HER2 expression in urothelial carcinoma, a systematic literature review.

Background: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common malignancy with significant associated mortality. Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2-targeted therapy. Testing for HER2 expression in UC is not part of current routine clinical practice. In consequence, the prevalence of HER2 expression in UC is not well defined. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to characterize HER2 expression in both locally advanced unresectable or metastatic (LA/mUC) and earlier stage UC, classified as HER2+, HER2-low, HER2-. HER2+ was defined as an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 3+ or IHC 2+ and ISH/FISH+. HER2-low was defined as an IHC score of 2+ and ISH/FISH- or IHC 1+. HER2- was defined as an IHC score of 0. Weighted averages were calculated to generate an estimate of the population prevalence. Results: A total of 88 studies were identified, with 45, 30, and 13 studies investigating LA/mUC, earlier stage UC, and mixed stage/unspecified, respectively. The most common assays used were Dako HercepTest and Ventana Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) for IHC to assess HER2 protein expression; Abbott PathVysion HER-2 DNA Probe Kit, FoundationOne CDx, and Guardant360 CDx for assessing HER2 gene amplification. The most frequently cited scoring guidelines were ASCO/CAP guidelines for breast cancer and gastric cancer, though most studies defined their own criteria for HER2 expression. Using the pre-specified definition, HER2+ prevalence ranged from 6.7% to 37.5% with a weighted average of 13.0% in LA/mUC. Only 1 study presented data that could be classified as HER2+ based on pre-specified criteria in earlier stage UC patients, and this study represented a likely outlier, at 76.0%. Conclusion: The results from this SLR help to shed light on HER2 expression in UC, a potentially clinically relevant biomarker-driven subpopulation for emerging HER2-directed regimens. Results of this SLR illuminate the variability in how HER2+ status expression levels are being assessed and how HER2+ is defined. Consensus on standardized HER2 testing and scoring criteria is paramount to better understand the clinical relevance in patients with UC.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. METHODS: We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. RESULTS: A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. CONCLUSION: Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

Cost-effectiveness of topical glycopyrronium tosylate for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

AIMS: Primary axillary hyperhidrosis (PAHH) is a condition characterized by excessive sweating that negatively impacts health-related quality of life, with significant psychological and social impacts. Glycopyrronium tosylate (GT) is a topical anticholinergic approved in the United States for treatment of PAHH in patients 9 years of age and older. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of GT as first-line topical therapy compared to topical aluminum chloride from a United States commercial perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed consisting of four health states based on the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) over a time horizon of 5 years with discount rates of 3% for both costs and outcomes. Transitions between health states were driven by HDSS response, defined as an improvement of ≥2 points. Non-responders and those who discontinue could switch to later line treatments or no treatment. Health utility scores were based on HDSS scores, supported by published literature. RESULTS: Over 5 years, GT yielded 0.12 greater QALYs and 0.93 greater LYs with response compared to treatment with prescription aluminum chloride at an incremental cost of $10,584. Relative to prescription aluminum chloride, GT resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $87,238 per QALY gained, $11,349 per LY with response. The ICER fell below $100,000 for 66% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations and below $150,000 for 82% of simulations. LIMITATIONS: This analysis represents a simplified scenario of a hypothetical PAHH patient. Due to sparse data, assumptions were required for treatment patterns, efficacy, and persistence. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis of incremental cost per QALY gained, GT may be cost-effective relative to prescription aluminum chloride at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

The Effectiveness and Value of Siponimod for Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Synnott and Pearson are employed by ICER. Bloudek and Carlson report a research agreement between the University of Washington and ICER; Bloudek reports consulting fees from Allergan, Seattle Genetics, Dermira, Sunovion, TerSera Therapeutics, Cook Regentech, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and Carlson reports personal fees from Bayer, unrelated to this report. Sharaf reports consulting fees from ICER.

Anticipated Impact of Generic Imatinib Market Entry on the Costs of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib was the first BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia and is currently the most prescribed TKI. The impending loss of patent exclusivity for imatinib has the potential to reduce costs for payers. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study were to estimate the economic impact of the loss of patent exclusivity for branded imatinib and to calculate the relative impact of requiring prior authorization (PA) for the use of generic imatinib before a branded TKI. The secondary objective was to evaluate the potential relative cost impact of using a preferred branded TKI in addition to the PA requirement for generic imatinib before a branded TKI. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed from the perspective of a US payer (commercial and Medicare) for a 2-year period. Data on utilization, patient out-of-pocket cost, and market share were obtained from an analysis of Truven Health MarketScan claims. It was assumed that the cost of generic imatinib would be 47.8% of the price of branded imatinib. It was assumed that 70% of patients receiving branded imatinib would shift to generic imatinib in year 1, and 95% would shift in year 2 after loss of patent exclusivity. Formulary management could be applied through PA requiring the use of generic imatinib before a branded TKI for patients newly prescribed TKI therapy. It was assumed that 74% of PA requests would be approved, and that the administrative cost of each would be $20. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan, the loss of patent exclusivity for branded imatinib produced cost-savings of $6.8 million during 2 years, or 28.8% of the total pharmacy spending on the TKI class. The savings were even greater in a 1 million member Medicare plan, at $22.9 million (28.8%). Formulary management reduced incremental TKI spending by 1.1% and 2.2% for the commercial and Medicare plans, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of formulary management beyond generic substitution, the loss of patent exclusivity for branded imatinib is expected to reduce total pharmacy spending on TKIs by nearly 33% during 2 years. Given the small number of newly treated patients, formulary management of the TKI class through restricted access to branded imatinib, with or without a preferred branded TKI, has limited potential for incremental cost-savings.

Real-world economic impact of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the utilization of healthcare resources is reduced after chronic migraine patients are treated for 6 months with onabotulinumtoxinA. BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is indicated for headache prophylaxis in patients with chronic migraine, but its effect on healthcare resource use is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from an open-label study of 230 chronic migraine patients refractory to ≥2 oral prophylactics who presented to a headache specialty clinic and who were treated with two cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA. Frequency and cost of migraine-related healthcare resource use, including visits to emergency departments, urgent care, or hospitalization, were compared for the 6 months before and after initial treatment. Costs were based on publicly available sources. RESULTS: Compared with the 6 months predating initial treatment, patients had 55% fewer emergency department visits (174 vs 385), 59% fewer urgent care visits (61 vs 150), and 57% fewer hospitalizations (19 vs 45) during the 6-month treatment period (P < .01 for all). Analysis of treatment-related costs yielded an average reduction of $1219.33/patient, off-setting 49.7% of the total estimated cost for 6 months of treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: Although we are unable to distinguish onabotulinumtoxinA's treatment effect from other potential confounding variables, our analysis showed that severely afflicted, treatment-refractory patients with chronic migraine experienced a significant cost-offset through reduced migraine-related emergency department visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations in the 6 months following treatment initiation of onabotulinumtoxinA. Future analyses will assess the longer-term effect of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment and the potential contribution of regression to the mean.

Validation of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) in patients with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 was developed and has been validated in patients with various types of headache. The objective of this study was to report the psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients with chronic migraine. METHODS: Data came from two international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of chronic migraine patients (N = 1,384) undergoing prophylaxis therapy. Confirmatory factor analysis and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis were used to test the latent structure and cross-cultural comparability of the HIT-6. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were assessed. Two sets of criterion groups were used: (1) 28-day headache frequency: <10, 10-14, and ≥15 days; (2) sample quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache: <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥420 hours. Two sets of responsiveness categories were defined as reduction of <30%, 30% to <50%, or ≥50% in (1) number of headache days and (2) cumulative hours of headache. RESULTS: Measurement invariance tests supported the stability of the HIT-6 latent structure across studies. DIF analysis supported cross-cultural comparability. Good reliability was observed across studies (Cronbach's α: 0.75-0.92; intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.76-0.80). HIT-6 scores correlated strongly (-0.86 to -0.59) with scores of the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Analysis of variance indicated that HIT-6 scores discriminated across both types of criterion groups (P<0.001), across studies and time points. HIT-6 change scores were significantly higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater improvement (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: All measurement properties were consistently verified across the two studies, supporting the validity of the HIT-6 among chronic migraine patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00156910 and NCT00168428 on www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Treatment persistence and switching in triptan users: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate persistence to and switching of triptan therapy for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine affects over 12% of adults in Western countries and an estimated 36 million people in the United States. Triptans are an abortive treatment option in patients with moderate to severe migraine. Despite the safety and efficacy of triptans reported in clinical trials, observational studies have consistently demonstrated low persistence to therapy and frequent switching among products over time. METHODS: The following databases were researched: Medline, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified a priori before conducting abstract and full-text screening. Included studies were required to: (1) report triptan use for migraine treatment; (2) report measures of persistence and/or switching patterns; (3) study migraineurs aged 18 years or older; and (4) conduct an observational study. Studies were excluded if they (1) incorporated interventional study design; (2) lack information or relevance to outcome of interest; (3) were not original research; (4) did not clearly state the results; and (5) were not written in English. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Out of 595 studies identified, 380 studies were included for abstract screening. A total of 12 articles met the eligibility criteria after full-text screening of 44 studies, including four studies from reference search. The proportion of patients that remained persistent up to six refills of an index triptan ranged from 3.2% to 12.6% and the proportion of patients that never refilled their index triptan ranged from 38% to 65.8%. In addition to those patients who discontinued, several studies reported that 5-9% of newly initiating triptan users switch to a different triptan before refilling their original medication. Finally, several studies reported the 1-year probability of discontinuation among a general group of triptan users (not limited to treatment naïve patients) to be between 30% and 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Triptans can be a valuable option for acute treatment of migraine. However, studies have shown that treatment persistence is low. This, along with frequent switching behaviors, suggests that a significant unmet clinical need remains despite the wide availability of triptans.

Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease affecting 12% of Americans and millions worldwide. Medication adherence has been studied extensively in many chronic conditions, with poor adherence adversely affecting treatment outcomes. However, little is known about adherence to oral prophylaxis for migraine. OBJECTIVE: To examine the literature on assessing oral prophylaxis medication adherence and persistence among migraine patients. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed (1966 to present) and EMBASE (1974 to present) databases was conducted to locate prospective and retrospective observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate. RCTs were pooled, weighted by sample size, and stratified by drug and length of study. Average persistence rates and reasons for discontinuation cited in RCTs were examined for each medication. RESULTS: A total of 788 unique articles were identified using the search criteria, 33 of which were included in the final review. Observational studies (n = 14) showed adherence ranges of 41% to 95% at 2 months, 21% to 80% at 6 months, and 35% to 56% at 12 months and persistence ranges of 41% to 88% at 2 months, 19% to 79% at 6 months, and 7% to 55% at 12 months. Pooled persistence from RCTs on propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate (n = 19) showed rates of 77%, 55%, and 57%, respectively, at 16-26 weeks. Adverse events were the most common reason for discontinuation cited (24% for topiramate and 17% for amitriptyline). CONCLUSION: Observational studies and pooled data from RCTs demonstrate poor adherence and persistence to oral migraine prophylaxis.

Headache-related health resource utilisation in chronic and episodic migraine across six countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe headache-related health resource usage in chronic and episodic migraine across six countries. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire eliciting data on several topics, including health resource usage, was administered to panellists with migraine from the USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Australia. Respondents were grouped into episodic and chronic migraine, based on reported headache phenotype and headache-day frequency. ORs were calculated, comparing usage in each country to that in the US, controlling for chronic versus episodic migraine and other factors. RESULTS: Relative to the USA, the odds of visiting a provider for headache during the preceding 3 months were significantly higher in all countries, except Germany. Respondents in France were more likely to report having a provider they typically visited for headache-related care. The odds of visiting the emergency department for headache were significantly lower in France, the UK and Germany, and hospitalisation for headache was significantly more frequent in Canada and Australia. Respondents from all countries, except Canada, were more likely to report currently using a prescription-acute treatment, and those from France were more likely to report trying more than three acute treatments. Preventive treatment use did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Headache-related resource usage differed significantly between the USA and other countries. US respondents were generally less likely to report recent provider visits and use of prescription-acute treatments. They were more likely to report emergency department visits than in European countries, but less likely to report hospitalisation than in Canada and Australia.

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK. METHODS: A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n = 1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000-£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.

Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II).

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize patterns of preventive medication use in persons with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: Several classes of medications are used both on- and off-label for the prevention of migraine, including ß-blockers (eg, propranolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (eg, amitriptyline), anti-epileptic drugs (eg, topiramate, valproic acid), and neurotoxins (eg, onabotulinumtoxinA). METHODS: Preventive medication use and reasons for discontinuation were collected in an international, Web-based, cross-sectional survey of adults with migraine during 2010. Descriptive analyses were conducted on demographics and headache-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, stratified by use of preventive medication, and EM or CM. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess predictors of preventive medication use. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixty-five respondents completed the survey. Only 28.3% of EM and 44.8% of CM respondents were currently using preventive medication; any use of prophylaxis (prior or current) was reported by 43.4% of those with EM and 65.9% with CM. The mean number of prophylactic medications ever used was 2.92 for EM and 3.94 for CM. Antidepressants were used most frequently (EM 60.9%; CM 54.7%), followed by ß-blockers (EM 35.4%; CM 36.8%) and anti-epileptics (EM 28.6%; CM 36.3%). Odds of preventive medication use were higher among CM than EM, adjusting for age, gender, race, years of daily headache, and country (odds ratio 2.72; 95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.57). Greater headache-related disability and older age were also associated with greater odds of ever having used prophylaxis, regardless of headache frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half the persons with EM and CM were currently using preventive medication for migraine, with treatment rates being higher for CM, as expected. Those with CM tried more medications than those with EM, possibly reflecting higher levels of treatment need.

The psychometric properties of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) in chronic migraine patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) has been shown to have good psychometric performance in measuring headache impact in migraine patients, but its properties specifically in chronic migraine (CM) patients are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MSQ in a group of CM patients undergoing prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Measurement properties of the MSQ were examined using two international, multicenter, randomized clinical trials evaluating onabotulinumtoxinA as headache prophylaxis in CM patients (N = 1,376). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the latent structure of the MSQ in CM patients. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness of the MSQ were assessed. RESULTS: CFA confirmed the currently proposed three-factor MSQ latent structure across the two studies. Good reliability was observed for all three MSQ scales, across studies and time points. MSQ scale scores strongly correlated with the scores of the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Analysis of known-groups validity indicated that MSQ scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in their 28-day headache frequency were as follows <10, 10-14, and ≥ 15 days, and the sample-derived quartiles of the total cumulative hours of headache were as follows <140, 140 to <280, 280 to <420, and ≥ 420 h (p < 0.0001), across both studies and time points. MSQ change scores were higher in magnitude in groups experiencing greater decline in headache frequency (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The MSQ is a psychometrically valid tool that can be used to reliably measure the impact of migraine among CM patients.

Adherence with migraine prophylaxis in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize adherence with antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, and beta blockers as prophylaxis against migraine in typical clinical practice. METHODS: Using a large US health insurance claims database (calendar years 2003 to 2005), we identified all patients with migraine who began prophylaxis with selected antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, or beta blockers ("study agents"). Patients not continuously enrolled for 6 months prior to start of prophylaxis ("pretreatment") and for 6 months subsequently ("follow-up") were excluded. Treatment cohorts were constituted based on the type of prophylaxis received. Adherence with migraine prophylaxis was examined by type of agent received using medication possession ratios (MPRs), defined as total days with medication divided by total follow-up days. MPR < 0.80 was considered indicative of nonadherence. RESULTS: A total of 4,634 patients met all entry criteria and received antidepressants (n = 1,803), antiepileptics (n = 1,896), or beta blockers (n = 935) on their index date. Over the next 6 months, the mean (SD) number of prescriptions for study agents was 2.7 (1.9) for antidepressants, 2.9 (2.0) for antiepileptics, and 2.8 (2.0) for beta blockers, totaling 91.0 (71.4), 98.7 (75.6), and 96.7 (73.0) therapy-days, respectively. Mean MPR at 6 months was 0.48 for antidepressants, 0.51 for antiepileptics, and 0.51 for beta blockers. By the end of the follow-up, 73.4%, 70.2%, and 67.6% of patients who initiated migraine prophylaxis with antidepressants, antiepileptics, and beta blockers, respectively, were designated nonadherent (ie, MPR < 0.80). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that many patients who begin migraine prophylaxis with antidepressants, antiepileptics, or beta blockers are no longer taking these medications at 6 months.

Review and meta-analysis of biomarkers and diagnostic imaging in Alzheimer's disease.

Mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) is often difficult to differentiate from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or non-AD dementias. A multitude of diagnostic biomarkers and advanced imaging strategies have been developed to aid in the diagnosis and management of AD. We sought to review and analyze the published evidence on key test characteristics of major diagnostic strategies to formulate best estimates of sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP). A systematic review was undertaken to locate and abstract all studies of biomarkers or diagnostic imaging for AD published in English from January 1990 to March 2010 that provided estimates of SN and SP. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model. We calculated -SN, SP, and area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC), with confidence and prediction contours. Of 1,840 unique studies identified, 119 presented primary data sufficient for analysis. SN and SP were calculated against non-demented controls, non-AD dementias with and without MCI, if available. Compared to non-demented controls, FDG-PET demonstrated the highest AUROC (0.96), with 90% SN (95%CI 84% to 94%), and 89% SP (95% CI 81% to 94%). FDG-PET also was most accurate in discriminating AD from demented controls (including MCI) with AUROC 0.91, and 92% SN (95%CI 84% to 96%) and 78% SP (95% CI 69% to 85%). For discrimination of AD from non-AD dementias (excluding MCI), CSF Ptau, and SPECT produced identical AUROC (0.86). Diagnostic strategies for AD show wide variation in test characteristics and some show promise for use in clinical practice.

CDR state transition probabilities in Alzheimer's disease with and without cholinesterase inhibitor intervention in an observational cohort.

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are medications used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). These agents have been shown to reduce the rate of AD progression in randomized trials. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine and the probability of transitioning to a more severe Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) state. Analysis was limited to possible or probable AD patients from NACC-UDS with three or more observations, baseline CDR score of 0.5 or 1, and without reported use AD drugs at enrollment. Use of an AD drug at any observation after baseline was classified as treatment. Odds of CDR stage were calculated by multinomial logistic regression controlling for baseline age, baseline MMSE score, education, marital status, race, gender, place of residence, and time since last measure. The resulting coefficients from logistic regression were used to calculate transitional probabilities. A total of 1,114 patients were included. No differences were observed in the probability of transitioning to more severe CDR states based on treatment, but treated patients had lower odds of death, OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.79) compared to untreated. Ultimately, this study failed to detect a difference in the probability of progressing to a more severe AD state as a result of treatment in an observational cohort of AD patients, but is limited by non-randomized treatment selection and small dataset. The NACC-UDS dataset is ongoing and this analysis may be improved if repeated when more data is available.