Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Comparing the efficacy of anti-seizure medications using matched cohorts on a large insurance claims database.

Epilepsy is a severe chronic neurological disease affecting 60 million people worldwide. Primary treatment is with anti-seizure medicines (ASMs), but many patients continue to experience seizures. We used retrospective insurance claims data on 280,587 patients with uncontrolled epilepsy (UE), defined as status epilepticus, need for a rescue medicine, or admission or emergency visit for an epilepsy code. We conducted a computational risk ratio analysis between pairs of ASMs using a causal inference method, in order to match 1034 clinical factors and simulate randomization. Data was extracted from the MarketScan insurance claims Research Database records from 2011 to 2015. The cohort consisted of individuals over 18 years old with a diagnosis of epilepsy who took one of eight ASMs and had more than a year of history prior to the filling of the drug prescription. Seven ASM exposures were analyzed: topiramate, phenytoin, levetiracetam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, valproate, and carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine (treated as the same exposure). We calculated the risk ratio of UE between pairs of ASM after controlling for bias with inverse propensity weighting applied to 1034 factors, such as demographics, confounding illnesses, non-epileptic conditions treated by ASMs, etc. All ASMs exhibited a significant reduction in the prevalence of UE, but three drugs showed pair-wise differences compared to other ASMs. Topiramate consistently was associated with a lower risk of UE, with a mean risk ratio range of 0.68-0.93 (average 0.82, CI: 0.56-1.08). Phenytoin and levetiracetam were consistently associated with a higher risk of UE with mean risk ratio ranges of 1.11 to 1.47 (average 1.13, CI 0.98-1.65) and 1.15 to 1.43 (average 1.2, CI 0.72-1.69), respectively. Large-scale retrospective insurance claims data - combined with causal inference analysis - provides an opportunity to compare the effect of treatments in real-world data in populations 1,000-fold larger than those in typical randomized trials. Our causal analysis identified the clinically unexpected finding of topiramate as being associated with a lower risk of UE; and phenytoin and levetiracetam as associated with a higher risk of UE (compared to other studied drugs, not to baseline). However, we note that our data set for this study only used insurance claims events, which does not comprise actual seizure frequencies, nor a clear picture of side effects. Our results do not advocate for any change in practice but demonstrate that conclusions from large databases may differ from and supplement those of randomized trials and clinical practice and therefore may guide further investigation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiobesity Drugs for Adolescents With Severe Obesity.

Importance: Although the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended treatment with antiobesity drugs for adolescents, the cost-effectiveness of antiobesity drugs for this population is still unknown. Objective: To quantify cost-effectiveness of different antiobesity drugs available for pediatric use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a Markov microsimulation model with health states defined by obesity levels. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were calculated from third-party payer perspective, estimated in 2023 US dollars over a 10-year horizon. Data were obtained from the published literature. Intervention: Antiobesity drugs orlistat, liraglutide, semaglutide, and phentermine-topiramate vs no treatment. Metformin hydrochloride and 2 types of bariatric surgical procedures (sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass) were considered in sensitivity analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Among the 4 antiobesity drugs currently approved for pediatric use, phentermine-topiramate was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $93 620 per QALY relative to no treatment in this simulated cohort of 10 000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (mode, 15 years) with severe obesity (62% female). While semaglutide offered more QALYs than phentermine-topiramate, its higher cost resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($1 079 480/QALY) that exceeded the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Orlistat and liraglutide cost more and were less effective than phentermine-topiramate and semaglutide, respectively. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass were more effective than phentermine-topiramate but were also more costly, rendering them not cost-effective compared with phentermine-topiramate at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of weight loss drugs for adolescents with severe obesity, we found phentermine-topiramate to be a cost-effective treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Further research is needed to determine long-term drug efficacy and how long adolescents continue treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Obesity in Adolescents.

Importance: Antiobesity pharmacotherapy is recommended for adolescents ages 12 years and older with obesity. Several medications have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adolescent use, but the most cost-effective medication remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle counseling alone and as adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate (7.5 mg phentermine and 46 mg topiramate), top-dose phentermine and topiramate (15 mg phentermine and 92 mg topiramate), or semaglutide among adolescent patients with obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of lifestyle counseling alone and adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate, top-dose phentermine and topiramate, or semaglutide over 13 months, 2 years, and 5 years among a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 adolescents with obesity, defined as an initial body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 37. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, published literature, and national sources. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to July 2023. Exposures: Lifestyle counseling alone and as adjunct to liraglutide, mid-dose phentermine and topiramate, top-dose phentermine and topiramate, or semaglutide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2022 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with future costs and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was considered cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY gained. The preferred strategy was determined as the strategy with the greatest increase in QALYs while being cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess parameter uncertainty. Results: The model simulated 100 000 adolescents at age 15 with an initial BMI of 37, of whom 58 000 (58%) were female. At 13 months and 2 years, lifestyle counseling was estimated to be the preferred strategy. At 5 years, top-dose phentermine and topiramate was projected to be the preferred strategy with an ICER of $56 876 per QALY gained vs lifestyle counseling. Semaglutide was projected to yield the most QALYs, but with an unfavorable ICER of $1.1 million per QALY gained compared with top-dose phentermine and topiramate. Model results were most sensitive to utility of weight reduction and weight loss of lifestyle counseling and top-dose phentermine and topiramate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy for adolescents with obesity, top-dose phentermine and topiramate as adjunct to lifestyle counseling was estimated to be cost-effective after 5 years. Long-term clinical trials in adolescents are needed to fully evaluate the outcomes of pharmacotherapy, especially into adulthood.

Obesity prevalence and variability in management practices for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Obesity has been associated with poor disease outcomes in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Given evolving treatments for obesity, evaluating its prevalence and treatment practices are key to develop a holistic management of PAD. We aimed to examine prevalence of obesity and variability of management strategies in symptomatic PAD patients enrolled in the international multicenter PORTRAIT registry from 2011 to 2015. Obesity management strategies studied included weight and/or dietary counseling and prescription of weight loss medications (orlistat, lorcaserin, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-buproprion, and liraglutide). Use frequency of obesity management strategies were calculated by country and compared across centers using adjusted median odds ratios (MOR). Of 1002 patients included, 36 % had obesity. No patients received weight loss medications. Weight and/or dietary counseling was prescribed in only 20 % of patients with obesity with significant variability in practices between centers (range 0.0-39.7 %; MOR 3.6, 95 % CI 2.04-9.95, p = < 0.001). In conclusion, obesity is a prevalent modifiable comorbidity in PAD that is hardly addressed during PAD management, with significant variability across practices. As obesity prevalence rates are growing, along with treatment modalities to treat it, especially in those with PAD, building systems to integrate systematic evidence-based weight and dietary management strategies in PAD are essential to close this gap in care.

Assessment of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Phentermine-Topiramate to Prevent Exposure During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved phentermine-topiramate for obesity in 2012 and required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to prevent prenatal exposure. No such requirement was introduced for topiramate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of prenatal exposure, contraceptive use, and pregnancy testing among patients with phentermine-topiramate compared with topiramate or other antiobesity medications (AOMs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide health insurance claims database. PARTICIPANTS: Females aged 12 to 55 years with no infertility diagnosis or sterilization procedure. Patients with other indications for topiramate were excluded to identify a cohort that was likely treated for obesity. MEASUREMENTS: Patients initiated use of phentermine-topiramate, topiramate, or an AOM (liraglutide, lorcaserin, or bupropion-naltrexone). Pregnancy at treatment initiation, conception during treatment, contraceptive use, and pregnancy testing outcomes were ascertained. Measurable confounders were adjusted for, and extensive sensitivity analyses were done. RESULTS: A total of 156 280 treatment episodes were observed. Adjusted prevalence of pregnancy at treatment initiation was 0.9 versus 1.6 per 1000 episodes (prevalence ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95]) for phentermine-topiramate versus topiramate. The incidence rate of conception during treatment was 9.1 versus 15.0 per 1000 person-years (rate ratio, 0.61 [CI, 0.40 to 0.91]) for phentermine-topiramate versus topiramate. Both outcomes were similarly lower for phentermine-topiramate compared with AOM. Prenatal exposure was marginally lower in topiramate users compared with AOM users. Approximately 20% of patients in all cohorts had at least 50% of treatment days covered by contraceptives. Few patients had pregnancy tests before treatment (≤5%), but this was more common among phentermine-topiramate users. LIMITATIONS: Outcome misclassification; unmeasured confounding due to lack of prescriber data to account for possible clustering and spillover effects. CONCLUSION: Prenatal exposure seemed to be significantly lower among phentermine-topiramate users under the REMS. Pregnancy testing and contraceptive use appeared to be inadequate for all groups, which deserves attention to prevent the remaining potential exposures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Eficacia y seguridad de fentermina/topiramato en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses / Efficacy and safety of phentermine/topiramate in adult patients with obesity who persist without weight loss after nutritional therapy and physical activity at six months

ANTECEDENTES: En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución de Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021, se ha elaborado el presente dictamen, el cual expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de fentermina/topiramato en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses. ASPECTOS GENERALES: La obesidad es definida como una acumulación excesiva de grasa que puede perjudicar la salud de niños y adultos y se diagnóstica operacionalmente con un índice de massa corporal (IMC) igual o superior a 30 (MacMahon et al. 2009). La obesidad es una enfermedad crónica que aumenta el riesgo de complicaciones a largo plazo, genera un deterioro de la calidad de vida y disminuye la esperanza de vida (Blüher 2019). La prevalencia de este trastorno ha aumentado en los últimos 40 años con variaciones entre países (de 3.8 % en Japón a 38.2 % en Estados Unidos) (MP et al. 2018). En el Perú, la prevalencia de obesidad ha aumentado de 8.5 % en 1975 a 18.5 % en 2013, y a 24.6 % en 2020 (INEI 2020). La obesidad mórbida se presenta con mayor frecuencia en las mujeres (1.3 %) que en los varones (0.4 %) (Pajuelo Ramírez et al. 2019). La obesidad es considerada como un factor de riesgo para desarrollar enfermedades metabólicas, cardiovasculares, musculoesqueléticas, Alzheimer, depresión y algunos tipos de cáncer (Blüher 2019). Estas condiciones han generado que las muertes globales y los años de vida ajustados por discapacidad (AVAD) debido a la obesidad se dupliquen entre 1990 y 2017 en hombres (de 1.0 a 2.3 millones de muertes, y de 31.9 a 77.0 millones de AVAD) y mujeres (de 1.2 a 2.4 millones de muertes, y de 33.1 a 70.7 millones de AVAD) (Dai et al. 2020). En este sentido, reducir la carga de enfermedad y disminuir la prevalencia de la obesidad son prioridades sanitarias para la Organización Mundial de la Salud (WHO 2016). METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática, amplia y exhaustiva, en las bases de datos bibliográficas PubMed, The Cochrane Library y LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud). Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda dentro de la información generada en las páginas web de grupos o instituciones que realizan revisiones sistemáticas (RS), evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), tales corno: el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), la Haute Authorité de Santé (HAS), el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in HealthCare (IQWiG), el Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) y en la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), y en las principales instituciones o sociedades especializadas en endocrinología: la American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, la Obesity Society, la Endocrine Society, y la European Association for the Study of Obesity. Además, se llevó a cabo una búsqueda manual en el motor de búsqueda Google utilizando los términos: "Obesity guidelines"; revisando en las diez primeras páginas de resultados, a fin de poder identificar otras publicaciones de relevancia que pudiesen haber sido omitidas por la estrategia de búsqueda o que no hayan sido publicadas en las bases de datos bibliográficas consideradas. Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en ClinicalTrials.gov para identificar ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) en curso o que o hayan sido publicados aún. Se elaboraron estrategias de búsqueda en bases de datos bibliográficas y sitios web para obtener la evidencia científica que permita responder a la pregunta PICO. Las estrategias de búsqueda incluyeron términos relacionados con la intervención, población de interés y tipo de estudio. Se emplearon términos MeS1-11, así como, términos de lenguaje libre, junto con operadores booleanos para cada una de las bases de datos elegidas para la búsqueda. RESULTADOS: Luego de la búsqueda bibliográfica realizada hasta el 19 de septiembre del 2022, se identificaron: cuatro GPC (AHA/ACC/TOS, 2013; NICE, 2014; ES, 2015; MSPS, 2016) que emiten recomendaciones para el tratamiento de pacientes con obesidad y no han respondido a la terapia de cambios de estilos de vida. También se incluyó una RS (Khera et al., 2016) y tres ECA fase III (Allison et al., 2012; Gadde et al., 2011; Garvey et al., 2012). Por otro lado, se excluyeron seis GPC: una (SIGN, 2010) porque fue publicada antes de la primera autorización de comercialización de fentermina/topiramato; y cuatro (MSA 2014; AACE, 2016; OC/CAE3PS, 2020; VA/DoD, 2020) porque no brindan recomendaciones específicas para la población objetivo del presente dictamen. Además, se excluyeron tres RS (Xiang-Guo et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2022) porque incluyeron los mismos ECA pivotales que la RS incluida en el dictamen (Khera et al., 2016), pero tuvieron menor calidad metodológica según la herramienta AMSTAR. Finalmente, se excluyó un estudio (Kolotkin et al., 2015) que evaluó la calidad de vida mediante un análisis combinado de datos a nivel de paciente (pooled analysis of patient levet data) de cuatro ECA de fase III. Este estudio se excluyó porque el análisis combinado no tomó en cuenta las diferencias en los diseños de estudio de los cuatro ECA. Por ello, los resultados de calidad de vida fueron analizados en cada estudio, individualmente. CONCLUSIÓN: Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI no aprueba el uso de fentermina/topiramato en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses, como producto farmacéutico no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud. Se recomienda a los especialistas que, en caso de identificar nueva evidencia que responda a la población de la PICO de interés, envíen sus propuestas para ser evaluadas en el marco de la Directiva N° 003-IETSI-ESSALUD-2016.

Multimodal Assessment of Medication Adherence Among Youth With Migraine: An Ancillary Study of the CHAMP Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Examine preventive medication adherence among youth with migraine. METHODS: Adherence (self-report, pill count, and blood serum drug levels) was assessed as an ancillary study that utilized data from 328 CHAMP Study participants (ages 8-17). CHAMP was a multisite trial of preventive medications. Participants completed a prospective headache diary during a six-month active treatment period during which youth took amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo pill twice daily. Self-reported medication adherence was collected via daily diary. At monthly study visits, pill count measures were captured. At trial month 3 (trial midpoint) and 6 (end of active trial), blood serum drug levels were obtained. Self-report and pill count adherence percentages were calculated for the active trial period, at each monthly study visit, and in the days prior to participants' mid-trial blood draw. Percentages of nonzero drug levels were calculated to assess blood serum drug level data. Adherence measures were compared and assessed in context of several sociodemographic factors. Multiple regression analyses investigated medication adherence as a predictor of headache outcomes. RESULTS: Self-report and pill count adherence rates were high (over 90%) and sustained over the course of the trial period. Serum drug level adherence rates were somewhat lower and decreased significantly (from 84% to 76%) across the trial period [t (198) = 3.23, p = .001]. Adherence measures did not predict headache days at trial end; trial midpoint serum drug levels predicted headache-related disability. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with migraine can demonstrate and sustain relatively high levels of medication adherence over the course of a clinical trial.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. RESULTS: From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

The use of off-label medications in substance abuse treatment programs.

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment centers serve a population of clients who have diverse needs, and may desire or require access to varied treatments while seeking care for their SUDs. While pharmacotherapies have increased in popularity for the treatment of SUDs, adoption rates do remain quite low. But a wider array of pharmacotherapies has become available in recent years which may shift the trend. This article helps shed light on how variations in SUD treatment centers develop and persist with regard to the adoption and delivery of off-label medications. Methods: We use a nationally representative and longitudinal sample of SUD treatment centers in the US (N = 196). We use a logistic regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and offering any medications, off-label. We also use a negative binomial regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and the number of medications that were used off-label. Results: Our findings reveal that older centers, accredited centers, and centers that offer mental health screenings are all positively associated with the provision of off-label medication in SUD treatment. We also find a positive relationship between private funding and offering a greater number of off-label medications. Conclusions: Our results suggest that SUD clients who seek treatment from centers that offer medications off-label, may have access to a greater number of medication-assisted treatment options.

Implementing statistical methods for generalizing randomized trial findings to a target population.

Randomized trials are considered the gold standard for assessing the causal effects of a drug or intervention in a study population, and their results are often utilized in the formulation of health policy. However, there is growing concern that results from trials do not necessarily generalize well to their respective target populations, in which policies are enacted, due to substantial demographic differences between study and target populations. In trials related to substance use disorders (SUDs), especially, strict exclusion criteria make it challenging to obtain study samples that are fully "representative" of the populations that policymakers may wish to generalize their results to. In this paper, we provide an overview of post-trial statistical methods for assessing and improving upon the generalizability of a randomized trial to a well-defined target population. We then illustrate the different methods using a randomized trial related to methamphetamine dependence and a target population of substance abuse treatment seekers, and provide software to implement the methods in R using the "generalize" package. We discuss several practical considerations for researchers who wish to utilize these tools, such as the importance of acquiring population-level data to represent the target population of interest, and the challenges of data harmonization.

Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Identify Mechanisms of Change: An Application From a Pharmacotherapy Trial With Adolescent Cannabis Users.

OBJECTIVE: The present study used youth's in vivo reports of subjective responses to cannabis while smoking in their natural environments to identify real-world mechanisms of topiramate treatment for cannabis misuse. METHOD: Participants were 40 cannabis users (≥ twice weekly in past 30 days), ages 15-24 years (47.5% female), with at least one cannabis use episode during the final 3 weeks of a 6-week, randomized clinical trial. Youth reported subjective "high" while smoking, stimulation, sedation, stress, craving, and grams of marijuana used in the natural environment via wireless electronic devices. Bayesian multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) evaluated mediation via indirect effect tests. RESULTS: Significant within (daily) and between (person) variability and distinctive within and between effects supported the MSEM approach. Subjective high while smoking was significantly reduced for youth in the topiramate condition, relative to placebo, and the indirect effect of reduced subjective high on total grams of cannabis smoked that day was significant. Indirect effects through other subjective responses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this initial study suggest that altering subjective responses to smoking, specifically subjective high, may be a key target for developing adjunctive pharmacotherapies for cannabis misuse. More generally, this work provides an example for applying ecological momentary assessment and analytic techniques to evaluate mechanisms of behavior change in longitudinal data.

Análisis de costo-efectividad del ácido valproico y topiramato para el tratamiento preventivo de la migraña en Colombia / Cost-effectiveness analysis of valproic acid and topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine in Colombia

INTRODUCCIÓN: El análisis de costo-efectividad del ácido valproico y topiramato, para el tratamiento preventivo de pacientes con migraña en Colombia, se desarrolla en el marco del mecanismo técnico-científico para la ampliación progresiva del plan de beneficios y la definición de la lista de exclusiones, establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley 1751 de 2015. Estas tecnologías fueron seleccionadas por la Dirección de Beneficios, Costos y Tarifas del Aseguramiento en Salud del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social (MinSalud), y remitidas al Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS) para su evaluación. La migraña es una condición neurológica altamente prevalente, que genera un impacto importante en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud; se asocia con discapacidad funcional, que afecta tanto aspectos de la vida social y familiar como aspectos académicos y ocupacionales, generando pérdidas de productividad significativas y, por ende, una carga socioeconómica