ArticleHeadache2022
Patient preference for early onset of efficacy of preventive migraine treatments.
Article in Headache, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of remote electrical neuromodulation in migraine: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Early Improvements With Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Results From 3 Randomized Phase 3 Trials.Neurology · 2025Trial
- Patient Preferences Toward CGRP-Targeting Preventive Migraine Treatments in Japan: Discrete Choice Experiment.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Patient preferences for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in the United States: A discrete-choice experiment.Headache · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences for Self-Injectable Preventive Treatment for Migraine: A Multi-country Discrete Choice Experiment.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences for Episodic Migraine Medications: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Self-Injectable Versus Oral Treatments Targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Pathway.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment.Headache · 2025Article
- 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
- Eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Review
- Eptinezumab for the Prevention of Migraine: Clinical Utility, Patient Preferences and Selection - A Narrative Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023Review
- Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of rimegepant as a preventive treatment for chronic and episodic migraine: a three-month longitudinal retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to ascertain to what extent adults with migraine value an early onset of efficacy for preventive migraine treatments.
backgroundIn placebo-controlled clinical trials, treatment with eptinezumab resulted in a lower proportion of adults with migraine on the first day following infusion (day 1; 14% point-reduction for chronic migraine [CM] in PROMISE-2 and 8% point-reduction for episodic migraine [EM] in PROMISE-1).
methodsAdults with migraine completed an online preference-elicitation thresholding exercise to ascertain to what extent they value not having a migraine on day 1 postdosing relative to a clinically relevant reduction in number of migraine days during the first month postdosing (≥2 migraine-free days for CM and ≥1 migraine-free days for EM).
resultsOne hundred and one participants (mean age, 50.6 ± 12.4 years; 81 [80%] women) were included. In participants with CM, 29 of 50 (58%) considered the eptinezumab-generated reduction in the likelihood of migraine on day 1 postdosing to be at least as important as a clinically relevant reduction in number of migraine days the first month postdosing, whereas 37 of 50 (74%) considered a clinically relevant reduction of migraine days the first month postdosing to have a value equivalent to the eptinezumab-generated reduction in the likelihood of migraine on day 1 postdosing. In participants with EM, 18 of 35 (51%) considered the eptinezumab-generated reduction in the likelihood of migraine on day 1 postdosing to be at least as important as a clinically relevant reduction in migraine days the first month postdosing, whereas 24 of 35 (69%) considered a clinically relevant reduction of migraine days the first month postdosing to have a value equivalent to the eptinezumab-generated reduction in the likelihood of migraine on day 1 postdosing.
conclusionMost participants considered the reduction in the likelihood of migraine offered by eptinezumab on day 1 postdosing to be at least as important as a clinically relevant reduction in migraine days the first month postdosing.
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.