Evidence Hub

Is achieving higher standards in real-world migraine care feasible with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies preventive therapies?: Insights from the EUREkA cohort

E. Caronna, Rut Mas-de-les-Valls, G. Egeo, M. M. Vázquez, Candela Nieves Castellanos, J. Membrilla, G. Vaghi, J. Rodríguez-Montolío et al.

Cephalalgia, 2026

5,818 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background The International Headache Society has proposed new treatment goals for migraine prevention in real world, as a way to set higher standards of care. This study provides the first assessment of the proportion of individuals achieving them after 6 months of migraine-specific treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). Methods This was a prospective, real-world, European multicenter study, including adults with migraine treated with anti-CGRP MAbs (EUREkA cohort). We assessed the proportions of individuals in each treatment goal category–migraine freedom (no monthly migraine days [MMD]); optimal control (6 MMD)–after 6 months of treatment. We also assessed the proportion of individuals with ≥50% reduction in MMD in the insufficient control group. Results Of the 5818 individuals in the EUREkA cohort, 4963 had 6 months data. Of these, 82.3% (4086/4963) were females and the median age was 48.0 [40.0–55.0] years. At baseline, the median monthly headache days [MHD] and MMD were 20.0 [13.3–28.0] and 15.0 [10.0–20.0], respectively. All participants were classified as having insufficient headache control (>6 MMD) at baseline. At month 6, 6.9% (342/4963) had migraine freedom, 22.9% (1137/4963) optimal control, 24.6% (1223/4963) modest control and 45.6% (2261/4963) insufficient control. In the insufficient control group, 27.1% (613/2261) had ≥50% reduction in MMD. Conclusions High standards of care, defined as optimal disease control or even migraine freedom, are…

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: 5,818 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