Development of a claims-based algorithm to identify potentially undiagnosed chronic migraine patients

Treatment patterns and characteristics of headache in patients in Japan: A retrospective cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of health insurance claims data

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to investigate prescription patterns for patients aged over 17 years with headaches in the REZULT database.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study (Study 1) of the proportion of over-prescription of acute medications (≥30 tablets/90 days for triptans, combination non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and multiple types; ≥45 tablets/90 days for single NSAIDs) among patients with headache diagnosed in 2020. We longitudinally studied (Study 2) patients for >2 years from initial headache diagnosis (July 2010 to April 2022). The number of prescribed tablets was counted every 90 days.

RESULTS

In Study 1, headache was diagnosed in 200,055 of 3,638,125 (5.5%) patients: 13,651/200,055 (6.8%) received acute medication. Single NSAIDs were prescribed to 12,297/13,651 (90.1%) patients and triptans to 1710/13,651 (12.5%). Over-prescription was found in 2262/13,651 (16.6%) patients and 1200/13,651 (8.8%) patients received prophylactic medication. In Study 2, 408,183/6,840,618 (6.0%) patients were first diagnosed with headaches, which persisted for ≥2 years. Over time, the proportion of patients over-prescribed acute medications increased. Over 2 years, 37,617/408,183 (9.2%) patients were over-prescribed acute medications and 29,313/408,183 (7.2%) patients were prescribed prophylaxis at least once.

CONCLUSIONS

According to real-world data, prophylaxis remains poorly prescribed, and both acute and prophylactic treatment rates for headaches have increased over time.

Burden of Episodic Migraine, Chronic Migraine, and Medication Overuse Headache in Alberta

OBJECTIVE

To describe demographic and clinical characteristics, healthcare resource use, costs, and treatment patterns in three migraine cohorts.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study using administrative data examined patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM) (without medication overuse headache [MOH]), and medication overuse headache in Alberta, Canada. Migraine patients were identified between 2012 and 2018 based on ≥ 1 diagnostic codes or triptan prescription. Patients with CM were defined using parameter estimates of a logistic regression model, and MOH was defined as patients with an average of ≥ 15 supply days covered of acute medications. EM was defined as patients without CM or MOH. Study outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Patients with EM (n = 144,574), CM (n = 27,283), and MOH (n = 11,485) were included. Higher rates of healthcare use and costs were observed for CM (mean [SD] all-cause cost: ($12,693 [40,664]) and MOH ($16,611.5 [$38,748]) versus episodic migraine ($4,251 [$40,637]). Across all cohorts, opioids were the most dispensed acute medication (range across cohorts: 31.7%-89.8%), while antidepressants and anticonvulsants were the most dispensed preventive medication. Preventative medication classes were used by a minority of patients in each cohort, except anticonvulsants, where 50% of medication overuse patients had a dispensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CM and MOH have a greater burden of illness compared to patients with EM. The overutilization of acute medication, particularly opioids, and the underutilization of preventive medications highlight an unmet need to more effectively manage migraine.

Migraine without aura

Migraine without aura is the commonest form of migraine in both children and adults. The diagnosis is made by applying the International Classification of Headache Disorders Third Edition subsection for migraine without aura (ICHD-3 subsection 1.1). Attacks in patients with migraine without aura are characterized by their polyphasic presentation (prodrome, headache phase, postdromal phase). The symptomatology of attacks is diverse and heterogeneous, with most common symptoms being photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, and aggravation of pain by movement. The clinician and researcher who wants to learn about migraine without aura needs to be able to apply the ICHD-3 criteria with its specific symptomatology to make a correct diagnosis, but also needs to be aware about the plethora of symptoms patients may experience. In this chapter, the reader will explore the clinical phenotypical features of migraine without aura.

Real-world opioid use among patients with migraine enrolled in US commercial insurance and risk factors associated with migraine progression

