Migraine-preventive prescription patterns by physician specialty in ambulatory care settings in the United States

Association between clinician specialty and prescription of preventive medication for young adults with migraine: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the prescribing patterns of preventive medications between pediatric and adult neurologists for young adults with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Although preventive medications are effective for adults with migraine, studies in children have failed to demonstrate similar efficacy. As a result, lifestyle modifications and non-pharmacological interventions are often emphasized in children. It is not known whether young adults are prescribed preventive medications at different rates according to whether they are cared for by an adult or pediatric neurologist.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of patients with migraine aged 18-25 years who were seen by a pediatric or adult neurologist at Mass General Brigham Hospital between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was whether the patient received a prescription for any preventive medication during the study period.

RESULTS

Among the 767 included patients, 290 (37.8%) were seen by a pediatric neurologist. Preventive medications were prescribed for 131/290 (45.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.5%, 51.0%) patients seen by a pediatric neurologist and 206/477 (43.2%; 95% CI: 39.0%, 47.7%) patients seen by an adult neurologist (p = 0.591). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, clinician specialty was not associated with preventive medication use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.20, 95% CI: 0.62, 2.31). Female sex (AOR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.66) and number of visits during the study period (AOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.80) were associated with receiving preventive medication.

CONCLUSION

Approximately two fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this proportion did not differ according to clinician specialty. Although these findings suggest that pediatric and adult neurologists provide comparable care, both specialties may be underusing preventive medications in this patient population.

Chinese herbal medicine for migraine management: A hospital-based retrospective analysis of electronic medical records

Background

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease causing significant socioeconomic burden and impaired quality of life. Chinese medicine is commonly used for migraine in China. Clinical trials have generated evidence of the effectiveness of Chinese medicine therapies for migraine. However, little is known about how to use these therapies to treat migraine in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from the electronic medical records (EMRs) of 2,023 migraine patients who attended the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) between July 2018 and July 2020.

Results

More than three-quarters (77.21%) of the patients were female. Most (78.20%) of the patients were aged between 18 and 50 years, 18.49% were aged above 50 years, and the remaining 3.31% were under 18 years. Sleep disorders were the most documented comorbidity occurring in 27.29% of patients, and more common in females (29.77%) than male (18.87%). Fatigue was the most frequently reported trigger of migraine attacks among all patients (9.39%), while menstruation was the most common trigger for female patients (10.24%). Less than a quarter of patients (21.01%) reported a history of taking analgesic medication for their migraine. The median treatment duration reported by the patients was 10 days. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) was the predominant treatment for migraine at the hospital (88.48%), while pharmacotherapies were prescribed to 28.97% of the patients. CHM was prescribed more often as a sole treatment (53.58% of patients) than combined with pharmacotherapies (27.39% of patients). Among patients who reported improvements after taking CHM, the most frequently used herbs were fu ling and chuan xiong, the most frequent patented CHM product was tong tian oral solution, and the main herbal formulae were chuan xiong cha tiao san and yi qi cong ming tang.

Conclusion

CHM formulae, such as chuan xiong cha tiao san and yi qi cong ming tang, patented CHM product tong tian oral solution, and some herbs are potentially effective treatments for migraine. As such, CHM can be used as an alternative to conventional pharmacotherapies for migraine and is worth further evaluation in randomized controlled trials.

Essential components of care in a multidisciplinary headache center: Perspectives from headache neurology specialists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Comprehensive headache care involves numerous specialties and components that have not been well documented or standardized. This study aimed to elicit best practices and characterize important elements of care to be provided in multidisciplinary headache centers.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of headache neurology specialists from across the US, using open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded data were further analyzed using immersion/crystallization techniques for final interpretation.

RESULTS

Mean years providing headache care was 17.7 (SD = 10.6). Twelve of the 13 participants held United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties headache certification. Six described their practice site as providing multidisciplinary headache care. Participants explained most of their patients had seen multiple doctors over many years, and had tried numerous unsuccessful treatments. They noted patients with chronic headache frequently present with comorbidities and become stigmatized. All participants asserted successful care depends on taking time to talk with and listen to patients, gain understanding, and earn trust. All participants believed multidisciplinary care is essential within a comprehensive headache center, along with staffing enough headache specialists, implementing detailed headache intake and follow-up protocols, and providing the newest medications, neuromodulation devices, botulinum toxin injections, monoclonal antibodies, nerve blocks and infusions, and treatment from a health psychologist. Other essential services for a headache center are other behavioral health practitioners providing cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback and pain management; and autonomic neurology, neuropsychology, vestibular audiology, sleep medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise physiology, speech therapy, nutrition, complementary integrative health modalities, and highly trained support staff.

CONCLUSION

While headache neurology specialists form the backbone of headache care, experts interviewed for this study maintained their specialty is just one of many types of care needed to adequately treat patients with chronic headache, and this is best provided in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary center.

Dilemma of migraine diagnosis and management among non-neurologists

Background

Migraine is a common and debilitating disorder however there is a wide gap in its diagnosis and management. Many migraine patients present to non-neurologists, so it is of utmost importance that non neurologists become well oriented with the diagnostic criteria and different lines of management. The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of non-neurologists towards migraine.

Results

About 45% of physicians in our study refer migraine patients to non-neurologists, only 20.96% are aware of both classic and novel treatments, 43% had poor knowledge of migraine symptoms and management, 32.34% recommended using medical tailored programs to increase the awareness of non-neurologists regarding migraine.

Conclusions

There is a wide gap of knowledge concerning migraine among non-neurologists.

Burden of Illness Among People with Migraine and ≥ 4 Monthly Headache Days While Using Acute and/or Preventive Prescription Medications for Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications.

METHODS

In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs.

