ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2024
Erenumab escalation in migraine - double dose without additional benefit - a retrospective experience.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErenumab is a monoclonal antibody specifically targeting the CGRP-receptor. Several studies showed efficacy and safety in patients with migraine. Less is known regarding dosage increase, especially in a difficult to treat patients. The aim of the study is to evaluate the increased dosage under real world conditions with particular focus on 70 mg non-responders.
methodsIn a retrospective analysis, patients treated in tertiary headache centers (Halle or Jena, Germany) receiving 70 mg erenumab for at least 3 months with a dosage increase to 140 mg were analyzed. Data were evaluated regarding headache days, intake of acute medication, previous prophylaxis, and medication overuse. Baseline and all treatment intervals were determined as three-month periods.
resultsDatasets of 52 migraine patients (90.4% women) aged between 22 and 78 years (mean 50.4 years, SD 12.1 years) were analyzed. At baseline (mean headache-days 15.67 ± 6.37) 51.9% met criteria for chronic migraine and 56% were currently overusing acute medication. While therapy with 70 mg showed significant improvement in headache days and 50% response, further improvement was not achieved for therapy escalation to 140 mg. The same applies to the secondary endpoints and covers the entire study population as well as the subgroups of chronic and episodic migraine. The 50% response of the 70 mg non-responders for escalation was only 5.14%.
conclusionsIn this difficult-to-treat patient cohort we reconfirmed the effectiveness of erenumab, but could not detect any additional benefit for a dosage escalation from 70 mg to 140 mg erenumab.
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.