BACKGROUND: Migraineurs may be categorized as having episodic migraine (EM: < 15 headache days/month) or chronic migraine (CM: ≥ 15 days/month for > 3 months with ≥ 8 days/month having features of migraine). Opioid use has been linked to progression from EM to CM. OBJECTIVE: To describe the utilization of opioid prescriptions among patients with migraine, to determine the association between opioid use and migraine progression, and to explore demographic and clinical risk factors for migraine progression. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database from January 2015 to December 2018. Adult patients with a migraine diagnosis and continuous health plan enrollment were included. Opioid use was measured by average daily morphine equivalent dose, also known as morphine milligram equivalent (MME). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the opioid use by patient demographic and clinical characteristics. A Cox proportional hazards model with stepwise selection was used to determine the risk factors of new-onset CM. RESULTS: Overall, 35% of patients with migraine (27,331 of 78,134) received prescription opioids (> 0 MME/day) during the 12-month follow-up period. Higher opioid dosage was found in patients who had CM and comorbidities of interest. Compared with patients with EM, patients with CM were twice as likely to receive at least 20 MME/day (CM 3.8% vs EM 1.9%) and had a higher median opioid day supply (CM 20 vs EM 10) during follow-up. About 7% of patients with CM with at least 1 opioid prescription had at least 50 MME/day in any 90-day period during follow-up. A significant association was found between MME level and the likelihood of new-onset CM. Additional significant risk factors of migraine progression included younger age, female sex, South and West regions, and having a diagnosis of medication overuse headache, depression, back pain, or fibromyalgia (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite guidelines and the availability of more migraine-specific treatments, opioids are still commonly prescribed to patients with migraines in real-world practice, especially for those with CM. In this study population, a higher risk of new-onset CM was associated with receiving higher opioid doses.

Practical Insights on the Identification and Management of Patients with Chronic Migraine

Chronic migraine (CM) is one of the most disabling diseases, and it is commonly misdiagnosed and mistreated. Despite the importance of a timely and accurate diagnosis for the effective management of CM, recent surveys have shown that only 20–25% of individuals with CM receive a correct diagnosis. The obvious consequences of misdiagnosed CM are prolongation of symptoms and their associated effects on disability and health-related quality of life. Additionally, mistreatment of CM can lead to acute medication overuse headache with escalation of headache and end organ damage. Ideally, a diagnosis of CM should be made in the primary care setting, based on a thorough medical history including detailed descriptions of headaches occurring earlier in life as well as current headaches, and the range of headaches (not just the worst headaches). In our experience, it is often equally informative to ask the patient about the number of headache-free days (HFDs) and no accompanying symptoms (i.e., crystal-clear days) to quantify headache days and accurately estimate headache frequency/impact. Headache frequency is important, as this count is one key means of diagnosing CM, which requires ≥ 15 headache days/month, noting that these do not need to be migraine days. A headache day is defined as more than 4 h a day of headache. Comorbidities are common in CM and may affect the treatment choice and increase disability. Every CM patient should be offered a preventive migraine treatment. In this commentary, we provide practical insights and tips for diagnosing CM and cover issues of medication overuse, patient communication, diagnostic testing, and when to make a referral. Our key message to physicians for a patient who comes to the clinic with frequent disabling headaches having features of migraine is to assume CM until proven otherwise.

Real‐world assessment of the relationship between migraine‐related disability and healthcare costs in the United States

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the associations among migraine disability assessment scores, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; medical visits and pharmacy use) and direct medical costs among people with episodic migraine in a real‐world setting.

Background

Migraine is a public health concern associated with a substantial economic burden in the United States. However, the association between migraine disability and direct medical costs among people with migraine is unknown.

Method

This retrospective, cohort study used claims and electronic health record data from the Decision Resources Group database. Adults with migraine with or without aura, defined by International Classification of Disease Revision 9 (ICD‐9) or ICD Revision 10 (ICD‐10) codes, and a completed Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire from January 2016 to December 2018 were included (chronic migraine codes not included). The associations of MIDAS score with the cost of HCRU for the 6 months after MIDAS assessment were explored. Results were stratified by treatment setting.

Results

Among 7662 included patients, MIDAS scores were distributed as: 3348 (43.7%; I, little/none), 1107 (14.4%; II, mild), 1225 (16.0%; III, moderate), 893 (11.7%; IVa, severe), and 1089 (14.2%; IVb, very severe). Worsening disability was associated with higher medical costs (adjusted from a multivariable model). In the primary care setting, healthcare visit costs were $206 (95% confidence interval: $144–294) for grade I and $631 ($384–1036) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $203 (grade I; $136–301) and $719 (grade IVb; $410–1259). For specialty care (e.g., neurologist), healthcare visits cost $509 ($411–629) for grade I and $885 ($634–1236) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $494 (grade I; $378–645) and $1020 (grade IVb; $643–1620).

Conclusion

Higher levels of migraine‐related disability (MIDAS assessed) are associated with increased HCRU costs among Americans with episodic migraine. Migraine disability assessment could be useful in the development, testing, and prescription of cost‐effective treatments for people with high migraine‐related disability.

