Evidence Hub

Superior outcomes of candesartan over topiramate in the treatment of migraine: A comparative cohort study

Annemijn S. J. C. Oosterlee, B. V. D. van der Arend, N. van Veelen, I. de Boer, A. D. de Groot, Benthe Geuns, E. V. van Zwet, N. Pelzer et al.

Cephalalgia, 2026

661 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Candesartan and topiramate are both recommended for migraine prevention, but direct comparative data remain limited. Aim To evaluate and compare the tolerability and effectiveness of candesartan versus topiramate for migraine prevention using systematically collected real-world data. Methods This longitudinal cohort study included patients treated at the Leiden Headache Center (LHC), with data collected using our validated E-headache diary. The 28 days preceding treatment initiation served as the baseline period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants that discontinued candesartan or topiramate within the 6-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included ≥50%-response rate, change in monthly migraine days (MMD), headache days (MHD), acute medication days (MAMD), and HIT-6 from baseline to the last 28-day period with the highest achieved dosage of candesartan (ranging 4–32 mg daily) or topiramate (25–100 mg daily). Patients were assigned a propensity score based on baseline MHD, MMD, HADS, and number of failed preventive treatments. The primary analysis looked at discontinuation rates of candesartan and topiramate by using a Kaplan-Meier curve with Cox regression, adjusting for group differences by including the propensity score as a covariate. Secondary endpoint regressions were adjusted for propensity score and time to reach the highest dosage month. The primary and secondary outcomes were also investigated in a sensitivity analysis by applying…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 661 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free