ArticlePain and therapy2021
Early Management of OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment in Chronic Migraine: Insights from a Real-Life European Multicenter Study.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Pooled it
- Changes in brainstem habituation during onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: A prospective case-control study.Headache · 2026Article
- Insights from 25 years of onabotulinumtoxinA in migraine - mechanisms and management.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2024Review
- The effectiveness and predictors influencing the outcome of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: understanding from diverse patient profiles in a single session.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Observational
- Switching OnabotulinumtoxinA to Monoclonal Anti-CGRP Antibodies in Drug-Resistant Chronic Migraine.CNS drugs · 2023Article
- Review
- Excellent Response to OnabotulinumtoxinA: Different Definitions, Different Predictors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Physicians' Practice of the Non-Cosmetic Uses of Botulinum Toxin: A Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2022Article
- Is There a Gender Difference in the Response to onabotulinumtoxinA in Chronic Migraine? Insights from a Real-Life European Multicenter Study on 2879 Patients.Pain and therapy · 2021Article
- Observational
- Real-life use of onabotulinumtoxinA reduces healthcare resource utilization in individuals with chronic migraine: the REPOSE study.The journal of headache and pain · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 17 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOnabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) quarterly was the first treatment approved specifically for chronic migraine (CM). It is unclear whether three cycles are better than two to assess early BT-A response.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on real-life prospectively collected data in 16 European headache centers. All the centers provided data on patients treated with BT-A for CM over the first three cycles of treatment. For each treatment cycle we defined patients as "good responders" if reporting a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days compared with the three months before starting BT-A, "partial responders" if reporting a 30-49% reduction in monthly headache days, and "non-responders" if reporting a < 30% reduction in monthly headache days or stopping the treatment before the third cycle.
resultsWe included 2879 patients. Seven hundred and eighty-four (64.6%) of the 1213 patients reporting a good response during the first and/or the second cycle had a good response during the third cycle; 309 (49.3%) of the 627 patients reporting a partial response (but no good response) during the first and/or the second cycle had a good response during the third cycle; only 65 (6.3%) of the 1039 patients who did not respond during both the first two cycles achieved a good response during the third cycle. Multivariate analyses showed that partial or good response during the first or the second cycle were independently associated with good response during the third cycle.
conclusionsOur data suggest that patients with CM responding to BT-A during the first two cycles will likely benefit from the third cycle of treatment, while the probability that non-responders to the first two cycles start responding during the third cycle is low. These results can help guide the individual decision to stop or continue treatment after the second cycle in patients who have not responded to the first two cycles.
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.