Dataset Information

Multinational descriptive analysis of the real-world burden of headache using the Migraine Buddy application.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

A large proportion of headache sufferers do not routinely seek medical care. App-based technologies permit the collection of real-world data over time and between countries that can help assess true burden of headache. This study used a mobile phone application to collect information on the real-world burden of self-diagnosed headache and to describe its impact on daily life in headache sufferers who do not routinely seek medical advice.

Methods

This retrospective, non-interventional, cross-sectional study analysed self-reported data from users of the 'Migraine Buddy' app. The main objective was to describe self-reported characteristics of headache and migraine (triggers, duration, frequency), treatment patterns and impact on daily activity in headache sufferers from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany and Japan. Data including demographics, self-diagnosed episode type (headache/migraine), duration, potential triggers and impact on daily activity are reported. All analyses were exploratory and performed per country.

Results

Self-reported data were collected from 60,474 users between August 2016 and August 2018. Approximately 90% of users were females; >60% were aged 24-45 years. Over one-third of users reported having two to five episodes of headache or migraine per month; impact included impaired concentration, being slower and missing work or social activities. Variations across countries were observed; within countries, episode characteristics were very similar for self-diagnosed headache versus migraine.

Conclusions

Headache tracking was used to describe the experience, impact and self-management approaches of migraine and headache sufferers in a real-world setting. Headache disorders present a range of important issues for patients that deserve more study and reinforce the need for better approaches to management.

SUBMITTER: Goadsby PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9291858 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMigraine 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.MethodsBECOME 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThis study provides real-world evidence of the high personal, social, and HRU burden of migraine in Europe and Israel.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of migraine is highest among working age individuals, and this disease is associated with an increased number of sick leaves and health care visits, as well as lost productivity. Erenumab, the first monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, is effective in decreasing the monthly number of migraine days, but evidence of its impact on the number of sick leave days and health care visits in patients with migraine is limited.MethodsThis retrospective registry study focused on occupationally active patients with migraine treated with erenumab at a Finnish private health care provider, Terveystalo. Erenumab responders, defined as patients who had at least two unique prescriptions of erenumab and no prescription of other CGRP inhibitor (CGRPi), were followed for 12 months prior to and after erenumab treatment initiation (index), and the change in the number of headache-related and all-cause sick leave days, health care visits and prescriptions for other medications during this period were assessed from the registry data. The same outcomes were assessed in an age- and sex-matched control group of migraine patients not receiving CGRPi to control for potential changes in patient behavior and health care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsAltogether, 162 patients who were entitled to employer-sponsored health care received erenumab and met the 12-month follow-up requirements. In the responder group (n = 82; 50.1%) headache-related sick leave days were reduced by 73.9% (p = 0.035) and health care visits by 44.6% (p < 0.001) in the 12 months following treatment initiation compared to the period of 12 months prior to treatment. All-cause sick leave days were reduced by 19.4% and all-cause health care visits by 13.5%, but these changes were not statistically significant. Triptan prescriptions decreased by 30.4% (p = 0.012) and other prophylactic treatments by 31.5% (p = 0.004). No significant changes were observed in the corresponding outcomes in the migraine control group during the same period.ConclusionsThe results of this registry study suggest that in addition to the effect on the monthly number of migraine days documented in clinical trials, erenumab can significantly reduce the number of headache-related sick leave days and health care visits in employed patients with migraine managed in routine clinical practice.

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:BACKGROUND:Many different preventatives have showed efficacy in the treatment of migraine. National guidelines differ in their recommendations and patients' characteristics are usually taken into account in their selection. In Spain, real life use of preventive therapies seems to be heterogeneous. We aimed to evaluate differences in clinical practice and adherence to national guidelines among Spanish neurologists. METHODS:Observational descriptive study. A survey was conducted among neurologists ascribed to the Spanish Society of Neurology. Participants were differentiated in accordance with their dedication to headache disorders. We analysed socio-demographic parameters and evaluated 43 questions considering migraine management as well as therapeutic choices regarding migraine sub-types and finally, neurologists' personal perception. RESULTS:One hundred fifty-five neurologists participated from 17 different regions, 43.4% of them female and 53.3% under 40?years of age. 34.9% confirmed headache disorders as their main interest. The first choice for preventive therapy in chronic migraine among participants was topiramate (57%) followed by amytriptiline (17.9%) and beta-blockers (14.6%). However in episodic migraine, the preferred options were beta-blockers (47.7%), topiramate (21.5%) and amytriptiline (13.4%). Regarding perceived efficacy, topiramate was considered the best option in chronic migraine (42.7%) followed by onabotulinumtoxinA (25.5%) and amitryptiline (22.4%). Where episodic migraine was concerned, surveyed neurologists perceived topiramate (43.7%) and beta-blockers (30.3%) as the best options. When we evaluated the duration of treatment use with a view to adequate therapeutic response, 43.5% of neurologists preferred 3?months duration and 39.5% were in favour of 6?months duration in episodic migraine. However, considering the preferred duration of treatment use in chronic migraine, 20.4% recommended 3?months, 42.1% preferred 6?months and 12.5% and 22.4% opted for 9 and 12?months respectively. When considering onabotulinumtoxinA therapy, the number of prior therapeutic failures was zero in 7.2% of neurologists, one in 5.9%, two in 44.1%, three in 30.9% and four or more in 11.9%. Following an initial treatment failure with onabotulinumtoxinA, 49% of subjects decided against a second treatment. The number of OnabotA procedures before considering it as ineffective was two in 18.9% of neurologists, three in 70.8% and four in 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS:The initial management of migraine among Spanish Neurologists is in line with most guidelines, where first choice preventative drugs are concerned. The Management of episodic migraine differed from chronic migraine, both in terms of neurologist preference and in their perceived efficacy.

Project description:INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE:Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic burden, but many people with CM are underdiagnosed and do not receive appropriate preventive treatment. OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate have demonstrated efficacy (treatment benefit under ideal conditions) for the prevention of headaches in people with CM in clinical trials, but real-world studies suggest markedly different clinical effectiveness (treatment benefit based on a blend of efficacy and tolerability). This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate immediate release for people with CM. METHODS:FORWARD was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 4 study comparing onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12?weeks with topiramate 50 to 100?mg/day for ?36?weeks in people with CM. PROs measured included the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire Quick Depression Assessment (PHQ-9), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire (FIMQ). RESULTS:A total of 282 patients were randomized and treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n?=?140) or topiramate (n?=?142). From baseline to week 30, mean HIT-6 test scores improved significantly in patients taking onabotulinumtoxinA compared with topiramate (P?<?.001). Improvements in depression over time were observed via larger changes in PHQ-9 scores with onabotulinumtoxinA than topiramate (P?<?.001). Work productivity assessed via WPAI:SHP scores revealed significant improvements with onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in Work Productivity Loss (P?=?.024) and Activity Impairment (P?<?.001) domains. Results from the FIMQ also revealed a larger reduction from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA vs topiramate (P?<?.0001). CONCLUSION:OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment had more favorable real-world effectiveness than topiramate on depression, headache impact, functioning and daily living, activity, and work productivity. The overall study results suggest that the beneficial effects on a range of PROs are the result of improved effectiveness when onabotulinumtoxinA is used as preventive treatment for CM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICALTRIALS.GOV:NCT02191579; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02191579.