ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A1097 PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION VS PLACEBO IN CHRONIC MIGRAINE: A META ANALYSIS

Abstract Background and aims Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling neurological disorder affecting approximately 1.4–2.2% of the population and imposing substantial personal and healthcare burdens. Preventive treatments demonstrate variable efficacy,. The magnitude and variability of the placebo effect across CM trials have not, to date, been characterized. To evaluate the clinical significance and variability of the placebo effect in CM through a systematic meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in Nested Knowledge, searching PubMed, Ovid, Science Direct and Cochrane through October 2025. Randomized phase III placebo-controlled trials including prophylactic treatment of CM were included. Primary outcomes were Mean Migraine Days (MMDs) and Mean Headache Days (MHDs); secondary outcomes included Migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), 50% reduction of MMDs and reduction in use of Acute medication (AM). Results Of 1,717 screened records, 14 trials met inclusion criteria. Preventive therapies significantly reduced MMDs and MHDs versus placebo from Weeks 4–12 (p<0.05), indicating early and sustained benefits. Placebo alone produced significant reductions (~3 days from baseline; p<0.05). AM use decreased more with treatment (p<0.05). Responder rates were higher with treatment (36.8% vs 21.3%), and MIDAS improved more (18 vs 9 points), though differences were not statistically significant. Safety profiles were comparable. Conclusions Active treatment significantly reduced migraine frequency and AM use, while MIDAS and responder rates showed no significant difference. Placebo yielded clinically meaningful improvements, highlighting its critical role in trial design. Future studies should include placebo arms and closely match procedures to interventions. Conflict of interest Pernelle Guastavino ; nothing to disclose. Michelle Barry; nothing to disclose. Mahmood Mirza; nothing to disclose. Patrick Brouwer; nothing to disclose

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Stroke Journal
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/esj/aakag023.1485
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

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A1097 PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION VS PLACEBO IN CHRONIC MIGRAINE: A META ANALYSIS

Mahmood Mirza, Pernelle Guastavino, Patrick Brouwer, Michelle Barry
European Stroke Journal
Migraine and Headache Studies
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A1097 PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION VS PLACEBO IN CHRONIC MIGRAINE: A META ANALYSIS

Mahmood Mirza, Pernelle Guastavino, Patrick Brouwer, Michelle Barry
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling neurological disorder affecting approximately 1.4–2.2% of the population and imposing substantial personal and healthcare burdens. Preventive treatments demonstrate variable efficacy,. The magnitude and variability of the placebo effect across CM trials have not, to date, been characterized. To evaluate the clinical significance and variability of the placebo effect in CM through a systematic meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in Nested Knowledge, searching PubMed, Ovid, Science Direct and Cochrane through October 2025. Randomized phase III placebo-controlled trials including prophylactic treatment of CM were included. Primary outcomes were Mean Migraine Days (MMDs) and Mean Headache Days (MHDs); secondary outcomes included Migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), 50% reduction of MMDs and reduction in use of Acute medication (AM). Results Of 1,717 screened records, 14 trials met inclusion criteria. Preventive therapies significantly reduced MMDs and MHDs versus placebo from Weeks 4–12 (p<0.05), indicating early and sustained benefits. Placebo alone produced significant reductions (~3 days from baseline; p<0.05). AM use decreased more with treatment (p<0.05). Responder rates were higher with treatment (36.8% vs 21.3%), and MIDAS improved more (18 vs 9 points), though differences were not statistically significant. Safety profiles were comparable. Conclusions Active treatment significantly reduced migraine frequency and AM use, while MIDAS and responder rates showed no significant difference. Placebo yielded clinically meaningful improvements, highlighting its critical role in trial design. Future studies should include placebo arms and closely match procedures to interventions. Conflict of interest Pernelle Guastavino ; nothing to disclose. Michelle Barry; nothing to disclose. Mahmood Mirza; nothing to disclose. Patrick Brouwer; nothing to disclose

European Stroke JournalVol. 11(Supplement_1)
Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
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.

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A1097 PREVENTIVE INTERVENTION VS PLACEBO IN CHRONIC MIGRAINE: A META ANALYSIS — Mahmood Mirza, Pernelle Guastavino, et al. · European Stroke Journal (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS