Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34696711›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2021

CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs.

Fenne Vandervorst, Laura Van Deun, Annelies Van Dycke, Koen Paemeleire, Uwe Reuter, Jean Schoenen, Jan Versijpt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and safety of CGRP monoclonal antibodies in chronic migraine: a systematic review integrating randomized and real-world evidence.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Migraine management in Saudi Arabia: An expert consensus.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Fenne VandervorstDepartment of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
Laura Van DeunDepartment of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
Annelies Van DyckeDepartment of Neurology, General Hospital Sint-Jan Bruges, Bruges, Belgium.
Koen PaemeleireDepartment of Neurology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Uwe ReuterDepartment of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jean SchoenenHeadache Research Unit, Dept of Neurology-Citadelle Hospital, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Jan VersijptDepartment of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium. jan.versijpt@uzbrussel.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8710-5715
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEAZ Sint-Jan · BECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGhent University Hospital · BEUniversity of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral drugs are available for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The choice of which therapy to initiate first, second, or third is not straightforward and is based on multiple factors, including general efficacy, tolerability, potential for serious adverse events, comorbid conditions, and costs. Recently, a new class of migraine preventive drugs was introduced, i.e. monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor.

methodsThe present article summarizes the evidence gathered with this new migraine preventive drug class from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. It further puts this into perspective next to the evidence gained by the most widely used agents for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine with an emphasis on efficacy and the robustness with which this efficacy signal was obtained.

resultsAlthough being a relatively new class of migraine preventive drugs, monoclonal antibodies blocking the CGRP pathway have an efficacy which is at least comparable if not higher than those of the currently used preventive drugs. Moreover, the robustness of this efficacy signal is substantiated by several randomized clinical trials each including large numbers of patients. In addition, because of their excellent tolerability and with long-term safety data emerging, they seem to have an unprecedented efficacy over adverse effect profile, clearly resulting in an added value for migraine prevention.

conclusionsBalancing the data presented in the current manuscript with additional data concerning long term safety on the one hand and cost issues on the other hand, can be of particular use to health policy makers to implement this new drug class in the prevention of migraine.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersPharmaceutical PreparationsAntibodies, MonoclonalCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideHumansAntibodies, MonoclonalCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptidePharmaceutical PreparationsCalcitonin gene-related peptideChronic migraineEpisodic migraineMigraineMonoclonal antibodyPreventive treatment

Identifiers

PMID34696711
PMCPMC8547103
OpenAlexW3208701883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.