A systematic review assesses efficacy and safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in cluster headache, suggesting a preventive benefit with acceptable safety.
Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide is an emerging therapeutic target in cluster headache, yet evidence on the preventive efficacy and safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in adults with Cluster headache. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EBSCO for randomized controlled and single-arm trials involving episodic and chronic cluster headache. Safety outcomes evaluate the treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations, while efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in the mean number of weekly attacks, the proportion of participants achieving a ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% reduction in weekly attack frequency, and those reporting a “much improved” or “very much improved” status on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Results Four randomized controlled trials and two single-arm trials were included. Calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists reduced weekly attacks by a mean of -7.23 (95% CI: − 9.86 to − 4.60). ≥ 50% responder rate was 46% (95% CI: 26%-67%) and ≥ 30% responder rate was 59% (95% CI: 45%-73%). Efficacy effects were larger in episodic than in chronic Cluster headache. The pooled proportion of patients experiencing at least one TEAE was 60% (95% CI: 35%-82%). SAEs (4%, 95% CI: 1%-9%) and discontinuations (3%, 95% CI: 1%-7%) were uncommon. Conclusion Calcitonin gene–related peptide antagonists provide preventive benefit with acceptable safety in cluster headache. These findings should be interpreted as supportive but less definitive. Larger, long-term, placebo-controlled randomized trials are needed to confirm efficacy and guide clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khanfar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: