Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40552555›Full record

ArticleHeadache2025

Patient preferences for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in the United States: A discrete-choice experiment.

Richard B Lipton, Pranav Gandhi, Kelley Myers, Cooper Bussberg, Jonathan Stokes, Stephanie J Nahas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Headache, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Richard B LiptonDepartment of Neurology, Albert Einstein College, Bronx, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2652-2897
Pranav GandhiHealth Economics and Outcomes Research, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kelley MyersHealth Preference Assessment, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Cooper BussbergHealth Preference Assessment, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Jonathan StokesHealth Economics and Outcomes Research, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Stephanie J NahasDepartment of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

AbbVie, Inc
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study was conducted among participants with episodic migraine, to (i) assess patient preferences for attributes associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies to prevent migraine and (ii) predict the probability that a real-world patient would prefer an atogepant-like treatment profile over monoclonal antibody-like profiles.

backgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies have emerged as safe and effective first-line preventive treatments for migraine. Given the expansion of the treatment landscape, it is important to understand what drives treatment choices among patients with migraine. However, few studies have quantified patient preferences for attributes of preventive treatments for migraine.

methodsA discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to adults (aged 18-80 years and <50 years at age of migraine onset) with episodic migraine who were naïve to calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies between November and December 2020. Respondents were presented with pairs of hypothetical treatment profiles defined by seven attributes with varying levels. Preference weights were used to estimate the conditional relative importance of each attribute and the probability that an average respondent in the sample would prefer an atogepant-like treatment relative to monoclonal antibody-like treatment profiles. No a priori hypotheses were evaluated related to treatment preference.

resultsAcross the attributes and levels included in the study, the relative importance estimates revealed that, on average, the two most important changes in treatment attributes were (i) having a treatment with no nausea instead of a treatment with moderate-to-severe nausea and (ii) having a treatment administered by oral pill or tablet instead of a self-injection once every month or intravenous infusion once every 3 months. For example, respondents valued having a treatment administered by daily oral pill instead of by quarterly intravenous infusion ~2.5 times more than avoiding a treatment with mild nausea. The predicted probability that an average respondent in the sample would prefer an oral, once-daily atogepant-like profile was higher than the predicted probability that an average respondent in the sample would prefer a specific monoclonal antibody-like injectable profile (range, 70.9%-85.4%) or a composite profile representing monoclonal antibodies as a class of drugs (range, 70.7%-73.8%), even when efficacy of the monoclonal antibody-like profile was similar to the atogepant-like profile.

conclusionRelative importance estimates suggest that, on average, respondents with episodic migraine preferred an oral pill over monthly or quarterly injections and infusions. Respondents also preferred to avoid treatment-related nausea and constipation. The predicted choice probability results further suggest a preference for a daily oral pill, given that seven of 10 respondents, on average, would prefer a profile similar to atogepant over profiles similar to monoclonal antibodies administered intravenously or by self-injection.

Indexed as

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsChoice BehaviorMigraine DisordersPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesYoung AdultCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonistsatogepantcalcitonin gene‐related peptide‐targeting therapiesdiscrete‐choice experimentepisodic migrainepatient preferencespreventive migraine treatment

Identifiers

PMID40552555
PMCPMC12497925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.