Evidence Hub

Increased infection risk in patients on preventive CGRP-targeting therapies- a meta-analysis and clinical effect assessment

Straburzyński M, Kopyt D, Marschollek K, Błaszczyk B, Kuca-Warnawin E, Kurowska W, Misiak B, Peng KP et al.

The journal of headache and pain, 2025

22,518 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway targeting therapies have proven efficacy, safety and tolerability. However, CGRP is also involved in immune responses, and reports of an increased risk of infection have emerged. This meta-analysis aims to verify whether CGRP-targeting therapies show evidence of increasing infection risk.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA-Harms guidelines. A PubMed and Embase search result selection and extraction was performed. Risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, and fixed/random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for incidence of infectious adverse events in the studied populations with subsequent effect size assessment. An additional infectious serious adverse event search was performed in double-blind and open-label studies.

RESULTS: The search and selection process yielded 37 randomized placebo-controlled trials. 22,518 patients (77.3% women) treated with erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, atogepant and rimegepant participated in these studies. Preventive CGRP-targeting therapies appear to increase the infection relative risk (RR = 1.08 [1.01; 1.14], p = 0.016, Number Needed to Harm [NNH] = 287). However, in individual analyses only galcanezumab and eptinezumab showed an increase in risk of infections: galcanezumab at clinically used doses (RR 1.13 [1.02; 1.25], p = 0.024, NNH = 77); eptinezumab at higher doses (RR 1.23 [1.04; 1.45], p = 0.015, NNH = 24). Fremanezumab was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 22,518 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