ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Healthcare Utilization, Costs, and Treatment Discontinuation in Adults with Episodic Migraine Initiating Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant: A US Retrospective Claims Analysis.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Migraine: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.Neurology · 2026Observational
- Real-World Experience with Anti-CGRP Pathway Monoclonal Antibodies in a Large United States Healthcare Plan: Results of the Migraine Signature Study.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Migraine, monoclonal antibodies, and monitoring: a review of pharmacovigilance in the era of biologics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Anacardic acid ameliorates insulin resistance and diabetic nephropathy: network pharmacology, in vivo and molecular docking studies targeting TNF- α / TGFβR1 signaling.Journal of natural medicines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo date, no study has compared the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and discontinuation of the two calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody subcutaneously injected monthly) and rimegepant (oral gepant taken every other day), for migraine prevention. This study aimed to assess all-cause and migraine-related HCRU, costs, and treatment discontinuation at 12 months following treatment initiation in commercial/Medicare beneficiaries with episodic migraine who received galcanezumab versus rimegepant as preventive migraine treatment.
methodsThis retrospective study used the Merative™ MarketScan
resultsAll-cause and migraine-related HCRU and costs increased over the 12-month follow-up in both cohorts. The galcanezumab cohort had a significantly lower increase in mean all-cause total medical + pharmacy costs (21% lower) and migraine-related total medical + pharmacy costs (76% lower) than the rimegepant cohort at the 12-month follow-up (p < 0.0001 for both assessments). Mean (standard deviation) number of days from initiation to discontinuation (> 60-day gap) was 244.6 (135.3) for galcanezumab cohort and 178.1 (141.1) for rimegepant cohort (p < 0.0001). Treatment discontinuation rate was 1.8 times less likely in the galcanezumab cohort than the rimegepant cohort (hazard ratio = 1.81, 95% confidence interval = 1.56-2.10). Similar trends were observed using a 30-day gap.
conclusionAmong matched patients, both cohorts of patients with episodic migraine showed all-cause and migraine-related total cost increases over 12 months. However, the magnitude of the increases was significantly lower for the galcanezumab cohort than for the rimegepant cohort. Treatment discontinuation rate was significantly lower in the galcanezumab versus the rimegepant cohort.
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.