ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2023
The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis.
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Migraine management in Saudi Arabia: An expert consensus.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025Guideline
- Long-term safety and effectiveness of rimegepant for the preventive treatment of migraine in Japan: an open-label extension of a phase 3 study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Trial
- Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Trial
- The effectiveness of agomelatine on headache severity and frequency in episodic migraine without aura; a parallel randomized controlled trial study.BMC neurology · 2024Trial
- Persistence and Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation of Anti-CGRP Therapies in Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
- Prescriber adherence to treatment guidelines for monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide in migraine prophylaxis - a register-based cohort study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Continuation, Resumption, and Withdrawal Rates of CGRP-mAb Treatment for Migraine Under Real-World Clinical Conditions in Which Patients Are Free to Choose Own Treatment.Neurology international · 2025Article
- Migraine treatment with CGRP monoclonal antibodies: patient evaluation of a mandatory treatment holiday in Belgium.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2025Article
- Disrupting Migraine Dynamics: A Narrative Review of the Consequences of Modern Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibody Therapies.Neurology and therapy · 2025Review
- Efficacy of MEDI0618, a pH-dependent monoclonal antibody targeting PAR2, in preclinical models of migraine.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Healthcare Utilization, Costs, and Treatment Discontinuation in Adults with Episodic Migraine Initiating Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant: A US Retrospective Claims Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Three-year treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies modifies migraine course: the prospective, multicenter I-GRAINE study.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Bridging Gaps in Migraine Management: A Comprehensive Review of Conventional Treatments, Natural Supplements, Complementary Therapies, and Lifestyle Modifications.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- NeurasitesJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the concomitant use of prophylactic treatments in patients with migraine under anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide therapies: The PREVENAC study.European journal of neurology · 2024Observational
- RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Revolutionizing migraine management: advances and challenges in CGRP-targeted therapies and their clinical implications.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Long-term safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine patients: a five-year retrospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Drug-related side effects and adverse reactions in the treatment of migraine: a bibliometric and visual analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- What to do with non-responders to CGRP(r) monoclonal antibodies: switch to another or move to gepants?The journal of headache and pain · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMigraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.
methodsThree different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. DISCUSSION: Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.
conclusionTranslational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.
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.