Peter Goadsby

Dr. Peter Goadsby


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2017 in Physiological Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby
PHPhilip R. Holland
Philip R. Holland
MMMargarida Martins-Oliveira
Margarida Martins-Oliveira
JHJan Hoffmann
Jan Hoffmann
CSChristoph Schankin
Christoph Schankin
SASimon Akerman
Simon Akerman
Plaguing humans for more than two millennia, manifest on every continent studied, and with more than one billion patients having an attack in any year, migraine stands as the sixth most common cause of disability on the planet. The pathophysiology of migraine has emerged from a historical consideration of the “humors” through mid-20th century distraction of the now defunct Vascular Theory to a clear place as a neurological disorder. It could be said there are three questions: why, how, and when? Why: migraine is largely accepted to be an inherited tendency for the brain to lose control of its inputs. How: the now classical trigeminal durovascular afferent pathway has been explored in laboratory and clinic; interrogated with immunohistochemistry to functional brain imaging to offer a roadmap of the attack. When: migraine attacks emerge due to a disorder of brain sensory processing that itself likely cycles, influenced by genetics and the environment. In the first, premonitory, phase that precedes headache, brain stem and diencephalic systems modulating afferent signals, light-photophobia or sound-phonophobia, begin to dysfunction and eventually to evolve to the pain phase and with time the resolution or postdromal phase. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful bench-based research has led to major classes of therapeutics being identified: triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1Dreceptor agonists; gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists; ditans, 5-HT1Freceptor agonists, CGRP mechanisms monoclonal antibodies; and glurants, mGlu5modulators; with the promise of more to come. Investment in understanding migraine has been very successful and leaves us at a new dawn, able to transform its impact on a global scale, as well as understand fundamental aspects of human biology.

30 November 2017 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby
URUwe Reuter
Uwe Reuter
YHYngve Hallström
Yngve Hallström
GBGregor Broessner
Gregor Broessner
JBJo H. Bonner
Jo H. Bonner
RLRobert A. Lenz
Robert A. Lenz
We tested erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor, for the prevention of episodic migraine.

13 January 2022 in Nature Reviews Disease Primers
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MFMichel D. Ferrari
Michel D. Ferrari
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby
RBRami Burstein
Rami Burstein
TKTobias Kurth
Tobias Kurth
CACenk Ayata
Cenk Ayata
DDDavid W. Dodick
David W. Dodick

20 September 2011 in Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SASimon Akerman
Simon Akerman
PHPhilip R. Holland
Philip R. Holland
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby

11 December 2018 in Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HDHolland C. Detke
Holland C. Detke
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby
SWShufang Wang
Shufang Wang
DFDeborah I. Friedman
Deborah I. Friedman
KSKatherine J. Selzler
Katherine J. Selzler
SASheena K. Aurora
Sheena K. Aurora
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Methods A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase. Results Mean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo −2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg −4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg −4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo. Conclusions Both doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02614261. Classification of evidence This interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.

1 April 2010 in The Lancet Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RLRichard B Lipton
Richard B Lipton
DDDavid W Dodick
David W Dodick
SSStephen D Silberstein
Stephen D Silberstein
JSJoel R Saper
Joel R Saper
SASheena K Aurora
Sheena K Aurora
Peter GoadsbyPeter Goadsby
Peter Goadsby