Atormac
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 5158  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (4,142 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1184    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
META ANALYSIS
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 43-50

Ditans vs Gepants: A Systematic Review and Indirect Network Meta-Analysis for Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety


1 Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
2 Department of Pediatrics, Paramitha Children Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Submission31-Dec-2021
Date of Decision31-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance13-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication14-May-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alok Singh
Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492 099
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.315991

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: An acute attack of migraine, incapacitates the migraineurs, and is widely prevalent. And to warden off its symptoms, recently two groups of drugs have been approved and launched.
Objective: The aim of this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis is to evaluate and summarize the effectiveness of these pharmacological interventions in managing the aforesaid disease.
Material and Methods: An extensive literature search was done through Cochrane library, Pub Med, clincialtrials.gov, for a period of 5 years (2015–2020), using key words: lasmiditan; ubrogepant; rimegepant; and acute migraine. Randomized double-blind phase III clinical trials, published in English language, were included which explored the efficacy and safety of these drugs. The outcomes of this meta-analysis included proportion of patients' headache, most bothersome symptoms free, and no disability at all at 2 h post-dose, with sustained pain freedom 2-24 h, and experiencing any adverse event. An indirect network meta-analysis was also conducted to determine the comparative effectiveness of these drugs.
Results: A total of seven RCTs involving 7266 patients were included. In general, the new drugs demonstrated better result in all the efficacy parameters. The adverse events were observed in treatment group compared to placebo. While in the indirect comparison, lasmiditan emerged to be superior in all the outcomes, except for sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (rimegepant was better). The adverse events were more with lasmiditan.
Conclusion: All the newer drugs have shown significant improvement in the outcomes analyzed. Lasmiditan appears to be superior among the newer drugs in efficacy; however it has more adverse effects.


Keywords: 5HT1F, acute migraine, CGRP, lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant
Key Messages: Recently three drugs approved for acute attack of migraine that is, lasmiditan; ubrogepant; rimegepant. Among these three lasmiditan appears to be superior to other two in efficacy parameters that is, number of patients achieved freedom from headache, most bothersome symptoms, and disability 2 h post-dose. Rimegepant is better in providing sustained pain freedom 2-24 h post dose. Lasmiditan had the highest incidence of adverse events among the three drugs.


How to cite this article:
Singh A, Gupta D, Singh A. Ditans vs Gepants: A Systematic Review and Indirect Network Meta-Analysis for Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety. Neurol India 2021;69, Suppl S1:43-50

How to cite this URL:
Singh A, Gupta D, Singh A. Ditans vs Gepants: A Systematic Review and Indirect Network Meta-Analysis for Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 15];69, Suppl S1:43-50. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/7/43/315991




A chronic paroxysmal disease of neurovascular origin, migraine, has always been one of those diseases which on acute presentation can incapacitate the patient in every aspect. This debilitating disease has a prevalence of around 14%, with an estimated years of life lived with disability (YLDs) as 11.2% among the women of age group 15–49 years.[1],[2] Clinically, the acute attack of migraine is characterized by pulsatile unilateral headache of moderate to severe intensity, lasting for 4–72 h, and accompanied with either of nausea, vomiting, phonophobia or photophobia.[3] And such frequent attacks somehow get translated into emotional as well as socio-economic burden.[4] To neutralize these impacts, drugs with diverse mechanisms of action are accessible, amongst which the most commonly used are triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.[5] But these routinely used drugs which provide therapeutic benefit of about 21-32% and 8-14%, respectively, have their own detrimental effects owing to which they either appear to be clinically ineffective, or get contraindicated.[6],[7] And after almost three decades of launch of first triptan (sumatriptan), a new drug, lasmiditan, with different mechanism of action, was approved for warding off the symptoms of acute migraine. This was then soon followed by approval of another group of drugs, gepants (ubrogepant and rimegepant), for the same affliction. Lasmiditan, a highly selective 5HT1F receptor agonist, acts more on the neuronal changes produced during an acute attack of migraine, without bringing about any vasoactive effects, unlike triptans, which non-specifically bind to 5HT1B,1D,1F receptors.[8],[9] On the other hand, the gepants, by their antagonistic action on CGRP receptors, alleviate the symptoms of acute migraine attack.[10],[11] There is substantial evidence regarding the efficacy and safety profile of the first line drugs used in management of the acute attack of migraine. But the same, for the newly approved drugs, is quite limited, hence making it crucial to discuss whether these novel drugs could yield a better therapeutic benefit with tolerable safety profile, as compared to their predecessors, as well as, if they could prove to be helpful in those migraineurs in whom the first line drugs are contraindicated or clinically ineffective. Therefore, an umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis has been undertaken, with an objective to comprehend and comment on these queries.


