ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2025
Expert consensus on gepants for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in Thailand.
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Pooled it
- Nose-brain axis: A bridge from the nasal cavity to the central nervous system.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Pharmacological mechanisms underlying neurovascular alterations related to resistant and refractory migraine: CGRP pathways and beyond.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Review
- Diagnosis challenges and accessibility barriers to migraine management in Southeast Asia: results from the South-East Asia Local breAch on MigraiNe Treatment (SEALANT) study.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes During the Acute Treatment of Migraine with Zavegepant Nasal Spray: Results from a 52-Week, Open-Label Study.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGepants, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is a class of migraine therapeutic options with extensive evidence supporting a favorable efficacy and safety profile. However, as a novel class of medication in Thailand, specific guidelines or recommendations regarding rational drug use are currently unavailable. This could hinder physicians from utilizing the medications for eligible patients and prevent pharmacists from providing information to physicians and patients. MAIN BODY: In order to develop consensus-based statement recommendations, a modified Delphi approach was employed, which included two rounds of surveys, discussions, and voting. General recommendations were made, as well as specific recommendations of gepants in both acute and preventive treatment roles. Additionally, clinical settings where gepants could be suitable options were identified, along with the recommendations for their use in special populations and relevant precautions.
conclusionGepants can serve as both acute and preventive therapy for migraines. They provide an alternative to first-line therapies for patients with limitations to conventional agents, including contraindications or intolerance. Gepants can be utilized as monotherapy or in combination with other treatment approaches. Optimal prescribing practices for eligible patients could ensure that patients receive maximum benefit with minimal risk.
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.