ArticlePain and therapy2024
Real-World Experience of Erenumab in Patients with Migraine in Germany: The SPECTRE 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, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decoding the long-term safety of anti-CGRP (receptor) mAbs: a meta-analysis and systematic review.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Pooled it
- Long-term effectiveness of fremanezumab in episodic and chronic migraine patients in clinical routine - 24-months results from the prospective non-interventional FINESSE study.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo provide real-world insights into migraine patient population in Germany treated with erenumab, focusing on the prescription patterns and reasons for the initial dosage choice.
methodsSPECTRE was an observational, non-interventional, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in patients treated with erenumab according to approved local dose and guidelines. The study enrolled adult patients (n = 571; Germany: 105 sites) with migraine who had received erenumab for not more than 3 months before the start of the study.
resultsThe mean (standard deviation) patient age was 45.0 (12.3) years, and most patients were female (89.0%), Caucasian (97.6%), and non-smokers (85.1%). The starting dose of erenumab was 70 mg in 68.5% of patients and 140 mg in 31.5%. The proportion of patients with 140 mg as the starting dose was the highest (43.5%) in those aged 30-40 years. The most common reason for starting a higher dose of erenumab 140 mg was severity of migraine (47.4%). During the observational period, the proportion of patients taking erenumab 140 mg increased to 64.6% (visit 5; V5) after 12 months. Due to attrition of patients towards the end of the study (V9: 90 participants), data at V9 must be interpreted with caution. At least one dose change was performed in 45.3% of patients (i.e., erenumab 70 to 140 mg or 140 to 70 mg), 21.2% of patients attempted at least once to discontinue treatment (i.e., period with erenumab discontinuation and no other antibody treatment for migraine prevention), and 15.3% discontinued erenumab treatment, mainly because of no or insufficient treatment response (13.5%). The mean time until the first omission attempt was 332.3 (range 37-633) days. Constipation (12.1%) was the most frequently reported adverse event, in line with the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) of erenumab.
conclusionMost patients with migraine were prescribed erenumab 70 mg as the starting dose. No new safety signals were observed for erenumab versus the previous trials.
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.