Evidence Hub

Comparative Efficacy of Venlafaxine and Other Medications in Migraine: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Gao J, Xia GM, Wu XB, Tian Y, Wang GL, Wang J

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP, 2025

582 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

This meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluated the efficacy of venlafaxine in migraine prevention through database searches from inception to 1st November 2024. A total of eight studies involving 582 patients were included. Results demonstrated venlafaxine's superior overall efficacy (OR = 18.71, p = 0.0008) and significant reductions in multiple outcomes, including Visual Analogue Scale Score (MD = -0.83, p = 0.03), migraine days (MD = -1.59, p = 0.02), Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI)-total (MD = -5.16, p = 0.01), DHI-physical (MD = -1.73, p = 0.02), DHI-emotional (MD = -2.04, p = 0.02), vertigo severity scores (MD = -1.18, p = 0.0007), and analgesic use (MD = -3.32, p <0.001). No differences were observed in withdrawals due to adverse reactions and any other reasons, including DHI-functional change, duration, frequency change in the Venlafaxine group VLF versus the Other medicines group. TSA revealed insufficient evidence for dizziness improvement (DHI-total: required information size [RIS] = 614 versus currently available size = 242), requiring 372 additional patients to confirm stability and mitigate false positives. While venlafaxine showed advantages over most comparators in efficacy and safety measures, these findings require further validation through larger-scale studies. Key Words: Migraine, Venlafaxine, Meta-analysis, Trial sequential analysis, Efficacy.

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. Reported size: 582 participants or records.

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