Advertisement

Placebo and nocebo phenomena in anti- CGRP monoclonal antibody trials for migraine prevention: a meta-analysis

  • 113 Accesses

Abstract

High placebo and low nocebo phenomena mirror high positive expectations for a novel treatment, among other reasons. In a meta-analysis aimed to identify placebo and nocebo phenomena in the placebo-controlled randomized trials (RCTs) with the monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) all the placebo-treated patients were pooled and compared with the placebo-treated patients in RCTs with topiramate and onabotulinum toxin A (OBTA). In episodic migraine (EM), the proportion of placebo-treated patients who achieved the 50% responder rate (placebo) was 32.7% (95% CI 28.6%–37.0%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 24.4% (95% CI 20.5%–28.5%) in topiramate trials. The proportion of dropouts due to adverse events in placebo-treated patients (nocebo) was 1.9% (95% CI 1.4%–2.6%) in anti-CGRP mAbs vs. 9.9% (95% CI 7.7%–12.3%) in topiramate RCTs. In chronic migraine (CM), the placebo 50% responder rate was 23.6% (95% CI 11.2%–38.8%) in anti-CGRP mAbs RCTs vs. 36.4% (95% CI 32.6%–39.3%) in RCTs with OBTA. The nocebo dropout in anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA RCTs was 1.4% (95% CI 0.8%–2.1%) and 0.9 (95% CI 0.3%–1.7%), respectively. The stronger placebo and weaker nocebo phenomena in RCTs with anti-CGRP mAbs vs. those with topiramate in the prophylaxis of EM, may decisively determine anti-CGRP mAbs treatment success. No differences were detected between the anti-CGRP mAbs and OBTA in the treatment of CM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M et al (2007) Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 68:343–349

  2. 2.

    Charles A (2013) Migraine: a brain state. Curr Opin Neurol 26:235–239

  3. 3.

    Goadsby PJ, Sprenger T (2010) Current practice and future directions in the prevention and acute management of migraine. Lancet Neurol 9:285–298

  4. 4.

    Silberstein SD (2005) Preventive treatment of migraine. Rev Neurol Dis 2:167–175

  5. 5.

    Gracia-Naya M, Santos-Lasaosa S, Ríos-Gómez C et al (2011) Predisposing factors affecting drop-out rates in preventive treatment in a series of patients with migraine. Rev Neurol 53:201–208

  6. 6.

    Hepp Z, Bloudek LM, Varon SF (2014) Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence. J Manag care Pharm JMCP 20:22–33

  7. 7.

    Blumenfeld AM, Bloudek LM, Becker WJ et al (2013) Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II). Headache 53:644–655

  8. 8.

    Edvinsson L, Ekman R, Jansen I et al (1987) Calcitonin gene-related peptide and cerebral blood vessels: distribution and vasomotor effects. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 7:720–728

  9. 9.

    Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L, Ekman R (1988) Release of vasoactive peptides in the extracerebral circulation of humans and the cat during activation of the trigeminovascular system. Ann Neurol 23:193–196

  10. 10.

    Olesen J, Diener HC, Husstedt IW, Goadsby PJ, Hall D, Meier U, Pollentier S, Lesko LM, BIBN 4096 BS Clinical Proof of Concept Study Group (2004) Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist BIBN 4096 BS for the acute treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med. 350:1104–1110

  11. 11.

    Ho TW, Edvinsson L, Goadsby PJ (2010) CGRP and its receptors provide new insights into migraine pathophysiology. Nat Rev Neurol 6:573–582

  12. 12.

    Schuster NM, Rapoport AM (2017) Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted therapies for migraine and cluster headache: a review. Clin Neuropharmacol 40:169–174

  13. 13.

    Mitsikostas DD, Reuter U (2017) Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: comparisons across randomized controlled studies. Curr Opin Neurol 30:272–280

  14. 14.

    Mitsikostas DD, Rapoport AM (2015) New players in the preventive treatment of migraine. BMC Med 13:279

  15. 15.

    Benedetti F, Lanotte M, Lopiano L et al (2007) When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Neuroscience 147:260–271

  16. 16.

