2631 Early onset of efficacy with Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Evaluate the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of Chronic Migraine (CM). Methods PROGRESS was a phase 3 trial which assessed the efficacy and safety of atogepant in patients with CM. This analysis evaluated the change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) during 4-week intervals, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and the proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first 7 days of treatment. Results 755 participants were included. Baseline MMDs ranged from 18.6 to 19.2. During weeks 1–4 of treatment,mean changes in MMDs were −6.6 for atogepant 30mg BID, −6.2 for atogepant 60mg QD, and −3.7 for placebo (P<0.001). This decrease was maintained during weeks 5–8 (P<0.001). Baseline mean weekly migraine days ranged from 4.6 to 4.8. During each week of the 1–4 weeks, mean reductions in weekly migraine days were greater in both atogepant groups compared with placebo (P≤0.009). During the baseline period, daily rates of participants reporting a migraine day ranged from 66.3% to 68.4%. On the first day after treatment initiation, atogepant participants were less likely to have a migraine than placebo (P≤0.03). TEAEs were reported by 56.4–63.2% participants taking atogepant, compared with 49.4% participants taking placebo. The most common TEAEs for atogepant were constipation (10.0–10.9%) and nausea (7.8–9.6%). Conclusion Atogepant demonstrated early and sustained reduction in migraine days. Results showed a statistically significant effect as early as the first full day after study drug initiation. Atogepant was safe and well tolerated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".