A real-world analysis of patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine by preventive treatment eligibility status in the US and Europe

Marginal health care expenditures and health-related quality of life burden in patients with migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine, characterized by recurrent, severe headaches, presents a considerable challenge for patients, health care systems, and employers in the United States. However, there is a lack of recent estimates of the economic and humanistic burden in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incremental burden of migraine on the total all-cause health care costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the United States, using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

METHOD

This retrospective cross-sectional study included adults (≥18 years) with and without migraine on the 2019-2021 full-year consolidated MEPS Household Component and Medical Provider Component data files. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare health care expenditures and HRQoL among patients with and without migraine. To estimate the marginal effect of migraine on total health care spending, a two-part model generalized linear models was employed. HRQoL was evaluated using physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores based on the items in the Veterans Rand 12 Health Survey. A multivariate linear regression with log-link was conducted to understanding the factors associated with PCS and MCS scores. All analyses accounted for complex survey design of MEPS.

RESULTS

The study included approximately 1.14 million patients with migraine and approximately 184 million patients without migraine. The patients with migraine were majorly female (82.81%), aged 18-45 years (50.24%), and residing in the southern region of the United States (41.45%). A two-part model revealed that marginal total health care expenditures among patients with migraine were $6,078.56 (95% CI = $4,618.45-$8,141.34) higher compared with those without migraine. In terms of HRQoL, average PCS scores in migraine and nonmigraine groups were 39.79 and 42.15, respectively. The average MCS scores were 46.63 and 49.95 for migraine and nonmigraine groups, respectively. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, multivariable linear regression models revealed that the PCS score was 2.14 (95% CI = 1.17-4.55) units lower, and the MCS score was 3.19 (95% CI = 2.51-6.07) units lower among patients with migraine compared with those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine imposes a substantial economic burden on both health care payers and patients in the United States. Notably, prescription drugs make up nearly half of the overall cost. Additionally, patients with migraine experience lower levels of physical and mental HRQoL compared with those without migraine.

Review on the Burden of Episodic Migraine and Utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine affects a large portion of the world's population. Migraine encompasses a broad range of symptoms, with broad reaching ramifications in the form of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) factors. In our review we sought to understand the aspects encompassing the burden of disease on both an individual and population level. Furthermore, we reviewed the development and incorporation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), questionnaires that assess HRQoL in real time, in how they have been incorporated in clinical research up to now and how they can be utilized in clinical practice moving forward.

RECENT FINDINGS

It has been shown that there is much heterogeneity within the field in PROM development processes as well as their utilization in episodic migraine (EM) clinical trials. Furthermore, they are inconsistently used in clinical practice. Among the most commonly used PROMs, the MSQv2.1 is among the most valid and reliable. Beyond that, it also shows promise to help in guidance of clinical management of migraine.

The impact of primary headaches on disability outcomes: a literature review and meta-analysis to inform future iterations of the Global Burden of Disease study

BACKGROUND

The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders.

METHODS

We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium.

RESULTS

A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

More Than a Headache: Lived Experience of Migraine in Youth

BACKGROUND

Migraine is the leading cause of disability among adolescents and young adults. We aimed to characterize the impact of migraine on the experience of children, adolescents, and caregivers.

METHODS

This descriptive qualitative study recruited youth aged four to 18 years with migraine and their caregivers from the multicenter, prospective Pediatric Migraine Registry between 2020 and 2021. Participants completed semistructured interviews targeting the lived experience of migraine. A conventional content analysis approach was used to analyze data.

RESULTS

Thirty enrolled dyads (n = 30 children and adolescents, n = 29 caregivers) completed 59 interviews (n = 29 child and adolescent interviews, n = 30 caregiver interviews). Children and adolescents had a median age of 15 years and experienced a median of 13.5 headache days per month. Caregivers had a median age of 44 years and predominantly identified as mothers (n = 28). We identified three themes: (1) Impact on emotional well-being: participants described how their migraine experience included feelings of isolation, depression, and irritability alongside the need for social support; (2) Impact on daily life: participants described how symptoms and unpredictability impacted their ability to perform activities of daily living; and (3) Impact on school: participants described how migraine impacted their school experience, including threatened attendance and worsened performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of youth and their caregivers, we identified salient themes to characterize the experience of migraine. Our findings underscore the urgent need for effective migraine treatments and interventions targeting co-occurring mental health conditions, peer relationships, and school support.

Annual indirect costs savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: a post-hoc analysis of phase 3 galcanezumab clinical trials in the United States

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab (GMB) improved quality-of-life and reduced disability of patients with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) in Phase 3 trials.

