Evidence Hub

Comparison of Lasmiditan 200 mg Versus 100 mg for Migraine Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

Chuan Zhong, Xuanqi Zhang, Guoyong Qin, Ji-Xiang Wu, Yong-Pan Tian

Clinical neuropharmacology, 2023

1 citation

Abstract

Introduction The ideal dose of lasmiditan for migraine is not clear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients. Methods We have searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library Databases and selected the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients. This meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model. Results Five randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with lasmiditan 100-mg group in migraine patients, lasmiditan 200-mg group was associated with substantially increased pain free at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–1.44; P = 0.0002) and pain free at 24 hours (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08–1.60; P = 0.007) but demonstrated no obvious impact on pain relief at 2 hours (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.16; P = 0.72) or MBS free at 2 hours (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.14; P = 0.52). In addition, the incidence of adverse events was higher in lasmiditan 200-mg group than that in lasmiditan 100-mg group (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15–1.45; P < 0.0001). Conclusions Lasmiditan 200 mg is better for the treatment of migraine patients than lasmiditan 100 mg.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free