Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Neurol.

Sec. Headache and Neurogenic Pain

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1611303

Comprehensive Preventive Treatments for Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Migraine and Headache Clinic, Hospital Angeles Lomas, Mexico City, México, Mexico
  • 2Department of Neurology, Hospital Central Dr. Ignacio Morones Prieto, San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
  • 3Department of Neurology, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosi, Mexico
  • 4Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosi, Mexico
  • 5Hospital Medica Sur, Mexico, Mexico
  • 6Christus Muguerza Hospital, Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
  • 7Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Merida Clinic, Yucatán, Mexico
  • 8Epilepsy Clinic, Manuel Velasco Suárez National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico
  • 9Institute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • 10Department of Neurology, General Hospital 450 Durango, Durango, Durango, Mexico
  • 11Faculty of Medicine, Juárez University of the State of Durango, Durango, Durango, Mexico

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Episodic migraine is a prevalent and disabling neurological disorder with a significant impact on quality of life and productivity. Preventive treatment aims to reduce the frequency, intensity, and disability associated with migraine attacks. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of available preventive strategies remain insufficiently addressed in the literature, especially in low-and middle-income countries.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological preventive treatments for episodic migraine through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across Wiley Online, BVS, MEDLINE, and OVID databases through November 2024. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing preventive treatments with placebo or active comparators in adults with episodic migraine. This review was not registered in PROSPERO due to institutional constraints at the time of project initiation. Primary outcomes included changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), acute medication days (AMD), adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity.Results: Thirty-nine RCTs involving over 15,000 patients were included. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants demonstrated the most consistent reduction in MMD (-3.2 to -4.4 days) with favorable tolerability. Traditional agents such as topiramate and propranolol showed modest efficacy with higher AE rates. Combination therapies offered superior MMD reductions (up to -5.1 days) but were associated with increased side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., neuromodulation, acupuncture) showed promising results but lacked standardization. Meta-analysis of allopathic treatments revealed a significant MMD reduction vs placebo (-1.25 days; 95% CI -1.47 to -1.04; p < 0.001).Conclusions: CGRP-targeted therapies and gepants are effective first-line options for episodic migraine prevention. Combinations may enhance efficacy but at the cost of tolerability. Nonpharmacological treatments represent useful adjuncts. These findings support individualized, multimodal preventive strategies, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, interpretation should consider potential publication and language bias, as well as the short follow-up duration in many included trials.

Keywords: episodic migraine, migraine prevention, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, gepants, non-pharmacological therapy, Meta-analysis

Received: 14 Apr 2025; Accepted: 15 Jul 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Velez Jimenez, Martínez Mayorga, Rodriguez Leyva, Figueroa Medina, Reyes Álvarez, Pérez García, Vargas Garcia, San-juan, Pierdant Perez, García Gómez, Morales Morales, Trenado and Martínez Gurrola. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Daniel San-juan, Epilepsy Clinic, Manuel Velasco Suárez National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.