ArticlePain and therapy2025
Evaluating Treatment Success in CGRP Antibody Prophylaxis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Monthly Migraine Days, MIDAS Scores, and HIT-6 Scores.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responder discordance between migraine frequency and patient-reported outcomes after CGRP-pathway monoclonal antibody treatment: a secondary analysis of public patient-level data.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Neurologic Symptoms and Cerebrovascular Events During Atogepant Therapy: A Case Series with Contextual Comparison with a Non-Gepant-Treated Migraine Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Atogepant after anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies failure in migraine: a multicenter real-world study of effectiveness, safety, persistence and predictors of response.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Observational
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
introductionMonoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor represent a major advance in migraine prevention. However, standardized criteria for assessing treatment response are lacking. This study aimed to compare responder rates based on monthly migraine days (MMDs), the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and to evaluate whether a single outcome measure may be sufficient for therapeutic decision-making.
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, 417 patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with a CGRP or CGRP receptor monoclonal antibody between January 2020 and June 2023 were analyzed. Inclusion required complete documentation of MMDs, MIDAS scores, and HIT-6 scores. Response was defined as a ≥ 50% (episodic) or ≥ 30% (chronic) MMDs reduction, a ≥ 30% MIDAS reduction (baseline > 20), and/or a ≥ 5-point HIT-6 improvement.
resultsIn episodic migraine, 50.3% of patients met the MMDs response criterion, while 69.5% and 67.5% responded as per MIDAS and HIT-6, respectively. In chronic migraine, the response rates were 58.2% (MMDs), 48.2% (MIDAS), and 55.0% (HIT-6). Combining all three parameters identified treatment response in 84.8% of episodic and 77.7% of patients with chronic migraine. Only 1.5% of patients with episodic migraine would have been misclassified as non-responders if solely PROMs were used. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 3.3% of patients.
conclusionsOutcome measures strongly influence responder classification. PROMs such as MIDAS and HIT-6 captured therapeutic benefits not reflected in MMDs reductions, especially in cases of preserved headache frequency but reduced burden. These tools may serve as valid surrogates for diary-based documentation, especially in episodic migraine. PROMs are a practical and patient-centered alternative or complement to headache diaries, particularly under routine care constraints. Regulatory frameworks and clinical guidelines should consider integrating these measures into standard practice.
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.