MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-World Safety and Efficacy of 156 U – 195 U OnabotulinumtoxinA in Adults With Chronic Migraine: Results From the REPOSE Study

2025· other· en· W6939990670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationClinical trialPhases of clinical researchConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The phase 3 PREEMPT clinical trials confirmed the efficacy and safety of 155 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA for individuals with chronic migraine (CM) and is the licensed dose in Canada and Europe. This analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety parameters of 155 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA in participants with CM from the real-world REPOSE study. Methods REPOSE (NCT01686581) was a 2-year, prospective, observational, noninterventional, open-label study that described the real-world use of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults with CM in Europe. Participants received onabotulinumtoxinA approximately every 12 weeks and were monitored for 24 months after starting treatment. Data on participant-estimated mean headache-day frequency in the last month (MHD), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) scores, and adverse events (AEs) were collected at each treatment visit. Participants in the safety analysis population (those who received at least one dose of onabotulinumtoxinA) were stratified into two groups based on the dosage received at four or more treatment visits: 155 U onabotulinumtoxinA and 156 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA groups. Results A total of 641 participants were enrolled at 77 centers. Of those, 218 participants received 155 U ≥ 4 treatment visits, and 77 participants received 156 U–195 U onabotulinumtoxinA ≥ 4 treatment visits. Between-group baseline characteristics were similar. Reductions from baseline in MHD frequency were observed at both doses (156 U – 195 U range, -8.7 to -14.2 MHDs; 155 U range, -8.2 to -11.9 MHDs). Mean change from baseline in MSQ domain scores improved across administration visits for both 155 U onabotulinumtoxinA and 156 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA groups. Treatment with 156 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA was safe and generally well-tolerated with no new safety signals identified. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) were reported in 51/218 in the 155 U group and 10/77 participants in the 156 U – 195 U group; serious adverse drug reactions were 3/218 and 1/77, respectively. The most frequently reported ADR across both dose groups was eyelid ptosis, followed by neck pain, musculoskeletal stiffness. Conclusions These real-world findings of the safety and efficacy of the 155 U – 195 U onabotulinumtoxinA doses are consistent with data from the PREEMPT clinical trials as a treatment option for CM patients. Trial registration NCT01686581. Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. URL of registry: Date of retrospective registration: September 18, 2012. Date of enrolment of first patient: July 23, 2012.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→