Sapra, Sandhya

Abstract Background Calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. Objective To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. Methods Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real‐world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. Results From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females ( n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white ( n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority ( n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% ( n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% ( n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% ( n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% ( n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory agents ( n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen‐based products ( n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans ( n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate ( n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants ( n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta‐blockers ( n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA ( n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6‐month follow‐up period, almost half of patients ( n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment ( n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses ( n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued ( n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses ( n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued ( n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose ( n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses ( n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6‐month follow‐up period. Conclusions Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

Objective To understand treatment preferences of people with migraine and the relative importance of improvements in efficacy and avoiding adverse events (AEs), such as cognition problems or weight gain. Background Current preventive migraine medicines are associated with poor adherence and tolerability. There is an unmet need for effective migraine‐specific preventive treatments with fewer AEs. Methods In a web‐based discrete‐choice experiment survey, respondents who self‐reported having ≥6 migraine days/month were offered choices between pairs of hypothetical preventive migraine medicines. Six attributes, each with 3 levels, defined the medicines: reduction in headache days per month (10%, 25%, or 50%), frequency of limitations with physical activities (none, 1‐category improvement, or 2‐category improvement), cognition problems (no problems, thinking problems, or memory problems), weight gain (none, 5% body weight gain, or 10% body weight gain), how the medicine is taken (daily oral pill, once‐monthly injection, or twice‐monthly injection), and monthly out‐of‐pocket cost ($5, $60, or $175). The attributes and levels were informed by clinician input, the clinical literature, and 2 focus groups. An experimental design was used to create the pairs of hypothetical medicines for the discrete‐choice experiment questions. Random‐parameters logit was used to estimate the relative importance of the medicine attributes, and the results were used to predict the percentage of respondents who would select one medicine profile over another and to calculate willingness to pay for changes in attribute levels. Results The sample included 300 respondents; 72% indicated that migraines make physical activities difficult all or most of the time, and 81% had taken a prescription medicine to prevent migraine in the last 6 months. Respondents reported having, on average, approximately 16 headache days per month. Among noncost attributes, respondents valued a change from a 10% reduction in migraine days to a 50% reduction more highly than avoiding the worst levels of AEs, but were willing to trade off efficacy for less‐severe AEs. Avoiding memory problems was more important than avoiding thinking problems. Avoiding a 10% weight gain was more important than avoiding thinking and memory problems. Respondents preferred a once‐monthly injection or daily pill to twice‐monthly injection. Respondents, on average, were willing to pay $84 (95% confidence interval [CI], $64‐$103) per month to avoid a 10% weight gain, $59 (95% CI, $42‐$76) per month to avoid memory problems, $35 (95% CI, $20‐$51) per month to avoid a 5% weight gain, and $32 (95% CI, $18‐$46) per month to avoid thinking problems. Conclusions A preventive migraine medicine with improved efficacy and AE profile and a favorable mode of administration would be valuable to migraine sufferers. Patients may be willing to trade off efficacy for better AE profiles. Clinicians should work with patients to select treatments that meet each patient’s needs.

Objective This study aimed to identify the essential content and amount of information to be collected from people with migraine via a patient‐facing smartphone‐based migraine tracker for them to share with clinicians during live discussions to assist in optimizing migraine management. The proposed tracker is intended for use in non‐interventional research to evaluate disease burden in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients as assessed by demographic and clinical characteristics and health resource utilization in an integrated delivery network setting. The proposed tracker is not intended for commercial purposes. Background Epidemiological studies suggest migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Studies of patient‐clinician interactions suggest that effective medical communication may help address these issues. Methods Four migraine practice leaders, an epidemiologist with extensive migraine experience, and a measurement expert took part in a modified Delphi panel process to identify data elements that could be collected from people with migraine through a smartphone‐based migraine tracker. Importantly, the proposed tracker would not be intended to replace the patient‐clinician encounter but to support the encounter through enabling the patient to document migraine symptoms and experiences in a timely and accurate manner for sharing with a clinician as part of a broader face‐to‐face discussion. The panel reviewed questions derived from the existing migraine diaries in the public domain, those used in clinical trials, and patient‐centric surveys assessing the impact of migraine on physical function and other related concepts. Key considerations included identification of the most clinically useful data elements for a shared communication tool for people with migraine under the care of a clinician. The panel also identified numerous functionality requirements for such a tool and provided recommendations on the most effective way to present results to a clinician. Results The expert panel opined that people with migraine may value the ability to capture a relatively broad range of information for their own migraine‐tracking purposes, while clinicians will likely find greater value in a small set of data relevant to the management of migraine. The panel identified the 3 most essential concepts in categories of data for a clinician, for which they coined the term “The 3 Fs”: F requency of days with headache; F requency of acute medication usage; and F unctional impairment. Information on the frequency of days with headache was felt to combine with the information on the frequency of acute medication usage to provide essential insights into current migraine management strategy and its outcomes, and to assist considerations of preventive measures. Functional impairment was treated as an effective surrogate for headache severity and was assessed based on the following: degree of difficulty in performing activities of daily living, impact on absenteeism (taking leave from work or cancelling/avoiding other activities) and presenteeism (performing work or other daily activities, with reduced productivity/capability), and amount of rest required as a result of a migraine attack. The modified Delphi panel process resulted in the selection of 13 questions in 8 categories to elicit sufficient and meaningful data comprising headache occurrence, symptoms, daily/preventive and as‐needed/acute medication usage, triggers, ability to concentrate, and functional impairment. The panel also agreed that the tracker should generate 2 distinct reports: one for people with migraine that would include a wider range of data about symptoms and perceived triggers, and a targeted report for the clinician that would place prime emphasis on the 3 Fs for aggregating the results of each headache occurrence and the trend over time. Conclusions A system that easily captures critical data elements about migraine, with specific feedback displays for patients to share with clinicians during live discussions, may offer some benefit to people with migraine and their clinicians by facilitating more objective communication and optimizing management. The tracker’s output may enable people with migraine to track a wide range of data for their own purposes, allowing them to better understand their condition, while a synthesized view of the selected data may support more informed clinical decision‐making for the clinician and individualized, evidence‐based discussion with the patient. As a result, this shared decision‐making tool may enable patients to more accurately convey essential migraine information during live patient‐clinician discussions to drive improved management and patient outcomes.