A large pharmacy claims-based descriptive analysis of patients with migraine and associated pharmacologic treatment patterns

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.

Headache Attributed to a Substance or Its Withdrawal

Identification of substances that may cause or trigger headache is important to start effective treatment early to prevent unnecessary suffering, deterioration in quality of life, and the development of chronic pain. Treatment in case of medication overuse and other chronic headache should be decisive and effective. Drug withdrawal and introduction of effective prophylactic medication for the underlying headache disorder should be the primary treatment strategy. Typical headache-inducing substances are nitric oxide, phosphodiesterase, cocaine, alcohol, histamine, carbon oxide, and calcitonin gene-related peptide. The withdrawal of caffeine, estrogen, and opioids is most often associated with the development of headache.

Migraine Treatment and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Alberta, Canada

BACKGROUND

Migraine poses a significant burden worldwide; however, there is limited evidence as to the burden in Canada. This study examined the treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HRU), and costs among newly diagnosed or recurrent patients with migraine in Alberta, Canada, from the time of diagnosis or recurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study utilized administrative health data from Alberta, Canada. Patients were included in the Total Migraine Cohort if they had: (1) ≥1 International Classification of Diseases diagnostic code for migraine; or (2) ≥1 prescription dispense(s) for triptans from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2018, with no previous diagnosis or dispensation code from April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2012.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort (n = 199,931) was 40.0 years and 72.3% were women. The most common comorbidity was depression (19.7%). In each medication class examined, less than one-third of the cohort was prescribed triptans and fewer than one-fifth was prescribed a preventive. Among patients with ≥1 dispense, the mean rate of opioid prescriptions was 4.61 per patient-year, compared to 2.28 triptan prescriptions per patient-year. Migraine-related HRU accounted for 3%-10% of all use.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities and high all-cause HRU were observed among newly diagnosed or recurrent patients with migraine. There is an underutilization of acute and preventive medications in the management of migraine. The high rate of opioid use reinforces the suboptimal management of migraine in Alberta. Migraine management may improve by educating healthcare professionals to optimize treatment strategies.

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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization as migraine prevention in the United States

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that can have a substantial impact on patients' lives and on society. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was specifically developed for migraine prevention. The efficacy of erenumab has been established in several clinical trials; however, the real-world comparative effectiveness of erenumab has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective US claims analysis (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) evaluated patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab or onabotulinumtoxinA between May 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (index date: first erenumab/onabotulinumtoxinA claim). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method (greedy match with caliper = 0.1). Stratification was performed based on gender, chronic migraine without aura diagnosis, onabotulinumtoxinA use, and acute/preventive drug use. The impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and HCRU was assessed in the 6-month post-index period. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on a composite endpoint of: (1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, (2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or (3) emergency department visit with a primary migraine diagnosis. PS-matched data were used for comparative analyses; logistic regression with covariate adjustment was used for dichotomous variables, and a negative binomial model was used for count variables, with odds ratios or rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs calculated. RESULTS: Following stratified PS matching, 1,338 patients were included in both cohorts. At 6 months, the adjusted average number of claims per person for any acute medication was significantly lower in the erenumab cohort (1.13 vs 1.29 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.80-0.96; P = 0.0069), although the difference in the number of claims for triptans and barbiturates was statistically nonsignificant. The adjusted average number of all-cause and migraine-specific visits per person to health care providers was generally lower in the erenumab cohort compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort. Patients in the erenumab cohort had a significantly lower number of composite events (0.44 vs 0.69 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of patients with any of the 3 composite events was lower in the erenumab cohort (31.7% vs 44.3% in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.49-0.70; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective claims analysis study, erenumab significantly reduced acute medication usage (opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; any acute medication when analyzed together) and HCRU to a greater extent than onabotulinumtoxinA. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis employees contributed to the study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Fang, Abdrabboh, Glassberg, Vo, and Ferraris are employed by Novartis. Zhou and Shen are employed by KMK Consulting, Inc., which received funding from Novartis to conduct the study. Tepper reports grants from Allergan, Amgen, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Neurolief, Novartis, Satsuma, and Zosano, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, American Headache Society, Thomas Jefferson University, Aeon, Align Strategies, Allergan/AbbVie, Alphasights, Amgen, Aperture Venture Partners, Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada, Axsome Therapeutics, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, ClearView Healthcare Partners, CoolTech, CRG, Currax, Decision Resources, DeepBench, DRG, Eli Lilly, Equinox, ExpertConnect, GLG, Guidepoint Global Healthcare Consultancy Group, Health Science Communications, HMP Communications, Impel, InteractiveForums, M3 Global Research, Magellan Rx Management, Medicxi, Navigant Consulting, Neurorelief, Nordic BioTech, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Reckner Healthcare, Relevale, SAI MedPartners, Satsuma, Slingshot Insights, Spherix Global Insights, Sudler and Hennessey, Synapse Medical Communications, System Analytic, Teva, Theranica, Thought Leader Select, Trinity Partners, XOC, Zosano, Krog and Partners, and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work; and CME honoraria from American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Diamond Headache Clinic, Elsevier, Forefront Collaborative, Hamilton General Hospital, Ontario, Canada, Headache Cooperative of New England, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Inova, Medical Learning Institute PeerView, Medical Education Speakers Network, Miller Medical Communications, North American Center for CME, Physicians' Education Resource, Rockpointe, ScientiaCME, WebMD/Medscape. The abstract and poster of these results were presented at The Migraine Trust Virtual Symposium (MTIS), October 3-9, 2020.

Real-time sensing of neurotransmitters by functionalized nanopores embedded in a single live cell

Interface between neuron cells and biomaterials is the key to real-time sensing, transmitting and manipulating of neuron activities, which are the long-term pursue of scientists and gain intense research focus recently. It is of great interest to develop a sensor with exquisite sensitivity and excellent selectivity for real-time monitoring neurotransmitters transport through single live cell. Sensing techniques including electrode-based methods, optogenetics, and nanowire cell penetration systems have been developed to monitor the neuron activities. However, their biocompatibilities remain a challenge. Protein nanopores with membrane compatibility and lumen tunability provide real-time, single-molecule sensitivities for biosensing of DNA, RNA, peptides and small molecules. In this study, an engineered protein nanopore MspA (Mycobacterium smegmatis porin A) through site-directed mutation with histidine selectively bind with Cu²⁺ in its internal lumen. Chelation of neurotransmitters such as L-glutamate (L-Glu), dopamine (DA) and norepinephrine (NE) with the Cu²⁺ creates specific current signals, showing different transient current blockade and dwell time in single channel electrophysiological recording. Furthermore, the functionalized M2MspA-N91H nanopores have been embedded in live HEK293T cell membrane for real-time, in situ monitoring of extracellular L-glutamate translocating through the nanopore. This biomimetic neurotransmitter nanopore has provided a new platform for future development of neuron sensors, drug carrier and artificial synapse.

Validity of Algorithms for Identification of Individuals Suffering from Chronic Noncancer Pain in Administrative Databases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Secondary analysis of health administrative databases is indispensable to enriching our understanding of health trajectories, health care utilization, and real-world risks and benefits of drugs among large populations.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed at assessing evidence about the validity of algorithms for the identification of individuals suffering from nonarthritic chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in administrative databases.

METHODS

Studies reporting measures of diagnostic accuracy of such algorithms and published in English or French were searched in the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, PsycINFO, and Abstracts in Social Gerontology electronic databases without any dates of coverage restrictions up to March 1, 2018. Reference lists of included studies were also screened for additional publications.

