Trial reportHeadache2019
Analysis of Initial Nonresponders to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine: Results From the EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.
Trial report in Headache, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of Anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Migraines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Pooled it
- European headache federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor for migraine prevention.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Guideline
- Trial
- Early onset of effect following galcanezumab treatment in patients with previous preventive medication failures.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Trial
- Migraine, monoclonal antibodies, and monitoring: a review of pharmacovigilance in the era of biologics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Cost-utility analysis of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in Taiwan.Health economics review · 2025Article
- New perspectives on migraine treatment: a review of the mechanisms and effects of complementary and alternative therapies.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of Novel Sympathetic Nerve Entrapment Point Injections for Chronic Migraine: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Early Effect of Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine with Medication Overuse: A Single-center Retrospective Study.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- An Evidence-Based Review of Galcanezumab for the Treatment of Migraine.Neurology and therapy · 2020Review
- Galcanezumab: A Review in the Prevention of Migraine and Treatment of Episodic Cluster Headache.Drugs · 2020Review
- How to integrate monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor in daily clinical practice.The journal of headache and pain · 2019Review
- Once-monthly galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine in adults: an evidence-based descriptive review and potential place in therapy.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the likelihood of response with continued galcanezumab treatment in patients with episodic or chronic migraine without initial clinical improvement.
backgroundA percentage of patients with migraine may require additional time on pharmacotherapy but discontinue treatment prematurely. Additionally, recognizing when continued treatment is unlikely to provide improvement limits unnecessary exposure.
methodsPost hoc analysis of response after continued galcanezumab treatment was conducted in a subset of patients with episodic (N = 879) and chronic (N = 555) migraine who did not achieve "good" early improvement (episodic, ≥50% reduction in baseline migraine headache days [MHD] and chronic, ≥30% reduction) after 1 month of dosing (NR-1; episodic, n = 450 and chronic, n = 306). This subset was categorized by level of reduction in MHD during 1 month of treatment: "modest" (>30% to <50% fewer MHD for episodic and >10% to <30% fewer MHD for chronic), "limited" (episodic only; >10% to ≤30% fewer MHD), or "minimal/no" early improvement (≤10% fewer MHD to ≤10% more MHD), or "worsening" (>10% more MHD). The percentages of patients having "better" (≥75% fewer MHD for episodic and ≥50% for chronic), "good," or "little-to-no" (≤10% fewer MHD) response during the remaining treatment period were calculated for each category. Similarly, the subset of NR-1 patients who did not achieve "good" early improvement after 2 months of treatment (NR-2; episodic, n = 290 and chronic, n = 240) were categorized by level of their average monthly reduction across 1 and 2 months using similar categories.
resultsOf NR-1 patients with episodic migraine having "modest" early improvement, 62% (96/155) achieved "good" and 20% (31/155) achieved "better" responses with continued treatment. A percentage of patients with "limited" (43%; 46/108) or "minimal/no" (34%; 29/85) early improvement, or "worsening" (20%; 20/102) achieved a "good" response after continued treatment. A percentage of NR-1 patients with chronic migraine having "modest" early improvement achieved "good" (38%; 44/116) and "better" (13%; 15/116) responses with continued treatment. A "good" response was achieved for a percentage of patients with "minimal/no" early improvement (17%; 23/133). Similar patterns were observed for the NR-2 subset, though percentages were lower.
conclusionsGalcanezumab-treated patients with episodic or chronic migraine without response following 1 or 2 months of treatment appear to have a reasonable likelihood of continued improvement in months following initial treatment and this opportunity is more likely in patients showing greater early improvements. While a small percentage of patients with episodic or chronic migraine who experienced worsening in the number of MHD following initial treatment responded with continued treatment, most do not show substantial reduction in MHD. Overall benefit of therapy should be determined collaboratively between the patient and physician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.