Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery
Download PDF

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in chronic and episodic migraine patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery volume 60, Article number: 60 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The humanized monoclonal antibody galcanezumab is an anti-calcitonin-gene-related-peptide (CGRP) and frequently used for migraine prevention. However, the literature revealed limited data with conflicting results. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in treating patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

Methods

We searched for randomized controlled trials till September 2022 from six databases (Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov registry). Our primary outcomes were the change in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) and adverse events. We extracted the data and analyzed it by RevMan (5.4) software.

Results

Eight studies with 4964 patients were included. Galcanezumab (≥ 120 mg) significantly reduced the MHDs for six months in migraine patients compared to placebo. The monthly risk ratio (RR) ranged from − 2.33 to − 1.62 for episodic migraine and − 2.86 to − 2.44 for chronic migraine. The response rate of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% were higher with galcanezumab groups. The rate ranged from 1.72 to 4.19 for episodic migraine and 1.84 to 2.47 for chronic migraine. It is generally safe except for injection site safety outcomes (erythema, reaction, pruritis, and swelling), the results were significantly higher with galcanezumab groups. It appears dose independent except for injection site reaction, which showed higher with galcanezumab 120 mg only. Furthermore, any adverse events, serious adverse events (SAE) and that led to discontinuation were higher with galcanezumab 240 mg.

Conclusion

Galcanezumab is effective in patients with episodic or chronic migraine after one to six months use. It reduced MHDs and had an effective response rate. Moreover, it is generally safe except for injection site adverse events, and SAE, especially with galcanezumab 240mg.

Introduction

Migraine is one of the worldwide debilitating neurological disorders which affects many aspects of a patient’s lifestyle [1, 2]. According to the US government health survey, in 2018, 40% of US adults had migraine with more than 4.3 million office visits recorded[3]. Patients with chronic and episodic migraine have a poor quality of life and significant psychological disturbance not to mention the increased economic burden [1, 4, 5]; In the US, it costs Over $20 billion every year [6]. Migraine is classified into two types; episodic and chronic migraine. Episodic migraine is diagnosed with up to 14 episodes per month while chronic migraine is diagnosed with 15 or more attacks per month and at least eight of those attacks have migraine-like symptoms [7]. Those headache episodes are characterized by nausea, vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia [7].

Multiple drugs are used for migraine treatment. This includes calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, anticonvulsants, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, antidepressants, and antihypertensives [8,9,10,11]. However, the efficacy of those medications is still low. In addition, their tolerability is considerably leading to the need for new strategies [12]. The calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide generated across the nervous system, especially sensory neurons. This peptide causes transmit pain via trigeminal neuron activation [13, 14]. CGRP is responsible for neurogenic inflammation, vasodilation, and nociceptive modulation, which are involved in migraine pathogenesis [15]. During migraines, the external jugular vein's CGRP increases [16]. Moreover, infusion of CGRP into migraine patients can cause migraine-like episodes [17]. Due to CGRP's crucial role in migraine, monoclonal antibodies targeting it were developed. CGRP receptor antagonists significantly affect the treatment and prevention of migraine and represent a new approach to migraine management [18, 19].

Galcanezumab is a selective humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CGRP functions [20]. Studies reported that galcanezumab is useful and tolerable in migraine patients, and prior failure of prophylactic medication [21, 22]. However, some adverse events were reported in the literature, and the results are still conflicting [23,24,25,26]. Hence, we conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to evaluate the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab for episodic or chronic migraine patients.

Methods

We conducted this study following the guidelines of the Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions [27] and the PRISMA statement [28].

Database search and data collection

We systematically searched and reviewed the literature on the following databases; Embase, SCOPUS, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WoS), and Clinicaltrials.gov till September 2022. The search terms were galcanezumab, LY2951742, migraine and headache.

Eligibility criteria

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared safety and efficacy of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. We excluded non-randomized trials, non-English studies, non-human studies, conference abstracts, and those with no available full text.

Screening and study selection

We used Endnote software to collect the retrieved studies from the database search into a Microsoft Excel sheet. We performed a three-steps screening. This included title and abstract then full-text screening. In addition to, manual screening of the references of the included studies. Each step was done by four independent authors, and the fifth author resolved any conflicts.

Data extraction

Six authors extracted the data based on three main categories; summary of included studies, baseline characteristics of the recruited participants, and outcomes. The summary of the included studies comprised registration number, migraine definition, administration interval, duration of the trial, and primary outcome of each study. The baseline characteristics included study arms, sample size, age, gender, race, BMI (kg/m2), migraine illness duration, MHDs/month, MHDs/month with acute medication use, and prior preventive treatment in the past five years.

Outcomes

The efficacy outcomes included the change of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) at one to six months. Additionally, we assessed chronic and episodic migraine change on monthly MHDs (Months 1–3), ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates, and change in monthly MHDs with acute medication use. The safety outcomes included ≥ 1 adverse, serious adverse event (SAE), adverse event leading to discontinuation, injection site (pain, erythema, reaction, pruritis, swelling) nasopharyngitis, sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infection, neck pain, back pain, and diarrhea.

Quality assessment

The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to assess the included RCTs [29]. It evaluates selection bias, blinding (participants, personnel and outcome assessment), insufficient outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. The final judgment is low, high, or unclear risk of bias. This step was done by four different authors with a fifth author solving any conflict.

Statistical analysis

The review manager software 5.4 was used for meta-analysis. Dichotomous data were described as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). While mean difference (MD) and 95% CI descried continuous data. A random-effects model was used to pool the heterogeneous outcomes. Cochrane's P values and I2 were used to assess each study's heterogeneity. Data were considered heterogeneous when p < 0.1 and I2 > 50%. We did a sensitivity analysis to solve heterogeneity by leaving one out method. We were unable to assess publication bias because all outcomes were reported in less than ten publications. We conducted a subgroup analysis based on the treatment regimen.

Results

Summary of studies selection and general characteristics of included studies

A total of 2,535 studies were retrieved from six different databases; PubMed (n = 280), SCOPUS (n = 514), Cochrane Library (n = 282), WoS (n = 483), Embase (n = 949) and Clinicaltrials.gov (n = 27). After removing duplicates, 1211 studies were eligible for the title and abstract screening. We performed full-text screening for 32 studies, and eight studies [20, 23,24,25,26, 30,31,32] were included in our meta-analysis. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of study search and selection.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Our meta-analysis pooled data from 4964 patients from eight clinical trials. The mean age was 41.5 years, and most of them were females (84%). The mean migraine illness duration was 20 years. The general and baseline characteristics of the included studies and population are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Summary of the included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Results of the quality assessment

Most of the included trials were judged as low risk regarding first six domains. Only the study by Oakes et al. [26] did not report adequate data regarding the randomization and allocation processes; So, it was put at unclear risk of bias. However, all studies may have other bias as they funded by pharmaceutical companies. Figure 2 shows the summary of the quality assessment results.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias summary and graph

Full size image

Analysis of the outcomes

Change of migraine headache days after one month

Episodic migraine

Galcanezumab 120/150 mg was evaluated by seven studies [20, 24,25,26, 30,31,32]. Galcanezumab 120/150 mg significantly reduced MHDs than placebo after one month; MD = -2.13, 95% CI [− 2.75, − 1.52], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous (p = 0.0007, I2 = 74%) and could not be solved by sensitivity analysis. As for galcanezumab 240/300 mg, it was reported by four studies [20, 26, 31, 32]. Galcanezumab 240/300 mg significantly reduced MHDs after one month; MD = − 1.88, 95% CI [− 2.37, − 1.40], p < 0.00001. The analysis was homogeneous; p = 0.25, I2 = 27%. Figure 3

Fig. 3
figure 3

A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after one month

Full size image
Chronic migraine

This outcome was reported by two studies [23, 25]. Galcanezumab 120 mg significantly reduced MHDs after one month; MD = − 2.62, 95% CI [− 3.82, − 1.42], p < 0.0001. The pooled analysis was homogeneous, p = 0.24, I2 = 28%. Figure 3

Change of migraine headache days after two to five months

Galcanezumab 120/150 and 240/300 mg significantly lowered MHDs in episodic migraine patients after two, three, four, and five months compared with the placebo; p < 0.05. Additionally, 120 and 240 mg galcanezumab significantly lowered MHDs in chronic migraine patients after two and three months than placebo; p < 0.05, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7.

