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

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. MethodsSI Figure 1: Migraine evidence networks for (A) episodic migraine and (B) chronic migraineSI Figure 2: Eligibility criteria for the literature reviewSI Figure 3: PRISMA diagram for the literature reviewSI Figure 4: Observed placebo responses prior to indirect treatment comparisonsFixed effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA)Random effects NMAFixed effects NMRSurvey of expert opinion2. Results: Random EffectsStandard NMA in Episodic MigraineSI Table 1.Standard NMA in Chronic MigraineSI Table 2: Model assessment for fixed and random effects for standard NMA in chronic migraine.Placebo Response Regression in Episodic MigraineSI Table 3: Model assessment for fixed and random effects for placebo response regression in episodic migraine.Placebo Response Regression in Chronic MigraineSI 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.

本数据集为发表于《比较有效性研究杂志》的论文《比较预防偏头痛的间接治疗方法，以解决给药方式差异》的同行评审补充材料。1. 研究方法：图1：偏头痛证据网络（A）周期性偏头痛和（B）慢性偏头痛；图2：文献综述的资格标准；图3：文献综述的PRISMA流程图；图4：间接治疗比较前的观察性安慰剂反应。固定效应贝叶斯网络Meta分析（NMA）、随机效应NMA、固定效应NMR、专家意见调查。2. 研究结果：随机效应标准NMA在周期性偏头痛中；标准NMA在慢性偏头痛中；固定和随机效应标准NMA在慢性偏头痛中的模型评估；周期性偏头痛中安慰剂反应回归的模型评估；慢性偏头痛中安慰剂反应回归的模型评估；周期性偏头痛中12周时基线变化MMDs差异的随机效应结果；慢性偏头痛中12周时基线变化MMDs差异的随机效应结果。目标：间接治疗比较（ITC）以安慰剂对照为基础，安慰剂反应可能因药物给药途径而异。利用预防偏头痛治疗研究评估ITC，以确定给药方式是否影响安慰剂反应和整体研究结果。材料与方法：使用固定效应贝叶斯网络Meta分析（NMA）、网络Meta回归（NMR）和未锚定的模拟治疗比较（STC）比较单克隆抗体治疗（皮下、静脉）产生的每月偏头痛天数的变化。结果：NMA和NMR在治疗间提供混合、很少区分的结果，而未锚定的STC强烈倾向于选择eptinezumab与其他预防治疗相比。结论：需要进一步研究以确定哪种ITC最能反映给药方式对安慰剂反应的影响。