figshare
Browse
supplementary materials.docx (24.59 kB)

Supplementary materials: Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Download (24.59 kB)
dataset
posted on 2024-02-05, 12:40 authored by Ronan Mahon, Santosh Tiwari, Mirja Koch, Matias Ferraris, Keith A Betts, Yan Wang, Sophie Gao, Pascal Proot

This is a peer-reviewed supplementary table for the article 'Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.


  • Supplementary Table 1: Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function – restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Funding

This study was funded by Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

History

Usage metrics

    Becaris

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC