ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Switching strategies with CGRP monoclonal antibodies: an observational study in a headache clinic.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP): Biology, Signaling, Pathophysiological Roles, and Therapeutic Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder that greatly impacts quality of life and productivity. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have recently improved preventive migraine therapy. However, some patients show limited efficacy, loss of response, or adverse effects, prompting interest in switching between mAbs. Objective: The objective of this work is to evaluate the effectiveness of switching between mAbs in chronic migraine/high-frequency episodic migraine (CM/HFEM) patients and to identify potential clinical predictors of response. Methods: This single-centre, real-life, prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital headache unit which includes patients with CM or HFEM who switched from one mAb to another without a treatment gap greater than 1 month. Monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly analgesic consumption (MAC), and medication overuse (MO) were recorded 3 months before and at three and 6 months after switching. Subanalyses were performed based on the mechanism of action (anti-ligand vs. anti-receptor), reason for switch (lack or loss of efficacy), and clinical predictors. Results: Eighty-five patients (52.2 ± 9.6 years; 87.1% female; 95.3% CM) were included. At 3 months post-switch, reductions were observed in MHDs (-5.8 days, Conclusion: Switching between mAbs could be an effective strategy for some CM and HFEM patients who fail initial mAb therapy, rescuing approximately one-third of non-responders. The therapeutic benefit seems to be greater when the second antibody targets a different mechanism of action. These real-world findings support the use of individualized switching strategies in refractory migraine management.
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.