Fig. 4
figure 4figure 4

a A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after two months before sensitivity analysis. b A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after two months after sensitivity analysis

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after three months

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after four months

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after five months

Full size image

Change of migraine headache days after six months

This outcome was reported by three studies [20, 31, 32]. Galcanezumab 120 mg significantly decreased MHDs after six months in episodic migraine patients; MD = − 1.99, 95% CI [− 2.53, − 1.44], P < 0.00001. The pooled data was homogeneous; p = 0.3, I2 = 17%. Also, 240 mg galcanezumab significantly decreased MHDs after six months in episodic migraine patients; MD = − 2.28, 95% CI [-3.17, − 1.39], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous p = 0.05, I2 = 67%. Figure 8a Heterogeneity was solved after the exclusion of Sakai et al. [31]; p = 0.77, I2 = 0%. The pooled analysis remained significant; MD = -1.83, 95% CI [− 2.42, − 1.24], p < 0.00001, Figure 8b.

Fig. 8
figure 8

a A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after six months before sensitivity analysis. b A forest plot of the change in the migraine headache days after six months after sensitivity analysis

Full size image

Change in monthly migraine headache days (Months 1–3)

Episodic migraine

This outcome was reported by three studies [24, 25, 30]. Galcanezumab 120/150 mg significantly reduced the monthly MHDs after one to three months; MD = − 1.87, 95% CI [− 2.60, − 1.14], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous p = 0.06, I2 = 64%. Fig S1a This was solved after excluding Dodick et al. [30]; p = 0.24, I2 = 28%. The pooled data remained in favor of galcanezumab; MD = − 1.56, 95% CI [− 2.16, − 0.96], p < 0.00001, Fig. S1b.

Chronic migraine

This outcome was reported by two studies [23, 25]. Galcanezumab 120 mg significantly lowered the monthly MHDs after one to three months of usage; MD = − 2.86, 95%CI [− 4.16, − 1.57], p < 0.0001. The analysis was homogeneous p = 0.22, I2 = 34%, Fig. S1.

Change in monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use

Episodic migraine

Two studies [24, 25] evaluated the 120 mg galcanezumab for 1–3 months. Galcanezumab 120 mg significantly decreased the monthly MHDs with acute medication use after one to three months; MD = -2.25, 95% CI [-3.25, -1.25], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous; p = 0.05, I2 = 74%. Another two studies [20, 31] evaluated the 120 mg galcanezumab after one to six months of usage. It showed a significant reduction; MD = − 2.32, 95% CI [− 3.40, − 1.25], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous; p = 0.02, I2 = 82%. As for galcanezumab 240 mg, two studies [20, 31] reported a significant reduction after one to six months of usage; MD = − 2.51, 95% CI [− 3.10, − 1.20], p < 0.00001. The pooled analysis was heterogeneous; p = 0.02, I2 = 82%. The heterogeneity of this outcome could not be solved by sensitivity analysis, Fig. S2.

Chronic migraine

This outcome was reported by two studies [23, 25]. Galcanezumab 120 mg significantly lowered the number of monthly MHDs with acute medication use after one to three months; MD = -3.09, 95% CI [-4.53, -1.65], p < 0.0001. The data were homogeneous; p = 0.13, I2 = 57%, Fig. S2.

