Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41123845›Full record

ArticlePain and therapy2025

Evaluating Treatment Success in CGRP Antibody Prophylaxis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Monthly Migraine Days, MIDAS Scores, and HIT-6 Scores.

Carl H Göbel, Axel Heinze, Katja Heinze-Kuhn, Ursula Müller, Anna Cirkel, Hartmut Göbel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

6 authors.

Carl H Göbel *Kiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany. cg@schmerzklinik.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4283-6936
Axel Heinze *Kiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7780-4301
Katja Heinze-KuhnKiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany.
Ursula MüllerKiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany.
Anna CirkelKiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8637-9637
Hartmut GöbelKiel Migraine and Headache Center, Heikendorfer Weg 9-27, 24149, Kiel, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2163-112X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Calcitonin gene-related peptideDisability evaluationMigraine disordersMonoclonal antibodiesPatient-reported outcome measuresReal-world evidenceTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID41123845
PMCPMC12634921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.