Effect of preventive treatment with atogepant on quality of life, daily functioning, and headache impact across the spectrum of migraine: Findings from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We aimed to assess the effects of preventive migraine treatment with atogepant vs. placebo on patient-reported quality of life and functioning. Methods Analyses of patient-reported outcomes from three 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatment with atogepant 60 mg once-daily: ADVANCE (low-frequency episodic migraine [LFEM], 4–8 monthly migraine days [MMDs] and high-frequency episodic migraine [HFEM], 8–14 MMDs), PROGRESS (chronic migraine, CM) and ELEVATE (episodic migraine in those previously failed by two to four classes of oral preventive treatments). Results Least squares mean differences (95% confidence interval (CI)) in change from baseline were greater ( p < 0.05) for atogepant vs. placebo for Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire Role Function–Restrictive domain scores at week 12 (ADVANCE: LFEM 12.0 (95% CI = 6.0–18.0), HFEM 9.9 (95% CI = 3.4–16.4); PROGRESS: 6.2 (95% CI = 2.5–9.8); ELEVATE: 17.7 (95% CI = 13.1–22.3)), for Headache Impact Test-6 total scores at week 12 (ADVANCE: LFEM −4.7 (95% CI = −6.7 to −2.7); HFEM −3.4 (95% CI = −5.5 to −1.2); PROGRESS: −2.8 (95% CI = −4.1 to −1.4); ELEVATE: −6.5 (95% CI = −8.3 to −4.7)) and for Activity Impairment in Migraine–Diary-Performance of Daily Activities scores across 12 weeks (ADVANCE: LFEM −2.3 (95% CI = −3.9 to −0.7), HFEM −4.5 (95% CI = −6.9 to −2.2); PROGRESS: −3.4 (95% CI = −5.3 to −1.5); ELEVATE: −4.7 (95% CI = −6.4 to −3.1)). Conclusions Preventive migraine treatment with atogepant 60 mg once-daily vs. placebo improved measures of migraine-related quality of life and functioning among participants with different headache frequencies and histories of previous treatment failure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (ADVANCE); NCT03855137 (PROGRESS); NCT04740827 (ELEVATE)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".