BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are approved in Europe as preventive treatment of migraine in patients with at least four monthly migraine days. Migraine gives rise to direct healthcare expenditures, but most of the economic burden of migraine is socioeconomic. Evidence on the socioeconomic implications of CGRP-mAbs is, however, limited. There is an increasing interest in supplementing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with real-world evidence (RWE) to aid clinical decision making and inform decision making for migraine management. The objective of this study was to generate RWE on the health economic and socioeconomic implications of administering CGRP-mAbs to patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM), and low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM)).MethodsReal-world data (RWD) on Danish patients with CM, HFEM, and LFEM were collected via two Danish patient organisations and two informal patient networks and used in a tailored economic model. Treatment effects of CGRP-mAbs on health economic and socioeconomic outcomes were estimated using a sub-sample of patients with CM who receive CGRP-mAb treatment.ResultsA total of 362 patients (CM: 199 [55.0%], HFEM: 80 [22.1%], LFEM: 83 [22.9%]) were included in the health economic model (mean age 44.1 ± 11.5, 97.5% female, 16.3% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs), and 303 patients were included in the socioeconomic model (15.2% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs). Health economic savings from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled €1,179 per patient with CM per year on average (HFEM: €264, LFEM: €175). Socioeconomic gains from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled an average gross domestic product (GDP) gain of €13,329 per patient with CM per year (HFEM: €10,449, LFEM: €9,947).ConclusionOur results indicate that CGRP-mAbs have the potential to reduce both health economic expenditures and the socioeconomic burden of migraine. Health economic savings are used as a basis for health technology assessments (HTAs) of the cost-effectiveness of new treatments, which implies that important socioeconomic gains may not be given enough importance in decision making for migraine management.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-023-03302-7.