Evidence Hub

Achieving International Headache Society-aspired optimal migraine control in fremanezumab-treated patients: A post-hoc analysis of a real-world, prospective study from the GRASP study group

Argyriou AA, Dermitzakis EV, Rikos D, Chondrogianni M, Foska A, Soldatos P, Mavraki E, Xiromerisiou G et al.

Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2026

114 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether the conventional ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) accurately reflects clinically meaningful benefit compared with IHS-aspired migraine control definitions in difficult-to-treat high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM). Methods In this post-hoc analysis of a prospective, real-world registry, conducted by the Greek Research Alliance for the Study of Headache and Pain (GRASP), 114 HFEM patients who had failed ≥3 preventive therapies and achieved a sustained ≥50% reduction in MMDs with monthly fremanezumab over 24 months, were included. Treatment response (≥50% and ≥75% MMD reduction) and IHS-defined control states (freedom, optimal, modest, insufficient control) were assessed using headache diaries at baseline (T0), month 12 (T1), and month 24 (T2). Secondary outcomes included headache intensity, analgesic use, and migraine-related disability. Results At T1, fremanezumab significantly improved all efficacy and disability outcomes (p < 0.001), with mean MMDs reduced from 11.9 at baseline to 5.1 at T1. While 78.1% achieved ≥50% MMD reduction, only 19.3% reached optimal control (<4 MMDs), highlighting a mismatch between relative response and true disease control. At T2, MMDs further declined to 4.3, while optimal control increased to 29.8% and insufficient control declined to 7.8%. Overall, most patients remained moderately controlled (60.6%) with residual 4–6 MMDs. Non-prior exposure to other anti-CGRP therapies emerged as the only…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 114 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