Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and compare benefit-risk profiles for rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published clinical trials. METHODS: A fixed-effects Bayesian NMA of randomized controlled trials of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine were used to determine risk differences for efficacy and safety outcomes of the 3 treatments compared with pooled placebo. Risk differences were used to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and pain freedom at 2 and 2 to 24 hours and freedom from most bothersome symptoms at 2 hours; and number needed to harm (NNH) for dizziness and nausea, relative to placebo. RESULTS: Results were based on 5 randomized controlled trials (NCT03461757, NCT02828020, NCT02867709, NCT02439320, and NCT02605174). NNT to achieve sustained pain relief at 2 to 24 hours was lowest for rimegepant 75 mg (5; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 4, 7) and ubrogepant 100 mg (5; 95% Crl: 4, 8) and highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (8; 95% Crl: 5, 16). Rimegepant had the lowest NNT to achieve sustained pain freedom at 2 to 24 hours and lasmiditan 50 mg had the highest (7; 95% Crl: 5, 12 vs. 26; 95% Crl: 13, 95). NNH for dizziness and nausea was highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (28; 95% Crl: 15, 62 and 99; 95% Crl: -2580, 2378, respectively). Lasmiditan 200 mg had the lowest NNH for dizziness and rimegepant 75 mg had the lowest NNH for nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-risk profiles of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant may improve clinical decision-making.