 » Methods Top


Current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA).[12] As the analysis is based on already published studies ethical approval is not obligatory.

Literature search and data extraction

Two of the authors systematically searched several databases including Pub Med, Cochrane library, Clinical Trial Registry https://clinicaltrials.gov/from January 2015 to March 2020 using the keywords: lasmiditan and acute migraine; ubrogepant and acute migraine, and rimegepant and acute migraine. Other studies were also hand-searched to improve the validity and discussion.

PICOS criteria [Figure 1]
Figure 1: Flow diagram of study selection process

Click here to view


  • Patients: Adults with acute migraine attacks, diagnosed by similar criteria.
  • Intervention/Comparator: Lasmiditan (200 mg)#, ubrogepant (50 mg)*, rimegepant (75 mg) vs placebo/active comparator. (The doses taken into consideration were because either they were maximum dose recommended# or was the common dose among different trials*.)
  • Primary Outcome: Proportion of patients headache free at 2 h post-dose.


Secondary Outcomes: Proportion of patients:

  1. Free from most bothersome symptoms MBS (nausea, phonophobia, photophobia) 2 h post-dose,
  2. Free from any disability 2 h post-dose, and
  3. Achieving sustained pain freedom from 2-24 h.
  4. Experiencing any adverse event.


    • Study Design: Complete phase III randomized clinical trials.


The data extraction was performed collectively by all the authors. We included all the randomized controlled trials conducted for the newer drugs. Important baseline information was extracted from them, which included name of authors, number of patients enrolled in the intervention and other group, mean age, proportion of females among patients, duration of illness, and methodology in detail.

Quality assessment of individual study/studies

This was done as per the appraisal criteria mentioned in Jadad scale.[13] The individual clinical trials were scrutinized forrandomization (0–2 points), blinding (0–2 points), and dropouts and withdrawals (0–1 points). A maximum of 05 points can be scored by any trial, while a study with score ≥03 is considered to be of high quality.[14] Quality assessment of individual study along with the risk of bias was performed by as per the risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) tool and has been duly demonstrated in the respective forest plots.[15]

Statistical analysis

Since all the variables under evaluation had dichotomous outcome, the authors assessed their risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity among these studies was evaluated using the I2 statistics, wherein any study with I2 >50% is considered to be significantly heterogeneous. Along with that the source of heterogeneity was also addressed if any significance was observed, by performing the sensitivity analysis.[16] And for assessing any publication bias funnel plot (for primary outcome) was employed. We utilized software Review Manager Version 5.4 for windows, for conducting this meta-analysis, wherein we had applied random-model effects.

Network meta-analysis

Owing to the lack of head-on trials of these drugs with an active comparator, an indirect network meta-analysis was done, so as to review about the comparative efficacy amongst these new drugs.[17]


 » Results Top


Literature search and study characteristics

The initial search yielded around 143 studies that is, 61 of lasmiditan, 47 of ubrogepant, and 35 of rimegepant. On further exploring the Clinical Trial Registry https://clinicaltrials.gov/we found a total of 07, 04 and 07 clinical trials for lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant respectively which belonged to phase III. On the other hand, in Pub Med, the published randomized double-blind controlled trials for lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant were 02, 02, and 03 respectively.[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] While going through, one study (assessing long-term safety) for each drug was found to be either on-going/completed, but since they were open label, they were not included for analysis.[25],[26],[27] Each drug is also being currently evaluated for its major indication in different settings/patient population. Eventually, we included only 07 RCTs, which were multi-centric and were conducted at United States of America. None of the trials were with active comparator. All the relevant characteristics of RCTs have been mentioned in [Table 1]. The common characteristics of these RCTs were that the diagnosis of migraine in all of them was established with the help of same guideline, and majority of the recruited participants were female.[3] Further all the participants were having at least one year history of migraine while chronic migraine patients were excluded.
Table 1: Salient Features of included clinical trials

Click here to view


Primary outcome

The funnel plot indicates publication bias [Figure 2]. As no heterogeneity (I2 = 27%, heterogeneity P = 0.08, [Figure 3]) was observed, sensitivity analysis was not conducted. For primary outcome, all the newer drugs significantly increased the proportion of patients who were headache free at 2 h compared to placebo (RR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.54–1.94; P = <0.00001).
Figure 2: Funnel plot for primary outcome

Click here to view
Figure 3: Forest plot for proportion of patient's headache free at 2 h

Click here to view


Secondary outcomes

Among the secondary outcomes, again all the newer drugs outdid placebo in terms of efficacy. A significant increase in the proportion of patients MBS free at 2 h was noted (RR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.30-1.49; P = <0.00001). Similarly, a significant higher proportion of patients who had sustained pain freedom 2–24 h (RR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.42–2.06; P < 0.00001), were free of any disability at 2 h post-dose (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.32–1.51; P < 0.00001) was observed. Proportion of patients experiencing adverse events was more in treatment group compared to placebo (RR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.93–1.87; P = 0.12) [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7].
Figure 4: Forest plot for proportion of patients MBS free at 2 h

Click here to view
Figure 5: Forest plot for proportion of patients with sustained pain freedom 2-24 h

Click here to view
Figure 6: Forest plot for proportion of patients with absence of disability at 2 h

Click here to view
Figure 7: Forest plot for proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event

Click here to view


Indirect comparison

An indirect comparison for all the outcome criteria was performed among these newly approved drugs. For the primary end-point, the order of effectiveness was found to be lasmiditan >rimegepant >ubrogepant that is, in indirect comparison, more number of patients receiving lasmiditan showed freedom from pain at 2 h by 9.5% and 9.8% compared to rimegepant and ubrogepant respectively. And this similar pattern was observed for proportion of patients MBS free and disability free at 2 h. More number of patients receiving lasmiditan showed freedom from MBS as compared to rimegepant and ubrogepant by 3.4% and 2.1% respectively. In another outcome, more number of patients receiving lasmiditan were disability free at 2 h compared to rimegeapant and ubrogepant by 0.4% and 2.9% respectively. In these three outcome criteria rimegepant showed better efficacy than ubrogepant. But for the effectiveness in providing sustained pain freedom from 2-24 h, the order somehow got reformed as rimegepant >lasmiditan >ubrogepant that is, rimegepant was superior to lasmiditan and ubrogepant by 0.8% and 2.1% respectively. Patients receiving lasmiditan experienced maximum adverse events among three which was more than rimegepant and ubrogepant by 14.5% and 17.3% respectively. The detailed estimates for the same have been elucidated in [Figure 8].
Figure 8: Indirect comparison of drugs for different outcomes

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


This network meta-analysis of randomized phase III clinical trials for the treatment of acute attack of migraine is based on the well-reported studies, which indicates towards the cogency of conducting an indirect comparison among these new drugs. The usual sexual and epidemiological distribution observed among the migraineurs was reflected in these studies too, as most of the participants enrolled were female, and in their 4th decade of life.[28] Since, the trials compared in this meta-analysis did not exhibit any heterogeneity, as well as contributed equally to the overall effect (similar weight of each study), hence, the result illustrated in this analysis, that is, the newer drugs demonstrated significant improvement as compared to placebo, can be considered as accurate.

Lasmiditan, the 5HT1F agonist, proved to be superior in all the outcomes in indirect analysis, except for in providing sustained freedom from pain 2-24 h, wherein rimegepant outdid, probably by virtue of its longer half-life.[29] The reason why ubrogepant appeared to be least effective amongst the three drugs could be the dose (50 mg/d) which was taken in for analysis. The maximum recommended dose is 100 mg/d, but due to non-availability of RCTs with this dose, we could not include this dose for the analysis. The comparison could have been more precise if there would have been RCTs with this maximum recommended dose. The least adverse events were noted in ubrogepant group followed by rimegepant and lasmiditan. In our results, rimegepant was better than ubrogepant in all the efficacy outcomes which is similar to the previous analyses.[30],[31]

Before making a final assumption, it is imperative to mention about the adverse drug reactions (ADRs), as acceptability of a drug significantly depends upon them. Despite being more effective than other two drugs, lasmiditan has got unfavorable safety profile. Dizziness, somnolence, paresthesia, were the common ADRs (≥2%) observed, and these ADRs could impair routine activities of a migrainuer. And because of these unwanted effects, this 5HT1F agonist, also becomes a potential target for drug-drug interactions e.g., risk of CNS depression, serotonin syndrome etc.[18],[19] The other two drugs had relatively mild ADRs which may contribute to their patient acceptability. Based on their adverse effect profile these newer drugs may offer an attractive option where triptans are contraindicated due to their cardiac adverse effects or NSAIDs are not useful due to their gastro-intestinal adverse effects. But the appropriate long-term safety and tolerability can only be ascertained when the results of open-label trials are published.

Limitations

Certain limitations exist in this systematic review and meta-analysis that is,

  • Relatively a smaller number of studies have been discussed.
  • We discussed publication-bias based on the funnel plot, but the quantification of the same was not done. There is possibility of publication bias as all the three drugs are approved recently and the all the trials showed positive findings were published by their respective pharmaceutical companies with common authors.
  • The highest possible dose of ubrogepant (100 mg/d) might have yielded more accurate comparison.
  • Though the FDA approval for rimegepant is for its orally disintegrating tablet form, while the comparison has been done for its conventional dosage form, owing to the less number of studies available with the former dosage form of rimegepant.



