Supplementary materials: Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration

dataset

posted on 2024-04-15, 13:16 authored by Christopher G Fawsitt, Howard Thom, Stephane A. Regnier, Xin Ying Lee, Steven Kymes, Lene Vase

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

1. Methods

SI Figure 1: Migraine evidence networks for (A) episodic migraine and (B) chronic migraine
SI Figure 2: Eligibility criteria for the literature review
SI Figure 3: PRISMA diagram for the literature review
SI Figure 4: Observed placebo responses prior to indirect treatment comparisons
Fixed effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA)
Random effects NMA
Fixed effects NMR
Survey of expert opinion

2. Results: Random Effects

Standard NMA in Episodic Migraine
SI Table 1.
Standard NMA in Chronic Migraine
SI Table 2: Model assessment for fixed and random effects for standard NMA in chronic migraine.
Placebo Response Regression in Episodic Migraine
SI Table 3: Model assessment for fixed and random effects for placebo response regression in episodic migraine.
Placebo Response Regression in Chronic Migraine
SI Table 4: Model assessment for fixed and random effects for placebo response regression in chronic migraine.
SI Table 5: Random effects results for estimated differences in change from baseline in MMDs at 12 weeks in episodic migraine.
SI Table 6: Random effects results for estimated differences in change from baseline in MMDs at 12 weeks in chronic migraine.

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthly migraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo.