European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine.

OBJECTIVE: Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. RESULTS: We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.