Response rates

Episodic migraine

Compared with placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg significantly increased the 50%, 75%, and 100% response rates of episodic migraine after one to three months (RR = 1.9, 2.65, 4.19) and one to six months (RR = 1.78, 2.02, 2.42), respectively. Additionally, the galcanezumab 240 mg significantly increased the 50%, 75% and 100% response rates of episodic migraine after one to six months (RR = 1.72, 2.04, 2.51), respectively, Fig. S3–S5.

Chronic migraine

Galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg significantly enhanced the 50% and 75% response rates of chronic migraine patients after one to three months than placebo; p < 0.05. In contrast, there were insignificant results with galcanezumab 120 or 240 mg regarding the 100% response rate of chronic migraine patients after one to three months; p > 0.05, Fig. S3–S5.

Safety outcomes

Most of the included trials reported the incidence of adverse events. Regarding injection site outcomes, the results were significantly higher with galcanezumab 120 mg group. This includes erythema; RR = 3.76, 95% CI [1.91, 7.40], reaction; RR = 6.44, 95% CI [2.10, 19.77], pruritis; RR = 26.7, 95% CI [7.27, 97.93], and swelling; RR = 7.17, 95% CI [2.22, 23.17]. Also, these adverse events were higher with the galcanezumab 240 mg group except for injection site reaction, which showed higher with galcanezumab 120 mg only. Any adverse events were noticed higher with galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg groups. Furthermore, serious adverse events and adverse events that led to discontinuation were higher with galcanezumab 240 mg only; RR = 3.12, 95% CI [1.08, 9.04] and RR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.06, 6.35], respectively. The rest of adverse events showed no variation between galcanezumab and placebo groups. Table 3 and Fig. S6–S19.

Table 3 Adverse events summary of patients with episodic migraine
Full size table

Discussion

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab subcutaneous injection in migraine patients. The pooled analysis was built on data from 4964 patients from eight RCTs. Five doses of galcanezumab were evaluated in patients with chronic and episodic migraine. This included 50 mg, 120 mg, 150 mg, 240 mg, and 300 mg. Our pooled analysis showed that different doses of galcanezumab (≥ 120 mg) lowered MHDs after one to six months. Additionally, galcanezumab significantly lowered the monthly episodic and chronic MHDs with acute medication use after one to six months. Galcanezumab also significantly increased the 50%, 75%, and 100% response rates. Regarding safety, galcanezumab showed higher adverse events incidence compared to the placebo. This includes the injection site safety outcomes (erythema, reaction, pruritis, and swelling), any adverse events, SAE, and adverse events that led to discontinuation.

Galcanezumab selectively targets CGRP without binding the CGRP receptor. Targeting CGRP prevents migraine episodes [20, 32]. Moreover, galcanezumab was approved by the FDA for episodic cluster headache prevention. It has been linked to a lower incidence of cluster headache attacks per week [33, 34]. A study by Förderreuther et al. revealed that galcanezumab-treated patients showed a persistent response of up to six months in episodic migraine patients and up to three months in chronic migraine patients [35]. Even after the end of the treatment, its performance remains. Phase III trials revealed that the overall therapeutic benefit of galcanezumab was diminished. However, it did not return to the baseline values [36, 37]. Besides its prolonged action, galcanezumab showed a rapid onset of action. The significant reduction of the MHDs started in the first week, and half of the patients experienced this reduction after one month [38].

Several regimens have been evaluated in the literature, including 50, 120, 150, 240, and 300 mg. Oakes et al. [26] found insignificant difference between galcanezumab 50 mg and placebo regarding MHDs after one, two, and three months. Additionally, they found non-significant results regarding the 120 mg and 240 mg galcanezumab regimens. Concerning the response rate, Detke et al. [23] and Mulleners et al. [25] found insignificant results between galcanezumab 120 mg and placebo regarding the 75% and 100% response rates against chronic migraine at one to three months. Additionally, Detke et al. [23] reported no significant difference between both study arms regarding the 100% response rate of galcanezumab 240 mg at one to three months. Our meta-analysis found that galcanezumab (≥ 120 mg) lowered the episodic and chronic MHDs, and the MHDs with acute medication use after one to six months. Moreover, it significantly increased the 50%, 75%, and 100% response rates.

Our efficacy results concord with the 2020 meta-analysis by Yang et al. [39]. They revealed that galcanezumab (≥ 120 mg) significantly increased the response rates and reduced MHDs compared with placebo. Additionally, galcanezumab 300 mg reduced up to 50% of cluster headache attacks in the third week. However, they differed from ours regarding safety. They reported that upper respiratory infection and injection site pain were the most common adverse events. Also, SAE were increased with galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg. Interestingly, they found that galcanezumab 300 mg did not increase the incidence of adverse and SAE. They differed from ours as they did not discriminate between episodic and chronic migraine and included cluster headache patients.

In their meta-analysis, Abu-Zaid et al. [40] found that 120 and 240 mg galcanezumab decreased the MHDs, MHDs with acute medication use, and severity score. Quality-of-life and disability scores were significantly better with the 240 mg galcanezumab only. The nasopharyngitis and injection-site pain incidence did not significantly differ between both doses of galcanezumab and the placebo group. Unlike the 240 mg dose, the galcanezumab 120 mg showed a higher incidence of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). This meta-analysis did not differentiate between the results of episodic and chronic migraine patients and did not report the results at different time intervals as we did. Galcanezumab is of great benefit for migraine prevention. Gklinos et al. [41] reported that 120 and 240 mg galcanezumab were effective for migraine. Additionally, it was safe with mild to moderate adverse events. Similar findings were reported by Zhao et al. [42].

Masoud et al. [43], in their network meta-analysis of data published before January 2019, compared the efficacy of multiple CGRP receptor blockers in reducing the MHDs. The pooled analysis of MHDs revealed that fremanezumab 900 mg, and erenumab 140 mg exhibited the most significant effects at six, eight, and twelve weeks. Galcanezumab revealed the best benefit across all comparators after six weeks for episodic migraine patients. The most effective doses were 300 mg, 150 mg, 120 mg, 50 mg, and 240 mg ordered from the most effective. In contrast, erenumab 140 mg was the most effective agent for episodic migraine after eight and twelve weeks. Many trials were published after this study, so another network meta-analysis is required to prove the safety and efficacy of CGRP receptor blockers and show the best treatment for migraine patients.

Our study has certain points of strength. We included only RCTs, which represent the highest evidence. Almost all included trials were of low risk of bias regarding most domains. We analyzed data from 4964 patients, a large sample size supporting our pooled effect estimate. We assessed the different doses of galcanezumab at different treatment periods in episodic and chronic migraines. All safety and efficacy outcomes reported in the included studies were evaluated in our study, and nearly all of the included outcomes were homogeneous. Our study had few limitations. The heterogeneity of some outcomes could not be solved by sensitivity analysis. Additionally, the evidence generated regarding some outcomes was based on reports from two or three trials. So, more high-quality trials are needed to support the generalizability of the evidence generated.

Conclusion

Compared with placebo, subcutaneous injection of monoclonal antibody galcanezumab 120 mg, 240 mg, and 150 mg is effective in treating patients with episodic and chronic migraine after one to six months use. It significantly reduced the MHDs and improved the 50%, 75%, and 100% response rates. It is generally safe, however, it showed higher injection site adverse events, and the higher dose (240mg) showed higher adverse events, SAE and that led to discontinuation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CGRP:

Calcitonin gene-related peptide

MHDs:

Migraine headache days

PRISMA:

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

WoS:

Web of Science

SAE:

Serious adverse event

RR:

Risk ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

MD:

Mean difference

URTI:

Upper respiratory tract infection

References

  1. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858.

  2. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(11):877–97.