RESULTS

Only six studies focused on commonly studied CNCP conditions and were included in the review. Some algorithms showed a ≥60% combination of sensitivity and specificity values (back pain disorders in general, fibromyalgia, low back pain, migraine, neck/back problems studied together). Only algorithms designed to identify fibromyalgia cases reached a ≥80% combination (without replication of findings in other studies/databases).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the present investigation informs us about the limited amount of literature available to guide and support the use of administrative databases as valid sources of data for research on CNCP. Considering the added value of such data sources, the important research gaps identified in this innovative review provide important directions for future research. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086402).

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.

Pharmaceutically treated comorbidities and associated healthcare costs among triptan users in Switzerland: A pharmacoepidemiological study from a nationwide health insurance database

PURPOSE

In course of the new migraine drug development on the global market it is important to quantify the current burden of migraine medication. This study aimed to estimate the comorbidity burden and its relation to healthcare costs in patients using triptans in Switzerland by analyzing a large population-based database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was based on Swiss health insurance claims data (2015/2016). The study sample comprised adult patients with ≥1 triptan prescription in 2015. We evaluated pharmaceutically treated comorbid conditions (CCs) and costs (12 months after index prescription) of patients using triptan. Multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed outcomes were performed to identify the factors related to healthcare costs.

RESULTS

From a total of 749 092, we identified 10,090 patients using triptans (1-year prevalence of 1.35%), whereas 58.9% had ≥2 CCs. The most frequent CCs were pain- and rheumatologic-related diseases and psychological disorders. Among triptan users, the mean total healthcare costs were highest in older patients with ≥2 CCs (>64 years: migraine with ≥2 CC "12 331 SFr"). Multivariate regression analyses showed that psychological disorders had the strongest impact on healthcare costs (Coefficient: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides an overview of comorbidities and its related costs in migraine patients, which helps to quantify the current burden of migraine. This is relevant as the recently licensed CGRP antagonists are likely to change current treatment schemes for migraine, which strongly depends also on the comorbidities. The present study might therefore be helpful for the future development of treatment guidelines.

Long-term treatment patterns of prophylactic and acute migraine medications and incidence of opioid-related adverse events in patients with migraine

Objectives

To describe long-term treatment patterns in migraine patients initiating prophylactic therapy and to evaluate acute medication use and adverse events associated with opioids.

Methods

This study used the 2005–2014 IBM MarketScan® databases to evaluate migraine patients initiating prophylactic medication. Outcome measures included persistence with prophylactic migraine medications over 2–5 years. Acute medication use and gastrointestinal-related adverse events and opioid abuse following opioid use were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate predictors of non-persistence and predictors of gastrointestinal-related AEs and opioid abuse associated with long-term opioid use.

Results

In total, 147,832 patients were analyzed. Non-persistence was observed in 90% of patients; 39% switched, 30% restarted, and 31% discontinued treatment. Over the follow-up, 59.9% of patients received triptans, 66.6% non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 77.4% opioids, and 2.6% ergotamines. Among opioid users, 16.6% experienced nausea/vomiting, 12.2% had constipation, and 10.4% had diarrhea. Opioid abuse was reported in <1% of opioid users. Gastrointestinal-related adverse events increased with increasing number of days’ supply of opioids.

Conclusions

Non-persistence to prophylactic treatment was frequent among migraine patients. Opioid use was common in migraine patients and the risk of gastrointestinal-related adverse events and opioid abuse increased with long-term use of opioids. These results suggest a need for more effective prophylactic migraine treatments.

Factors Associated with Direct Health Care Costs Among Patients with Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine imposes substantial economic burden on patients and the health care system. Approximately 18% of women and 6% of men suffer from migraine in the United States. This is a heterogeneous group, and little data are available to evaluate factors associated with migraine costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate characteristics associated with high costs among commercially insured patients with migraine.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis identified patients with migraine in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases between January 2008 and June 2013. Patients were required to have 12 months continuous enrollment before and after migraine diagnoses and/or migraine-specific medications (index date). Patients with costs greater than the top 25th percentile of all-cause costs during the 12-month post-index period were classified into the upper quartile (UQ) cohort. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with being in the UQ cohort, and generalized linear models were used to estimate the incremental costs by select factors after controlling for other covariates.

RESULTS

In the total population, 857,073 patients (mean [SD] age: 43.2 [12.5] years), were included, with 83.2% females. Average post-index annual all-cause costs were $13,045 (SD = $25,328) with the top 25th percentile of costs at $14,120. Overall, 44.4% and 54.8% of patients had ≥ 1 pre-index claim for opioids and triptans, respectively. Patients with ≥ 2 migraine-related emergency room visits were twice as likely to be in the UQ cohort (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 2.02-2.25; P < 0.05) and incurred $3,125 incremental all-cause costs compared with those with < 2 visits. Patients who visited a neurologist were 33.0% more likely to be in the UQ cohort and had significantly higher adjusted all-cause costs ($11,794 vs. $9,868, P < 0.05). Opioid users had a 1.5-3 times increased likelihood of being in the UQ cohort (P < 0.05); adjusted all-cause annual costs ranged from $8,888 (95% CI = $8,862-$8,914) for nonusers to $15,210 (95% CI = $15,113-$15,307) for high users (7+ claims). Patients having 7+ triptan claims were 1.2 times as likely to be in the UQ cohort compared with nonusers, with estimated costs of $11,517 (95% CI = $11,438-$11,596) for high users and $10,753 (95% CI = $10,717-$10,790) for nonusers.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that certain modifiable factors, such as increased acute medication use (opioids and triptans) and more migraine-related emergency room visits are associated with higher all-cause health care costs for patients with migraine. These findings could be used to identify patients who require early intervention, enhanced symptoms monitoring, and appropriate disease management. Future studies could examine the effect of disease severity on health resource utilization and costs using survey or medical record data.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Amgen and conducted by Truven Health Analytics. Bonafede, Cappell, and Kim are employees of Truven Health Analytics, which received compensation from Amgen for the overall conduct of the study and preparation of the manuscript. Cai was an employee of Truven Health Analytics at the time of this study. Sapra, Shah, and Desai are employees of Amgen. Katherine Widnell was an employee of Amgen when the manuscript draft was developed. Winner reports receiving research support from Allergan, Amgen, A-Z, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly. Study concept and design were contributed by Bonafede, Sapra, Shah, and Desai, along with Widnell and Winner. Kim and Cai took the lead in data collection, assisted by Bonafede and Cappell. Data interpretation was performed by Widnell and Winter, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Migraine Prophylaxis and Acute Treatment Patterns Among Commercially Insured Patients in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To describe prophylactic and acute medication treatment patterns, including timing, medication type, and duration of use in migraine patients initiating prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND

Patients with migraine can be treated with acute and prophylactic therapies. Current treatment options for migraine prophylaxis are associated with poor tolerability and low adherence and persistence.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan^® Research Databases to identify adults in the United States with a migraine diagnosis who initiated migraine prophylactic medication (index event) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. Prescribed prophylactic medications evaluated included topiramate, beta-blockers, and tricyclic antidepressants. Patients were required to have 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Patient characteristics, migraine-specific prescribed prophylactic treatment patterns (including gaps in therapy, treatment switches, and additions of index medications), and prescribed acute medication utilization were assessed.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 107,122 patients, with 52,275 (49%) initiating topiramate, 22,658 (21%) initiating beta-blockers, and 32,189 (30%) initiating tricyclic antidepressants. Mean (SD) age was 41 (12) years and 83% were female. Persistence with migraine prophylactic medication was low; 81% of patients had gaps of >90 days in their migraine prophylaxis in the first year. The gap in therapy occurred early in treatment (mean, 95 days), and only 10% of patients restarted prophylactic therapy within that year. Switching from index medication to another prophylactic medication or adding prophylaxis was uncommon (13% and 5%, respectively). One year after initiating prophylaxis, 65% of patients were not receiving any prophylactic therapies. Most patients initiating migraine prophylaxis also utilized acute treatments (81%); opioid use was more frequent than triptan use (53% vs 48%) and was common (40%) among patients without other chronic pain conditions (eg, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and lower back pain).

