ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024
Interictal burden in migraine patients at the outset of CGRP monoclonal antibody prevention.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interictal burden in migraine: a systematic review of conceptual domains and measurement properties of instruments.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Pooled it
- What does a migraine aura look like?-A systematic review.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Pooled it
- Two-Year Outcomes and Interictal Burden After Treatment for Medication Overuse Headache.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Results from TRIUMPH [EUROPE], a Real-World Observational Study on the 3-Month Effectiveness of Galcanezumab Versus Traditional Oral Migraine Preventive Medications.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Translation and validation of the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4) in an Italian clinical cohort.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- The Relevance of Crystal Clear and Unclear Days to Evaluate Residual Interictal Burden in Patients With Migraine Treated With CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Migraine Patients Treated With Erenumab and the Risk of Hypertension: A Registry-Based Real-World Study.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Interictal burden, not ictal burden, drives work productivity impairment in headache disorders: insights from a Japanese cross-sectional study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- The Interictal State of Migraine: Understanding the Hidden Burden Between Attacks.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Identifying Hidden Disability in Migraine Patients Using the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Global Burden of Migraine: A 30-Year Trend Review and Future Projections by Age, Sex, Country, and Region.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Evaluating the relationship between the 4-item migraine interictal burden scale and other patient-reported outcome measures: aFrontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe total burden of migraine includes not only the episodes with headache pain but extends throughout the interictal periods. Interictal symptoms and associated psychological responses may profoundly impact well-being and drive treatment-seeking behavior.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted with participants aged ≥ 18 years, 250 with episodic migraine (EM) and 250 with chronic migraine (CM), having ≥ 4 monthly migraine headache days. All were naïve to galcanezumab or began ≤ 6 months before survey completion. The study evaluated factors associated with the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), including social determinants of health and well-being. Multiple linear regression, logistic regression, and random forests (RF) were used to explore predictors of MIBS-4.
resultsThe majority of participants (90%) were female with a mean (standard deviation) age of 40.6 (± 12.0) years and 18.1 (± 12.7) years since the first migraine episode. Sociodemographically, the EM and CM groups were similar. Common comorbidities were anxiety disorder (45%) and depression (44%). Migraine family history was reported in 59% of participants. MIBS-4 was correlated with a number of diverse variables, including well-being, anxiety sensitivity, income, aura symptoms, and the worst migraine pain in the year before starting galcanezumab. Linear and logistic regression identified years since the first symptom, worst migraine attack pain, premonitory symptoms, and income as significant predictors. RF explained more of the variance than multiple linear regression and introduced additional concepts to the prediction of MIBS, identifying well-being (WHO-5 total score), the WHO-5 item "cheerful and in good spirits," worry about exercise, and fear of missing social obligations as significant predictors. Socioeconomic status and income were also critical explanatory variables for interictal burden (IIB) based on regression modeling and RF. Still, income was the only variable significantly associated with IIB across regression and RF methods.
conclusionsInterictal burden should be considered in the medical care of people with migraine. This additional burden is holistic, with psychosocial and socioeconomic elements in addition to residual symptoms. It is essential to consider this when assessing the impact of IIB.
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.