Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40932510›Full record

ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026

[Migraine patients treated with CGRP(R) antibodies : Are they different from patients treated with nonspecific oral prophylaxis? Analysis from the DMKG headache registry].

Ruth Ruscheweyh, Gudrun Goßrau, Tim Patrick Jürgens, Victoria Ruschil, Torsten Kraya, Thomas Dresler, Charly Gaul, Jörg Scheidt, Lars Neeb

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Ruth RuscheweyhKopfschmerzambulanz, Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, LMU München, Ziemssenstr. 1, 80336, München, Deutschland. ruth.ruscheweyh@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9510-7158
Gudrun GoßrauKopfschmerzambulanz, Universitätsschmerzcentrum, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Universitätsklinikum Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Tim Patrick JürgensKopfschmerzzentrum Nordost, Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinik Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
Victoria RuschilAbteilung Neurologie mit Schwerpunkt Epileptologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Torsten KrayaKlinik für Neurologie, Klinikum St. Georg, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Thomas DreslerKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Charly GaulKopfschmerzzentrum Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland.
Jörg ScheidtInstitut für Informationssysteme, Hochschule Hof, Hof, Deutschland.
Lars NeebKlinik für Neurologie, Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel GmbH, Brandenburg an der Havel, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibodies against CGRP or its receptor (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, from here on: "CGRP(R) antibodies") are modern migraine preventives. German statutory health insurance covers CGRP(R) antibodies only for patients refractory to other preventive therapies. Thus, the effect of this regulation on patient selection was investigated, as well as the effect of a change of insurance coverage for erenumab in October 2022.

methodsIn total, 759 patients with CGRP(R) antibody treatment were compared with 961 patients prescribed nonspecific oral migraine preventive medicines (amitriptyline, betablocker, flunarizine, topiramate) from the DMKG Headache Registry.

resultsPatients with CGRP(R) antibodies had more prior preventive therapies that were insufficiently effective or tolerated compared to patients prescribed nonspecific oral preventive medicines (p < 0.001). Moreover, they had longer disease duration (p < 0.001), more often suffered from chronic migraine (p = 0.002), had more severe headache days (p = 0.004) and acute medication days (p = 0.04), lower quality of life (p < 0.05), more comorbidities (p = 0.001), and fewer of them were working (p < 0.001). After change of insurance coverage, treatment with erenumab shifted towards less refractory patients (p < 0.001) with shorter disease duration (p < 0.001), who were less severely affected compared to patients with other CGRP(R) antibodies (e.g., headache days p = 0.01; disability p = 0.005).

conclusionCGRP(R) antibodies are prescribed for to patients affected by exceedingly severe migraine. Insurance coverage has a significant effect on use of medicines for migraine prevention.

Indexed as

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsMigraine DisordersAdministration, OralAdultAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideFemaleGermanyHumansInsurance CoverageMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsRegistriesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistseptinezumaberenumabfremanezumabgalcanezumabCGRP antibodyInsurance coverageMigraineMigraine preventionPrior treatments

Identifiers

PMID40932510
PMCPMC13597623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.