Dataset Information

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients. SETTING:University-initiated international survey. PARTICIPANTS:The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers. PROCEDURES:The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools. RESULTS:Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks. CONCLUSIONS:Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).

SUBMITTER: Luedtke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044826 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study.

Luedtke Kerstin K Basener Annika A Bedei Stephanie S Castien Rene R Chaibi Aleksander A Falla Deborah D Fernández-de-Las-Peñas Cesar C Gustafsson Mirja M Hall Toby T Jull Gwen G Kropp Peter P Madsen Bjarne K BK Schaefer Benjamin B Seng Elizabeth E Steen Claudia C Tuchin Peter P von Piekartz Harry H Wollesen Bettina B

BMJ open 20200212 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, ...[more]

PMID: 32051295

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess whether a core outcome set is required for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities. DESIGN:Survey of outcome measures used in primary studies identified by a systematic review. DATA SOURCES:ASSIA, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, HMIC, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Care Online, Social Policy & Practice, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway were searched up to February 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies evaluating pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for children (≤18 years old) with a neurodisability and experiencing non-respiratory sleep disturbance. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Outcome measures were listed from each study and categorised into domains. RESULTS:Thirty-nine studies assessed five core outcome areas: child sleep, other child outcomes, parent outcomes, adverse events and process measures. There were 54 different measures of child sleep across five domains: global measures; sleep initiation; maintenance; scheduling; and other outcomes. Fifteen non-pharmacological (58%) and four pharmacological studies (31%) reported child outcomes other than sleep using 29 different measures.One pharmacological and 14 non-pharmacological (54%) studies reported parent outcomes (17 different measures). Eleven melatonin studies (85%) recorded adverse events, with variation in how data were collected and reported. One non-pharmacological study reported an explicit method of collecting on adverse events. Several process measures were reported, related to adherence, feasibility of delivery, acceptability and experiences of receiving the intervention. CONCLUSIONS:There is a lack of consistency between studies in the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities. A minimum core outcome set, with international consensus, should be developed in consultation with parents, children and young people, and those involved in supporting families. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016034067.

Project description:BackgroundChronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication is the most effective. We present a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and rank of preventive drugs for chronic migraine in adults.MethodsWe identified, reviewed, and extracted data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs for chronic migraine with at least 200 participants. Data were analysed using network meta-analysis.FindingsWe included 12 RCTs of six medications (Eptinezumab, Erenumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab, Onabotulinumtoxin A, and Topiramate) compared to placebo or each other. All drugs effectively reduced monthly headache and migraine days compared with placebo. The most effective drug for monthly headache days was Eptinezumab 300mg, with a mean difference of -2.46 days, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): -3.23 to -1.69. On the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Area (SUCRA) analysis, the probability that Eptinezumab 300mg was ranked highest was 0.82. For monthly migraine days, the most effective medication was Fremanezumab-monthly, with a mean difference: -2.77 days, 95% CrI: -3.36 to -2.17, and 0.98 probability of being ranked the highest. All included drugs, except Topiramate, improved headache-related quality of life. No eligible studies were identified for the other common preventive oral medications such as Amitriptyline, Candesartan, and Propranolol. The main reasons were that the studies did not define chronic migraine, were undertaken before the definition of chronic migraine, or were too small.InterpretationAll six medications were more effective than the placebo on monthly headache and migraine days. The absolute differences in the number of headache/migraine days are, at best, modest. No evidence was found to determine the relative effectiveness of the six included drugs with other oral preventive medications.RegistrationPROSPERO (number CRD42021265990).