    Kennedy WP (1961) The nocebo reaction. Med. World 95:203–205

  17. 17.

    Barsky AJ, Saintfort R, Rogers MP et al (2002) Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA 287:622–627

  18. 18.

    Colloca L, Miller FG (2011) The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med 73:598–603

  19. 19.

    Enck P, Benedetti F, Schedlowski M (2008) New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses. Neuron 59:195–206

  20. 20.

    Mitsikostas DD (2012) Nocebo in Headaches: Implications for Clinical Practice and Trial Design. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 12:132–137

  21. 21.

    Zaccara G, Giovannelli F, Giorgi FS et al (2016) Analysis of nocebo effects of antiepileptic drugs across different conditions. J Neurol 263:1274–1279

  22. 22.

    Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD (2010) Nocebo effects in multiple sclerosis trials: a meta-analysis. Mult Scler 6:816–828

  23. 23.

    Stathis P, Smpiliris M, Konitsiotis S et al (2013) Nocebo as a potential confounding factor in clinical trials for Parkinson’s disease treatment: a meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol 20:527–533

  24. 24.

    Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis LI, Chalarakis NG (2011) Nocebo is the enemy, not placebo. A meta-analysis of reported side effects after placebo treatment in headaches. Cephalalgia 31:550–561

  25. 25.

    Tassorelli C, Diener HC, Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Ashina M, Becker WJ, Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Pozo-Rosich P, Wang SJ, International Headache Society (2018) Clinical trials standing committee. Guidelines of the international headache society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia 38:815–832

  26. 26.

    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN (2000) Validity of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 88:41–52

  27. 27.

    Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Garber WH, Batenhorst A, Cady R, Dahlöf CG, Dowson A, Tepper S (2003) A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res 12:963–974

  28. 28.

    Lipton RB, Saper J, Ashina M et al (2018) A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results of the PROMISE-2 (prevention of migraine via intravenous eptinezumab safety and efficacy-2) trial. Neurology 90:e2193–e2194

  29. 29.

    Saper J, Lipton R, Kudrow D, Hirman J, Dodick D, Silberstein S, Chakhava GJS (2018) Primary results of PROMISE-1 (prevention of migraine via intravenous eptinezumab safety and efficacy–1) trial: a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for prevention of frequent episodic migraine. Neurology 90(15 Suppl):S20.001

  30. 30.

    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

  31. 31.

    Dodick DW, Ashina M, Brandes JL et al (2018) ARISE: a phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. Cephalalgia 38:1026–1037

  32. 32.

    Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y et al (2017) A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 377:2123–2132

  33. 33.

    Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: results of the EVOLVE-2 phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia 38:1442–1454

  34. 34.

    Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q et al (2018) Evaluation of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine. JAMA Neurol 75:1080

  35. 35.

    Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Bigal ME et al (2018) Effect of fremanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic migraine. JAMA 319:1999

  36. 36.

    Detke HC, Goadsby PJ, Wang S et al (2018) Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study. Neurology 91:e2211–e2221

  37. 37.

    Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Bigal ME et al (2017) Fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. N Engl J Med 377:2113–2122

  38. 38.

    Silberstein SD, Neto W, Schmitt J et al (2004) Topiramate in migraine prevention: results of a large controlled trial. Arch Neurol 61:490

  39. 39.

    Brandes JL, Saper JR, Diamond M et al (2004) Topiramate for migraine prevention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291:965

  40. 40.

    Diener HC, Tfelt-Hansen P, Dahlöf C, Láinez MJ, Sandrini G, Wang SJ, Neto W, Vijapurkar U, Doyle A, JDM-003 SG (2004) Topiramate in migraine prophylaxis–results from a placebo-controlled trial with propranolol as an active control. J Neurol 251:943–950

  41. 41.

    Silberstein S, Hulihan J, Rezaulkarim M et al (2006) Efficacy and tolerability of topiramate 200 mg/d in the prevention of migraine with/without aura in adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week pilot study. Clin Ther 28:1002–1011

  42. 42.

    Lipton RB, Silberstein S, Dodick D et al (2011) Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study. Cephalalgia 31:18–30

  43. 43.

