Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695402›Full record

ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024

Interictal burden in migraine patients at the outset of CGRP monoclonal antibody prevention.

Christian Lampl, Elizabeth Seng, Maurice Vincent, William R Lenderking, Margaret Hoyt, Lucinda Hetherington, Mary Kate Ladd, Karen Malley, Jun Chen, Lars Viktrup

Abstract read
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. What does a migraine aura look like?-A systematic review.The journal of headache and pain · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Christian LamplDepartment of Neurology, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brüder Linz, Linz, Austria.
Elizabeth SengAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Maurice VincentEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
William R LenderkingEvidera, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Margaret HoytEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lucinda HetheringtonEvidera, London, UK.
Mary Kate LaddEvidera, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Karen MalleyEvidera, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Jun ChenEvidera, Wilmington, NC, USA.
Lars ViktrupEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. viktrup_lars@lilly.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cost of IllnessMigraine DisordersAdultAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCGRP antibodyInterictal burden of migraineMigraine

Identifiers

PMID39695402
PMCPMC11658275

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.