ArticlePain and therapy2024
Observational Retrospective Study in Patients Treated with Galcanezumab as Preventive Treatment for Migraine: The ORYGAM Study.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Headache · 2026Pooled it
- Real-world experience of galcanezumab in the prevention of migraine in Spain: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of galcanezumab has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, but evidence about its use under clinical practice conditions is still limited. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of the patients treated with galcanezumab in routine clinical practice in Spain as well as treatment patterns, persistence, and effectiveness.
methodsA retrospective chart review study was carried out in six hospitals. Information of adults with migraine, who started treatment with galcanezumab between November 2019 and September 2021, was analyzed until end or loss of follow-up. Continuous variables were described as mean (standard deviation, SD) and median (interquartile range, IQR), and categorical variables as frequency and percentages. Persistence to treatment was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsA total of 314 patients were analyzed over median follow-up period of 17.5 months (13.8-20.7), with a mean age of 46.3 (12.6), 85% women, 80.6% chronic migraine, and reporting a mean of monthly migraine days of 16.7 (7.8). Overall, 72.9% had comorbid conditions, with anxiety and depression disorders being the most frequent. More than 60% had received ≥ 6 previous preventive drugs, the most common being antiepileptics, antidepressants, and botulinum toxin (95.2%, 89.8% and 84.1%, respectively). Overall, 60.3% of the patients with other preventive treatments maintained them after galcanezumab initiation. The median time on galcanezumab was 14.6 months (9.4-22.8); 95.7%, 82.0%, 76.2% and 59.8% of patients were persistent to treatment at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, respectively. Of the patients who discontinued (151: 48.1%), 57.6% were due to lack of effectiveness and 31.1% were due to improvement in migraine. The average reduction of monthly migraine days at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 7.9 (7.2), 9.1 (7.5), 8.8 (6.6) and 9.0 (6.9) days, respectively.
conclusionsIn real clinical practice, galcanezumab is an effective treatment and has a high persistence in patients with migraine, mostly chronic and with multiple use of previous preventive treatments.
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.