# Treatment Persistence in Migraine Prophylaxis Comparing CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies vs. High-/Low-Evidence Conventional Oral Preventives—A Comparative Real-World Evidence Study of Depersonalized Data of the German Pain e-Registry

## TL;DR

This study compares how long patients stay on different migraine prevention treatments, finding that CGRP monoclonal antibodies are much more persistent than traditional oral medications.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence on treatment persistence and discontinuation reasons for CGRP mAB versus conventional oral migraine preventives.

## Key findings

- CGRP monoclonal antibodies showed 89.4% persistence at six months, significantly higher than oral medications.
- Oral preventives had high discontinuation rates due to adverse drug reactions and insufficient efficacy.
- Tricyclic antidepressants had the steepest early attrition among high-evidence oral preventives.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Real-world persistence of traditional oral migraine preventive medications is low in routine care. Prior large claims-based analyses demonstrated early discontinuation of oral prophylaxis, but such datasets neither included modern preventive options such as monoclonal antibodies (mAB) against calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP), nor were able to capture clinically validated reasons for discontinuation. The primary aim was to compare real-world treatment persistence and discontinuation reasons due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or insufficient efficacy among three preventive therapy classes: subcutaneous CGRP mAB and oral high- (HEVP) and low-evidence preventive medications (LEVP). A secondary aim was to examine persistence patterns of individual substances within the HEVP cohort. Methods: This exploratory observational study used depersonalized real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry (GPeR), a national multicenter clinical registry. Persistence trajectories were evaluated over six months, together with cumulative proportions of ADR-related and inefficacy-related discontinuations. Pairwise comparisons across the three cohorts based on chi-square analyses, odds ratios, relative risks, effect sizes, and numbers needed to harm. Results: At six months, persistence was highest for CGRP monoclonal antibodies at 89.4%, compared with 43.0% for LEVP and 34.0% for HEVP (all p < 0.001). ADR-related discontinuation occurred in 7.0% with CGRP vs. 35.7/44.5% with LEVP/HEVP, and discontinuations due to insufficient efficacy occurred in 3.6% with CGRP vs. 21.3/21.5% with LEVP/HEVP, without influence of sex or migraine frequency. Substance-level analysis within HEVP showed the steepest early attrition for tricyclic antidepressants, followed by beta-blockers, with comparatively more favorable though still suboptimal persistence for topiramate and flunarizine. Conclusions: Real-world treatment persistence is markedly higher with CGRP mAB than with HEVP/LEVP. Oral preventives show high discontinuation rates due to both ADR and insufficient efficacy, indicating substantial limitations in real-world applicability. These findings highlight the clinical relevance of a modern mechanism-based migraine prevention with CGRP mAB.