Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab

A retrospective comparative study was conducted to compare the efficacy of monoclonal antibody drugs against the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine and to establish whether they can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives for this pathology. A total of 21 patients with chr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Raquel Fresquet, Lucia Sopena, Jose Manuel Vinuesa, Aritz Merchan, Lucía Cazorla, Maria Perez, Alberto Frutos, Mercedes Arenere, Maria del Puerto Pardo, Maria de los Ángeles Allende, Tránsito Salvador
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2022-11-01
Series:Medical Sciences Forum
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9992/14/1/54
_version_ 1797609878145990656
author Raquel Fresquet
Lucia Sopena
Jose Manuel Vinuesa
Aritz Merchan
Lucía Cazorla
Maria Perez
Alberto Frutos
Mercedes Arenere
Maria del Puerto Pardo
Maria de los Ángeles Allende
Tránsito Salvador
author_facet Raquel Fresquet
Lucia Sopena
Jose Manuel Vinuesa
Aritz Merchan
Lucía Cazorla
Maria Perez
Alberto Frutos
Mercedes Arenere
Maria del Puerto Pardo
Maria de los Ángeles Allende
Tránsito Salvador
author_sort Raquel Fresquet
collection DOAJ
description A retrospective comparative study was conducted to compare the efficacy of monoclonal antibody drugs against the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine and to establish whether they can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives for this pathology. A total of 21 patients with chronic migraine were treated with Fremanezumab 225 mg/30 days and 24 patients treated with Erenumab 70 mg/30 days for at least 6 months. Data were collected at baseline and at six months using the following scales: Headache Impact Test (HIT), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and a numerical scale of pain intensity (0 (no pain) and 10 (unbearable pain)). Days of migraine per month were recorded. Mean HIT at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 68.6 (62–76) and 54 (36–70) and 66 (42–78) and 53 (9–72), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 6 points (efficacy criteria). Mean MIDAS at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 70 (25–127) and 25 (0–135) and 73.3 (19–150) and 23 (0–68), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 30% (efficacy criteria). Mean pain intensity at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 8.8 (6–10) and 6(5–8) and 8.6 (7–10) and 6 (10–0), respectively. Mean number of migraine days in a month at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab were 16.6 (10–30) and 5.3 (0–11) days and 17 (3–30) and 5.8(–15) days, respectively. In both cases, the reduction was > 50%. It can be concluded that the initial values of the scales are very similar. The initial situation of the patient is not a trigger for the use of one drug or the other. Clinically, there is no difference between the two drugs.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T06:06:26Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b8b8f7e493444103a9f769503980bcac
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2673-9992
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T06:06:26Z
publishDate 2022-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Medical Sciences Forum
spelling doaj.art-b8b8f7e493444103a9f769503980bcac2023-11-17T12:57:35ZengMDPI AGMedical Sciences Forum2673-99922022-11-011415410.3390/ECMC2022-13227Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and FremanezumabRaquel Fresquet0Lucia Sopena1Jose Manuel Vinuesa2Aritz Merchan3Lucía Cazorla4Maria Perez5Alberto Frutos6Mercedes Arenere7Maria del Puerto Pardo8Maria de los Ángeles Allende9Tránsito Salvador10Department of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of pharmacy, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, 50009 Zaragoza, SpainA retrospective comparative study was conducted to compare the efficacy of monoclonal antibody drugs against the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine and to establish whether they can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives for this pathology. A total of 21 patients with chronic migraine were treated with Fremanezumab 225 mg/30 days and 24 patients treated with Erenumab 70 mg/30 days for at least 6 months. Data were collected at baseline and at six months using the following scales: Headache Impact Test (HIT), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and a numerical scale of pain intensity (0 (no pain) and 10 (unbearable pain)). Days of migraine per month were recorded. Mean HIT at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 68.6 (62–76) and 54 (36–70) and 66 (42–78) and 53 (9–72), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 6 points (efficacy criteria). Mean MIDAS at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 70 (25–127) and 25 (0–135) and 73.3 (19–150) and 23 (0–68), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 30% (efficacy criteria). Mean pain intensity at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 8.8 (6–10) and 6(5–8) and 8.6 (7–10) and 6 (10–0), respectively. Mean number of migraine days in a month at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab were 16.6 (10–30) and 5.3 (0–11) days and 17 (3–30) and 5.8(–15) days, respectively. In both cases, the reduction was > 50%. It can be concluded that the initial values of the scales are very similar. The initial situation of the patient is not a trigger for the use of one drug or the other. Clinically, there is no difference between the two drugs.https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9992/14/1/54drugmigraineantibody
spellingShingle Raquel Fresquet
Lucia Sopena
Jose Manuel Vinuesa
Aritz Merchan
Lucía Cazorla
Maria Perez
Alberto Frutos
Mercedes Arenere
Maria del Puerto Pardo
Maria de los Ángeles Allende
Tránsito Salvador
Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
Medical Sciences Forum
drug
migraine
antibody
title Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
title_full Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
title_fullStr Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
title_short Comparative Clinical Efficacy Study between Erenumab and Fremanezumab
title_sort comparative clinical efficacy study between erenumab and fremanezumab
topic drug
migraine
antibody
url https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9992/14/1/54
work_keys_str_mv AT raquelfresquet comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT luciasopena comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT josemanuelvinuesa comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT aritzmerchan comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT luciacazorla comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT mariaperez comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT albertofrutos comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT mercedesarenere comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT mariadelpuertopardo comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT mariadelosangelesallende comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab
AT transitosalvador comparativeclinicalefficacystudybetweenerenumabandfremanezumab