ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2025
Comparing eptinezumab with onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of chronic migraine: a real-world evidence study.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epigenetics in migraine: the Junior Editorial Board Members' vision.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMigraine, a spectrum of episodic headache disorders common in the global population, may evolve into a very debilitating chronic condition, usually underdiagnosed, poorly recognized and difficult to manage. Neurotransmission in the trigeminovascular sensory nervous system, particularly involving calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has emerged as a prime therapeutic target for the treatment of chronic migraine. Here we investigated differences in efficacy of eptinezumab (a monoclonal antibody [mAb] targetting CGRP) and onabotulinumtoxinA (an inhibitor of neurotransmitter release) in an Italian real-world setting in which medical medication overuse headache (MOH) is prevalent.
methodsForty chronic migraine patients refractory to standard treatments were observed, of which 15 were over 50 years old, and 4 exceeded 65 years. The primary endpoint of efficacy was reduction of monthly migraine days (MMDs) collected at two time points: after 3 and 6 months, respectively. The secondary endpoints, also performed after 3 and 6 months, include reduction of monthly headache days (MHDs), days in need of rescue medications, diminished pain intensity and on disability measured as Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). Statistical differences were analysed using two-way analysis of variance with measurement repetition tests (Two-way RM ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni or Sidak test).
resultsBoth eptinezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated efficacy at 3 and 6 months, with no statistically significant differences between them for either primary or secondary endpoints. Both treatments had a more pronounced effect on MMDs and MHDs than on the reduction of intensity and disability, and reduced the need for rescue medications at 3 and 6 months. After 3 months, onabotulinumtoxinA displays a trend to reduce the need to rescue medication in a higher number of patients compared to eptinezumab.
conclusionsOnabotulinumtoxinA was as effective as eptinezumab for chronic migraine prophylaxis according to both primary and secondary endpoints and, therefore, is useful as an alternative or adjunct therapy to mAbs or gepants.
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.