A 3-year follow-up study of outcomes associated with patterns of traditional acute and preventive migraine treatment: An administrative claims-based cohort study in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on long-term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010-December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011-December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added-on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT-persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine-specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow-up).

RESULTS

During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3-year follow-up, migraine-specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non-persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added-on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non-persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3-7 months).

CONCLUSION

Migraine-specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non-persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience.

METHODS

Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose.

RESULTS

In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Functionality, satisfaction, and global impression of change with ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in triptan insufficient responders: a post hoc analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II randomized trials

Background

Triptans are the first-line option for the acute treatment of migraine attacks; however, triptans are contraindicated in people with certain underlying cardiovascular risk factors and are associated with inadequate efficacy or poor tolerability in some individuals. Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ACHIEVE trials examined the impact of ubrogepant on the Functional Disability Scale (FDS), satisfaction with medication, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in participants who were self-reported triptan insufficient responders (TIRs), defined as those who are unable to take triptans due to contraindications, tolerability issues, or insufficient efficacy. Responder definitions for the FDS, satisfaction measures, and PGIC were based on qualitative interpretation of the respective response options for the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 451 (25%) participants were TIRs, with most (80%) reporting insufficient efficacy with triptan use. A significantly higher proportion of TIRs treated with ubrogepant vs placebo reported being able to function normally from 2 to 8 h post dose (P < 0.05). Notably, significance was demonstrated at the time of the primary outcome assessments (2 h post dose), where rates of normal function were 38% for ubrogepant vs 29% for placebo (P = 0.048). A greater proportion of TIRs in the ubrogepant arm vs the placebo arm were satisfied with treatment at 2 (33% vs 21%, P = 0.006) and 24 h (58% vs 28%, P < 0.001) and indicated that their migraine improved at 2 h vs placebo (30% vs 18%, P = 0.006). Results were generally similar in the insufficient efficacy subpopulation of TIRs as in the overall TIRs group. Ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in TIRs, with no new safety signals identified.

Conclusions

In people with migraine who are TIRs, individuals treated with ubrogepant had favorable 2-h outcomes, as measured by the FDS, satisfaction with medication, and PGIC, compared with placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), registered July 11, 2016; NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), registered August 16, 2016.

The burden of medication overuse headache and patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

A synthesis of real-world discontinuation and switching patterns among triptan users and rates of acute medication use among patients with medication overuse headache (MOH) is needed to better understand the burden among patients with migraine. The study objectives were to: (1) synthesize rates of switching and discontinuation from triptans; (2) characterize acute medication use among patients with MOH; and (3) describe the associated burden.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted, under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review guidelines, using MEDLINE/EMBASE from database inception to July 2019. The search strategy targeted studies of adults with migraine, and included terms related to migraine and its treatment. Continuous variables were summarized using means, standard deviations, and ranges. Dichotomous and categorical variables were summarized using the number and proportion of individuals.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included; seven describing patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users, and 13 characterizing triptan overuse among patients with MOH. High rates of switching to non-specific acute medications and low two-year retention rates were reported; among US samples switching to opioids at the first refill (18.2%) or after 1-year (15.5%) was frequent. Compared to persistent use of triptans, switchers experienced greater headache related impact and either no improvement or increased headache-related disability. Rates of medication overuse by agent among patients with MOH varied greatly across the included studies, and only one study described factors associated with the risk of MOH (e.g. duration of medication overuse). Medication agent, increased headache frequency (p = .008), and increased disability (p = .045) were associated with unsuccessful withdrawal; patients overusing triptans were more successful at withdrawal than those overusing opioids or combination analgesics (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence summarized here highlights that rates of WCS are low and many patients turn to other acute medication at their first refill. Patients may experience no improvement in disability when switching from one triptan agent to another, or experience increasing disability and/or increasing migraine frequency when turning to traditional acute treatment for migraine. Variability in health care settings, patient severity, and study design contributed to heterogeneity across the synthesis.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom.

RESULTS

Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Characterization of Acute Prescription Migraine Medication Use: Results From the CaMEO Study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize self-reported use of acute prescription medication for migraine in a sample representing the US population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study. The CaMEO Study is an Internet-based cross-sectional longitudinal survey administered between September 17, 2012, and November 19, 2013. Demographic characteristics, migraine-related disability, symptom severity, quality of life, and psychiatric comorbidity profiles were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 13,624 respondents were analyzed, including 3121 (22.9%) self-reported current users of acute prescription medication for migraine, 1719 (12.6%) previous/discontinued users, and 8784 (64.5%) who had never used acute prescription medication for migraine. Mean ± SD monthly headache frequency was 7.3±7.1 days for current users, 5.6±6.6 days for those who discontinued, and 3.9±4.9 days for respondents who never used acute prescription medication for migraine. Current users experienced the highest degree of migraine-related disability based on Migraine Disability Assessment scores and the highest levels of migraine symptom severity based on Migraine Symptom Severity Scale scores. Current users also had the highest scores on the depression and anxiety questionnaires. The most commonly reported prescription medications used or "kept on hand" by current users were triptans (47.2%; 1474 of 3121), opioids (37.3%; 1164 of 3121), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (31.9%; 997 of 3121), and barbiturates (12.8%; 399 of 3121), with many people reporting more than 1 medication.

CONCLUSION

Despite reporting moderate to severe migraine-related disability and impairment, many people with migraine have never used acute prescription migraine medication. The burden related to migraine is great, especially among individuals currently using acute prescription medication for migraine.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with migraine with potentially adequate and insufficient triptan response

Background

Triptans are the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine; however, not all triptan users experience adequate response. Information on real-world resource use and costs associated with triptan insufficient response are limited.

Methods

A retrospective claims analysis using US commercial health plan data between 2012 and 2015 assessed healthcare resource use and costs in adults with a migraine diagnosis newly initiating triptans. Patients who either did not refill triptans but used other non-triptan medications or refilled triptans but also filled non-triptan medications over a 24-month follow-up period were designated as potential triptan insufficient responders. Patients who continued filling only triptans (i.e. triptan-only continuers) were designated as potential adequate responders. All-cause and migraine-related resource use and total (medical and pharmacy) costs over months 1–12 and months 13–24 were compared between triptan-only continuers and potential triptan insufficient responders.

Results

Among 10,509 new triptan users, 4371 (41%) were triptan-only continuers, 3102 (30%) were potential triptan insufficient responders, and 3036 (29%) did not refill their index triptan or fill non-triptan medications over 24 months’ follow-up. Opioids were the most commonly used non-triptan treatment (68%) among potential triptan insufficient responders over 24 months of follow-up. Adjusted mean all-cause and migraine-related total costs were $5449 and $2905 higher, respectively, among potential triptan insufficient responders versus triptan-only continuers over the first 12 months.

Conclusions

In a US commercial health plan, almost one-third of new triptan users were potential triptan insufficient responders and the majority filled opioid prescriptions. Potential triptan insufficient responder patients had significantly higher all-cause and migraine-related healthcare utilization and costs than triptan-only continuers.

Treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with major headache disorders: A retrospective claims analysis

Objective:

To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and health care costs among patients diagnosed with major headache disorders overall and by type (tension-type headache [TTH], migraine, cluster headache [CH], or >1 primary headache type), and secondarily to evaluate drug treatment patterns among triptan initiators with a major headache diagnosis.

Methods:

Using US claims data from January 2012 through December 2017, we identified adults with evidence of a major headache disorder: TTH, migraine, or CH; the first diagnosis date was deemed the index date. To evaluate triptan use specifically, patients who initiated triptans were identified; the first triptan claim date was deemed the index date. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns (concomitant treatments, adherence, number of fills), and annual health care costs data were obtained.

Results:

Of the 418,779 patients diagnosed with major headache disorders, the following 4 cohorts were created: TTH (8%), migraine (87%), CH (1%), and >1 primary headache type (4%). The majority used analgesic (54–73%) and psychotropic (57–81%) drugs, primarily opioids (36–53%). Headache-related costs accounted for one-fifth of all-cause costs. Of the 229,946 patients who initiated triptans, the following 7 study cohorts were analyzed: sumatriptan (68%), rizatriptan (21%), eletriptan (5%), zolmitriptan (3%), naratriptan (2%), frovatriptan (1%), and almotriptan (<1%). The major concomitant analgesic medication classes were opioids (41%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (34%).

Conclusion:

The primary headache disorder treatment paradigm is complex, with significant variability. Predominant concomitant use of opioids and switching to opioids is of concern, necessitating solutions to minimize opioid use. Switching to non-oral/fast-acting or targeted preventive therapies should be considered.

Acute treatment patterns in patients with migraine newly initiating a triptan

Background

Triptans are the most commonly used acute treatment for migraine. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns following an initial triptan prescription to understand refill rates and use of non-triptan medications for the acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

Commercially-insured adult patients over 18 years of age with a triptan prescription between 1/1/2013 to 31/12/2013 were identified from the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database, with date of the first triptan fill designated as index date. Inclusion was limited to those with no fills for a triptan in the 12 months prior to index date (i.e. new users or initiators of triptans) and continuous enrollment in the 12 months pre- and 24 months post-index date. Fills for index triptan, non-index triptan, and other acute treatments for migraine were assessed for up to 24 months post-index.

Results

Among 10,509 patients, 50.8% did not refill the initial triptan within 12 months and 43.6% did not refill within 24 months. In the 12 months post-index, 90.5% of patients used only one type of triptan, 8.4% used two different triptans, and 1.0% used three or more triptans. Among patients with and without a triptan refill, use of opioids (39% vs. 42%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (22% vs. 22%), and butalbital-containing products (9% vs. 10%) were similar.

Conclusion

More than half of those who newly initiated a triptan did not refill their initial prescription, and less than 1 in 10 used two or more triptans within 12 months. High rates of non-triptan acute medication use were found over 12 and 24 months of follow-up, most commonly opioids.

Discontinuation of Acute Prescription Medication for Migraine: Results From the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study

OBJECTIVE

This analysis assessed migraine-related burden and treatment decisions in Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study survey respondents who stopped taking acute prescription medications for migraine.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common yet underdiagnosed and undertreated neurological disease often associated with significant disability. Acute prescription medications are underused, in part because patients discontinue treatment. Rates and reasons for discontinuing acute prescription medications require exploration.

METHODS

The CaMEO Study is a longitudinal, Internet-based survey that identified and followed people who met modified ICHD-3 migraine criteria. For this analysis, eligible respondents had used acute prescription medication for migraine in the past but no longer used or kept these treatments on hand (discontinued users). Respondents who reported discontinuing acute prescription treatment answered questions about length of time since last use and reasons for stopping. Reasons for discontinuing were thematically summarized. Monthly headache day frequency, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression screener, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item screener, and the 12-item Allodynia Symptom Checklist were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 13,624 respondents with migraine, 4840 (35.5%) had ever used acute prescription medications and 1719 (35.5%) of those were discontinued users. Discontinued users had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (14) years, and 1348/1719 (78.4%) were female. Monthly headache frequency of 0-4 days was reported by 1073/1719 (62.4%) of respondents, 5-9 days by 322/1719 (18.7%), 10-14 days by 135/1719 (7.9%), and ≥15 days by 189/1719 (11.0%). Two-thirds (1160/1719 [67.5%]) of discontinued users reported a receiving migraine (or chronic migraine) diagnosis from a doctor or other health professional in the past. Although all had spoken to a doctor about their headaches, 1504/1719 (87.5%) had stopped having their headaches managed or treated by a doctor for at least 12 months. Only 1 in 5 discontinued users reported being able to work or function normally with a headache, and 717/1719 (41.7%) had moderate to severe disability (MIDAS). Among the most commonly reported reasons for prescription medication discontinuation were switching to non-prescription pain medication (782/1719 [45.5%]), as well as concerns about prescription medication efficacy (484/1719 [28.2%]) and tolerability (428/1719 [24.9%]). Nearly half of respondents who reported either efficacy or tolerability concerns had moderate to severe disability.

CONCLUSIONS

People with migraine who discontinue acute prescription medication have a high level of unmet treatment need. The majority cannot work or function normally with headaches, with 646/1719 (37.6%) of discontinued users reporting 5 or more headache days per month.

Migraine Care Challenges and Strategies in US Uninsured and Underinsured Adults: A Narrative Review, Part 2

OBJECTIVE

To review the challenges and potential solutions in treatment options for quality migraine care in adult patients who are under or uninsured.

BACKGROUND

The Affordable Care Act has improved access to health care for many; however, those who are underserved continue to face treatment disparities and have inadequate access to appropriate migraine management.

METHODS

This manuscript is the second of a 2-part narrative review which was performed after a series of discussions within the Underserved Populations in Headache Medicine Special Interest Section meetings of the American Headache Society. Literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning conceptual boundaries and a broad overview of the subject matter. Published guidelines, state-specific Medicaid websites, headache quality measurement sets, literature review, and expert opinion were used to tailor suggested treatment options and therapeutic strategies. In this second part of our narrative review, we explored migraine care strategies and considerations for underserved and vulnerable adult populations with migraine.

RESULTS

Although common, migraine remains untreated, particularly among those of low socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status may play an important role in the disease progression, prescription of hazardous medications such as opioids, outcomes, and quality of life of patients with migraine and other headache disorders. There are some evidence-based and guideline supported treatment options available at low cost that include prescription medications and supplements, though approved devices are costly. Resources available online and simple nonpharmacological strategies may be particularly useful in the underserved migraine population.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and discussed migraine treatment barriers that affect underserved populations in the US and summarized practical, cost-effective strategies to surmount them. However, more research is needed to identify the best cost-effective measures for migraine management in underserved and vulnerable patients who are uninsured or underinsured.

Post Hoc Subanalysis of Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Trials Evaluating Diclofenac Potassium for Oral Solution: Impact of Migraine-Associated Nausea and Prior Triptan Use on Efficacy

Objective

To determine whether baseline nausea or prior triptan treatment for migraine impact the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution in treating acute migraine.

Background

A great deal of variability exists in patients' response to migraine medications. Migraine‐associated nausea is common and debilitating and can reduce the effectiveness of oral medications. It may cause patients to delay taking oral medications, which is known to diminish therapeutic outcomes, or to avoid taking them altogether. Gastroparesis, which may be associated with nausea, also inhibits drug absorption, resulting in lower bioavailability. Studies have shown that having nausea at the time of drug administration predicts a poorer response to triptan treatment. It is of interest to understand how effective other migraine medications are in patients with a poor response to triptans.

Methods

Data from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled trials were pooled and post hoc subgroup analyses were performed in patients with and without nausea at baseline, and in patients with and without prior triptan treatment. Efficacy assessments included the percentage of patients who, at 2 hours postdosing, were headache pain‐free (2hPF, primary endpoint), without photophobia, without phonophobia, without nausea, or without a severe degree of disability. A Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test, stratified by analysis center was used to evaluate treatment effect. Effects of nausea or prior triptan use were determined using logistic regression with factors of treatment group, analysis center, nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing, and interaction of treatment group by nausea or prior triptan use at time of dosing.

Results

The modified intent to treat population consisted of 1272 patients, 644 on active drug and 628 on placebo. The majority of patients (85%) were female. At the time of dosing, 783 (62%) patients reported nausea with the treated attack. Prior triptan use was recorded in 570 (45%). For headache pain, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, patients in the active treatment group had a statistically significantly better response than those receiving placebo, regardless of whether they had nausea at baseline. In logistic regression analysis only treatment group predicted a response for these parameters with no detectable group interaction. Baseline nausea, as well as treatment group, predicted whether patients recorded severe disability at 2 hours. While patients in the active treatment group were significantly more likely to be headache pain‐free at 2 hours after dosing, whether or not they had previously been treated with triptan, more triptan‐naïve patients (30%) than triptan‐experienced patients (20%) were headache pain‐free. Interestingly, in the placebo groups, triptan‐naïve patients were also more likely to be PF (14% vs 7%). In the logistic regression analysis, treatment group predicted a headache pain response, triptan use predicted a lack of response, and there was no interaction between the two. Prior triptan use did not predict any of the other outcome measures.

