Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background The management and role of standard preventive treatments (SPTs) in patients co-treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been poorly investigated. The present study aimed to prospectively compare the clinical profile of patients co-treated with SPTs and anti-CGRP mAbs with patients with anti-CGRP mAb monotherapy and to assess the possible SPT influence on their outcome. The SPT withdrawal or a new SPT prescription during the 12-month treatment period with anti-CGRP mAbs and their possible relation with comorbidities were also evaluated. Methods Our Italian multicentric, prospective observational cohort study enrolled patients with migraine receiving the first prescription of subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs. Only patients who completed the annual cycle of therapy were included in the analyses. At baseline, the population was divided into two groups: with (SPT+ patients) or without concomitant SPTs (SPT– patients). At baseline (T0), T6 (after six months of therapy) and T12 (at the end of the one-year treatment period), we collected migraine clinical data (monthly migraine days (MMDs) and/or the pain intensity, by a numerical rating scale (NRS)); disability (Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score); and the type and the presence of SPTs at baseline, the beginning of a new SPT or its withdrawal. The primary endpoint was to compare the clinical outcome (variation of MMDs at T6) of baseline SPT+ patients with that of baseline SPT– patients. Secondary endpoints were: (i) to describe the percentage of concomitant SPTs from T0 to T12 in the SPT+ group; (ii) to investigate the factors (i.e. comorbidities, demographics, migraine burden), if any, influencing the persistence of concomitant SPTs from T0 to T12; (iii) to evaluate whether baseline SPT presence influences pain intensity (NRS) and disability (MIDAS) at T0, T6 and T12. Results We enrolled 599 patients who started a new treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs. The analysis was conducted on 555 patients who started galcanezumab (260; 46.8%), erenumab 140 mg (167; 30.0%) or fremanezumab (128; 23.1%). Patients with baseline concomitant SPTs presented lower T0 MMDs than SPT+ patients (18.6 ± 7.8 vs. 20.3 ± 7.2; p = 0.007) and a lower MMD reduction from T0 to T6 (−10.4 ± 7.2 vs −12.4 ± 7.4, p = 0.007), reaching similar MMD numbers at T6 ( p = 0.984). Baseline SPTs were not associated with MMD 50% response rate at T6 (odds ratio = 0.779, 95% confidence interval = 0.534–1.138; p = 0.205). Moreover, the changes in MIDAS score ( p = 0.919) and NRS (p = 0.664) from T0 to T6 and T6 to T12 did not differ according to baseline concomitant SPTs. During the 12-month treatment period, anti-CGRP mAbs SPT+ patients progressively decreased from 35.0% at baseline to 28.8% at T6 and to 19.6% at T12. A comorbid condition, although neither MMD 50% response rate nor T12 MMDs, influenced the use of concomitant SPTs at T12 (odds ratio = 3.132, 95% confidence interval = 1.981–4.954; p < 0.001). The introduction of a new SPT during 12-month mAb therapy occurred only in seven subjects. Overall, 13% of patients reported at least one adverse event. Conclusions Our study confirms that concomitant SPTs at baseline do not influence the clinical outcome of CGRP mAbs after six months of treatment. A progressive withdrawal of SPTs during 12-month anti-CGRP therapy was observed, dissimilar among preventive classes, with persistence of SPTs at T12, mainly in patients with comorbid conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fofi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: