Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36792981›Full record

ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2023

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis.

Linda Al-Hassany, Hannah S Lyons, Deirdre M Boucherie, Fatemeh Farham, Kristin S Lange, Karol Marschollek, Dilara Onan, Umberto Pensato, Elisabeth Storch, Angelo Torrente and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Migraine management in Saudi Arabia: An expert consensus.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. NeurasitesJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.

Linda Al-Hassany *Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8699-7440
Hannah S Lyons *Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0105-1064
Deirdre M BoucherieDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9354-715X
Fatemeh FarhamDepartment of Headache, Iranian Centre of Neurological Researchers, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5120-309X
Kristin S LangeDepartment of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8056-8514
Karol MarschollekDepartment of Neurology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9093-180X
Dilara OnanSpine Health Unit, Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9505-6135
Umberto PensatoNeurology and Stroke Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4042-4735
Elisabeth StorchDepartment of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9937-3437
Angelo TorrenteDepartment of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0585-8351
Marta Waliszewska-ProsółDepartment of Neurology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9074-2803
Uwe ReuterDepartment of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. uwe.reuter@med.uni-greifswald.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-0725
European Headache Federation School of Advanced Studies (EHF-SAS)
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEErasmus MC · NLWroclaw Medical University · PLHacettepe University · TRHumanitas University · ITTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Calcitonin Gene-Related PeptideMigraine DisordersAntibodies, MonoclonalCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsHumansReceptors, Calcitonin Gene-Related PeptideAntibodies, MonoclonalCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsReceptors, Calcitonin Gene-Related PeptideMigrainePreventive treatmentProphylaxisStopping rules

Identifiers

PMID36792981
PMCPMC9933401
OpenAlexW4320892135

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.