Search

Objective: This study aimed to determine the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b FOCUS trial. Background: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety in adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), with documented previous inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications. Methods: In the 12‐week double‐blind period of the FOCUS study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. NNT was based on responder analysis, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly average number of migraine days at 12 weeks. NNH was based on discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). Results: Among patients with CM (n = 509), response rates and discontinuation rates were 27% (45/169) and 0 for quarterly fremanezumab, 29% (50/173) and 2% (3/173) for monthly fremanezumab, and 8% (13/167) and <1% (1/167) for placebo, respectively. These results translated to NNTs of 5.3 and 4.7, NNHs of 1000 and 88, and LHHs of 188 and 19 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Among patients with EM (n = 328), response rates were 47% (50/107) for quarterly fremanezumab, 43% (47/110) for monthly fremanezumab, and 10% (11/111) for placebo. Discontinuation rates were <1% (n = 1) in all three groups. These results translated to NNTs of 2.7 and 3.0, NNHs of 1000 and 1000, and LHHs of 368 and 328 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Conclusions: The NNT, NNH, and LHH for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compare favorably with those for traditional oral preventive medications, including topiramate, valproate, and propranolol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, Gao et al. published an article titled "Monthly versus quarterly fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine: a systemic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials" which concluded that monthly administration of fremanezumab led to significant reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) when compared to quarterly fremanezumab. We have noted a critical flaw in Gao et al. meta-analysis wherein the authors have mistakenly utilized standard error values in place of standard deviation values in performing their pooled analyses. This error directly impacts the study results and conclusions. In this brief communication, we present revised analysis using correct methods. Using the correct SD values, our pooled analysis showed no significant difference in mean change from baseline in MMD between the two fremanezumab dosing regimens (P = 0.17). Furthermore, in the corrected subgroup analyses by type of migraine, there were no significant differences in mean change from baseline in MMD between monthly fremanezumab and quarterly fremanezumab (chronic migraine, P = 0.50; episodic migraine, P = 0.69). Overall, results from our corrected meta-analyses show that there is no significant difference in migraine prevention efficacy between monthly and quarterly fremanezumab dosing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]