    Aurora S, Dodick D, Turkel C et al (2010) OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial. Cephalalgia 30:793–803

  44. 44.

    Diener H, Dodick D, Aurora S et al (2010) OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial. Cephalalgia 30:804–814

  45. 45.

    Aurora SK, Winner P, Freeman MC, Spierings EL, Heiring JO, DeGryse RE, VanDenburgh AM, Nolan ME, Turkel CC (2011) OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled analyses of the 56-week PREEMPT clinical program. Headache 51:1358–1373

  46. 46.

    Gonçalves AL, Martini Ferreira A, Ribeiro RT et al (2016) Randomised clinical trial comparing melatonin 3 mg, amitriptyline 25 mg and placebo for migraine prevention. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 87:1127–1132

  47. 47.

    Diener H-C, Schorn CF, Bingel U, Dodick DW (2008) The importance of placebo in headache esearch. Cephalalgia 8:1003–1011

  48. 48.

    Amanzio M, Corazzini LL, Vase L, Benedetti F (2009) A systematic review of adverse events in placebo groups of anti-migraine clinical trials. Pain 146:261–269

  49. 49.

    Mitsikostas DD, Chalarakis NG, Mantonakis LI et al (2012) Nocebo in fibromyalgia: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials and implications for practice. Eur J Neurol 19:672–680

  50. 50.

    Häuser W, Bartram C, Bartram-Wunn E et al (2012) Adverse events attributable to nocebo in randomized controlled drug trials in fibromyalgia syndrome and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Clin J Pain 28:437–451

  51. 51.

    Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD (2012) A meta-analytic approach to estimating nocebo effects in neuropathic pain trials. J Neurol 259:436–447

  52. 52.

    Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis L, Chalarakis N (2014) Nocebo in clinical trials for depression: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 215:82–86

  53. 53.

    Meister R, Jansen A, Härter M, Nestoriuc Y, Kriston L (2017) Placebo and nocebo reactions in randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for persistent depressive disorder A meta-regression analysis. J Affect Disord. 215:288–298

  54. 54.

    Dodd S, Schacht A, Kelin K, Dueñas H, Reed VA, Williams LJ, Quirk FH, Malhi GS, Berk M (2015) Nocebo effects in the treatment of major depression: results from an individual study participant-level meta-analysis of the placebo arm of duloxetine clinical trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 76:702–711

  55. 55.

    Zis P, Shafiq F, Mitsikostas D-D (2017) Nocebo effect in refractory partial epilepsy during pre-surgical monitoring: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials. Seizure 45:95–99

  56. 56.

    Zis P, Mitsikostas DD (2018) Nocebo responses in brain diseases: a systematic review of the current literature. Int Rev Neurobiol 139:443–462

  57. 57.

    Colloca L (2017) Tell me the truth and I will not be harmed: informed consents and nocebo effects. Am J Bioeth 17:46–48

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mrs Evie Delicha, MSc, for her expert statistical advice.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, literature search, data collection, and analysis were performed by KD and LK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KD and LK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Conceptualization: DDM; Methodology: DDM and DP; Formal analysis and investigation KD and LK; Writing—original draft preparation: KD and LK; Writing—review and editing: all authors; Funding acquisition: No founding; Supervision: DDM and DP.

Correspondence to Dimos D. Mitsikostas.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Dr. L. Kokoti reports no disclosures. Dr. K. Drellia reports no disclosures. Dr. D. Papadopoulos has received consulting, speaking fees and travel grants from Bayer, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Specifar and Teva. Prof. D.D. Mitsikostas has received consulting, speaking fees and travel grants from Allergan, Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, Cefaly, ElectroCore, Genesis Pharma, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Merz, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Specifar and Teva.

Ethical standards

No ethics approval or patient consent was obtained because all data used in this study were collected from previously published peer-reviewed articles.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kokoti, L., Drellia, K., Papadopoulos, D. et al. Placebo and nocebo phenomena in anti- CGRP monoclonal antibody trials for migraine prevention: a meta-analysis. J Neurol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09673-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Episodic migraine
  • Chronic migraine
  • Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies
  • Treatment
  • Topiramate
  • Onabotulinum toxin A