Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35006445›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022

Patient-reported outcomes of migraine treatment with erenumab: results from a national patient survey.

Austėja Dapkutė, Jurgita Vainauskienė, Kristina Ryliškienė

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Austėja DapkutėCentre of Neurology, Vilnius University, Santariskiu st. 2, 08661, Vilnius, Lithuania. austeja.dapkute@mf.stud.vu.lt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7508-0971
Jurgita VainauskienėCentre of Neurology, Kardiolitos klinikos, Laisves pr. 64A, 05263, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kristina RyliškienėCentre of Neurology, Vilnius University, Santariskiu st. 2, 08661, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vilnius University · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite development of new therapies, migraine remains an undertreated illness. It is important to understand patients' preferences and perceptions of using a certain therapy. We present data from a nationwide Lithuanian survey of patients' experience using erenumab for the treatment of high frequency episodic and chronic migraine.

methodsAn anonymous internet survey was distributed on February-March 2021 to the members of Migraine Association of Lithuania. All adult respondents who reported using at least one dose of erenumab were included in the study.

resultsOut of 145 respondents, 75.2% had chronic migraine, and 31.7% had medication overuse headache. Patients received an average of 6 (IQR 4-9) erenumab doses. 93.1% respondents found erenumab effective, and 72.6% experienced improvement during the first month. MHDs were reduced by 9.8 (SD 6.0) (P < 0.001), and MMDs by 7.2 (SD 5.2) days (P < 0.001). 78.6% respondents achieved ≥ 50% reduction and 47.6% achieved ≥ 75% reduction of MMDs. 13.8% patients indicated a wearing-off effect during the treatment course, and 37.8% - some wearing-off between injections. Constipation was the most frequent adverse event (32.6%). 47.2% of patients who had a positive erenumab effect and discontinued treatment experienced migraine rebound in 6 (SD 2.0) weeks.

conclusionErenumab is perceived as an effective and safe treatment. Further studies are needed to investigate a post-cessation deterioration of achieved improvement. HIGHLIGHTS: • Vast majority of patients experience stable or increasing effect of erenumab. • Erenumab efficacy usually becomes evident during the first month of treatment. • Erenumab is perceived significantly better than non-specific preventive medications. • Almost 40% of patients experienced some wearing-off between injections. • Almost half of patients experience migraine rebounds after treatment cessation.

Indexed as

Headache Disorders, SecondaryMigraine DisordersAdultAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizederenumabCGRPErenumabHeadacheMigraineMonoclonal antibody

Identifiers

PMID35006445
OpenAlexW4206717983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.