Monthly versus quarterly Fremanezumab in real life: a comparison of effectiveness, tolerability, and adherence

Abstract

Background: While clinical trials have shown no differences between monthly and quarterly regimens of fremanezumab, limited real-life data exist for comparison. This study is aimed at comparing treatment regimens in real life.Methods: This observational, multicentre study conducted a retrospective analysis of patients initiating monthly or quarterly fremanezumab. Primary endpoints were the comparison of monthly migraine days' reduction, adverse effects, and treatment discontinuation rates at 3 and 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in headache and medication intake frequencies, response rates, and patient-reported outcomes.Results: One hundred and eleven patients were included, with a median age of 48.5 years, 91% women, and 54.1% with chronic migraine. Sixty-four patients received a monthly regimen and 47 a quarterly. Baseline characteristics were similar. Reductions in monthly migraine days did not differ between treatment regimens (-5 [IQR -9, -1] for monthly versus -6 [IQR -8, -3] for quarterly at 3 months, p = 0.867, and -5 [IQR -10, -2] versus -5.5 [IQR -8.5, -3] at 6 months, p = 0.666, respectively). Adverse effects and discontinuation rates were similar between groups. Secondary endpoints were comparable, except for a higher PGIC scale for the quarterly group at 6 months (6 [IQR 4-6] versus 4 [IQR 2-6], p = 0.007). No differences were observed in the subgroup analysis of episodic or chronic migraine.Conclusions: Monthly and quarterly fremanezumab demonstrated comparable effectiveness, tolerability, and adherence in real life. Quarterly regimen may result in a more favorable global impression of change.