Doshi, Jalpa A.

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.

Propensity score (PS) methods have proliferated in recent years in observational studies in general and in observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) in particular. PS methods are an important set of tools for estimating treatment effects in observational studies, enabling adjustment for measured confounders in an easy-to-understand and transparent way. This article demonstrates how PS methods have been used to address specific CER questions from 2001 through to 2012 by identifying six impactful studies from this period. This article also discusses areas for improvement, including data infrastructure, and a unified set of guidelines in terms of PS implementation and reporting, which will boost confidence in evidence generated through observational CER using PS methods.