Michail Vikelis, Dimitrios Rikos, Andreas A Argyriou, Emmanouil V Dermitzakis, Anna P Andreou, Antonio Russo
{"title":"Switching between anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prophylaxis.","authors":"Michail Vikelis, Dimitrios Rikos, Andreas A Argyriou, Emmanouil V Dermitzakis, Anna P Andreou, Antonio Russo","doi":"10.1080/14737175.2025.2461766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>When a first anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody (anti-CGRP mAb) fails, switching to a different anti-CGRP mAb is an option often considered, despite the fact that this approach is not yet systemically studied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We present the findings of a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA recommendations on published studies - of any design - investigating the clinical outcomes after switching for any reason to different anti-CGRP mAbs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search retrieved 76 records, while 19 papers were eventually reviewed. Most studies were retrospective and/or had a small sample size. A significant proportion of participants experienced an improved treatment response after switching between different anti-CGRP mAbs. Specifically, according to prospective studies' results, the median MMDs were reduced by 12.8 days after 6 months of switching, while up to 48% of episodic and 36% of the chronic migraine patients achieved a >50% response rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Switching between different anti-CGRP mAbs may be beneficial, at least for some patients, and should be considered when therapy with a first anti-CGRP mAb fails for any reason. Larger prospective studies, employing standardized protocols for switching or comparative effectiveness trials between mAbs, are anticipated to elucidate this issue further.</p>","PeriodicalId":12190,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2025.2461766","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: When a first anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody (anti-CGRP mAb) fails, switching to a different anti-CGRP mAb is an option often considered, despite the fact that this approach is not yet systemically studied.
Methods: We present the findings of a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA recommendations on published studies - of any design - investigating the clinical outcomes after switching for any reason to different anti-CGRP mAbs.
Results: The literature search retrieved 76 records, while 19 papers were eventually reviewed. Most studies were retrospective and/or had a small sample size. A significant proportion of participants experienced an improved treatment response after switching between different anti-CGRP mAbs. Specifically, according to prospective studies' results, the median MMDs were reduced by 12.8 days after 6 months of switching, while up to 48% of episodic and 36% of the chronic migraine patients achieved a >50% response rate.
Conclusions: Switching between different anti-CGRP mAbs may be beneficial, at least for some patients, and should be considered when therapy with a first anti-CGRP mAb fails for any reason. Larger prospective studies, employing standardized protocols for switching or comparative effectiveness trials between mAbs, are anticipated to elucidate this issue further.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (ISSN 1473-7175) provides expert reviews on the use of drugs and medicines in clinical neurology and neuropsychiatry. Coverage includes disease management, new medicines and drugs in neurology, therapeutic indications, diagnostics, medical treatment guidelines and neurological diseases such as stroke, epilepsy, Alzheimer''s and Parkinson''s.
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Review format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion - a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points