PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Morego Soler, A
AU  - Maestre Fullana, MA
AU  - Cano Collado, V
AU  - Galan Ramos, N
AU  - Trujullano Ruiz, A
AU  - Perello Rossello, F
AU  - Crespi Magro, MM
AU  - Barrientos Ruiz, G
AU  - Amer Alomar, F
AU  - Morey Riera, MA
AU  - Llodra Ortola, V
TI  - 4CPS-354 Efficacy and safety with erenumab and galcanezumab: our experience
AID  - 10.1136/ejhpharm-2021-eahpconf.186
DP  - 2021 Mar 01
TA  - European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
PG  - A91--A91
VI  - 28
IP  - Suppl 1
4099  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/28/Suppl_1/A91.2.short
4100  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/28/Suppl_1/A91.2.full
SO  - Eur J Hosp Pharm2021 Mar 01; 28
AB  - Background and importance Calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) receptor inhibitors are a new group of drugs that have been included for migraine pharmacotherapy and migraine prevention. Erenumab and galcanezumab have notable individual variance and we wanted to explore this effect and also their safety.Aim and objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of the CGRP receptor inhibitors erenumab and galcanezumab.Material and methods In this 6 month observational retrospective study (January to June 2020), based on patient interviews, we obtained demographic parameters, reduced monthly migraine days (RDMM), a response rate of 50% (TR50) and adverse effects during treatment. RDMM are calculated by subtracting the migraine days 4 weeks before starting the treatment from the monthly migraine days between weeks 9 and 12 of treatment. TR50 are patients who achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days in comparison with their initial condition.Results 31 patients were registered with a mean age of 43.9 years (±12.1), 77.4% were women and 22.6% were men. 66.7% (n=22) of patients were treated with erenumab and 33.3% (n=9) with galcanezumab. The RDMM for erenumab was −10.5 days (−17.1; −3.9) and a TR50 of 81.8% (n=18). For galcanezumab, the RDMM was −5.5 days (−8.6; −0.8) and a TR50 of 33.3% (n=3). The most frequent adverse reactions to erenumab were constipation (31.8% (7)) and erythema at the injection site (9.1% (2)); for galcanezumab, it was erythema at the injection site (22.2% (2)).Conclusion and relevance Despite the disparity between the sample sizes of both drugs, in our study erenumab showed greater reduction in migraine days in comparison with patients treated with galcanezumab. Both drugs were safe in all patients, showing mild adverse reactions that did not require intervention.Conflict of interest No conflict of interest