ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Effects of Pausing and Re-Initiating Fremanezumab After Continuous 24-Month Treatment for Preventing Difficult-To-Treat Migraine: Prospective, Multicenter, Real-World Data From the GRASP Study Group.
Article in European journal of neurology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study, designed by the Greek Research Alliance for Studying headache and Pain (GRASP), aimed to (i) prospectively evaluate the effects of treatment cessation in fremanezumab-responsive patients after 2 years exposure and (ii) assess variations in response rates after migraine worsening and treatment re-initiation.
methodsWe analyzed 149 patients with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM), who completed 24 months of fremanezumab, and mandatorily paused fremanezumab and re-initiated it after their migraine worsened. To assess longitudinal variations mostly in monthly migraine/headache days (MMD/MHD) and other efficacy variables, patients were interviewed at baseline (T0), at month 3 (T1), month 24 (T2), treatment pause period (T3), and at month 3 after fremanezumab re-initiation (T4). The primary objective was to assess the ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% response rates at T4, compared to T3 and T2.
resultsMigraine relapsed in previous responders at T3, while fremanezumab re-initiation was not equally effective, as evidenced by lower ≥ 50% response rates, mostly in CM. At T4, 6 (9.7%) previously responsive HFEM patients and 27 (31%) previously responsive CM patients failed to obtain ≥ 50% MMD/MHD reduction, compared to T3. The rate of both HFEM and CM super-responders, obtaining a ≥ 75% response at T3, also dropped at T4.
conclusionDiscontinuation of fremanezumab after month 24 leads to rising MMD/MHDs. After fremanezumab re-initiation, a relatively reduced effectiveness in the first 3 months might occur, compared with the pre-fremanezumab cessation. Overall, our findings doubt the rationale behind mandated anti-CGRP treatment pauses in migraine prophylaxis.
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.