ReviewEuropean journal of neurology2026
CGRP-Targeted Therapy in Vestibular Migraine-How Strong Is the Evidence?
Review in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedications for migraine prevention targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have substantially reduced symptom burden in many patients that have failed previous treatment strategies. In contrast, data on treatment response to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecule receptor antagonists (gepants) in patients suffering from vestibular migraine (VM) is scarce and preliminary.
methodsWe discuss the existing literature on VM-prevention using mAbs and gepants with a special focus on biases and limitations such as small sample sizes, retrospective study design, lack of blinding, and patient selection.
resultsStudies identified (n = 8) assessed different mAbs and gepants and generally reported improvement of vestibular symptoms and scores used, but were often of small sample size and lacked blinding and control groups. In a single randomized controlled trial, a significant treatment response to galcanezumab was identified, with a medium to large effect size (ranging between 0.56 and 1.02) for dizzy days reported and on scores applied (dizziness handicap inventory [DHI] and Vestibular Migraine Patient Assessment Tool and Handicap Inventory [VM-PATHI]).
conclusionsData on anti-CGRP treatments for VM remain limited, and efficacy established in headache migraine cannot be straightforwardly extrapolated to VM given differences in underlying pathophysiology. There remains a risk that initial effect estimates may diminish over time, with early outcomes partially inflated by a novelty effect, expectancy, and more nuanced methodological approaches. Targeted treatment options for this common and often debilitating condition are genuinely welcomed, but the current evidence warrants careful interpretation for CGRP-related therapies.
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.