Characteristics of Adults with Migraine in Alberta, Canada: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Migraine, including episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), is a common neurological disorder that imparts a substantial health burden.

OBJECTIVE

Understand the characteristics and treatment of EM and CM from a population-based perspective.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based cross-sectional study utilized administrative data from Alberta. Among those with a migraine diagnostic code, CM and EM were identified by an algorithm and through exclusion, respectively; characteristics and migraine medication use were examined with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From 79,076 adults with a migraine diagnostic code, 12,700 met the criteria for CM and 54,686 were considered to have EM. The majority of migraineurs were female, the most common comorbidity was depression, and individuals with CM had more comorbidities than EM. A larger proportion of individuals with CM versus EM were dispensed acute (80.6%: CM; 63.4%: EM) and preventative (58.0%: CM; 28.9%: EM) migraine medications over 1 year. Among those with a dispensation, individuals with CM had more acute (13.6 ± 32.2 vs. 4.6 ± 10.9 [mean ± standard deviation], 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-8.3), and preventative (12.6 ± 43.5 vs. 5.0 ± 12.6, 95% CI 6.9-8.4) migraine medication dispensations than EM, over 1-year. Opioids were commonly used in both groups (proportion of individuals dispensed an opioid over 1-year: 53.1%: CM; 25.7%: EM).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with EM and CM displayed characteristics and medication use patterns consistent with other reports. Application of this algorithm for CM may be a useful and efficient means of identifying subgroups of migraine using routinely collected health data in Canada.

Evaluation of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener in a large medical group

Objective

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the 6‐item Identify Chronic Migraine screener (ID‐CM[6]), designed to improve the detection of chronic migraine (CM).

Background

CM is often undertreated and underdiagnosed. Survey‐based studies have found that approximately 75–80% of people meeting criteria for CM do not report having received an accurate diagnosis.

Methods

This study used claims data of patients enrolled in a large medical group who had at least one medical claim with an International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th revision diagnostic code for migraine in the 12‐month prescreening period. The Identify Chronic Migraine survey was administered by e‐mail, in‐person, or over the telephone to all enrolled patients. A Semi‐Structured Diagnostic Interview (SSDI) was administered by telephone by a trained physician. The ID‐CM(6) and SSDI classifications of CM status were compared to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of the ID‐CM(6) screening tool.

Results

The analysis of the ID‐CM(6) screening tool included 109 patients, with 65/109 (59.6%) positive for CM based on the SSDI. The mean (standard deviation) age of the patient sample was 49 (15) years and 100/109 (91.7%) were female. Using the SSDI as the diagnostic gold standard, the ID‐CM(6) had a sensitivity of 70.8% (46/65) and a specificity of 93.2% (41/44).

Conclusion

The ID‐CM(6) demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in determining CM status. The results of this analysis support the real‐world utility of the ID‐CM(6) as a simple and useful tool to identify patients with CM.

An Investigation into the Prevalence of Migraine and Its Prophylactic Treatment Patterns in the Czech Republic: An Observational Study

Purpose

A national primary and secondary healthcare-level study in the Czech Republic has not yet been conducted to evaluate the prevalence of migraine. We analyzed the current treatment patterns (acute and prophylactic) in migraine patients and the number of migraine patients potentially eligible for treatment with recent calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway-targeted therapies.

Methods

This retrospective study utilized the Ministry of the Interior Health Insurance Fund claims database of the Czech Republic wherein every citizen is insured. Migraine patients with or without aura, and potentially on triptan therapy were included in this study (index years 2012–2016). The prevalence approach included all patients (new and old) present in each index year. Prophylactic therapies were followed f0or three and seven years prior to the index year, including the index year, until 2010. The incidence approach included all patients first diagnosed in each index year. Prophylactic therapies were followed for the next three years, including the index year, until 2017 following incidence approach. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the rate of migraine prevalence and diagnosis for each index year during the period 2012–2016. The study also evaluated prophylactic and acute treatment patterns and comorbidities among patients in 2016.

Results

The rate of migraine prevalence was 1% and the rate of diagnosis was 0.2–0.4%. By prevalence approach, approximately 39% of the patients were on prophylactics, and 11.2% and 21.6% of the patient population had two prior treatment failures (three- and seven-year recall period, respectively). Antiepileptics (26%) and beta blockers (15.8%) were the most prescribed prophylactics, and sumatriptan was the predominant triptan used (12%) for acute treatment.

Conclusion

Taking into account the number of inhabitants in the Czech Republic (10.7 million), there could be up to 23,000 adult patients eligible for novel CGRP therapies.