Observational studyRevista de neurologia2022
[Clinical experience with erenumab during the first year of treatment].
Observational study in Revista de neurologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erenumab and OnabotulinumtoxinA in Chronic Migraine: A Comparative Analysis.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.The journal of headache and pain · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionErenumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, has been approved for migraine prophylaxis. It represents an alternative for patients with multiple treatment failures, who have a low quality of life and high associated disability.
aimTo analyse the effectiveness and safety of erenumab during the first year of treatment and to assess its impact on quality of life and disability. PATIENTS AND
methodsIt is a longitudinal prospective observational study conducted over 15 months. Patients who met the funding criteria for erenumab were included. Data concerning years of illness, migraine days/month, pain intensity, previous treatments, doses and adverse effects were collected. In addition, quality of life and disability were assessed using the Migraine-Specific Quality Of Life Questionnaire 2.1 and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, repeated at three and 12 months.
resultsForty-three patients were included, 79.1% female, 95.3% with chronic migraine and with a mean age of 48.2 years. Prior to erenumab they had 20 migraine days/month, a pain intensity of 8.2 and a 30.6% quality of life, and 72.5% had very severe disability. Fifteen patients stopped taking erenumab due to inefficacy and one due to intolerance. Thirteen received erenumab for one year and 14 continued with the treatment. All four effectiveness variables were significantly improved with erenumab by the third month. Fifteen patients (34.9%) had adverse effects, most of which were mild. Constipation was the most frequent.
conclusionsErenumab proved effective in most patients for migraine prophylaxis in the first three months, significantly reducing the number of migraine days/month, pain intensity and associated disability. Moreover, it significantly improved their quality of life . It is a safe drug.
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.