AIM

To estimate indirect cost savings associated with GMB treatment in patients with migraine in the United States (US).

METHODS

We analyzed data of patients from the US from three randomized, Phase 3, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled GMB studies: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM patients), REGAIN (CM patients). Annual indirect costs were calculated using items of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: lost time/productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure time. All costs were annualized and expressed in 2019 US dollars. While the main analysis considered lost time/productivity at work/school and household work as a full day, a sensitivity analysis was performed by discounting them by half. For EM, annual indirect costs savings were estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis. For CM, ANCOVA models were used to estimate annual indirect costs savings as change from baseline.

RESULTS

The analysis included 805 patients with EM (mean age = 41.4 years; PBO = 534; GMB = 271) and 423 patients with CM (mean age = 38.9 years; PBO = 279; GMB = 144). Compared to PBO, GMB significantly reduced annual indirect costs among patients with EM at 3 months (least square mean [95% confidence interval] work/school = $1,883.6 [603.64-3,163.65], p = .0040, household work = $628.9 [352.95-904.88], p <.0001, and leisure activity = $499.17 [42.36-955.98], p = .0323) and 6 months (work/school = $2,382.29 [1,065.48-3,699.10], p = .0004, household work = $559.45 [268.99-849.90], p = .0002, and leisure activity = $753.81 [334.35-1,173.27], p = .0004), whereas a significant difference was not observed among patients with CM. Sensitivity analysis results were similar to primary analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

GMB treatment versus PBO resulted in significantly greater indirect cost savings in patients with EM through improved productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure days. Patients with CM receiving GMB versus PBO attained greater cost savings, although not statistically significant, through reduced lost productivity at work/school.

Single-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the preventive treatment of difficult-to-treat migraine: a 12-month prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Initial evidence have shown the short-term efficacy of sTMS in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. It is unknown whether this treatment approach in the long-term is effective and well tolerated in difficult-to-treat migraine.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single centre, open-label, real-world analysis conducted in difficult-to-treat patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM) with and without medication overuse headache (MOH), who were exposed to sTMS therapy. Patients responding to a three-month sTMS treatment, continued the treatment and were assessed again at month 12. The cut-off outcome for treatment continuation was reduction in the monthly moderate to severe headache days (MHD) of at least 30% (headache frequency responders) and/or a ≥ 4-point reduction in headache disability using the Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) (headache disability responders).

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-three patients were included in the analysis (F:M = 126:27, median age 43, IQR 32.3-56.8). At month 3, 93 out of 153 patients (60%) were responders to treatment. Compared to baseline, the median reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) for all patients at month 3 was 5.0 days, from 18.0 (IQR: 12.0-26.0) to 13.0 days (IQR: 5.75-24.0) (P = 0.002, r = - 0.29) and the median reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) was 4.0 days, from 13.0 (IQR: 8.75-22.0) to 9.0 (IQR: 4.0-15.25) (P = 0.002, r = - 0.29). Sixty-nine out of 153 patients (45%) reported a sustained response to sTMS treatment at month 12. The percentage of patients with MOH was reduced from 52% (N = 79/153) at baseline to 19% (N = 29/153) at month 3, to 8% (N = 7/87) at month 12. There was an overall median 4-point reduction in HIT-6 score, from 66 (IQR: 64-69) at baseline to 62 at month 3 (IQR: 56-65) (P < 0.001, r = - 0.51). A total of 35 mild/moderate adverse events were reported by 23 patients (15%). One patient stopped sTMS treatment due to scalp sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This open label analysis suggests that sTMS may be an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for the long-term prevention of difficult-to-treat CM and HFEM.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine

Background

Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway–targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]).

Results

Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were − 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, − 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, − 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, − 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, − 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and − 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively.

Conclusions

In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01415-x.

Treatment Patterns for Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Including Galcanezumab versus Conventional Preventive Treatments for Migraine: A Retrospective US Claims Study

BACKGROUND

Most conventional, oral, preventive treatments for migraine are non-specific and ~50% of patients discontinue them within six months. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved three preventive migraine treatments: monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway implicated in migraine; galcanezumab and fremanezumab which target CGRP ligand; and erenumab which targets CGRP receptor. Real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAb are limited.

