Dataset Information

Burden of Migraine in Patients With Preventive Treatment Failure Attending European Headache Specialist Centers: Real-World Evidence From the BECOME Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Migraine is consistently ranked as one of the most disabling neurological conditions in the world, often causing a substantial impairment of daily activities and quality of life. It also carries a high economic burden of direct and indirect healthcare costs. Patients with difficult-to-treat migraine often cycle through different preventive therapies, but real-world prospective evidence describing the burden of migraine in patients with prior preventive treatment failure (PPTF) in Europe is limited. In BECOME, we aimed to characterize and assess the prevalence and burden of migraine in patients with PPTF attending specialist headache centers in Europe and Israel. Furthermore, we assessed this burden in pre-specified subgroups based on the frequency of monthly migraine days (MMD) and number of PPTFs.

Methods

BECOME was a prospective, non-interventional study conducted in two concurrent parts across 17 countries in Europe and Israel. In part 1, patients visiting the centers over a 3-month period were screened for frequency of PPTF, MMD, and other characteristics. In part 2, patients from part 1 with ≥ 1 PPTF and ≥ 4 MMD were enrolled, and impact of migraine on patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) were examined.

Results

In part 1 (n = 20,837), 62.2% of patients reported ≥ 1 PPTF. In part 2 (n = 2419), 15.3% of patients reported ≥ 4 PPTF. In part 2, the migraine burden measured by the EuroQoL 5 dimensions 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire indicated an impact of at least moderate severity in performing usual activities in 26.5% of patients, pain/discomfort in 51.2%, and 26.1% reported being at least moderately anxious/depressed. Most patients reported a severe impact on daily activities and disability due to migraine. Abnormal Hospital Anxiety and Depression subscale scores of ≥ 11 were observed in 29% (anxiety) and 19.8% (depression) of the population. In part 2, analysis of HRU showed 21.2% patients visited an emergency department and 8.4% were hospitalized for headache/migraine in the past year.

Conclusions

This study provides real-world evidence of the high personal, social, and HRU burden of migraine in Europe and Israel.

SUBMITTER: Pozo-Rosich P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586314 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNew treatments are currently offering new opportunities and challenges in clinical management and research in the migraine field. There is the need of homogenous criteria to identify candidates for treatment escalation as well as of reliable criteria to identify refractoriness to treatment. To overcome those issues, the European Headache Federation (EHF) issued a Consensus document to propose criteria to approach difficult-to-treat migraine patients in a standardized way. The Consensus proposed well-defined criteria for resistant migraine (i.e., patients who do not respond to some treatment but who have residual therapeutic opportunities) and refractory migraine (i.e., patients who still have debilitating migraine despite maximal treatment efforts). The aim of this study was to better understand the perceived impact of resistant and refractory migraine and the attitude of physicians involved in migraine care toward those conditions.MethodsWe conducted a web-questionnaire-based cross-sectional international study involving physicians with interest in headache care.ResultsThere were 277 questionnaires available for analysis. A relevant proportion of participants reported that patients with resistant and refractory migraine were frequently seen in their clinical practice (49.5% for resistant and 28.9% for refractory migraine); percentages were higher when considering only those working in specialized headache centers (75% and 46% respectively). However, many physicians reported low or moderate confidence in managing resistant (8.1% and 43.3%, respectively) and refractory (20.7% and 48.4%, respectively) migraine patients; confidence in treating resistant and refractory migraine patients was different according to the level of care and to the number of patients visited per week. Patients with resistant and refractory migraine were infrequently referred to more specialized centers (12% and 19%, respectively); also in this case, figures were different according to the level of care.ConclusionsThis report highlights the clinical relevance of difficult-to-treat migraine and the presence of unmet needs in this field. There is the need of more evidence regarding the management of those patients and clear guidance referring to the organization of care and available opportunities.

Project description:ObjectiveThis post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE-2 study.BackgroundEptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE-2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH.MethodsThe phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders-3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class-specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM.ResultsIn PROMISE-2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1-24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo.ConclusionsAcross 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one-fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Project description:BackgroundData are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine.MethodsA retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling.ResultsAmong individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher.ConclusionsIncreased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine.MethodsThis observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3.ResultsSixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation.ConclusionsThis real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the criteria for acute migraine treatment and prevention have been well described, there are still unmet needs, general underuse and low benefits of preventive drugs. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively observe the short-term effect of preventive treatment in a cohort of migraine patients attending a tertiary headache center, using data from electronic medical records.MethodsThis was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in a tertiary headache center. Data were extracted from an electronic dataset collected from January 2009 to December 2019. The main selection criteria were as follows: age of 18-75 years; diagnosis of migraine without aura (MO), migraine with aura (MA) or chronic migraine (CM); a control visit 3 months after the first access; and prescription of preventive treatment with level of evidence 1 as reported by Italian guidelines. As the primary outcome, we considered the change in the frequency of headache at the follow-up visit. Then, as secondary outcome measures, we used disability scores, intensity of headache, and allodynia. As predictive factors, we considered age, migraine duration, sex, headache frequency, allodynia, anxiety and depression at baseline, and comorbidity with fibromyalgia.ResultsAmong the 6430 patients screened, 2800 met the selection criteria, 1800 returned to the follow-up visit, 550 withdrew because of adverse events, and 1100 were included the analysis. One hundred thirty-four patients had a frequency reduction of 50% or more. Flunarizine was used for less severe migraine, with a better effect compared to those of other drugs (odds ratio: 1.48; p: 0.022). Low headache frequency and absent or mild allodynia predicted a better outcome.ConclusionsThe mild effect of preventive drugs on migraine features and even the number of patients who were lost to follow-up or dropped out because of adverse events confirm that in severe and chronic patients, the first line of prevention can only delay a more focused therapeutic approach.