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

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 armAim: 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.

本表为发表于《比较有效性研究杂志》之文章《Erenumab与Rimegepant在预防偏头痛中的比较有效性：基于匹配调整的间接比较》的同行评审补充表格。补充表1：按治疗分组的有效性结果。目的：旨在通过锚点匹配调整的间接比较方法，比较Erenumab与Rimegepant作为预防治疗，对发作性及慢性偏头痛患者的疗效。方法：将Erenumab（NCT02066415和NCT02456740）两项II/III期临床试验的患者进行汇总和加权，以匹配Rimegepant（NCT03732638）II/III期临床试验中报告的基线效应调节因素（年龄、性别、种族、基线每月偏头痛天数[MMDs]以及慢性偏头痛[CM]病史）。比较两组Erenumab（70 mg和140 mg）与Rimegepant在以下四个疗效结果方面的差异：从基线至第1个月和第3个月MMDs的变化、从基线至第3个月偏头痛特异性生活质量问卷角色功能——限制性领域评分的变化，以及从基线至第3个月残疾程度的变化。结果：与Rimegepant相比，Erenumab 70 mg在三个月时与MMDs的显著减少相关（-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042），Erenumab 140 mg在一个月时与MMDs的显著减少相关（-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014）和三个月时与MMDs的显著减少相关（-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005）。Erenumab治疗方案在其它疗效结果方面也显示出对Rimegepant的数值优势。结论：在本研究中，我们发现Erenumab在减少偏头痛预防中的MMDs方面，相较于Rimegepant具有更为优越的疗效特征。这些结果可能有助于临床实践中的决策，并可进一步在未来的临床试验或现实世界研究中得到验证。