Buse DC, Manack AN, Serrano D, et al. Headache impact of chronic and episodic migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study. Headache. 2012;52:3–17.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chowdhury S, Dave T. Novel oral CGRP receptor antagonist atogepant in the prevention of migraine. Discov Craiova Rom. 2023;11: e167.

Article  Google Scholar 

Russo AF, Hay DL. CGRP physiology, pharmacology, and therapeutic targets: migraine and beyond. Physiol Rev. 2023;103:1565–644.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Karsan N, Gosalia H, Goadsby PJ. Molecular mechanisms of migraine: nitric oxide synthase and neuropeptides. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:11993.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021: n71.

Google Scholar 

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:25.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ailani J, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, et al. Atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:695–706. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated that atogepant significantly reduced the mean number of migraine days per month compared to placebo. This study brings new information by introducing atogepant as a promising preventive treatment option for migraine, highlighting its potential to improve the quality of life for migraine sufferers.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, Ailani J, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults: a double-blind, randomised phase 2b/3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19:727–37.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ashina M, Tepper SJ, Reuter U, et al. Once-daily oral atogepant for the long-term preventive treatment of migraine: Findings from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial. Headache. 2023;63:79–88.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lipton RB, Pozo-Rosich P, Blumenfeld AM, et al. Rates of response to atogepant for migraine prophylaxis among adults: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2215499. By analyzing data from a primary trial, the study offers a deeper understanding of the variability in patient responses, identifying factors that may predict better outcomes. This new information is crucial for personalized medicine, as it helps healthcare providers tailor preventive treatments to individual patients' needs and improves the overall management of migraine.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lipton RB, Pozo-Rosich P, Blumenfeld A, et al. Effect of atogepant for preventive migraine treatment on patient-reported outcomes in the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Neurology. 2022;100(8):e764–77.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pozo-Rosich P, Ailani J, Ashina M, et al. Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023;402:775–85. The study's rigorous design and robust results provide compelling evidence for the use of atogepant in a population with a high burden of disease. The new information from this trial expands the potential application of atogepant beyond episodic migraine, offering hope for those suffering from chronic migraine.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schwedt TJ, Lipton RB, Ailani J, et al. Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial. Cephalalgia. 2022;42:3–11. The study found that atogepants' preventive effects are evident within the first month of treatment, and there has been continued improvement over time. This new information is important as it reassures patients and clinicians about the rapid onset of action, encouraging adherence to the treatment regimen and potentially improving long-term outcomes.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Parikh SK, Silberstein SD. Current status of antiepileptic drugs as preventive migraine therapy. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2019;21:16.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Edvinsson L, Linde M. New drugs in migraine treatment and prophylaxis: telcagepant and topiramate. The Lancet. 2010;376:645–55.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Mitsikostas DD, Belesioti I, Arvaniti C, Mitropoulou E, Deligianni C, Kasioti E, Constantinidis T, Dermitzakis M, Vikelis M; Hellenic Headache Society. Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):102.

Dos Santos JBR, Da Silva MRR. Small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the preventive treatment of migraine: A review. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;922:174902. The review synthesizes current knowledge on the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and clinical trial outcomes of these novel treatments. The new information presented in this review highlights the evolving landscape of migraine prevention, emphasizing the potential of CGRP receptor antagonists to address unmet needs in migraine management and offering a detailed comparison of different agents in this class.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Woodhead JL, Siler SQ, Howell BA, et al. Comparing the liver safety profiles of 4 next-generation CGRP receptor antagonists to the hepatotoxic CGRP inhibitor telcagepant using quantitative systems toxicology modeling. Toxicol Sci. 2022;188:108–16. Using quantitative systems toxicology modeling, the study provides a detailed analysis of potential liver toxicity, a critical concern for long-term preventive treatments. The new information from this research reassures clinicians and patients about the relative safety of atogepant and other next-generation CGRP receptor antagonists, supporting their use in clinical practice and highlighting advancements in drug safety profiles.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Min KC, Kraft WK, Bondiskey P, Colón-González F, Liu W, Xu J, Panebianco D, Mixson L, Dockendorf MF, Matthews CZ, Boinpally R. Atogepant is not associated with clinically meaningful alanine aminotransferase elevations in healthy adults. Clin Transl Sci. 2021;14(2):599–605.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar