Search

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) significantly affects patients' health-related quality of life and well-being. Aims: Communicating Needs and Features of IBD Experiences (CONFIDE) survey explores the experience and impact of moderate-to-severe CD symptoms on patients' lives and identifies communication gaps between patients and health care professionals (HCPs). Methods: Online, quantitative, cross-sectional surveys of patients, and HCPs were conducted in the United States (US), Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom), and Japan. Criteria based on previous treatment, steroid use, and/or hospitalization defined moderate-to-severe CD. US and Europe data are presented as descriptive statistics. Results: Surveys were completed by 215 US and 547 European patients and 200 US and 503 European HCPs. In both patient groups, top three symptoms currently (past month) experienced were diarrhea, bowel urgency, and increased stool frequency, with more than one-third patients wearing diaper/pad/protection at least once a week in past 3 months due to fear of bowel urgency-related accidents. HCPs ranked diarrhea, blood in stool, and increased stool frequency as the most common symptoms. Although 34.0% US and 27.2% European HCPs ranked bowel urgency among the top five symptoms affecting patient lives, only 12.0% US and 10.9% European HCPs ranked it among top three most impactful symptoms on treatment decisions. Conclusion: Bowel urgency is common and impactful among patients with CD in the US and Europe. Differences in patient and HCP perceptions of experiences and impacts of bowel urgency exist, with HCPs underestimating its burden. Proactive communication between HCPs and patients in clinical settings is crucial for improving health outcomes in patients with CD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insights into the burden, needs and treatment of migraine from internet-based surveys in diverse real-world migraine populations are needed, especially at a time when novel preventive migraine medications are becoming part of the therapeutic armamentarium. The objectives of this analysis are to describe traditional preventive (orals and onabotulinum toxin A) treatment patterns in the OVERCOME (EU) study migraine cohort, as well as treatment patterns and patient satisfaction with current treatment in a subgroup of respondents eligible for migraine preventive medication. Methods: The cross-sectional non-interventional OVERCOME (EU) study was conducted (October 2020–February 2021) via an online survey among adults (aged ≥ 18 years) resident in Germany or Spain. Participants, registered in existing online panels, who were willing to provide consent were considered. The migraine cohort included participants reporting headache/migraine in the past year, identified based on a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self-reported physician diagnosis. A subgroup of survey respondents defined as eligible for migraine preventive medication at the point in time the cross-sectional survey was taken was also analysed. Variables assessed included sociodemographic and migraine-related clinical characteristics, preventive (traditional and calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies) treatment patterns and patient satisfaction with current treatment. Results are descriptive only. Results: Of the 20,756 participants in the migraine cohort, 78.5% sought professional medical care, 50.8% received a migraine diagnosis and only 17.7% had ever used preventive medication. Half (53.3%) of participants currently using preventives took their most recent medication for six months or less. Most patients (73.9%) classified as eligible for preventive medication (based on headache frequency and/or at least moderate disability due to migraine) reported not using traditional preventives and many of those who did (66.8%) were not satisfied with their current standard of care. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the low proportion of people diagnosed with migraine despite a higher rate of consultation and suggest the need for better access to treatment for people with migraine and new preventive therapies with improved efficacy and safety profiles to improve adherence and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine represents a serious burden for national health systems. However, preventive treatment is not optimally applied to reduce the severity and frequency of headache attacks and the related expenses. Our aim was to assess the persistence to traditional migraine prophylaxis available in Spain and its relationship with the healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs. Methods: Retrospective observational study with retrospective cohort design of individuals with migraine treated with oral preventive medication for the first time from 01/01/2016 to 30/06/2018. One-year follow-up information was retrieved from the Big-Pac™ database. According to their one-year persistence to oral prophylaxis, two study groups were created and describe regarding HRU and healthcare direct and indirect costs using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Patients were considered persistent if they continued on preventive treatment until the end of the study or switched medications within 60 days or less since the last prescription. Non-persistent were those who permanently discontinued or re-initiated a treatment after 60 days. Results: Seven thousand eight hundred sixty-six patients started preventive treatment (mean age (SD) 48.2 (14.8) and 80.4% women), of whom 2,545 (32.4%) were persistent for 6 months and 2,390 (30.4%) for 12 months. Most used first-line preventive treatments were antidepressants (3,642; 46.3%) followed by antiepileptics (1,738; 22.1%) and beta-blockers (1,399; 17.8%). The acute treatments prescribed concomitantly with preventives were NSAIDs (4,530; 57.6%), followed by triptans (2,217; 28.2%). First-time preventive treatment prescribers were mostly primary care physicians (6,044; 76.8%) followed by neurologists (1,221; 15.5%). Non-persistent patients required a higher number of primary care visits (mean difference (95%CI): 3.0 (2.6;3.4)) and days of sick leave (2.7 (0.8;4.5)) than the persistent ones. The mean annual expenditure was €622 (415; 829) higher in patients who not persisted on migraine prophylactic treatment. Conclusions: In this study, we observed a high discontinuation rate for migraine prophylaxis which is related to an increase in HRU and costs for non-persistent patients. These results suggest that the treatment adherence implies not only a clinical benefit but also a reduction in HRU and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Preventive treatment patterns and treatment satisfaction in migraine: results of the OVERCOME (EU) study" published in a previous issue of the periodical.