%0 Journal Article
%T Benefit
%A Dimos Mitsikostas
%A Jan Klatt
%A Marie-Jos¨¦e Martel
%A Pamela Vo
%A Shihua Wen
%A Uwe Reuter
%J Cephalalgia
%@ 1468-2982
%D 2019
%R 10.1177/0333102418801579
%X This study evaluated the benefit-risk profile of erenumab relative to other therapies approved for migraine prophylaxis and available in the majority of European countries. Trials were identified via a published systematic literature review updated to December 2017 using MEDLINE. Erenumab¡¯s pivotal trials study reports were also included (NCT02066415, NCT02456740). From these sources,£¿¡Ý£¿50% responder rates and discontinuations due to adverse events were extracted to generate numbers needed to treat and harm and likelihood of being helped or harmed, a quantitative benefit-risk measure. Eleven articles (nine randomized clinical trials) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Low numbers needed to treat (range: 4¨C13) were observed for most treatments, while numbers needed to harm showed substantial differences (erenumab¡¯s higher numbers needed to harm indicating better tolerability). In chronic and episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed for erenumab 70£¿mg were 143 and 167, and 42 and 167 for erenumab 140£¿mg. Likelihoods of being helped or harmed in chronic migraine were 2 and 3 for topiramate (two studies) and 4 for onabotulinumtoxinA. In episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed were 2 for topiramate and 2 for propranolol. While all prophylactic treatments were more likely to help than harm (likelihood of being helped or harmed£¿>£¿1), erenumab showed a likelihood of being helped or harmed of high magnitude, supporting its favorable benefit-risk profile across the entire migraine frequency spectrum, in contrast with other prophylactic treatments
%K Benefit-risk
%K erenumab
%K migraine prophylaxis
%K tolerability
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0333102418801579