Abstract
Haghdoost F, Puledda F, Garcia-Azorin D, Huessler E-M, Messina R, Pozo-Rosich P. Evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs and gepants for the preventive treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Cephalalgia. 2023; 43(4). doi:10.1177/03331024231159366
In one of the included studies to the network meta-analysis, the drug atogepant was administered as a 60 mg dose once per day as well as a 30 mg dose twice per day (1). Our study team agreed on combining the results of these two different doses, as both groups received 60 mg per day. However, the data was not combined correctly resulting in incorrect estimates for orally administered drugs in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Supplementary figures 2–4, 6–8.
Comparison of different medications in available doses with placebo for primary outcomes. Results from three separate network meta-analysis based on the route of administration. Subgroup analysis based on migraine type (episodic vs. chronic) is reported on the right side of the figures. Only studies with 100% episodic or 100% chronic migraine participants were included in the subgroup analysis. n = number, MD = mean difference, OR = odds ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval.
Comparison of different medications in available doses with placebo for secondary outcomes. Results from three separate network meta-analysis based on the route of administration. Subgroup analysis based on migraine type (episodic vs. chronic) is reported on the right side of the figures. Only studies with 100% episodic or 100% chronic migraine participants were included in the subgroup analysis. n = number, MD = mean difference, OR = odds ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Studies on eptinezumab did not report monthly acute medication day and 100% responder rate.
The authors supplied the journal with the correct estimates for orally administered drugs in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Supplementary figures 2–4, 6–8. In addition to the correction, we now display the number of treatment events in Figure 3 and Figure 4 as a percentage instead of counts, to ensure a better overview and a simpler comparison between the drugs.
There are only changes for the results of the oral administration. The main change of the correction is that the atogepant 60 mg estimates are now larger for the responder rate outcomes (>=50%, >=75% and 100% responder rate) as would be expected in the first place. In addition, the 95% confidence intervals for the 50% responder rate are narrower, so that the estimated odds ratios for all atogepant doses differ now significantly from zero. The results of the reductions in mean monthly migraine days and in mean monthly acute medication days change very little for the oral treatments. The Journal Editor confirmed that the changes to the article alter the results but do not change the discussion and the overall conclusions.
The authors apologize to readers for this inadvertent error.