Galcanezumab in the Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Real-World Studies
- PMID: 37962309
- DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000571
Galcanezumab in the Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Real-World Studies
Abstract
Objectives: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have established the efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand, in the preventive treatment of migraine. The objective was to summarize real-world data evaluating galcanezumab in the preventive treatment of migraine, to complement RCT results with evidence observed in clinical practice.
Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify real-world studies evaluating galcanezumab in the treatment for patients with migraine.
Results: Twenty-five studies were identified; some only evaluated galcanezumab, and others used pooled data from multiple anti-CGRP antibodies. The studies recruited diverse patient populations, including patients who had failed multiple prior preventive therapies. Treatment was associated with significant reductions from baseline in monthly migraine days and monthly headache days by 4.3 to 12.9 and 3.1 to 13.9, respectively. These values were numerically greater than those reported in most galcanezumab RCTs. Significant decreases from baseline were evident within the first month of treatment, and efficacy was maintained throughout the follow-up periods, ranging from 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was also associated with improvements in other efficacy end points, including decreased headache pain intensity, reduction in analgesic use, and improvements in daily functioning and quality of life. Functionality scores, as assessed by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale questionnaire, decreased by 27 to 75 points from baseline at 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was associated with a low discontinuation rate and higher rates of persistence compared with standard migraine preventive treatments.
Conclusions: The results provide complementary data that galcanezumab is effective across the diverse patient populations observed in routine clinical practice.
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: G.D.A., C.B., A.A., and F.T. are full-time employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. C.A. has received honoraria and travel grants from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Abbvie, and Laborest. F.V. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and Teva; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel for Allergan-Abbvie, Angelini, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and Teva; and has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Allergan-Abbvie, Angelini, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva.
References
-
- GBD 2016 Headache Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:954–976.
-
- Ashina M, Katsarava Z, Do TP, et al. Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care. Lancet 2021;397:1485–1495.
-
- Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, et al. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007;68:343–349.
-
- Robbins MS, Lipton RB. The epidemiology of primary headache disorders. Semin Neurol 2010;30:107–119.
-
- Schwedt TJ, Buse DC, Argoff CE, et al. Medication overuse and headache burden: results from the CaMEO study. Neurol Clin Pract 2021;11:216–226.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials