ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in the Preventive and Therapeutic Treatment of Patients Suffering From Migraine.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Migraine is a prevalent and disabling neurological disorder that significantly impairs quality of life and represents a major public health concern worldwide. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor, has emerged as a mechanism-based preventive therapy for migraine. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six independent RCTs involving 3,403 randomized participants were included in the quantitative synthesis. Outcome-specific denominators varied across analyses because individual trials used different efficacy and safety analysis populations and reported different outcomes. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days after 12 weeks of treatment, while secondary outcomes included changes in monthly migraine days and the incidence of adverse events. Pooled analysis demonstrated that erenumab significantly increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo (RR = 1.660, 95% CI: 1.364-2.020; p < 0.001). Erenumab also produced a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with placebo (MD = -1.51 days/month, 95% CI: -2.03 to -0.99; p < 0.001), although substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 76.4%). Evidence for lower-dose regimens was limited and less consistent across studies, whereas the 70-mg and 140-mg regimens demonstrated significant benefit in the included trials. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the erenumab and placebo groups (RR = 0.968, 95% CI: 0.894-1.048), with low-to-moderate heterogeneity (I² = 33.2%). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in serious adverse events (RR = 0.791, 95% CI: 0.463-1.349; p = 0.389; I² = 0%). These findings suggest that erenumab is effective for migraine prevention and was not associated with a statistically significant increase in adverse or serious adverse events compared with placebo in the included trials. Overall, the available evidence supports erenumab as an effective preventive treatment for patients with episodic or chronic migraine.
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.