Search

Objective: To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States. Background: There are limited data on long‐term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010–December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011–December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added‐on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT‐persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine‐specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow‐up). Results: During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3‐year follow‐up, migraine‐specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non‐persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added‐on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non‐persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3–7 months). Conclusion: Migraine‐specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non‐persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine. Plain Language Summary: Little is known about how patients use medications to acutely treat or prevent migraine over longer periods of time and their associated costs. This study used information from medical and pharmacy claims to understand costs over time for three groups of patients with migraine: (1) those who remained on the same medication for 3 years, (2) those who changed medications, or (3) those who stopped treatment and then changed medications. Results showed that fewer than one in 10 patients stayed on the same medication to treat or prevent migraine over 3 years, but migraine costs and acute migraine medication overuse were lowest in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data. This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 − March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts. The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p <.001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p <.001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p <.001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p =.016). Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up. Only few patients (3 − 13%) with migraine, who qualify for preventive treatment, are using them. Conventional preventive treatments have not been developed specifically for migraine treatment, and more than half of the patients stop using them prematurely. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies such as galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab are newer treatments that provide migraine-specific preventive treatment. Prior studies have compared 6- to 12-month migraine medication use by patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting traditional standard of care (SOC) migraine preventive medications. We compared long-term (24-month) migraine medication use in patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting SOC migraine preventive medications to confirm if the results are sustained over a longer period. Over 24 months, patients who used galcanezumab followed the prescribed treatment regimen to a greater extent compared with those who used SOC medications (48% vs. 38%, respectively). Additionally, patients using galcanezumab continued treatment for a longer time compared with those using SOC. Over 24 months, about 85% of patients stopped taking SOC medications, while around 80% of patients stopped taking galcanezumab. Our findings indicate that patients with migraine are more likely to continue using galcanezumab as a preventive treatment for a longer period compared with SOC medications. This study helps identify gaps in the preventive treatment of migraine and provides insights on how they are not being used enough. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine recent studies on the effect of mobile and electronic (ME)-health technology on adherence to acne treatment. Background: With emerging use of ME-health technology, there is a growing interest in evaluating the effectiveness of the tools on medication adherence. Examples of ME-health technology-based tools include text message-based pill reminders and Web-based patient education. Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for articles on adherence to acne treatment published through November 2013. A combination of search terms such as "acne" and "adherence" or "compliance" were used. Results: Adherence to oral acne medication was higher than for topical acne medication. The frequency of office visits was also an influencing factor for acne treatment adherence. The telephone-based reminders on a daily basis did not improve acne patients' medication adherence, whereas the Web-based educational tools on a weekly basis had a positive effect on medication adherence in acne treatment. Conclusion: In using ME-health interventions, factors such as medication dosage forms, frequency of intervention, and patients' preferences should be taken into consideration. Developing disease-specific text message reminders may be helpful to increase adherence rates. In addition, a combination of text message reminders with another type of intervention may improve medication adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjectiveMethodsResultsConclusion\nPLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYTo evaluate quality of life, migraine disability, and work productivity and activity impairment in patients with migraine who received preventive treatment by comparing standard of care preventive medications and calcitonin gene-related monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs), including galcanezumab alone.This cross-sectional study conducted across the United States (US) and Europe used data from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme. Physicians completed record forms for consecutive patients, who then completed self-report forms assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as quality of life, migraine disability, and work productivity and activity impairment. T-tests, Fisher’s exact test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for analysis.From May 2022 to June 2023, 557 physicians submitted data for 6723 patients. A total of 4036 patients (US 956; Europe 3080) with a history of preventive treatment were included (>60% female, >80% White, mean [standard deviation] age range, 38.7 [12.8] to 46.3 [12.1]). Patients who received 3+ lines of preventive therapy and were receiving CGRP mAbs (including galcanezumab alone) had enhanced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to those who received standard of care. Similar findings were observed across Europe; however, in the US, there was no significant difference in any PROs.Patients with migraine in the overall population and Europe who received 3+ lines of preventive migraine therapy and were receiving CGRP mAbs/galcanezumab demonstrated enhanced HRQoL compared to those who received standard of care.This study evaluated quality of life, migraine disability, and work productivity in patients with migraine who were treated with standard of care preventive medications or calcitonin gene-related monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs), including galcanezumab alone. The study was conducted across the United States and Europe and included data from 557 physicians and 6723 patients. Results showed that patients with migraine who received 3+ lines of preventive therapy and were receiving CGRP mAbs in overall population and Europe demonstrated enhanced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with those who received standard of care. However, in the US, there was no significant difference in HRQoL and migraine disability. The study concludes that CGRP mAb treatments, especially in patients requiring multiple lines of preventive therapy, are a viable approach for optimal migraine management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs., Objective: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up., Methods: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$., Results: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits., Conclusions: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.