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
  • [31] Association Between Funding Sources and the Scope and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
    Vaduganathan, Muthiah
    Samman-Tahhan, Ayman
    Papadimitriou, Lampros
    Georgiopoulou, Vasiliki V.
    Greene, Stephen J.
    Kalogeropoulos, Andreas P.
    Peterson, Eric
    Fonarow, Gregg C.
    Gheorghiade, Mihai
    Butler, Javed
    CIRCULATION, 2015, 132
  • [32] Association between funding sources and the scope and outcomes of cardiovascular clinical trials: A systematic review
    Vaduganathan, Muthiah
    Samman-Tahhan, Ayman
    Patel, Ravi B.
    Kelkar, Anita
    Papadimitriou, Lampros
    Georgiopoulou, Vasiliki V.
    Greene, Stephen J.
    Kalogeropoulos, Andreas P.
    Peterson, Eric
    Fonarow, Gregg C.
    Gheorghiade, Mihai
    Butler, Javed
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 230 : 301 - 303
  • [33] Endpoints in trials for clinical liver transplantation
    Washburn, Kenneth
    CURRENT OPINION IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, 2008, 13 (03) : 252 - 256
  • [34] Impact of icodextrin on clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Cho, Yeoungjee
    Johnson, David W.
    Badve, Sunil
    Craig, Jonathan C.
    Strippoli, Giovanni F. K.
    Wiggins, Kathryn J.
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2013, 28 (07) : 1899 - 1907
  • [35] Clinical features of visual migraine aura: a systematic review
    Viana, Michele
    Tronvik, Erling Andreas
    Thien Phu Do
    Zecca, Chiara
    Hougaard, Anders
    JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN, 2019, 20 (1)
  • [36] Clinical Trials for Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension: A Comprehensive Review of Endpoints, Pitfalls, and Challenges
    Palma, Jose-Alberto
    Kaufmann, Horacio
    SEMINARS IN NEUROLOGY, 2020, 40 (05) : 523 - 539
  • [37] Low Reporting of Cointerventions in Recent Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review
    Moutzouri, Elisavet
    Adam, Luise
    Feller, Martin
    Syrogiannouli, Lamprini
    Da Costa, Bruno R.
    Del Giovane, Cinzia
    Bauer, Douglas C.
    Aujesky, Drahomir
    Chiolero, Arnaud
    Rodondi, Nicolas
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2020, 9 (12):
  • [38] Non-invasive neuromodulation in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Clark, Oliver
    Mahjoub, Areej
    Osman, Nily
    Surmava, Ann-Marie
    Jan, Saber
    Lagman-Bartolome, Ana Marissa
    NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 43 (01) : 153 - 165
  • [39] Outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Marson, B. A.
    Craxford, S.
    Deshmukh, S. R.
    Grindlay, D.
    Manning, J.
    Ollivere, B. J.
    BONE & JOINT OPEN, 2020, 1 (05): : 167 - 174
  • [40] Design and Endpoints of Clinical Trials, Current and Future
    Sherman, Morris
    DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2019, 64 (04) : 1050 - 1057