Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Erenumab versus topiramate: migraine‐related disability, impact and health‐related quality of life
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Erenumab versus topiramate: migraine‐related disability, impact and health‐related quality of life
Do you wish to request the book?
Erenumab versus topiramate: migraine‐related disability, impact and health‐related quality of life
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Erenumab versus topiramate: migraine‐related disability, impact and health‐related quality of life
2024
Overview
Background and purpose HER‐MES was the first head‐to‐head study of erenumab against topiramate (standard of care). This post hoc analysis of the HER‐MES study evaluated the effect of erenumab versus topiramate on patient‐reported outcomes at week 24. Methods Adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine (n = 777) were randomized (1:1) to monthly subcutaneous erenumab (n = 389) or daily oral topiramate (n = 388). Migraine‐related disability, as measured by the Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT‐6) and Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF‐36v2), was analysed in the entire study cohort and true completers. Results In the erenumab group (vs. topiramate), significant improvements were reported in Headache Impact Test 6 total scores (composite populations, −10.88 vs. −7.72; true completers, −11.92 vs. −10.61) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a ≥5‐point reduction from baseline with erenumab (composite populations, 72.2% vs. 53.9%; true completers, 79.64% vs. 71.43%). The adjusted mean change from baseline in the SF‐36v2 score was greater with erenumab for both physical component summary (composite population, 5.48 vs. 3.63; true completers, 5.95 vs. 5.23) and mental component summary (composite populations, 1.00 vs. −1.18; true completers, 1.74 vs. −0.33). A higher proportion of patients on erenumab versus topiramate had a ≥5‐point improvement in SF‐36v2 for the physical component summary (composite populations, 47.7% vs. 37.4%; true completers, 52.1% vs. 48.9%) and mental component summary (composite populations, 25.3% vs. 16.8%; true completers, 27.3% vs. 17.7%). Conclusions This post hoc analysis demonstrated that patients treated with erenumab had significant improvements in headache impact and quality of life as measured by patient‐reported outcomes versus patients treated with topiramate.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subject
/ Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized - administration & dosage
/ Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized - therapeutic use
/ Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists - administration & dosage
/ Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists - pharmacology
/ Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use
/ calcitonin gene‐related peptide
/ erenumab
/ Female
/ Fructose - analogs & derivatives
/ Headache
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Migraine
/ Migraine Disorders - drug therapy
/ Original
/ Patient Reported Outcome Measures
/ Patients
/ Topiramate - administration & dosage
