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

<b>This is a peer-reviewed supplementary table for the article '</b><b>Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><br><b>Supplementary Table 1: </b>Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm<b>Aim:</b> 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. <b>Methods:</b> 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. <b>Results: </b>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. <b>Conclusion</b>: 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.

本数据集为发表于<b> </b><b><i>比较效果研究杂志（Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research）</i></b><b>的同行评议补充附表，对应论文为《<b>采用匹配校正间接比较法（matching-adjusted indirect comparison）对比依瑞奈尤单抗（erenumab）与瑞美吉泮（rimegepant）预防偏头痛的疗效</b>》。<br><b>补充附表1：</b>各治疗组疗效结局<b>Aim:</b> 本研究旨在通过基于锚点的匹配校正间接比较法，对比依瑞奈尤单抗与瑞美吉泮作为发作性偏头痛及慢性偏头痛（chronic migraine, CM）患者预防性治疗方案的疗效。<b>Methods:</b> 我们汇总了两项依瑞奈尤单抗相关II/III期临床试验（NCT02066415与NCT02456740）的受试者数据，并依据瑞美吉泮II/III期临床试验（NCT03732638）报告的基线效应修饰因子（年龄、性别、种族、基线每月偏头痛天数（monthly migraine days, MMDs）、慢性偏头痛病史）进行加权匹配。随后对比了两种依瑞奈尤单抗给药方案（70mg与140mg）与瑞美吉泮的四项疗效结局，具体包括：基线至第1个月及第3个月的每月偏头痛天数变化、基线至第3个月的偏头痛特异性生活质量问卷角色功能-限制维度评分变化，以及基线至第3个月的残疾程度变化。<b>Results:</b> 与瑞美吉泮相比，依瑞奈尤单抗70mg组在第3个月的每月偏头痛天数降幅具有统计学显著性（-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042）；依瑞奈尤单抗140mg组在第1个月（-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014）与第3个月（-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005）的每月偏头痛天数降幅均具有统计学显著性。两种依瑞奈尤单抗给药方案在其余疗效结局上亦展现出优于瑞美吉泮的数值优势。<b>Conclusion</b>: 本研究结果显示，在偏头痛预防性治疗中，依瑞奈尤单抗在改善第1、3个月每月偏头痛天数方面的疗效优于瑞美吉泮。本研究结果可为临床实践决策提供参考依据，并可在未来的临床试验或真实世界研究中进一步验证。