PURPOSE

To compare real-world treatment patterns for CGRP mAb, specifically galcanezumab versus standard-of-care (SOC) migraine preventive treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective, observational study included 12-month baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up analyses using IBM^® MarketScan^® databases. Patients identified were aged ≥18 years with ≥1 claim (first claim=index) for CGRP mAb (erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) or SOC preventives (eg, antiepileptics, beta-blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA) as index drugs between May/01/2018 and June/30/2019. Propensity score matching was used to address confounding by observed covariates. Outcomes analyzed included proportion of days covered (PDC), persistence (≤60-day gap), and first non-index drug switch. Descriptive, chi-square (categorical), and t-test (continuous) analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The study included 3082 (CGRP mAb versus SOC) and 421 (galcanezumab versus SOC) matched patient pairs with 12-month follow-up. Mean age across cohorts ranged 43.2-44.4 years (females: 85.7-88.6%). Compared with SOC, the CGRP mAb cohort had higher mean persistence (212.5 vs 131.9 days), adherence (PDC: 55.1% vs 35.2%), and more patients were adherent with PDC ≥80% (32.7% vs 18.7%) (all p <0.001). During 12-month follow-up, fewer patients discontinued CGRP mAb versus SOC (58.8% vs 77.6%, p <0.001). Galcanezumab versus SOC comparisons yielded similar results. In the CGRP mAb cohort, most switchers (28.3%) used galcanezumab as subsequent treatment. Largely similar results were observed for 6-month follow-up cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Patients on CGRP mAb and specifically galcanezumab showed higher adherence and persistence than patients on SOC migraine preventive treatments.

Annual indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: post-hoc analyses from multiple galcanezumab clinical trials

AIM

This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status.

RESULTS

Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and -2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p < .0001) and CM (Int$7129, p = .0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p = .0030; CM: Int$5181, p = .1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p = .0156) and patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p = .0340). Employed patients with CM (p = .0018) and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p < .0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days.

CONCLUSION

GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.

Minimal important change and responsiveness of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire

Background

The MIDAS is the most used questionnaire to evaluate migraine-related disability, but its utility to assess treatment response remains unclear. Our aim was to estimate the MIDAS’ minimal important change (MIC) value and its responsiveness.

Methods

A total of 103 patients were enrolled in a non-pharmacological, preference-based clinical trial. MIDAS and global rating of self-perceived change (GRoC) scores were collected at baseline, after 5 weeks of treatment, 4-weeks and 3-months follow-up after treatment. Anchor-based approaches were used to establish MIC values and responsiveness.

Findings

In all 3 timepoint comparisons, MIDAS presented a MIC of 4.5 points. A moderate positive correlation was identified between the MIDAS change and GRoC scores. The area under the curve ranged from 0.63 to 0.68.

Conclusions

This study showed that MIDAS has a limited responsiveness to change. A change of 4.5 points or more represents a clinically important change for patients with high frequent migraine and chronic migraine receiving non-pharmacological treatment.

Improvements in quality of life and work productivity with up to 6 months of fremanezumab treatment in patients with episodic and chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 classes of migraine-preventive medications in the phase 3b FOCUS study

Background

Migraine is associated with depression as well as negative impact on quality of life and work productivity. Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa), selectively targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide and has proven efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Objective

In this open‐label extension (OLE) of the phase 3b FOCUS study, we assessed patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) over time.

Methods

Patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) completing the 12‐week, double‐blind (DB) period of the FOCUS trial entered the 12‐week OLE and received three monthly doses of fremanezumab (225 mg). PROs included the Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life (MSQoL) questionnaire (role function—restrictive [RFR], role function—preventive [RFP], and emotional function [EF] domains), EuroQol‐5‐Dimension‐5‐Level (EQ‐5D‐5L) questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire, and 9‐Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9).

Results

A total of 838 patients were randomized in the DB period, 807 entered the OLE at 3 months, and 772 were still enrolled at 6 months. At 6 months, patients in the quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, and placebo DB randomization groups, respectively, reported improvements in RFR (mean [standard deviation] change from baseline: 24.6 [21.9]; 22.9 [21.3]; 20.8 [26.5]), RFP (19.6 [20.0]; 18.3 [19.7]; 16.0 [19.9]), and EF (22.5 [24.2]; 19.1 [23.6]; 17.2 [24.7]) domains of the MSQoL questionnaire, the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire (8.0 [19.6]; 7.3 [21.1]; 6.6 [21.0]), all four domains of the WPAI questionnaire, and the PHQ‐9 (−2.4 [5.3]; −1.6 [5.5]; −2.0 [4.9]); 77.1% (209/271), 75.4% (205/272), and 68.8% (181/263) of patients were identified as PGIC responders.

Conclusion

Among patients with EM or CM and prior inadequate response to multiple migraine‐preventive medication classes, progressive improvements in MSQoL, depression, and work productivity were achieved during 6 months of fremanezumab treatment.