SynthesisCurrent neuropharmacology2022
Optimal Dose of Erenumab for Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current neuropharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor for migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: a network meta-analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Pooled it
- MicroRNA profiling in women with migraine: effects of CGRP-targeting treatment.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in the Preventive and Therapeutic Treatment of Patients Suffering From Migraine.Cureus · 2026Review
- Advances in Migraine Treatment: A Comprehensive Clinical Review.Current protein & peptide science · 2025Review
- Erenumab escalation in migraine - double dose without additional benefit - a retrospective experience.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErenumab is a novel monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody that is used for the preventive treatment of migraine.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the overall safety, efficacy, and dose-response relationship of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine and patients with prior migraine treatment failures.
methodsWe searched randomized clinical trials on PUBMED, EMBASE database, and Cochrane Library database. A pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian network analysis were performed.
resultsFor efficacy outcomes, the network meta-analysis suggests that in comparison to erenumab 70 mg, participants who received erenumab 140 mg reported a significant decrease in monthly acute Migraine-Specific Medication Days (MSMD) and 50% increase in response rate, and erenumab was most likely to be ranked first for Monthly Migraine Days (MMD), MSMD, and 50% response rate. For safety outcomes, the network meta-analysis has found no significant difference between the 70 mg group and the 140 mg group measured by adverse events and serious adverse events. In the 140 mg erenumab group, a significant decreased in MMD and MSMD and 50% and 75% increased in response rate were reported in patients with ≥ 2 treatment failures compared to placebo. For safety outcomes, no significant difference was found between the 140 mg erenumab group and the placebo group.
conclusionErenumab was effective in patients with episodic migraine. A total of 140 mg erenumab was associated with better efficacy outcomes without any increased risk for developing adverse events compared to 70 mg erenumab. Furthermore, 140 mg erenumab was effective in patients with prior migraine treatment failures.
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.