Viswanathan, Hema N.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM‐D). Background Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. Methods The AIM‐D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM‐D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13‐week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM‐D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM‐D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression – Severity (PGI‐S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function‐Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM‐D. Results Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM‐D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11‐item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one‐ and two‐domain structures for the AIM‐D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM‐D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95–0.97), acceptable test–retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI‐S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known‐groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI‐S score and monthly migraine days. Conclusion The AIM‐D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Introduction: Triptans, the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine attacks are, per FDA labeling, contraindicated in cardiovascular (CV) disease patients and have warnings and precautions for those with CV risk factors. Methods: Headache specialists, cardiologists, and health economics and outcomes researchers convened to identify diagnostic codes for: (1) CV diseases contraindicating triptans based on FDA labeling; (2) conditions comprising “other significant underlying CV disease”; and (3) CV risk factors included as warnings and precautions for triptans. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured adult US migraine patients in the 2017 Optum ® Clinformatics ® Data Mart (CDM) and the 2017 IBM ® Watson Health MarketScan ® Commercial Claims database was used to estimate the proportion of migraine patients with CV contraindications and warnings and precautions to triptans. Results: Of the 56,662 migraine patients analyzed from Optum CDM, 13.5% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in triptan labeling and an additional 8.5% had ≥1 “other CV disease” judged by the panel to constitute a “significant underlying CV disease” (total: 22.0% migraine patients). Of 176 724 migraine patients analyzed from MarketScan, 12.2% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in the labeling and an additional 8.0% had ≥1 “other significant underlying CV disease” (total: 20.2% of migraine patients). An additional 25.4% and 25.1% of migraine patients had ≥2 CV risk factors in Optum CDM and MarketScan. In total, 47.4% and 45.3% of migraine patients in both databases had a CV disease specified as a contraindication, an “other CV disease” endorsed as significant, or ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans. Conclusions: Analyses of more than 230,000 people with migraine showed that ≥20% of commercially insured US migraine patients have a CV condition that specifically contraindicates triptan treatment, and an additional 25% have ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

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.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient‐reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change. Background Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co‐primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient‐reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient‐relevant outcomes. Methods ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, single‐attack trials in adults (18‐75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis. Results In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant‐treated participants vs placebo‐treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001). Conclusions A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient‐centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.