ArticleHeadache2026
Gepants for headache prevention in children and adolescents: A multicenter chart review study.
Article in Headache, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Migraine in children and adolescents.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Review
- Gepants for headache prevention in children and adolescents: A multicenter chart review study.Headache · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is an unmet need for safe, evidence-based pharmacologic treatments for migraine prevention in children and adolescents. Rimegepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants), have been shown to be efficacious and well-tolerated preventive treatments in adults with migraine. While we await the results of randomized trials in children and adolescents, this study aimed to provide real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of rimegepant and atogepant as preventive headache treatments for youth.
methodsThis was a multisite retrospective chart review study. Sites included Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, and University of California San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital. Inclusion criteria were patients under 18 years of age who were prescribed rimegepant and/or atogepant for preventive treatment. At University of California San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, charts of all patients prescribed atogepant, as well as those prescribed rimegepant without a specified "as needed" indication, were reviewed. Data collection at Cincinnati Children's Hospital was a convenience sample based on providers' knowledge. Clinical and demographic data both before and after gepant treatment were abstracted into Research Electronic Data Capture. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clinical observations.
resultsOf 71 patients who met inclusion criteria, 26 used atogepant and 55 used rimegepant- including 10 who used both. The majority were adolescent females. Migraine was the most common diagnosis. Median number of previous preventive trials was six (interquartile range: 4-8) in the rimegepant group and seven (interquartile range: 5-8) in the atogepant group. Fifty-eight percent (32/55) of the rimegepant group and 43% (11/26) of the atogepant group saw at least some benefit. Four of 55 patients reported side effects with rimegepant-constipation, nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and transient worsening of headache (n = 1 for each; one patient reported abdominal pain and fatigue). Seven of 26 patients reported side effects with atogepant-nausea (2/26), fatigue (2/26), constipation (1/26), depressed mood (1/26), and feeling cold (1/26). No serious side effects were reported. An exploratory analysis for factors associated with response suggests that a longer headache history has a higher likelihood of benefit (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.85, p = 0.014), and in contrast, more severe limitations in functionality has lower likelihood of benefit (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.58, p = 0.004).
conclusionsIn this real-world evidence study, gepants for headache prevention in youth were generally well tolerated. Despite failure of multiple prior therapies, some patients benefited from these treatments. This small study was not designed to directly compare the effectiveness of the two medications. Both safety and efficacy in this population need further evaluation in randomized controlled trials.
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.