMillan, Margaret L.
    Soiffer, Robert J.
    BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION, 2009, 15 (07) : 777 - 784
  • [27] Choosing endpoints in clinical studies and trials
    B C Chauhan
    Eye, 2007, 21 : S34 - S37
  • [28] Use of Imaging Endpoints in Clinical Trials
    Gillam, Linda D.
    Leipsic, Jonathon
    Weissman, Neil J.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2017, 10 (03) : 296 - 303
  • [29] Systematic scoping review identifies heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent depression clinical trials
    Mew, Emma J.
    Monsour, Andrea
    Saeed, Leena
    Santos, Lucia
    Patel, Sagar
    Courtney, Darren B.
    Watson, Priya N.
    Szatmari, Peter
    Offringa, Martin
    Monga, Suneeta
    Butcher, Nancy J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 126 : 71 - 79
  • [30] Omega-3 supplementation and outcomes of heart failure: A systematic review of clinical trials
    Nomali, Mahin
    Heidari, Mohammad Eghbal
    Ayati, Aryan
    Tayebi, Amirhossein
    Shevchuk, Oksana
    Mohammadrezaei, Ramin
    Navid, Hossein
    Khayyatzadeh, Sayyed Saeid
    Palii, Svitlana
    Valizade Shiran, Fahimeh
    Khorasanian, Atie Sadat
    Veysi, Zahra
    Jamalzehi, Atena
    Lesani, Azadeh
    Assari, Golnoosh
    Khani, Shiva
    Hassanpour, Kamyab
    Gerami, Hadis
    MEDICINE, 2024, 103 (03) : E36804