RESULTS

This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy's, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.

Primary Care Access to an Online Decision Support Tool is Associated With Improvements in Some Aspects of Pediatric Migraine Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether primary care provider (PCP) access to an online decision support tool is associated with a change in evidence-based primary care medical management of pediatric migraine.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, PCPs serving a target community were educated on the availability and use of an online clinical decision support tool that was developed to inform treatment of pediatric migraine. For 9 months before and after implementation of the decision tool, the proportions of children with migraine prescribed evidence-based and contraindicated medications by PCPs in the target region were monitored using electronic medical record query and statistically compared to these same proportions for patients in surrounding (control) regions. Rates of visits to the emergency department for migraine also were tracked pre- and postimplementation as an indirect measure of impact of the decision tool. Provider usage of the decision tool was monitored and summarized using web analytics.

RESULTS

Approximately half (56%) of target region PCPs used the online tool at least once over the project period. Relative to control regions and baseline trends, the proportion of children residing in the target region who were prescribed recommended abortive and preventive medications for treating migraine was statistically significantly higher following implementation of the tool. No significant changes to frequency of emergency care visits for migraine by youth in the target region were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Availability to PCPs of an online decision support tool for pediatric migraine is associated with a modest change in some aspects of evidence-based medical care.

Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a debilitating neurologic disease. People who experience migraine can have substantial disability, impaired functioning and a decreased quality of life (QoL). Expert recommendations suggest that people with frequent migraine attacks or severe impairment related to attacks may benefit from preventive treatment. Despite these recommendations and the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the use of preventive medication, many people who are candidates for preventive therapies do not receive them. Thus, there is still a substantial unmet need for preventive migraine treatment. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Galcanezumab-gnlm (galcanezumab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents binding to its receptor. It is administered as a once-monthly subcutaneous injection. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive overview of the existing short- and long-term efficacy and safety data for galcanezumab in patients with migraine. Data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2 and REGAIN studies show that galcanezumab treatment for 3 or 6 months results in overall reduction in mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with episodic (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) and chronic (REGAIN) migraine. Greater proportions of patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab versus placebo demonstrated a ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response to therapy and reported a lower level of disability and an improvement in functioning and QoL. Similarly, when compared with placebo, greater proportions of patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab demonstrated a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% response and reported improved functioning. A 12-month open-label study demonstrated the continued efficacy of galcanezumab for up to 12 months. In all studies galcanezumab was well tolerated. In conclusion, data from pivotal studies show that galcanezumab may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of patients with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Migraine is a significant contributor to the global burden of disease. Migraine symptoms can lead to substantial disability and can significantly impact an individual’s ability to perform everyday tasks and their overall quality of life. While individuals with infrequent migraine attacks might have success with acute treatments alone, those with more frequent attacks or who have severe migraine-related impairment may require preventive treatment. Although recommendations on the use of preventive treatment exist, only about one-third of individuals who qualify for preventive therapy actually receive it, resulting in a substantial unmet need. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in migraine. Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents receptor binding. In clinical trials of patients with ≥ 4 migraine headache days per month, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with a reduction in the average number of migraine headache days per month. The majority of galcanezumab groups had greater responder rates compared with the placebo groups, and levels of disability and daily functioning were generally improved. Galcanezumab was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being injection site reactions. The results from the clinical trials of galcanezumab suggest that this drug may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of individuals with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study's purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache.

METHODS

Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Science, clinical trial registries, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP were searched through 21 August 2018, for randomized trials in which at least one comparison was a beta-blocker for the prevention of migraine or tension-type headache in adults. The primary outcome, headache frequency per month, was extracted in duplicate and pooled using random effects models.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This study included 108 randomized controlled trials, 50 placebo-controlled and 58 comparative effectiveness trials. Compared to placebo, propranolol reduced episodic migraine headaches by 1.5 headaches/month at 8 weeks (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.65) and was more likely to reduce headaches by 50% (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) found that these outcomes were unlikely to be due to a Type I error. A network analysis suggested that beta-blocker's benefit for episodic migraines may be a class effect. Trials comparing beta-blockers to other interventions were largely single, underpowered trials. Propranolol was comparable to other medications known to be effective including flunarizine, topiramate and valproate. For chronic migraine, propranolol was more likely to reduce headaches by at least 50% (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.3). There was only one trial of beta-blockers for tension-type headache.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that propranolol is better than placebo for episodic migraine headache. Other comparisons were underpowered, rated as low-quality based on only including single trials, making definitive conclusions about comparative effectiveness impossible. There were few trials examining beta-blocker effectiveness for chronic migraine or tension-type headache though there was limited evidence of benefit.

REGISTRATION

Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).

Guideline-based medicine grading on the basis of the guidelines of care for ambulatory atopic dermatitis treatment in the United States

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess the adherence to evidence-based guidelines of care for atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

To characterize AD treatment in the United States, ambulatory visits from the 2006-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were analyzed. For each medication prescribed, a grade was assigned on the basis of the American Academy of Dermatology treatment guidelines for topical and systemic medications. Considering all visit prescriptions, I calculated a composite grade, analogous to the US academic grading system (scores A-F).

RESULTS

I noted prescribing differences across specialty groups. Systemic corticosteroids were more likely to be prescribed by family and general physicians and less likely by pediatricians. Dermatologists were more likely than other specialties to prescribe nonsedating antihistamines, which lack a guideline base supporting their use. Depending upon modeling of care assumptions, all physician specialty visits earned mean guideline-based grades of B or C in their care of AD patients.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical, social, and demographic factors influencing prescribing behavior cannot be completely assessed by using extant data.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study demonstrates that physicians might benefit from reviewing guidelines of care; there might be an educational gap in the implementation of these guidelines.