Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42052792›Full record

Observational studyHeadache2026

Effectiveness and acceptability of oral migraine preventives: A prospective, observational study.

Hedda S Riise, Melanie R Simpson, Ketil A Espnes, Erling A Tronvik, Andreas K Husøy, Lise R Øie, Anker Stubberud, Emil Kofoed, Aurora H Alstad, Hedda H Hagen and 4 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Headache, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

14 authors.

Hedda S RiiseNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0009-0001-7810-7882
Melanie R SimpsonDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Ketil A EspnesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Olav's Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Erling A TronvikNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Andreas K HusøyNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Lise R ØieNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Anker StubberudNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0934-9914
Emil KofoedFaculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Aurora H AlstadFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Hedda H HagenDepartment of Neurology and Neurophysiology, St. Olav's Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Maren G LienFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Marie L StavsengFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Ella R SætherDepartment of Neurology and Neurophysiology, St. Olav's Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Tore WergelandNorwegian Centre for Headache Research (NorHead), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

The Research and Innovation funding programme, Stolav's University Hospital 2020/13043-20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the adherence, effectiveness, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of frequently used oral migraine preventive drugs in a real-world setting.

backgroundOral migraine preventives are previously mainly explored in randomized controlled trials, whereas real-world data on treatment outcomes remain limited.

methodsMigriNor was a prospective observational cohort study conducted from May 2021 to June 2024 at St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. The study included participants with migraine who started oral preventive treatment, including candesartan, amitriptyline, metoprolol, or topiramate. Migraine diagnosis, according to the ICHD-3, was verified by a neurologist at inclusion. Participants recorded daily entries in an electronic headache diary during a 4-week baseline period before beginning treatment, followed by a 12-week follow-up period with telephone consultations every 4 weeks. If a change of preventive drug was necessary, participants were allowed to re-enter the study using the same baseline period. Change from baseline in moderate-to-severe headache days was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Drug acceptability outcomes were collected at 12 weeks or at the time of discontinuation.

resultsA total of 254 participants were included, 51.2% of them had chronic migraine and 48.8% had episodic migraine. Of all participants, 6.7% had previous treatment failure of at least three preventive drugs and 18.1% had baseline medication overuse. Candesartan and amitriptyline demonstrated similar reductions in moderate-severe headache days from baseline to weeks 9 to 12 (-2.4 days, 95% confidence interval: [-3.0 to -1.9], p < 0.001 for candesartan, and -2.4 days, 95% confidence interval: [-3.1 to -1.6], p < 0.001 for amitriptyline). The study was unable to detect a significant reduction of moderate-severe headache days from baseline to weeks 9 to 12 for metoprolol and topiramate, but both demonstrated effectiveness for several secondary outcomes. High proportions of participants (22.3% to 46.8%, depending on the drug used) discontinued preventive treatment before 12 weeks. Candesartan had the lowest mean number of adverse drug reactions (1.3), the lowest proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction (77.1%), and high acceptability. Topiramate had the highest mean number of adverse drug reactions (4.2), a large proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction (95.7%), and low acceptability.

conclusionBecause this was an observational study characterized by imbalanced group sizes and absence of randomization, the comparability across drugs was limited. Candesartan and amitriptyline both significantly reduced the number of moderate-severe headache days with candesartan having fewer adverse events and higher acceptability. A significant reduction in moderate-severe headache days was not detected for topiramate and metoprolol, but both demonstrated effectiveness for several other measured outcomes. Topiramate had severe acceptability issues, whereas metoprolol had intermediate acceptability.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersAdministration, OralAdultAmitriptylineBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundsFemaleHumansMaleMetoprololMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTetrazolesTopiramateTreatment OutcomeAmitriptylineBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundscandesartanMetoprololTetrazolesTopiramateamitriptylinecandesartanmetoprololmigraineprophylaxistopiramate

Identifiers

PMID42052792
PMCPMC13282618

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.