  3. Burch R, Rizzoli P, Loder E. The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys. Headache. 2021;61(1):60–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Linde M, Gustavsson A, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ, Barré J, Katsarava Z, et al. The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(5):703–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagley CL, Rendas-Baum R, Maglinte GA, Yang M, Varon SF, Lee J, et al. Validating migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire v2.1 in episodic and chronic migraine. Headache. 2012;52(3):409–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Munakata J, Hazard E, Serrano D, Klingman D, Rupnow MF, Tierce J, et al. Economic burden of transformed migraine: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2009;49(4):498–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(1):1–211.

  8. Ueda K, Ye W, Lombard L, Kuga A, Kim Y, Cotton S, et al. Real-world treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes in episodic and chronic migraine in Japan: analysis of data from the Adelphi migraine disease specific programme. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology. 2007;68(5):343–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Evers S, Afra J, Frese A, Goadsby PJ, Linde M, May A, et al. EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine–revised report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16(9):968–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, Dodick DW, Argoff C, Ashman E. Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78(17):1337–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hepp Z, Bloudek LM, Varon SF. Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(1):22–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yuan H, White CS, Silberstein SD. Calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in the treatment of episodic migraine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(5):1121–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goadsby PJ. Bench to bedside advances in the 21st century for primary headache disorders: migraine treatments for migraine patients. Brain. 2016;139(Pt 10):2571–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Villalón CM, Olesen J. The role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and efficacy of CGRP receptor antagonists as acute antimigraine drugs. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;124(3):309–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L. The trigeminovascular system and migraine: studies characterizing cerebrovascular and neuropeptide changes seen in humans and cats. Ann Neurol. 1993;33(1):48–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lassen LH, Haderslev PA, Jacobsen VB, Iversen HK, Sperling B, Olesen J. CGRP may play a causative role in migraine. Cephalalgia. 2002;22(1):54–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Drellia K, Kokoti L, Deligianni CI, Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis. Cephalalgia. 2021;41(7):851–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Overeem LH, Raffaelli B, Mecklenburg J, Kelderman T, Neeb L, Reuter U. Indirect comparison of topiramate and monoclonal antibodies against cgrp or its receptor for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2021;35(8):805–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, Ossipov MH, Kim BK, Yang JY. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(8):1442–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruff DD, Ford JH, Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, Sexson M, Govindan S, Pearlman EM, et al. Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure. Cephalalgia. 2019;39(8):931–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ruff DD, Ford JH, Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, Stauffer VL, Govindan S, Aurora SK, et al. Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure: results from two global randomized clinical trials. Eur J Neurol. 2020;27(4):609–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Detke HC, Goadsby PJ, Wang S, Friedman DI, Selzler KJ, Aurora SK. Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study. Neurology. 2018;91(24):e2211–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu B, Li G, Li X, Wu S, Yu T, Li X, et al. Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PERSIST study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23(1):90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mulleners WM, Kim B-K, Láinez MJA, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P, Wang S, et al. Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(10):814–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oakes TMM, Skljarevski V, Zhang Q, Kielbasa W, Hodsdon ME, Detke HC, et al. Safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: A randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging Phase 2b study. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(6):1015–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane [Internet]. 2022; www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  28. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019.

  30. Dodick DW, Goadsby PJ, Spierings EL, Scherer JC, Sweeney SP, Grayzel DS. Safety and efficacy of LY2951742, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, for the prevention of migraine: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(9):885–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakai F, Ozeki A, Skljarevski V. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine headache in Japanese patients with episodic migraine: a phase 2 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia Reports. 2020;3:2515816320932573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q, Carter JN, Ailani J, Conley RR. Evaluation of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(9):1080–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lamb YNJD. Galcanezumab: first global approval. 2018;78(16):1769–75.

