Glad to have wider studies.

Key Points
• Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Conclusions/Relevance: “This study will provide evidence to health professionals on the efficacy and safety of different monoclonal antibodies against CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] on the outcomes studied.”
• Spanish researchers suggest a protocol to compare the effects and safety profile of different monoclonal antibodies in migraine patients.
• “By performing a real-world metanalysis, we can analyze the effect of monoclonal antibodies against CGRP in a larger population and therefore draw more robust conclusions,” they wrote. “Furthermore, network metanalysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments are compared, using both direct comparisons of interventions within RCTs and indirect comparisons between trials based on a common comparator.”
• A comprehensive network meta analysis will result in therapeutic decision-making regarding treatment with monoclonal antibodies in migraine patients. The authors aim to synthesize all the available randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence to establish differences.
• Real-world studies can raise red flags or provide new data on monoclonal antibodies vs CGRP that are not apparent based on the results of randomized controlled trials.
• The investigators pointed to low rates of immunogenicity and few adverse events based on emerging research. They noted that constipation can be an issue related to the use of monoclonal antibodies against CGRP.
• They plan to assess the effect of erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab on monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), headache impact test (HIT-6) and triptan days of use (TriD).
• “Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP are, indeed, of added value for migraine prevention,” they wrote