↓ Skip to main content

Blocking CGRP in migraine patients – a review of pros and cons

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Headache & Pain, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 1,158)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
37 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blocking CGRP in migraine patients – a review of pros and cons
Published in
Journal of Headache & Pain, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s10194-017-0807-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie Deen, Edvige Correnti, Katharina Kamm, Tim Kelderman, Laura Papetti, Eloisa Rubio-Beltrán, Simone Vigneri, Lars Edvinsson, Antoinette Maassen Van Den Brink

Abstract

Migraine is the most prevalent neurological disorder worldwide and it has immense socioeconomic impact. Currently, preventative treatment options for migraine include drugs developed for diseases other than migraine such as hypertension, depression and epilepsy. During the last decade, however, blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a possible mechanism for prevention of migraine attacks. CGRP has been shown to be released during migraine attacks and it may play a causative role in induction of migraine attacks. Here, we review the pros and cons of blocking CGRP in migraine patients. To date, two different classes of drugs blocking CGRP have been developed: small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), and monoclonal antibodies, targeting either CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Several trials have been conducted to test the efficacy and safety of these drugs. In general, a superior efficacy compared to placebo has been shown, especially with regards to the antibodies. In addition, the efficacy is in line with other currently used prophylactic treatments. The drugs have also been well tolerated, except for some of the gepants, which induced a transient increase in transaminases. Thus, blocking CGRP in migraine patients is seemingly both efficient and well tolerated. However, CGRP and its receptor are abundantly present in both the vasculature, and in the peripheral and central nervous system, and are involved in several physiological processes. Therefore, blocking CGRP may pose a risk in subjects with comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases. In addition, long-term effects are still unknown. Evidence from animal studies suggests that blocking CGRP may induce constipation, affect the homeostatic functions of the pituitary hormones or attenuate wound healing. However, these effects have so far not been reported in human studies. In conclusion, this review suggests that, based on current knowledge, the pros of blocking CGRP in migraine patients exceeds the cons.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 265 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Researcher 36 14%
Other 31 12%
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 65 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 29%
Neuroscience 30 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 82 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2020.
All research outputs
#396,570
of 18,667,139 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Headache & Pain
#34
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,036
of 287,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Headache & Pain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,667,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them