Objective: This retrospective, intention-to-treat real-world study, designed by the Greek Research Alliance for the Study of headache and Pain (GRASP) sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP Mabs) to topiramate in preventing migraine. Patients and methods: Patients received either fremanezumab, erenumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, or topiramate for at least six months. Outcomes included reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs), ≥50% and ≥75% responder rates, monthly acute medication intake (MAI), MHDs with peak headache intensity ≥5 on VAS, migraine-related disability (MIDAS, HIT-6), quality of life (EQ-VAS), discontinuation rates and safety. Results: We included 409 migraine patients (median age 45.2 years), predominantly female (80%) and mostly with long-standing disease and high baseline burden. After six months, all treatments reduced MHDs. Mean MHDs decreased by −7.8 days with anti-CGRP Mabs versus −3.8 days with topiramate (p < 0.001). Higher ≥50% and ≥75% responder rates were observed across all anti-CGRP agents, compared to topiramate. Anti-CGRP Mabs also achieved greater reductions in moderate/severe MHDs, MAI, disability metrics, and superior QOL gains. Among the CGRP-targeted therapies, slight differences in effectiveness outcomes were present, though failing to demonstrate any specific superiority. Safety was favorable for anti-CGRP Mabs, whereas topiramate showed substantially higher adverse events and discontinuations. Conclusions: Anti-CGRP Mabs were more effective, produced greater reductions in disability and higher improvements quality-of-life metrics and were better tolerated than topiramate. Differences among individual anti-CGRP agents were modest and unlikely to represent a clinically meaningful superiority, supporting a class-wide benefit vs. topiramate in migraine prevention both in terms of effectiveness and safety.
Vikelis et al. (Wed,) studied this question.