Switching strategies with CGRP monoclonal antibodies: an observational study in a headache clinic

Background Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder that greatly impacts quality of life and productivity. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have recently improved preventive migraine therapy. However, some patients show limited efficacy, loss of response, or adverse effects, prompting interest in switching between mAbs. Objective The objective of this work is to evaluate the effectiveness of switching between mAbs in chronic migraine/high-frequency episodic migraine (CM/HFEM) patients and to identify potential clinical predictors of response. Methods This single-centre, real-life, prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital headache unit which includes patients with CM or HFEM who switched from one mAb to another without a treatment gap greater than 1 month. Monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly analgesic consumption (MAC), and medication overuse (MO) were recorded 3 months before and at three and 6 months after switching. Subanalyses were performed based on the mechanism of action (anti-ligand vs. anti-receptor), reason for switch (lack or loss of efficacy), and clinical predictors. Results Eighty-five patients (52.2 ± 9.6 years; 87.1% female; 95.3% CM) were included. At 3 months post-switch, reductions were observed in MHDs (−5.8 days, p < 0.001), MMDs (−5.8 days, p < 0.001), MAC (−5.6 days, p < 0.001), and MO (−22.2%, p = 0.001). At 6 months, these improvements persisted. A ≥ 50% response was achieved in 29.4% (25/85) of patients at month 3 and 32.9% (28/85) at month 6. One-third of patients whose switch included a change in mechanism of action responded, while none of those who underwent anti-ligand to anti-ligand switch showed a reduction of MHDs >50%. Both patients with loss and lack of efficacy to the first mAb improved significantly, though early response was more frequent among those with prior loss of efficacy. Obesity and concomitant tension-type headache were associated with poorer early response, while migraine with aura predicted better late response. Conclusion Switching between mAbs could be an effective strategy for some CM and HFEM patients who fail initial mAb therapy, rescuing approximately one-third of non-responders. The therapeutic benefit seems to be greater when the second antibody targets a different mechanism of action. These real-world findings support the use of individualized switching strategies in refractory migraine management.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Neurology
Published
2026-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2026.1799960
Primary Topic
Migraine and Headache Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Switching strategies with CGRP monoclonal antibodies: an observational study in a headache clinic

Marcos Polanco, Vicente González-Quintanilla, Sara Pérez-Pereda, Jorge Madera et al.
Frontiers in Neurology
Migraine and Headache Studies
article

Switching strategies with CGRP monoclonal antibodies: an observational study in a headache clinic

Marcos Polanco, Vicente González-Quintanilla, Sara Pérez-Pereda, Jorge Madera, Gabriel Gárate, Julio Pascual
article en

Abstract

Background Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder that greatly impacts quality of life and productivity. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have recently improved preventive migraine therapy. However, some patients show limited efficacy, loss of response, or adverse effects, prompting interest in switching between mAbs. Objective The objective of this work is to evaluate the effectiveness of switching between mAbs in chronic migraine/high-frequency episodic migraine (CM/HFEM) patients and to identify potential clinical predictors of response. Methods This single-centre, real-life, prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital headache unit which includes patients with CM or HFEM who switched from one mAb to another without a treatment gap greater than 1 month. Monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly analgesic consumption (MAC), and medication overuse (MO) were recorded 3 months before and at three and 6 months after switching. Subanalyses were performed based on the mechanism of action (anti-ligand vs. anti-receptor), reason for switch (lack or loss of efficacy), and clinical predictors. Results Eighty-five patients (52.2 ± 9.6 years; 87.1% female; 95.3% CM) were included. At 3 months post-switch, reductions were observed in MHDs (−5.8 days, p < 0.001), MMDs (−5.8 days, p < 0.001), MAC (−5.6 days, p < 0.001), and MO (−22.2%, p = 0.001). At 6 months, these improvements persisted. A ≥ 50% response was achieved in 29.4% (25/85) of patients at month 3 and 32.9% (28/85) at month 6. One-third of patients whose switch included a change in mechanism of action responded, while none of those who underwent anti-ligand to anti-ligand switch showed a reduction of MHDs >50%. Both patients with loss and lack of efficacy to the first mAb improved significantly, though early response was more frequent among those with prior loss of efficacy. Obesity and concomitant tension-type headache were associated with poorer early response, while migraine with aura predicted better late response. Conclusion Switching between mAbs could be an effective strategy for some CM and HFEM patients who fail initial mAb therapy, rescuing approximately one-third of non-responders. The therapeutic benefit seems to be greater when the second antibody targets a different mechanism of action. These real-world findings support the use of individualized switching strategies in refractory migraine management.

Frontiers in NeurologyVol. 17
Universidad de Cantabria (ES), Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla (ES)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Migraine and Headache Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.