Observational studyThe journal of headache and pain2025
Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment for new daily persistent headache.
Observational study 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a rare headache disorder that often resembles chronic migraine (CM) phenotypically, but unlike CM is daily from onset. Several calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have been proven to be effective in CM. It is not known whether CGRP mAbs are effective in NDPH. We sought to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP mAbs in NDPH and compare their effect in NDPH to CM.
methodsWe performed an observational study using prospectively collected data in consecutive patients treated with CGRP mAbs in three groups: Group 1 included patients with NDPH with migraine features; Group 2 included patients with CM with daily headache; and Group 3 patients with non-daily CM. Given the observational nature of the study, propensity score matching was used in an attempt to balance the three groups on baseline factors to make them comparable. The majority of patients were treated with erenumab while the remainder received galcanezumab. Patients completed a headache diary and disability questionnaires at baseline and 12-week follow-up, with the primary endpoint being the proportion who achieved a reduction of at least 30% in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days (MSHD) compared between the three groups.
resultsA total of 48 patients with NDPH, 101 with daily-CM, and 68 with non-daily-CM were included. From baseline to week 12, 11/47 (23%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in MSHD, compared to 46/99 (46%) in daily CM (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.82-4.97, p = 0.125), and 51/61 (84%) in non-daily-CM (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.17-16.6, p = 0.028). Only 5/47 (11%) of patients with NDPH had a ≥ 30% improvement in monthly headache days, and 24/44 (54%) reported an overall subjective improvement of ≥ 30%. Almost 50% of patients experienced at least one side effect, which were mild in almost all cases, and similar between groups.
conclusionsCGRP mAbs were effective in approximately 1/4 patients with treatment-refractory NDPH,but less likely to be effective in NDPH than CM. This suggests that NDPH cannot be seen as equivalent to CM and that new treatment options are required for this highly disabling disorder.
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.