CONCLUSION

Patients with migraine who initiated prophylactic therapy had poor persistence with early gaps in therapy, were unlikely to switch prophylactic treatments, and most discontinued prophylaxis by the end of the first year.

Drug Interaction and Serotonin Toxicity with Opioid Use: Another Reason to Avoid Opioids in Headache and Migraine Treatment

Treatment of headache, specifically migraine attacks, has always been a challenging subject, especially for neurologist and pain specialists. Triptans are generally underutilized, despite being the gold standard abortive medication for migraine attacks. On the other hand, opioid analgesics are overused as a treatment for headache. One reason for this could be physician unfamiliarity with drug interactions between opioids and other medications, especially the possibility of serotonin toxicity. The general awareness of potential serotonin toxicity with using opioid analgesics is low. In this review, we will conduct a theoretic and evidence-based review of the potential for developing serotonin syndrome in patients who are using opioids analgesics, especially in combination with antidepressants, a common co-prescribed combination. We also review the current diagnostic criteria for serotonin syndrome and identify possible shortcomings of those criteria. Our aim is to increase the awareness of health care providers about potential drug interaction of opioid analgesics with other classes of medication. We place particular emphasis on tramadol since this drug is one of the most commonly used opioid analgesics for headache. The potential for developing serotonin syndrome is relatively high in the patients who are using opioid for pain control. The use of opioids in migraine headache is already discouraged due to the high risk of medication overuse headache and also an increase in headache-related disability (Katsarava et al. Neurology 62:788-790, 2004; Bigal and Lipton. Neurology 71:1821-8, 2008; Casucci and Cevoli. Neurol Sci. 34 Suppl 1:S125-8, 2013). This is another reason that physicians and health care providers should avoid using this class of medication for pain, specifically headache and migraine treatment.

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.

Medication-overuse headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is a well described clinical entity. There is a growing body of knowledge on the epidemiology of MOH, risk factors, and treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The International Headache Society updated the classification criteria for MOH. Population-based studies provided an insight into the prevalence and peculiarities of MOH patients in eastern Europe and Asia. Large-scaled population-based longitudinal studies made it possible to analyze risk factors leading to the development of MOH. Imaging studies helped to better understand the pathophysiology of headache chronicity. New treatment strategies have been suggested.

SUMMARY

MOH is a common headache disorder and a serious public health problem all over the world. Although the treatment regimen for MOH patients is straightforward and the outcomes are favorable, it is time now to move forward and establish a predictive model for early recognition of patients at high risk, to intervene early and avoid development of chronic headache.

Medication Overuse Headache: The Reason of Headache That Common and Preventable

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is well-defined clinically and is one of the common reasons of chronic daily headache, but its pathophysiology has not been elucidated yet. MOH has varying clinical features in regard to regional, psychosocial, medical and economic factors. Even though, the studies have shown that many factors may play a role, MOH is likely to occur in patients who are prone to primary headaches. Mainstay of the treatment is to withdraw the excessively used analgesic drugs. The primary prevention with education of the patients as well as early diagnosis and treatment of MOH will reduce its increasing financial burden on both patients and countries. Meticulous and multifactorial evaluation of the disease besides the diagnosis and treatment of the comorbid diseases will reduce the risk of recurrences.

Migraine and depression comorbidity: antidepressant options

Migraine and mood depression demonstrate a high clinical relation and share, also with pain, neurobiological mechanisms, particularly neuro-transmettitorial and phlogistic ones. The choice of an antidepressant to treat both depression and migraine is determined by its efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Antidepressants share comparable effectiveness for the treatment of depressive disorders, but their efficacy on headache varies widely: Tricyclic antidepressants are more effective than SNRIs and SSRIs, but demonstrate dose-limiting side effects.