Evidence Hub

Associations between good days per month and migraine-related disease impact in the real-world: a post hoc analysis from the REVIEW study of eptinezumab in chronic migraine

Khan FA, Herzog SP, Smith RM, Buse DC, Soni-Brahmbhatt S, Awad SF, Grossman SW, Asher D et al.

The journal of headache and pain, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data from the real-world REVIEW (Real-world EVidence and Insights into Experiences With eptinezumab) study demonstrated that, after starting treatment with eptinezumab, individuals with chronic migraine (CM) experienced double the number of good days per month and high rates of satisfaction with eptinezumab. This post-hoc analysis explored the associations between self-reported changes in good days per month and other health-related outcome measures and the utility of good days per month as a patient-centric measure of the composite impact of migraine and migraine treatment on an individual. METHODS: REVIEW was an observational, multi-site study designed to evaluate real-world experiences of patients treated with eptinezumab. A survey was administered to adults with CM who had completed ≥ 2 treatment cycles with eptinezumab. These post hoc analyses evaluated the impact of eptinezumab treatment on the ability to achieve a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% increase in self-reported good days per month, and the association between these improvements and migraine symptoms, elements of daily living, overall well-being, and brain fog. Results are reported for the subgroups defined by the percentage change in self-reported good days per month after initiating eptinezumab treatment relative to before initiation (≥ 75% increase vs. < 75% and ≥ 50% increase vs. < 50%). RESULTS: Following eptinezumab initiation, ≥ 75% and ≥ 50% increases in good days per month were reported by 59/92 (64%)…

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.

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