Conclusions

Nausea at the time of dosing does not diminish the effectiveness of diclofenac potassium for oral solution. The rapid absorption profile may enhance the effectiveness in patients with nausea. Prior triptan use predicted poorer headache response at 2 hours postdose, suggesting the possibility of a subset of patients who are more likely to be refractory to both triptans and diclofenac. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is effective in triptan‐naïve patients but no reliable inference can be made from this study as to about how to order treatment.

The pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy of AVP-825: a potential advancement for acute treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Oral triptans have dominated the prescription market for acute treatment of migraine for nearly 25 years. Today, patients often express dissatisfaction with prescribed acute treatment in part because they do not have confidence that the therapy will provide consistent efficacy over time. Major limitations to sustained successful use of oral triptans are their relatively slow onset of meaningful clinical benefit and variable absorption/efficacy due to impaired gastrointestinal function during migraine. AVP-825, a new intranasal delivery system for sumatriptan , may be an effective alternative to oral triptans.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews AVP-825, which deposits low-dose sumatriptan powder deep into the vascular mucosa of the posterior nose, allowing rapid absorption of drug into the systemic circulation. Studies suggest that AVP-825 is a highly effective, well-tolerated acute treatment for episodic migraine.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral triptans are limited in providing effective patient-centered outcomes to migraine patients. Failed or suboptimal abortive treatment of migraine is a major driver of migraine chronification and increases in healthcare costs. AVP-825 is an easy to use, novel, breath-powered intranasal delivery system that provides early onset of efficacy with low systemic drug exposure and few triptan-associated adverse events. AVP-825 will be a welcomed therapeutic tool for the acute treatment of migraine.

Access to Triptans for Acute Episodic Migraine: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to examine factors related to access of triptans among multiple stakeholder groups.

BACKGROUND

Triptans are a cornerstone of pain management for the acute treatment of migraine, but actual utilization of triptans is lower than ideal. Initial and continued access to triptans may be an important clinical issue in the acute treatment of migraines, but factors affecting access at the patient, provider, and health-care system levels have not been comprehensively explored.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, between August 2013 and January 2014. Three participant groups were recruited to the qualitative study: (1) migraineurs who have experience accessing triptans; (2) physicians, including primary care physicians (PCPs) and neurologists, who have prescribed triptans; and (3) pharmacists who have dispensed triptans. Qualitative data were collected through one-on-one, semi-structured telephone interviews. The framework approach was used for data collection and analysis.

RESULTS

Data collected from 19 migraineurs, 6 physicians, and 8 pharmacists were included in the analysis. Study participants discussed various factors that facilitate or hinder access to triptans, which were synthesized into four themes that emerged at the patient, provider, and health-care systems levels: (1) awareness; (2) apathy; (3) advocacy; and (4) affordability. Across all participant groups, awareness of available treatments and coverage policies for those treatments were potential factors relating to timely drug provision. Participants describe apathy in terms of patients' health-seeking behaviors and physicians' lack of concern toward migraine, which were seen as factors that could delay diagnosis and provision of appropriate treatment. Patients engaging in self-advocacy enhanced their ability to seek timely and appropriate provision of triptans at the patient level. At the health-care provider level, pharmacists were identified by patients as advocates for receiving more effective treatments for their migraines; pharmacists also self-identified with the advocate role. The affordability of triptans was a key concern impacting access at the systems level, but coverage limitations (eg, quantity limits) were also described to influence the appropriateness of prescribed migraine treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study fills a gap in knowledge about access to triptans and how this may be impacted by patient, provider, and health-care systems barriers. Overall, our study sheds light on the experiences of prescribing, dispensing, and accessing triptans for migraine treatment, and unveils important information that can impact how patients access these drugs.

A novel intranasal breath-powered delivery system for sumatriptan: a review of technology and clinical application of the investigational product AVP-825 in the treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

AVP-825, formerly 'OptiNose Sumatriptan,' is an investigational Breath-Powered(TM) Bi-Directional(TM) intranasal delivery system containing low-dose sumatriptan (22 mg intranasal powder) that avoids limitations of other types of intranasal administration by taking advantage of unique features of nasal anatomy and physiology.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes intranasal drug delivery for migraine, how the breath-powered technology works, and AVP-825 pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety/tolerability findings. To identify AVP-825 clinical studies, a PubMed/MEDLINE database search was conducted with the terms AVP-825, OptiNose, OptiNose Sumatriptan, Breath-Powered Nasal Delivery or sumatriptan powder. Of 20 articles, 5 clinical studies were identified, including the head-to-head comparative COMPASS trial (AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan) and two placebo-controlled studies.

EXPERT OPINION

AVP-825 has faster sumatriptan absorption versus oral tablets or traditional liquid nasal spray. In Phase II/III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 produced early and sustained efficacy with minimal triptan-related adverse effects. In COMPASS, AVP-825 produced earlier reduction of migraine pain intensity and migraine-associated symptoms than 100 mg oral sumatriptan, and higher early rates of pain relief and pain freedom, similar sustained efficacy, and fewer atypical sensations. AVP-825 has the potential to provide migraine patients with improved intranasal administration of sumatriptan that may enhance efficacy and tolerability.

Treatment adherence among new triptan users: a 2-year cohort study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The persistence of triptan use among newly prescribed users is low in the United States and European countries. However, triptan refill patterns in Asian primary care practices have not been well described.

METHODS

Data from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan were used to conduct a retrospective cohort analysis from 2005 to 2008. All participants were followed for 2 years after receiving a new triptan prescription. Refill and 2-year retention rates of newly prescribed triptans were calculated, and predictors of the first triptan refill and 2-year retention were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 13,951 participants with a new triptan prescription (99.9% sumatriptan), 67.4% were prescribed by a neurologist, 67.4% were prescribed at least one prophylactic agent for migraine. Of them, 34.3% adhered to the newly prescribed triptan at the first refill, 0.01% switched to another triptan, and 40.9% switched to a non-triptan acute migraine medication. The 2-year retention rate was 4.0%. The frequency of headache-related neurologic visits for 1 year before the index date, first prescription of triptan or other acute medications, first triptan prescription by a neurologist, and prophylactic use were associated with higher first refill rates. The frequency of headache-related neurologic visits 1 year before the index date and first triptan prescription by a neurologist were related to higher 2-year retention rates. Diabetes mellitus and first triptan prescription at a local medical clinic were associated with reduced probability of continued triptan use at the first refill and 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to Western societies, the refill and 2-year retention rates were low in new users of triptans. Frequency of neurologic visits and triptan prescription by a neurologist were significant predictors of adherence.

Utilization of triptans in Sweden; analyses of over the counter and prescription sales

PURPOSE

To enable easier access to triptans, the drug of choice for moderate to severe migraine, some countries have made triptans available without prescription, that is, over the counter (OTC). Concern has been raised about this. The aim of this study was to describe the utilization pattern of triptans in Sweden before and after the OTC switch.

METHODS

Wholesaler and aggregated sales data from all Swedish pharmacies 1991 to 2011 and patient identity data on dispensed prescriptions 2007 and 2011 from the Swedish National Prescribed Drug Register were used to investigate volume and expenditure of triptans. The databases contain complete data for all drugs sold in Sweden or dispensed to all Swedish inhabitants (9.5 million in 2012).

RESULTS

Volumes of triptans have increased to 7.0 million defined daily doses (DDD) on prescriptions and 0.7 million DDDs OTC in 2011. Prescriptions were dispensed to 10.0 and 10.1 per 1000 inhabitants in 2007 and 2011, respectively. Although half of those dispensed triptans in 2007 were not in 2011, the incidence remained stable at 2.8 patients per thousand person-years. In 2011, the 10% of the heaviest users accounted for 44% and 48% of dispensed triptans in women and men, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Triptans OTC and the volumes dispensed on prescription have increased as has the DDD per patient purchasing triptans on prescription. However, the number of patient's dispensed triptans on prescription has remained stable. A concern is that almost half of prescribed triptans are purchased by 10% of the users.

Treatment adherence in patients with headache: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review and critically evaluate the extant research literature pertaining to adherence in youth and adults with headache and to provide recommendations for future research.

BACKGROUND

This article provides the first systematic review of pediatric headache adherence and updates a previous review of treatment adherence in adults with headache.

DESIGN

Systematic review of empirical literature.

METHODS

A literature search with no date restriction was conducted using PubMed and PsycINFO electronic databases and bibliographies of relevant articles.

RESULTS

Adherence rates in adults with headache range considerably from 25% to 94% across treatment, assessment method, and definition of adherence utilized. Methods to assess adherence included retrospective prescription claims data, paper or electronic diaries, follow-up appointment attendance, written and verbal self-report of general adherence, verbal self-report of adherence over a specific amount of time via in person interview or telephone, validated adherence measures, adherence questionnaires without validation, and counselor ratings of homework. Each methodology and assessment tool demonstrated strengths and weaknesses. No studies have systematically examined medication adherence in children with headache, and the few available studies examining adherence to behavioral treatment have documented adherence rates ranging from 52% to 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence research in adults with headache is growing, but studies demonstrate a number of methodological shortcomings. Adherence research in children with headache, and adherence intervention research in both adults and children, is scant. Future research should use objective measures of adherence, consider over-the-counter medications and medication overuse, examine demographic, psychological, and behavioral correlates of adherence, assess adherence to botulinum toxin type A, and examine the efficacy of adherence interventions in individuals with headache.

Barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of migraine: effects of sex, income, and headache features

BACKGROUND

US Headache Consortium Guidelines state that persons with migraine with headache-related disability should receive certain acute treatments including migraine-specific and other medications. However, many eligible individuals do not receive these therapies. Individuals with migraine may experience barriers to receiving minimal appropriate care. We aimed to identify barriers to care in a population sample of individuals with episodic migraine. We assessed barriers at 3 levels: medical consultation, diagnosis, and acute pharmacologic therapy use and assessed the contribution of socioeconomic, demographic, and headache-specific variables to these barriers.

METHODS

We identified 3 steps that were minimally necessary to achieve guideline-defined appropriate acute pharmacologic therapy as: (1) consulting a prescribing health care professional; (2) receiving a migraine diagnosis; and (3) using migraine-specific or other appropriate acute treatments. We used data from the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study sample to identify persons with episodic migraine with unmet treatment needs, defined by a Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) score corresponding to Grade II (mild), III (moderate), or IV (severe) headache-related disability. We determined whether these individuals had consulted a health care professional for headache over the previous year, if they ever received a medical diagnosis of migraine from a health care professional, and whether they were currently using appropriate acute treatment for migraine (ie, a triptan, prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or an isometheptene-containing agent). We analyzed several socioeconomic, demographic, and headache-specific variables to determine if they were related to barriers in any of the 3 defined steps.

RESULTS

Of 775 eligible participants with episodic migraine and headache-related disability, 45.5% (n = 353/775) had consulted health care professional for headache in the preceding year. Among those individuals, 86.7% (n = 306/353) reported receiving a medical diagnosis of migraine. Among the diagnosed consulters, 66.7% (204/306) currently used acute migraine-specific treatments. Only 204 (26.3%) individuals successfully completed all 3 steps. Multivariate logistic regression models revealed that the strongest predictors of current consulting for headache were having health insurance {odds ratio (OR) = 1.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.79)}, high headache-related disability (OR = 1.06 [95% CI, 1.0-1.14] for a 10-point change in MIDAS score), and a high composite migraine symptom severity score (OR = 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.36]). Among consulters, diagnosis was much more likely in women than men (OR = 4.25 [95% CI, 1.61-11.2]) and became increasingly likely with increasing average headache pain severity (OR = 1.44 [95% CI, 1.12-1.87]) and migraine symptom severity score. Among those who were diagnosed, annual household income was the strongest predictor of currently using guideline-defined appropriate acute treatment (OR = 1.44 [95% CI, 1.07-1.93]) followed by a 10-point change in MIDAS score (OR 1.16 [95% CI, 1.02-1.35]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among persons with migraine in need of medical care (MIDAS Grade II or greater), only one quarter traversed the 3 steps we proposed to be necessary to achieving minimally appropriate care (consulting, diagnosis, and treatment/medication use). Health insurance status was an important predictor of consulting. Among consulters, women were far more likely to be diagnosed than men, suggesting that gender bias in diagnosis may be an important barrier for men. There were economic barriers related to use of appropriate prescription medications. Public health efforts should focus on improving consultation rates, particularly in the uninsured and diagnostic rates particularly in males with migraine.

Results of a 2-year retrospective cohort study of newly prescribed triptan users in European nationwide practice databases

Objective: This study was conducted to characterize prescription refill patterns for triptans among European patients with new prescriptions of triptans.

Background: Persistency with prescriptions of triptan monotherapy for migraine headache among newly prescribed users in European primary-care practices has not been well described.

Methods: Using electronic medical databases in the UK ( N = 3618), France ( N = 2051) and Germany ( N = 954), we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis to identify refill patterns over 2 years among migraineurs receiving new prescriptions of triptan monotherapy in 2006.

Results: Of all patients, >33% of migraineurs with new triptan prescriptions received ≥1 refill of their index triptan prescriptions (UK, 44.3%; France, 34.2%; Germany, 37.7%). More than 50% never received index-triptan refill prescriptions (UK, 55.7%; France, 65.8%; Germany, 63.3%). Small proportions of patients (<7.0%) switched to alternative triptans, and even fewer switched to different prescription-medication classes (UK and Germany, 2.3%; France, 4.0%). More than 48% of patients received no further prescriptions for migraine after index prescriptions (UK, 48.5%; France, 54.9%; Germany, 54.7%). After the second year, >83.0% of patients in each country had no further prescriptions for migraine medications, <14.0% remained persistent with index prescriptions, <4.0% switched to other triptans, and <3.0% switched to alternative medication classes.

Conclusions: In migraine patients who received new prescriptions of triptan monotherapy from their primary-care physicians, poor triptan prescription refill frequency was observed in Europe. Although consistent with potential clinical challenges in migraine management, our findings should be interpreted with caution given certain inherent limitations associated with the database study design. Further research is warranted to confirm our findings and to identify reasons for, or predictors of, triptan discontinuation.

Costs associated with outpatient, emergency room and inpatient care for migraine in the USA

Background: Data on the average US costs of an outpatient visit, emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization for migraine are scant, with the most recent available values based on healthcare charges reported from 1994 data.

Methods: We estimated healthcare costs associated with outpatient and ER visits and inpatient hospitalizations related to migraine retrospectively obtained from the 2007 Medstat MarketScan Commercial Claims & Encounters database. Tabulated costs reflected payments from insurers, patients and other sources. All costs were adjusted to 2010 US dollars.

Results: The estimated mean cost (95% CI) for migraine-related care per outpatient visit ( N = 680,946) was $139.88 ($139.35–140.41); per ER visit ( N = 88,128) was $775.09 ($768.10–782.09); and per inpatient hospitalization ( N = 5516) was $7317.07 ($7134.96–7499.17). The most frequently coded procedures at outpatient and ER visits were subcutaneous or intra-muscular injection, and for hospitalizations was computed tomography. Estimated annual US healthcare costs in 2010 for migraine associated with: outpatient visits were $3.2 billion, ER visits were $700 million, and inpatient hospitalizations were $375 million.

Conclusions: Direct healthcare costs associated with patient visits and hospitalizations for migraine headaches have increased since previously published estimates. Further research is needed to understand the current overall healthcare cost burden per patient and within the US population.