 » Conclusion Top


The results of this network meta-analysis indicate that all the newer drugs are effective in relieving acute attack of migraine and associated symptoms, as compared to placebo. Lasmiditan appears to have an edge over the others in terms of efficacy but it comes with its own burden, that is, unsuitable adverse effect profile. Considering both the efficacy and safety profile of these drugs, rimegepant 75 mg/d emerges to be promising in alleviating the manifestations of acute attack of migraine in real-world. The approved dose of ubrogepant ranges between 50 and 100 mg/d, 50 mg/d ubrogepant seems inferior to rimegepant; however ubrogepant may 100 mg/d may be equivalent to the rimegepant.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Singh A, Thangaraju P, Dhaneria SP. Recent and updated pharmacotherapy of migraine. Drugs Ther Perspect 2019;35:571-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
GBD 2016 Headache Collaborator. Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:954-76.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 2013;33:629-808.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Agosti R. Migraine burden of disease: From the patient's experience to a socio-economic view. Headachen 2018;58:17-32.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gilmore B, Michael M. Treatment of acute migraine headache. Am Fam Physician 2011;83:271-80.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Tfelt-Hansen P, Loder E. The emperor's new Gepants: Are the effects of the new oral CGRP antagonists clinically meaningful? Headache 2018;59:113-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Acute migraine therapy: Do doctors understand what patients with migraine want from therapy? Headache 1999;39:S20-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Oswald JC, Schuster NM. Lasmiditan for the treatment of acute migraine: A review and potential role in clinical practice. J Pain Res 2018;11:2221-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shapiro RE, Hochstetler HM, Dennehy EB, Khanna R, Doty EG, Berg PH, et al. Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: Post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. J Headache Pain 2019;20:90.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Singh A, Gupta D, Sahoo AK. Acute migraine: Can the new drugs clinically outpace? SN Compr Clin Med 2020;2:1132-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Deen M, Correnti E, Kamm K, Kelderman T, Papetti L, Rubio-Beltrán E, et al. Blocking CGRP in migraine patients – A review of pros and cons. J Headache Pain 2017;18:96.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Baohua Y, Zhili X, Linglong C, Xinguo C, Yuequn X. The efficacy of dexketoprofen for migraine attack: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e17734.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-58.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Dias S, Caldwell DM. Network meta-analysis explained. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019;104:F8-12.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kuca B, Silberstein SD, Wietecha L, Berg PH, Dozier G, Lipton RB; COL MIG-301 Study Group. Lasmiditan is an effective acute treatment for migraine: A phase 3 randomized study. Neurology 2018;91:e2222-e2232.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Goadsby PJ, Wietecha LA, Dennehy EB, Kuca B, Case MG, Aurora SK, et al. Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Brain 2019;142:1894-904.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Ailani J, Lu K, Finnegan M, Trugman JM, et al. Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2230-41.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, Lu K, Finnegan M, Szegedi A, et al. Effect of ubrogepant vs placebo on pain and the most bothersome associated symptom in the acute treatment of migraine: The ACHIEVE II Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019;322:1887-98.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Croop R, Goadsby PJ, Stock DA, Conway CM, Forshaw M, Stock EG, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: A randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2019;394:737-45.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Lipton RB, Croop R, Stock EG, Stock DA, Morris BA, Frost M, et al. Rimegepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, for migraine. N Engl J Med 2019;381:142-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Lipton R, Conway CM, Stock EG, Stock D, Morris BA, Timothy BA, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg, an oral CGRP receptor antagonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: Results from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, study 301. Presented at: 2018 American Headache Society Annual Scientific Meeting. June 28-July 1, 2018; San Francisco, CA. Available from: https://www.biohavenpharma.com/sites/default/files/documents/Rimegepant-Phase-3-Study-301_AHS-2018-Late-Breaking-Poster-Presentation-1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
An Open-label, LonG-term, Safety Study of LAsmiDItan (100 mg and 200 mg) in the Acute Treatment of MigRaine (GLADIATOR). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Extension Study to Evaluate the Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Oral Ubrogepant in the Acute Treatment of Migraine With or Without Aura. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02873221. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
A Multicenter, Open Label Long-Term Safety Study of BHV3000 in the Acute Treatment of Migraine. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03266588. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 09].  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Buse DC, Loder EW, Gorman JA, Stewart WF, Reed ML, Fanning KM, et al. Sex differences in the prevalence, symptoms, and associated features of migraine, probable migraine and other severe headache: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache 2013;53:1278-99.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
A Single Dose of Rimegepant Demonstrates Sustained Efficacy and Low Use of Rescue Medication in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Results From 3 Phase 3 Trials. Available from: https://www.biohavenpharma.com/sites/default/files/documents/rimegepant-ph 3-sustained-endpoints-2019-dhc.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Oct 22].  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Chan TLH, Cowan RP, Woldeamanuel YW. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for the acute treatment of nausea in episodic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Headache 2020;60:1489-99.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Hong P, Tan T, Liu Y, Xiao J. Gepants for abortive treatment of migraine: A network meta-analysis. Brain Behav 2020;10:e01701.  Back to cited text no. 31
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow