Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas. METHODS: Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians. RESULTS: The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Societal and economic burden of migraine in Spain: results from the 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey.

BACKGROUND: The burden of migraine goes beyond the pain and associated symptoms. We aimed to describe the impact of migraine in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), work productivity, and mood disorders, as well as its economic cost. METHODS: Case-control study nested in a cross-sectional analysis of patient-reported data collected between 30/12/2019 and 20/04/2020 as part of the National Health and Wellness Survey, from respondents located in Spain. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who reported a physician diagnosis of migraine and ≥ 1 monthly headache days (MHD) in the previous 30 days were included. HCRU, health-related quality-of-life, depression scores, work and activity impairment, and the associated direct and indirect costs were assessed for four cohorts of migraine patients, according to the frequency of headache (MHD: 1-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥ 15) and compared to a no-migraine control, matched to migraine cases by a propensity score based on demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 595 people with active migraine, of whom 461 (77.4%) experienced < 8 MHDs and 134 (22.6%) ≥ 8 MHDs, and 1,190 non-migraine matched controls. Migraine patients presented worse mental and physical health functioning (SF-12 MCS: 41.9 vs. 44.7, p < 0.001; SF-12 PCS: 48.6 vs. 51.5, p < 0.001), worse self-reported health (EQ-5D VAS: 65.8 vs. 73.5, p < 0.001), more severe depression (PHQ-9: 8.9 vs. 6.1, p < 0.001), and higher overall work impairment (WPAI: 41.4 vs. 25.5, p < 0.001). People with migraine had higher HCRU, twice higher hospitalization rates (17.0% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001) and 1.6 higher emergency room (ER) visit rates (51.4% vs. 31.2%, p < 0.001). Having migraine translated into higher annual costs with HCRU (€894 vs. €530) and productivity losses (€8,000 vs. €4,780) per person. Respondents with more MHDs presented worse outcomes and higher costs but suffering from 1-3 MHD also increased costs by 51.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Having migraine not only causes a massive impact on patients' quality of life and ability to work, but it also generates considerable economic costs for society. In Spain, having migraine was associated to 1.7 higher costs per patient. The clinical and economic burden increases with the frequency of headaches but is higher than controls even in patients suffering from 1-3 MHD.

Adherence to Desvenlafaxine Versus Usual Care and Its Impact on Health Outcomes: A Comparative Real-world Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low adherence to treatment is associated with poorer clinical outcome and greater healthcare resources utilization (HRU). Limited data are available on the extent of adherence to each individual antidepressant. The goal of this study was to compare the adherence rate to desvenlafaxine versus usual care with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and/or other serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Retrospective, multi-centric, observational study including 574 outpatients with MDD. Data were collected from mental and primary care centers. Adherence, persistence, effectiveness, and HRU was evaluated through multivariate regression models. RESULTS: At 12-months, adjusted adherence rate was higher with desvenlafaxine versus SNRI/SSRI, 67.9% versus 59.9% (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.07-2.59, p = 0.024). Remission rate was numerically higher with desvenlafaxine versus SNRI/SSRI, 55.9% versus 50.1% (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.98, p = 0.118), as well as treatment response, 76.5% in desvenlafaxine group versus 70.8% in SNRI/SSRI group (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.82-1.90, p = 0.300). Medical visits use was higher in SNRI/SSRI than in desvenlafaxine group [9.8 (4.8) versus 9.1 (6.0), p = 0.019]. CONCLUSIONS: Desvenlafaxine is significantly associated with a higher adherence rate at 12 months compared to usual care based on SSRI or other SNRI. This suggests that desvenlafaxine could improve disease management having a positive impact on disease-associated costs.

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Objective To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms. Method In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200 mg celecoxib once daily, 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0-100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability. Results A total of 388 patients were treated (celecoxib n = 153; ibuprofen n = 156; placebo n = 79). Mean difference (95% confidence interval) between celecoxib and ibuprofen in the Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain was 2.76 (-3.38, 8.90). As the lower bound was greater than -10, celecoxib was non-inferior to ibuprofen. The WOMAC total score was significantly improved with celecoxib and ibuprofen, versus placebo. Patients receiving celecoxib were significantly more satisfied (versus placebo) in 10 of 11 measures on the Pain Satisfaction Scale versus three measures with ibuprofen. Upper gastrointestinal events were less frequent with celecoxib (1.3%) than ibuprofen (5.1%) or placebo (2.5%). Conclusion Celecoxib was well tolerated and as effective as ibuprofen for symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00630929.

Influence of the CYP2D6 isoenzyme in patients treated with venlafaxine for major depressive disorder: clinical and economic consequences.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant drugs are the mainstay of drug therapy for sustained remission of symptoms. However, the clinical results are not encouraging. This lack of response could be due, among other causes, to factors that alter the metabolism of the antidepressant drug. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact of concomitant administration of CYP2D6 inhibitors or substrates on the efficacy, tolerability and costs of patients treated with venlafaxine for major depressive disorder in clinical practice. METHODS: We designed an observational study using the medical records of outpatients. Subjects aged ≥ 18 years who started taking venlafaxine during 2008-2010 were included. Three study groups were considered: no combinations (reference), venlafaxine-substrate, and venlafaxine-inhibitor. The follow-up period was 12 months. The main variables were: demographic data, comorbidity, remission (Hamilton <7), response to treatment, adverse events and costs. The statistical analysis included logistic regression models and ANCOVA, with p values <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1,115 subjects were recruited. The mean age was 61.7 years and 75.1% were female. Approximately 33.3% (95% CI: 30.5 to 36.1) were receiving some kind of drug combination (venlafaxine-substrate: 23.0%, and venlafaxine-inhibitor: 10.3%). Compared with the venlafaxine-substrate and venlafaxine-inhibitor groups, patients not taking concomitant drugs had a better response to therapy (49.1% vs. 39.9% and 34.3%, p<0.01), greater remission of symptoms (59.9% vs. 50.2% and 43.8%, p<0.001), fewer adverse events (1.9% vs. 7.0% and 6.1%, p<0.05) and a lower mean adjusted cost (€2,881.7 vs. €4,963.3 and €7,389.1, p<0.001), respectively. All cost components showed these differences. CONCLUSIONS: The patients treated with venlafaxine alone showed a better response to anti-depressant treatment, greater remission of symptoms, a lower incidence of adverse events and lower healthcare costs.

Clinical management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: patient satisfaction with treatment switch.

Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of disability, with great quality of life and economic impact, hence the need for effective treatment. Patient satisfaction with treatment is a measure of therapeutic effectiveness and may be used to assess treatment switch in OA patients. A 3-month multicenter, prospective, epidemiologic, non-interventional study was conducted in patients with hip and/or knee OA to assess therapeutic efficacy in patients requiring treatment switch due to lack of effectiveness and/or tolerability in primary care settings. Therapeutic effectiveness was assessed by patient satisfaction using the osteoARthritis Treatment Satisfaction (ARTS) scale. The 3-month disease change [by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and a pain visual analog scale (VAS)] and its correlation with treatment satisfaction were also assessed, as well as patient gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) profiles. 5,976 patients were analyzed (mean age 68.8 years, 65.1 % female). 67 and 61.8 % showed high GI and CV risk, respectively. The proportion of patients on acetaminophen treatment during the study decreased from 74.8 % at baseline to 23.9 %, while the proportion on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increased from 59.8 to 85.8 %. At 3 months, the standardized (0-100) overall ARTS score increased from 57.7 to 71.6 (p < 0.0001), while disease severity decreased. There was a significant (p < 0.0001) negative association between the ARTS, and the WOMAC and VAS scores. Treatment switching from acetaminophen to NSAIDs as a consequence of poor effectiveness and/or tolerability resulted in increased patient satisfaction with treatment and lower OA severity.

Treatment satisfaction after switching to another therapy in Spanish orthopaedic clinic outpatients with knee or hip osteoarthritis previously refractory to paracetamol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hip and knee osteoarthritis is highly prevalent in the elderly, and the incidence is estimated to increase in the coming decades. Prior to surgery, symptomatic treatment, starting with non-pharmacological therapies, should be prescribed. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the recommended first pharmacological treatment for osteoarthritis. If paracetamol is ineffective, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment is indicated. The superiority of NSAIDs over paracetamol has been demonstrated in several studies. Furthermore, the assessment of patient satisfaction could be an adequate indicator of the quality of care given and is likely related to the evolution of the condition and the therapeutic regimen. The objective of this study was to assess the satisfaction of patients diagnosed with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who had been previously treated with paracetamol and switched to NSAID treatment due to a lack of effectiveness by paracetamol. METHODS: An observational, prospective, multicentre and comparative study was conducted in 2009 among patients diagnosed with hip and knee OA who visited outpatient orthopaedic clinics. The evaluation of treatment effectiveness was carried out using a patient-based visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The satisfaction regarding change of treatment due to a lack of effectiveness and/or the presence of adverse effects was evaluated using the osteoARthritis Treatment Satisfaction (ARTS) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 2437 patients were evaluated (knee OA: 1438 [59%]; hip OA: 621 [25.5%]; knee and hip OA: 124 [5.1%]; and without OA location registered: 254 [10.4%]). The study findings showed an increase in patient satisfaction after abandoning the use of paracetamol to treat OA. Statistically significant increases in both overall satisfaction mean (from 57.7 [SD 13.5] to 71.3 [SD 12.0]) and in each of the four domains of the ARTS questionnaire were observed (p < 0.0001 in all cases). According to the WOMAC and a VAS, treatment effectiveness increased significantly after 3 months (p < 0.0001) and significant correlations with satisfaction were observed (r = -0.32 and r = -0.29, respectively; p < 0.0001). The mean (SD) change in global satisfaction in patients treated with NSAIDs was 14.9 (15.5) versus 7.2 (14.4) for patients treated with non-NSAIDs (p < 0.0001). Patients taking NSAID treatment showed substantially more improvement over those taking non-NSAID treatment. CONCLUSION: NSAIDs relieve pain due to OA in paracetamol-resistant patients and improve treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction with treatment. Furthermore, paracetamol-refractory subjects under conventional medical treatment with NSAIDs experienced the drug as more effective and also tended to be more satisfied with treatment than those treated with non-NSAIDs.

Prescription patterns and appropriateness of NSAID therapy according to gastrointestinal risk and cardiovascular history in patients with diagnoses of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be based on the assessment of both gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) risk for the individual patient. We aimed to assess the GI/CV risk profile and the pharmacological management of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study of consecutive OA patients that visited 1,760 doctors throughout the Spanish National Health System (NHS) in a single day. The presence of GI risk factors, CV histories, hypertension and current pharmacological treatments was recorded. RESULTS: Of the 60,868 patients, 17,105 had a diagnosis of OA and were evaluable. The majority (93.4%) had more than one GI risk factor and 60.3% were defined to be at high-GI risk. Thirty-two percent had a history of CV events, 57.6% were treated with anti-hypertensive therapy and 22.6% had uncontrolled hypertension. One-fifth of patients were treated with non-NSAID therapies, whereas the remaining patients received NSAIDs. Non-selective NSAIDs (nsNSAID) plus proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or cyclooxigenase-2 (COX-2)-selective NSAIDs alone were more frequently prescribed in patients at increased GI risk. Patients with a positive CV history received nsNSAIDs or COX-2-selective NSAIDs in 41.3% and 31.7% of cases, respectively. When both the GI and CV histories were combined, 51% of the overall population was being prescribed drugs that were either not recommended or contraindicated. CONCLUSIONS: Over 90% of patients with OA are at increased GI and/or CV risk. In over half of these patients, the prescription of NSAIDs was not in accordance with current guidelines or recommendations made by regulatory agencies.

Doxazosin GITS versus standard doxazosin in mild to moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The selective alpha 1-adrenoceptor antagonist doxazosin in both standard formulation and gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) controlled-release formulation is effective for hypertension without having a negative impact on serum lipids. This study was designed to compare the relative efficacy of these two formulations of doxazosin on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and serum lipids in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients aged 18-70 years (n = 335) were evaluated in a multi-center prospective randomized study. Following a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized to receive doxazosin 2 or 4 mg, with dose titration, or doxazosin GITS 4 mg, no dose titration, for 9 weeks. RESULTS: Both doxazosin formulations reduced clinic diastolic and systolic blood pressure from baseline (P < 0.0001). Doxazosin GITS and doxazosin 4 mg had similar blood pressure-lowering effects. Doxazosin GITS reduced sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure compared with doxazosin 2 mg (P < 0.01 for both). A greater proportion of the doxazosin GITS group reached goal blood pressure (< or = 140/90 mm Hg) after 9 weeks compared with the doxazosin 2-mg group. All doses of doxazosin reduced 24-h and daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) ambulatory blood pressure from baseline (all P < 0.01). Doxazosin GITS significantly reduced nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) ambulatory blood pressure from baseline. A neutral effect on serum lipids was observed with doxazosin. CONCLUSIONS: Doxazosin GITS and doxazosin were effective in reducing clinic and ambulatory blood pressure. The GITS formulation reduced the need for dose titration. Both doxazosin formulations were well tolerated.

A six-month, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study of the efficacy and tolerability of atorvastatin in the primary care setting(estudio del control de las hiperlipidemiasen atención primaria): the cheap study.

BACKGROUND: A close relationship exists between high levels of total cholesterol (TC) (particularly low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), which is associated with an increased risk for arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence shows that atorvastatin produces significantly greater reductions in LDL-C and TC than other hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors. However, the results achieved in clinical studies could be different from those found in general clinical practice, where patient follow-up is less thorough and poorer compliance may reduce the effectiveness of the lipid-lowering therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of atorvastatin in achieving the LDL-C levels recommended by several Spanish scientific societies, as well as its tolerability in standard clinical use. METHODS: This 6-month, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study was conducted in 1351 primary care centers in Spain. All patients were aged 18 to 80 years and had primary hypercholesterolemia (TC >200 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] 200 mg/dL and fasting TG 200-400 mg/dL). All patients also had LDL-C levels higher than those established by the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis [SEA]) according to baseline cardiovascular risk and previous use of lipid-lowering therapy (for patients with low, moderate, or high cardiovascular risk, the recommended LDL-C goals are ≤175 mg/dL, ≤155 mg/dL, and ≤135 mg/dL, respectively; for patients with CVD, the LDL-C goal is ≤100 mg/dL). None of the patients had creatine kinase activity ≥540 U/L or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels ≥60 U/L. Study visits occurred at months 0, 2, and 6 of treatment. Patients received atorvastatin calcium 10 mg/d for 2 months. The dosage was then doubled to 20 mg/d in patients who did not achieve the SEA LDL-C goal and also in those patients whose primary care physicians (PCPs) deemed this higher dosage necessary; this dosage was continued for at least 4 additional months, to complete at least a 6-month course of treatment. The percentage of patients who achieved their goals was used to measure atorvastatin effectiveness. Percentages of change in LDL-C, TC, TG, and HDL-C from baseline to the final study visit also were used as measures of effectiveness. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) per 10,000 patient-months was used for the primary tolerability analysis. A secondary tolerability analysis was performed in all patients treated with atorvastatin who had some recorded follow-up, regardless of whether the patient met inclusion criteria. Information was obtained from data recorded in the case-report forms. RESULTS: A total of 5317 outpatients (2715 women, 2598 men, 4 sex unknown; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [10.5] years) were enrolled. Among patients receiving known dosages of atorvastatin, 1580 of 4033 (39.2%) and 2378 of 3585 (66.3%) patients met the SEA LDL-C goal after 2 and 6 months of therapy, respectively (P