What are the differences between injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors, such as erenumab (aimovig), galcanezumab (emgality), and fremanezumab (ajovy), for migraine prevention?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 17, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Comparison of Injectable CGRP Inhibitors for Migraine Prevention

All four injectable CGRP monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) demonstrate comparable efficacy in reducing monthly migraine days, with no evidence that one is superior to another, though they differ mechanistically and in specific safety considerations—particularly erenumab's unique association with hypertension risk. 1, 2

Mechanism of Action Differences

The injectable CGRP inhibitors fall into two mechanistic categories:

  • CGRP ligand-binding antibodies: Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab directly bind to the CGRP peptide itself, preventing it from activating its receptor and reducing free, bioavailable CGRP 1

  • CGRP receptor antagonist: Erenumab uniquely binds to the CGRP receptor rather than the peptide, blocking receptor activation without affecting CGRP levels 1, 3

This mechanistic distinction has clinical implications, particularly regarding cardiovascular safety profiles discussed below.

Efficacy Comparison

Overall Effectiveness

  • No significant differences exist between the three main antibodies in reducing mean monthly headache days or disability scores in head-to-head real-world comparisons 2

  • All CGRP-mAbs reduce migraine frequency by approximately 0.76-0.80 fewer days per month compared to traditional preventives like valproate and topiramate 4, 1

  • Responder rates (≥50% reduction in monthly headache days) reach approximately 80% at 3 months and 78.8% at 6 months across all three agents 5

Specific Efficacy Data by Agent

  • Galcanezumab: Mean reduction of 12.0 monthly migraine days from baseline (p < 0.001) 2

  • Fremanezumab: Mean reduction of 12.3 monthly migraine days from baseline (p < 0.001) 2

  • Erenumab: Mean reduction of 10.8 monthly migraine days from baseline (p < 0.001) 2

Medication Overuse Headache

  • Galcanezumab and erenumab demonstrate more rapid effect in medication overuse headache patients after 3 months compared to fremanezumab (-10.8 and -11.1 vs. -4.0 days; p = 0.029) 2

  • All three agents effectively reduce medication overuse without requiring drug withdrawal, with 80% achieving ≥50% reduction in both headache days and analgesic intake 5

Safety and Tolerability Profile

Common Adverse Events

  • Mild adverse events include injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, constipation, and fatigue across all agents 1, 6

  • Discontinuation rates due to adverse events are generally low, with CGRP-mAbs showing 162 fewer discontinuations per 1000 treated people compared to topiramate 1

Critical Safety Distinction: Erenumab and Hypertension

  • Erenumab carries unique risk for development or worsening of hypertension in post-marketing surveillance, which has not been observed with the CGRP ligand-binding antibodies 1, 3

  • Fremanezumab may be considered the safer cardiovascular option for patients with hypertension concerns, as it has not been associated with blood pressure changes and theoretical vasoconstriction concerns have not materialized clinically 1

Administration Characteristics

Dosing Schedules

  • Monthly subcutaneous injections: Standard for erenumab and galcanezumab 4

  • Monthly or quarterly options: Fremanezumab offers flexibility with both dosing intervals 4

  • Quarterly intravenous infusion: Eptinezumab requires outpatient infusion every 3 months, adding associated care costs 4

Patient Preference Considerations

  • Patients generally prefer oral treatments over injectables with moderate-certainty evidence, though route of administration is as important as effect on migraine frequency 4, 1

  • The injectable route may limit adherence compared to oral alternatives, though simplified dosing schedules (monthly or less frequent) improve compliance 4

Cost Analysis

Pricing Structure

  • Annual costs for all injectable CGRP-mAbs range from $7,071 to $22,790, substantially higher than traditional preventives 4, 1

  • Traditional first-line agents cost dramatically less: metoprolol ($123), propranolol ($393), valproate ($274), venlafaxine ($378), and amitriptyline ($67) annually 4

Value Assessment

  • Erenumab and fremanezumab may have intermediate value compared to no preventive treatment in patients with prior treatment failures (low-certainty evidence) 4

  • Cost considerations heavily influence guideline recommendations, with CGRP-mAbs relegated to second or third-line status primarily due to expense rather than efficacy or safety concerns 4

Clinical Positioning in Treatment Algorithms

Current Guideline Recommendations

The 2025 American College of Physicians guideline positions CGRP-mAbs as second-line therapy, recommending initial trials of β-blockers (metoprolol or propranolol), valproate, venlafaxine, or amitriptyline before CGRP-mAbs, driven primarily by cost differences rather than efficacy 4

The 2021 Nature Reviews Neurology guideline classifies CGRP-mAbs as third-line medications in Europe, with regulatory restrictions limiting use to patients in whom other preventives have failed or are contraindicated 4

Contrasting Position: American Headache Society

The 2024 American Headache Society position statement argues CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered first-line options without requiring prior failure of other preventive classes, based on superior evidence for efficacy, tolerability, and safety compared to traditional preventives 7

This represents a significant divergence in expert opinion, with the American Headache Society prioritizing the strength of evidence and migraine-specific mechanism over cost considerations 7

Assessment Timeline

  • Efficacy should be assessed after 3-6 months for CGRP monoclonal antibodies, as therapeutic benefits may not be immediately apparent 4

  • Treatment can be paused after 6-12 months of success to determine if preventive therapy can be discontinued, minimizing unnecessary drug exposure 4

Key Clinical Pitfalls

  • Do not assume failure of one CGRP-mAb predicts failure of another, as individual patient responses may vary despite similar class efficacy 4

  • Do not overlook erenumab's hypertension risk in patients with cardiovascular concerns; fremanezumab may be preferable in this population 1

  • Do not prematurely discontinue therapy before the 3-6 month assessment window, as efficacy develops gradually 4

  • Do not ignore medication overuse headache as a barrier to preventive efficacy; CGRP-mAbs effectively address this without requiring withdrawal 5

References

Guideline

Comparative Effectiveness of CGRP Antagonists for Migraine Prevention

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

CGRP Inhibitors and Their Mechanisms

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Research

Overview on effectiveness of erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in reducing medication overuse headache in chronic migraine patients.

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022

Research

Advances in CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies as Migraine Therapy: A Narrative Review.

Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciences, 2023

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.