  34. Yuan H, Spare NM, Silberstein SD. Targeting CGRP for the prevention of migraine and cluster headache: a narrative review. Headache. 2019;59:20–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Förderreuther S, Zhang Q, Stauffer VL, Aurora SK, Láinez MJA. Preventive effects of galcanezumab in adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine are persistent: data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN studies. J Headache Pain. 2018;19(1):121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Stauffer VL, Wang S, Voulgaropoulos M, Skljarevski V, Kovacik A, Aurora SK. Effect of galcanezumab following treatment cessation in patients with migraine: results from 2 randomized phase 3 trials. Headache. 2019;59(6):834–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Raffaelli B, Mussetto V, Israel H, Neeb L, Reuter U. Erenumab and galcanezumab in chronic migraine prevention: effects after treatment termination. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, Martinez JM, Ferguson MB, Oakes TM, Zhang Q, et al. Onset of efficacy and duration of response of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: a post-hoc analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(8):939–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yang Y, Wang Z, Gao B, Xuan H, Zhu Y, Chen Z, et al. Different doses of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with migraine and cluster headache: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Abu-Zaid A, AlBatati SK, AlHossan AM, AlMatrody RA, AlGzi A, Al-Sharief RA, et al. Galcanezumab for the management of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Cureus. 2020;12(11): e11621.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gklinos P, Mitsikostas DD. Galcanezumab in migraine prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2020;13:1756286420918088.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhao X, Xu X, Li Q. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2021;268(7):2364–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Masoud AT, Hasan MT, Sayed A, Edward HN, Amer AM, Naga AE, et al. Efficacy of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor blockers in reducing the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs): a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neurol Sci. 2021;427: 117505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

All authors declare that no fund was received.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yossef Hassan AbdelQadir—deceased before submitting the manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assiut, Egypt

    Mohamed Sayed Zaazouee & Mohamed Elshennawy

  2. Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Rokaya Y. Ebrahim

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Balqaʼ Applied University, Salt, Jordan

    Ghaida’a Al-araj

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt

    Ibram Zaki

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt

    Ahmed Saad

  6. Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

    Abdullah Mohamed Farhat

  7. Department of Anesthesia Techniques and Intensive Care, Al-Taff University College, Karbala, Iraq

    Mustafa Hussein Ali

  8. Faculty of Medicine, Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt

    Omar Khaled Fahmy Fawy

  9. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Red Sea University, Port Sudan, Sudan

    Hadi F. Ahmed

  10. Faculty of Medicine, University of Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria

    Ziad Alahmad

  11. Faculty of Pharmacy, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Eman Ayman Nada

  12. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Gaza, Palestine

    Reem I. Abo-Hamra

  13. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ahmed Bostamy Elsnhory

  14. Department of Laboratory Medical Science, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine

    Mohammed Eleyan

  15. Faculty of Pharmacy and Drug Manufacturing, Pharos University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Hazem AbuEl-Enien

  16. Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

    Rasha Abdo Elromely, Yossef Hassan AbdelQadir & Alaa Ahmed Elshanbary

  17. Medical Research Center, Kateb University, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Jaffer Shah

Authors
  1. Mohamed Sayed Zaazouee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rokaya Y. Ebrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghaida’a Al-araj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibram Zaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmed Saad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdullah Mohamed Farhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mustafa Hussein Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohamed Elshennawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Omar Khaled Fahmy Fawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hadi F. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ziad Alahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Eman Ayman Nada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Reem I. Abo-Hamra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ahmed Bostamy Elsnhory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mohammed Eleyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Hazem AbuEl-Enien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Rasha Abdo Elromely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Yossef Hassan AbdelQadir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Jaffer Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Alaa Ahmed Elshanbary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: MSZ and AAE; data collection and screening: RYE, GA, IZ, AS, MHA and ME(Elshennawy); data extraction: OKFF, HFA, ZA, RIA, ABE, and ME (Eleyan); risk of bias: RYE, GA, IZ, HA and RAE; formal analysis: MSZ, ABE, AAE and YHA; writing—original draft: AMF, EAN, AS, MHA, ME(Elshennawy), JS and YHA; writing—review & editing: All authors; project administration: MSZ; supervision: AAE. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved it for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Sayed Zaazouee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaazouee, M.S., Ebrahim, R.Y., Al-araj, G. et al. Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in chronic and episodic migraine patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 60, 60 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00834-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00834-8

Keywords