Project description:ObjectiveEquinus foot deformity (EFD) is the most common deviation after stroke. Several physiotherapy interventions have been suggested to treat it. However, studies evaluating the efficacy of these treatments vary widely in terms of assessment modalities, type of data analysis, and nomenclature. This scoping review aimed to map current available evidence on outcome measures and the modalities employed to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy programs for the reduction of triceps surae (TS) spasticity and EFD in patients with stroke.MethodsScoping review methodological frameworks have been used. Three databases were investigated. Primary literature addressing TS spasticity in adult patients with stroke using physiotherapy interventions was included. Findings were systematically summarized in tables according to the intervention used, intervention dosage, control group, clinical, and instrumental outcome measures.ResultsOf the 642 retrieved studies, 53 papers were included. TS spasticity was assessed by manual maneuvers performed by clinicians (mainly using the Ashworth Scale), functional tests, mechanical evaluation through robotic devices, or instrumental analysis and imaging (such as the torque-angle ratio, the H-reflex, and ultrasound images). A thorough critical appraisal of the construct validity of the scales and of the statistics employed was provided, particularly focusing on the choice of parametric and non-parametric approaches when using ordinal scales. Finally, the complexity surrounding the concept of "spasticity" and the possibility of assessing the several underlying active and passive causes of EFD, with a consequent bespoke treatment for each of them, was discussed.ConclusionThis scoping review provides a comprehensive description of all outcome measures and assessment modalities used in literature to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatments, when used for the reduction of TS spasticity and EFD in patients with stroke. Clinicians and researchers can find an easy-to-consult summary that can support both their clinical and research activities.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM-D).BackgroundMeasuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance.MethodsThe 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.ResultsBased 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Project description:BackgroundFremanezumab, 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.MethodsThis 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]).ResultsData 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.ConclusionsIn 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).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterized by progressive muscle weakness, multiple system involvement and premature mortality. Effective treatments for DMD through clinical trials and natural history studies are currently underway. Clinical trials in DMD typically include several outcome measures of motor function. Research sites and studies have been found to have slightly different operational definitions for a given functional outcome resulting in different procedures and protocols for these measurements. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study is to establish agreement among experts in the field around best practices in collecting functional outcome data in DMD providing researchers and clinicians with guidance on best practices. METHODS:A group of 30 experts in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) with experience in the development and/ or execution of lower extremity outcome measures for this population met face to face to identify incongruences in the collection of this data. This effort was based in the United States (US) and sponsored by Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Several discrepancies were categorized for each outcome which included: 6-minute walk test, 10-meter walk/run, supine to stand, ascend 4 stairs, sit to stand, and the NorthStar Ambulatory Assessment. Following this meeting an additional 32 experts in DMD (28 from the United States and 11 international participants) consented to participate in a Delphi Survey to reach consensus on the protocols and execution of lower extremity outcomes. RESULTS:Round one: 70 operationally defined questions were surveyed with 45 (64%) reaching >70% consensus. Round two: 27 questions were operational, with 20 (74%) reaching >70% consensus. Those questions that did not reach consensus appear minor. CONCLUSION:With minor modifications in the collection of data across sites, outcomes could potentially be normalized across research studies. This would reduce excessive training for evaluators in trials and produce minimal differences between protocols. Consistency in protocols will promote more efficient study start up, less errors between administration of items across studies, and ultimately improve quality and reliability of the functional outcomes. The authors strongly advocate for the establishment of a "research network library" that could be utilized by all those performing clinical assessments and trials in DMD.

Project description:BackgroundInformation on cost-effectiveness of interventions to treat schizophrenia can assist health policy decision making, particularly given the lack of health resources in developing countries like Thailand. This study aims to determine the optimal treatment package, including drug and non-drug interventions, for schizophrenia in Thailand.MethodsA Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of typical antipsychotics, generic risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine and family interventions. Health outcomes were measured in disability adjusted life years. We evaluated intervention benefit by estimating a change in disease severity, taking into account potential side effects. Intervention costs included outpatient treatment costs, hospitalization costs as well as time and travel costs of patients and families. Uncertainty was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. A sensitivity analysis of the expected range cost of generic risperidone was undertaken.ResultsGeneric risperidone is more cost-effective than typicals if it can be produced for less than 10 baht per 2 mg tablet. Risperidone was the cheapest treatment with higher drug costs offset by lower hospital costs in comparison to typicals. The most cost-effective combination of treatments was a combination of risperidone (dominant intervention). Adding family intervention has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,900 baht/DALY with a 100% probability of a result less than a threshold for very cost-effective interventions of one times GDP or 110,000 baht per DALY. Treating the most severe one third of patients with clozapine instead of risperidone had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 320,000 baht/DALY with just over 50% probability of a result below three times GDP per capita.ConclusionsThere are good economic arguments to recommend generic risperidone as first line treatment in combination with family intervention. As the uncertainty interval indicates the addition of clozapine may be dominated and there are serious side effects, treating severe patients with clozapine is advisable only for patients who do not respond to risperidone and only in the presence of a stricter side effect monitoring system than currently exists.

Dataset Information

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study.

Publications

Outcome measures for assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in frequent episodic or chronic migraine: a Delphi study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets