MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389120464 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207964

Simultaneous Comparisons of 25 Acute Migraine Medications Based on 10 Million Users' Self-Reported Records From a Smartphone Application

2023· article· en· W4389120464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chia‐Chun Chiang, Xuemin Fang, Zsolt Horváth, François Cadiou, Alexandre Urani, Weijie Poh, Hiroto Narimatsu, Yu Cheng, David W. Dodick

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsTriptansMedicineMigraineAcetaminophenOdds ratioIbuprofenMedical recordLogistic regressionSubgroup analysisAnesthesiaEmergency medicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Many acute treatment options exist for migraine. However, large-scale, head-to-head comparisons of treatment effectiveness from real-world patient experience reports are lacking. <h3>Methods</h3> This is a retrospective analysis of 10,842,795 migraine attack records extracted from an e-diary smartphone application between June 30, 2014, and July 2, 2020. We analyzed 25 acute medications among seven classes- acetaminophen, NSAIDs, triptans, combination analgesics, ergots, anti-emetics, and opioids. Gepants and ditan were not included in this analysis. Different doses and formulations of each medication, according to the generic names, were combined in this analysis. We employed a two-level nested logistic regression model to analyze the odds ratio (OR) of treatment effectiveness of each medication by adjusting concurrent medications and the covariance within the same user. Subgroup analyses were conducted for users in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and Canada (CAN). <h3>Results</h3> Our final analysis included 4,777,524 medication-outcome pairs from 3,119,517 migraine attacks among 278,006 users. Triptans (mean OR 4.8), ergots (mean OR 3.02), and anti-emetics (mean OR 2.67) were the top three classes of medications with the highest effectiveness, followed by opioids (mean OR 2.49), NSAIDs (other than ibuprofen, mean OR 1.94), combination analgesics (acetaminophen/acetylsalicylic acid/caffeine) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.67-1.71), others (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.47-1.50), and acetaminophen (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.83-0.84), using ibuprofen as the reference. Individual medications with the highest ORs were eletriptan (OR 6.1, 95% CI 6.0-6.3), zolmitriptan (OR 5.7, 95% CI 5.6-5.8), and sumatriptan (OR 5.2, 95% CI 5.2-5.3). The ORs of acetaminophen, NSAIDS, combination analgesics and opioids were mostly around or less than 1, suggesting similar or lower reported effectiveness compared to ibuprofen. The ORs for 24 medications, except that of acetylsalicylic acid, achieved statistical significance with p &lt;0.0001, and our nested logistic regression model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.849. Country-specific subgroup analyses revealed similar ORs of each medication and AUC (US 0.849, UK 0.864, and CAN 0.842), demonstrating the robustness of our analysis. <h3>Discussion</h3> Using a big-data approach, we analyzed patient-generated real-time records of 10 million migraine attacks and conducted simultaneous head-to-head comparisons of 25 acute migraine medications. Our findings that triptans, ergots and anti-emetics are the most effective classes of medications align with the guideline recommendations and offer generalizable insights to complement clinical practice. <h3>Classification of Evidence:</h3> This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with migraine, selected acute medications (e.g., triptans, ergots, anti-emetics) are associated with higher odds of user-rated positive response than ibuprofen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207