Migraine-Related Stigma and Its Relationship to Disability, Interictal Burden, and Quality of Life: Results of the OVERCOME (US) Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This population-based analysis characterizes the relative frequency of migraine-related stigma and its cross-sectional relationship to migraine outcomes. We hypothesized that migraine-related stigma would be inversely associated with favorable migraine outcomes across headache day categories. METHODS: OVERCOME (US) is a web-based observational study that annually recruited a demographically representative US sample and then identified people with active migraine using a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire. It also assessed how frequently respondents experienced migraine-related stigma using a novel 12-item questionnaire (Migraine-Related Stigma, MiRS) that contained 2 factors; feeling that others viewed migraine as being used for Secondary Gain (8 items, α = 0.92) and feeling that others were Minimizing disease Burden (4 items, α = 0.86). We defined 5 groups: (1) MiRS-Both (Secondary Gain and Minimizing Burden often/very often; (2) MiRS-SG (Secondary Gain often/very often); (3) MiRS-MB (Minimizing Burden often/very often); (4) MiRS-Rarely/Sometimes; (5) MiRS-Never. Using MiRS group as the independent variable, we modeled its cross-sectional relationship to disability (Migraine Disability Assessment, MIDAS), interictal burden (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4), and migraine-specific quality of life (Migraine Specific Quality of Life v2.1 Role Function-Restrictive) while controlling for sociodemographics, clinical features, and monthly headache day categories. RESULTS: Among this population-based sample with active migraine (n = 59,001), mean age was 41.3 years and respondents predominantly identified as female (74.9%) and as White (70.1%). Among respondents, 41.1% reported experiencing, on average, ≥4 monthly headache days and 31.7% experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often; the proportion experiencing migraine-related stigma often/very often increased from 25.5% among those with <4 monthly headache days to 47.5% among those with ≥15 monthly headache days. The risk for increased disability (MIDAS score) was significant for each MiRS group compared with the MiRS-Never group; the risk more than doubled for the MiRS-Both group (rate ratio 2.68, 95% CI 2.56-2.80). For disability, interictal burden, and migraine-specific quality of life, increased migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disease burden across all monthly headache day categories. DISCUSSION: OVERCOME (US) found that 31.7% of people with migraine experienced migraine-related stigma often/very often and was associated with more disability, greater interictal burden, and reduced quality of life.

Healthcare costs and adherence associated with human regular U-500 versus high-dose U-100 insulin in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the characteristics, costs, and adherence of patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) compared with those of patients receiving high-dose (≥150 units/day) U-100 insulin. METHODS: Data from Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, July 1, 2008, through December 31, 2010, were used. The U-100 cohort received ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin for ≥31 days during the first 60 days after the index date. The U-500R cohort received ≥2 prescriptions of U-500R after the index date. Analyses were performed on propensity-matched cohorts. The changes in annualized costs were compared between the 2 cohorts using paired t tests. Adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and compared using a 2-sample t test. Glycemic efficacy data were not available in this database. RESULTS: There were 1,044 U-500R-treated patients (19.1% with type 1 diabetes [T1D]) and 11,520 U-100-treated patients (23.8% with T1D) identified, from which 1,039 matched pairs were obtained. The mean decrease of $1,290 in annual pharmacy costs for the U-500R cohort was significantly different from the mean increase of $2,586 for the U-100 cohort (P<.001; 95% confidence interval, -$4,345 to -$3,422). More U-500R patients experienced hypoglycemia (17.3% vs. 11.8%; P<.001), but the hypoglycemia rate per person and related costs were not significantly different between cohorts. Finally, the mean 12-month PDC was 65.0% for U-500R versus 47.6% for U-100 patients (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with treatment with ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin, treatment with U-500R was associated with decreases in pharmacy costs, a higher percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemia, and greater treatment adherence.

Adherence and dosing frequency of common medications for cardiovascular patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare adherence between once-daily (QD) and twice-daily (BID) dosing with chronic-use prescription medications used by patients with cardiovascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort database analysis. METHODS: Analysis consisted of 1,077,474 patients aged >18 years with a prescription index date from January 1 to December 31, 2007, for an antidiabetic, antihyperlipidemic, antiplatelet, or cardiac agent with QD or BID dosing. Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR]) was the number of days of medication supplied between the first prescription fill date and the subsequent 365 days divided by 365 days. Overall mean MPR and comparisons between dosing frequency groups were assessed with a generalized estimating equation. Covariates included age at index date, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, therapeutic class, dosing frequency, and the interaction between therapeutic class and dosing frequency group. RESULTS: Overall, the adjusted mean MPR ± standard error (SE) value for QD agents was 13.6% greater than BID agents (0.66 ± 0.0006 vs 0.57 ± 0.0016; P <.01). The adjusted mean MPR value for QD agents was 2.9%, 17.5%, and 29.4% greater than BID agents in the antidiabetic, antihyperlipidemic, and antiplatelet therapeutic classes, respectively. For cardiac agents, the adjusted mean MPR value was similar between QD and BID agents. Carvedilol represented approximately 80% of the cardiac agents in the BID group. The adjusted mean MPR ± SE for carvedilol phosphate QD was 0.73 ± 0.0024 and 0.65 ± 0.0027 for carvedilol BID (11% difference; P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this large analysis, the QD dosing regimen was related to greater adherence versus a BID regimen.

Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel in a US managed care population.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-makers in the US may be interested in the applicability to their populations of cost-effectiveness results generated from clinical trial populations. METHODS: An economic model estimating the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel plus aspirin relative to clopidogrel plus aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed from a managed care organization (MCO) perspective. The model estimated 15-month cardiovascular events or bleeding-related outcomes, life expectancy, and costs for patients who received thienopyridine treatment during and after a PCI following a diagnosis of ACS. Post-ACS event rates for patients treated with clopidogrel were from an MCO. The relative risks of these events with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel were from a head-to-head clinical trial. RESULTS: The results of the base-case analysis indicated that, in an MCO population, use of prasugrel-based therapy rather than clopidogrel-based therapy at current prices resulted in cost-savings and fewer clinical events over the 15 months after an ACS diagnosis followed by PCI. At possible lower prices for generic clopidogrel-based therapy, the cost-effectiveness ratio for prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy was between $6643 and $13,906 per life-year gained. The results were most sensitive to the relative costs of the two treatments and the cost for hospital stays. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included lack of follow-up of patients disenrolling from the MCO before the end of the 15-month observation period, the assumption of equal relative risks of events in an MCO as in the clinical trial, and the lack of information on the ratio of cost to charges in the MCO database. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy in ACS patients having a PCI resulted in cost-savings at current prices and favorable cost-effective ratios at likely generic prices for clopidogrel-based therapy because of offsetting savings in the costs of rehospitalization.