Evidence Hub

Menopause and its impact on the effectiveness of fremanezumab for migraine prophylaxis: post-hoc analysis of a prospective, real-world Greek registry

Argyriou AA, Dermitzakis EV, Xiromerisiou G, Rikos D, Rallis D, Soldatos P, Litsardopoulos P, Andreou AP et al.

Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 2024

89 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This post-hoc analysis of data extracted from a prospective study aimed to explore for the first time if the efficacy of fremanezumab in preventing difficult-to-treat migraine, according to ICHD-III, would differ between pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women.

METHODS: A total of 171 (aged 18-70 years) fremanezumab-treated female migraine patients for six consecutive months were classified to those at pre-menopausal (n = 82) or post-menopausal (n = 89). Monthly headache days (MHD), disability, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes were assessed at baseline and at week 24 post-fremanezumab within subgroups and were then compared between them. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS: In both groups, fremanezumab demonstrated significant reductions in MHDs, reduced disability, and higher QOL scores at week 24 post-treatment, compared to baseline. However, the between-subgroup comparison documented that pre-menopausal women and those at post-menopausal comparably benefited with significant reductions in overall MHDs (p = 0.883). Less disability, according to MIDAS (p = 0.696) and HIT-6 scores (p = 0.912), as well as higher QOL scores at week 24 post-fremanezumab, were also comparably evident in both groups. Safety was excellent across both subgroups.

CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab can be considered a very effective treatment option for preventing migraines in difficult-to-treat women, aged 18-70 years, regardless of their menopausal status.

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: 89 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