Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39174943›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024

Situational prevention in migraine: are we doing the right thing?

Lanfranco Pellesi, Paolo Martelletti

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Lanfranco PellesiClinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230, Denmark. lpellesi@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4137-5039
Paolo MartellettiSchool of Health, Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6556-4128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary addresses the use of rimegepant for situational prevention in migraine management. While the approach of using prophylactic treatments during high-risk periods is not new, its application with rimegepant described by Lipton et al. raises ethical and clinical concerns. These include the challenge of defining high-risk periods, the potential for overmedication, and the risk of medication overuse headache (MOH). The current evidence on MOH with gepants is inconclusive, and recommendations on dosing may be insufficient. Additionally, the long-term safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists remains uncertain, especially regarding cardiovascular and other systemic effects. The commentary emphasizes the need for caution and thorough investigation into the long-term risks and benefits of situational prevention with rimegepant before widespread adoption.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersPyridinesCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsHeadache Disorders, SecondaryHumansPiperidinesCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsPiperidinesPyridinesrimegepant sulfateCGRPMedication overuseMigraineRimegepant

Identifiers

PMID39174943
PMCPMC11340082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.