Five-year morbidity and mortality rates in a U.S. population with obesity with and without prediabetes.

AIMS: This research examines the prevalence of morbidity and mortality among people with obesity with or without prediabetes. METHODS: This observational study uses Optum® Market Clarity deidentified data from 2007 to 2020. Individuals with obesity without prediabetes (obesity only) were matched 1:1 to adults with prediabetes plus obesity based upon age, sex, race, ethnicity, and region. Age and sex adjusted prevalence rates and 95 % CIs were calculated for morbidity and mortality for each 365-day period post index date and over the entire 5-year post-period. RESULTS: After 5-years, the adjusted mortality rate was 10.1 % for adults with obesity plus prediabetes and 6.9 % for adults with obesity only (p < 0.05). Five years post index date, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was 25.3 % for people with obesity plus prediabetes and 9.2 % for people with obesity only (p < 0.05). Prevalence rates after 5 years for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (13.1 % v 8.1 %), composite cardiovascular outcome (7.0 % v 4.4 %) and composite cardio-renal outcome (8.9 % v 5.0 %) were significantly higher for adults with obesity plus prediabetes compared to adults with obesity only (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that the presence of prediabetes contributes to the development of additional morbidity and mortality in adults with obesity.

Validation and meaningful within-patient change in work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire (WPAI) for episodic or chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: No available studies demonstrate validity and meaningful change thresholds of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in patients with migraine. In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed reliability, validity, responsiveness, and meaningful within-patient change from baseline to Month 3 for Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) domain scores in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). METHOD: The Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CONQUER study (NCT03559257, N = 462) enrolled patients with EM or CM who failed two to four categories of prior preventive medication in past ten years. The analyses were performed for WPAI domain scores (absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work productivity, and non-work-related activity impairment). Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1) domain scores (Role Function-Restrictive [RFR] and Role Function-Preventive [RFP]), and monthly migraine headache days were used as anchors. Responder criteria were changes from baseline to Month 3 for each of these anchors and were defined as: increase in MSQ-RFR by ≥ 25.71 points and MSQ-RFP by ≥ 20.00 points and a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headache days. Assessments were performed for overall population, and patients with EM or CM. The meaningful change threshold was determined based on Youden index, Phi coefficient and sensitivity. RESULTS: Of 462 randomized patients, 444 who completed WPAI questionnaire were included in post-hoc analysis. Test-retest reliability over 3 months in a stable subgroup revealed moderate correlations for non-work-related Activity Impairment (ICC = 0.446) presenteeism (ICC = 0.438) and a fair correlation for overall work productivity loss (ICC = 0.360). At baseline, all correlations between WPAI domain scores and continuous anchor variables exceeded recommended threshold of ≥ 0.30, except for WPAI domain scores with number of monthly migraine headache days. Patients achieving pre-specified responsiveness thresholds for monthly migraine headache days, and MSQ-RFP, MSQ-RFR from baseline to Month 3 (responders) showed significant improvements in WPAI domain scores compared with non-responders (P < 0.001). The meaningful change thresholds of -20 (% unit) were identified for WPAI domain scores. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, WPAI has sufficient validity, reliability, responsiveness, and appropriate interpretation standards to assess the impact of EM or CM on presenteeism and overall work productivity loss and non-work-related activity impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT number of CONQUER study, NCT03559257.

The Association Between Obesity and the 5-Year Prevalence of Morbidity and Mortality Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective claims database study examined the prevalence of mortality and morbidity among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. METHODS: The study used deidentified data from 2007 to 2021 from the Optum® Market Clarity Dataset. A cohort of adults with T2D and obesity were identified, and age- and sex-adjusted prevalence rates were calculated for mortality, a composite cardiovascular outcome (CCO), a composite microvascular outcome (CMO), and other complications. Results were examined overall and by obesity class (class 1, class 2, and class 3). RESULTS: For the 15,970 adults included in the study, the prevalence of CCO and CMO after 5 years was 15.3% and 60.7%, respectively. The 5-year prevalence of mortality was 10.9%. There were statistically significant differences in prevalence rates by obesity class, with obesity class 3 associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to obesity classes 1 or 2. Specifically, after 5 years, the prevalence of mortality was 9.4%, 10.3% and 13.6% for obese classes 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P < 0.05 between class 3 and class 2 or 1). Similarly, For obesity classes 1, 2 and 3, the 5-year prevalence of CCO was 13.0%, 14.5% and 18.4% and the rates for CMO were 58.0%, 57.9% and 64.8%, respectively (both P < 0.05 between class 3 and class 2 or 1). Regarding other complications, differences in the prevalence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were statistically significantly higher with increasing obesity class. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that for a cohort of adults with T2D and obesity, obesity class 3 is associated with significantly higher mortality and morbidity, including CCO, CMO, ASCVD and OSA. These findings suggest that treatment which reduces obesity among individuals with T2D may have significant health benefits, although additional studies are needed to confirm the results.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden. METHODS: CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement. RESULTS: The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]). CONCLUSION: In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.

Reductions in acute medication use and healthcare resource utilization in patients with chronic migraine: a secondary analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab with open-label extension (REGAIN).

AIMS: To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide. METHODS: Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years. RESULTS: At baseline, 63-64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (-4.2 and -4.9) than in placebo (-2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of -6.8 and -7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

Annual indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: post-hoc analyses from multiple galcanezumab clinical trials.

AIM: This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status. RESULTS: Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and -2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p < .0001) and CM (Int$7129, p = .0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p = .0030; CM: Int$5181, p = .1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p = .0156) and patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p = .0340). Employed patients with CM (p = .0018) and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p < .0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days. CONCLUSION: GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.

Effects of Galcanezumab on Health-Related Quality of Life and Disability in Patients with Previous Failure of 2-4 Migraine Preventive Medication Categories: Results from a Phase IIIb Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Trial (CONQUER).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures have a significant burden on quality of life and disability. The CONQUER study evaluated the effects of galcanezumab on patient functioning, disability, and health status in episodic or chronic migraine with a previous failure of two to four migraine preventive medication categories. METHODS: Patients with two to four preventive migraine treatment category failures received galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240-mg loading dose) or placebo subcutaneously, for 3 months (double-blind period). In the 3-month open-label period, all patients received galcanezumab irrespective of the treatment received in the double-blind period. Changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients were randomized to receive galcanezumab (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230). At month 3, improvement in the MSQ Role-Function-Restrictive score from baseline was significantly greater for galcanezumab (23.19 ± 1.34) vs placebo (10.66 ± 1.33) [p ≤ 0.0001]. Significant improvements in remaining MSQ domains and total MSQ scores were observed (p < 0.0001) during the double-blind period. MIDAS total scores were significantly (p ≤ 0.0001) reduced with galcanezumab (- 21.10 + 3.32) vs placebo (- 3.30 + 3.28). EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores improved for galcanezumab (3.40 + 1.31) vs placebo (- 0.09 + 1.29; p = 0.028). During the open-label period, quality of life continued to improve for galcanezumab, with patients previously assigned to placebo reaching similar results. During both study periods, similar findings were reported in subpopulations with episodic migraine and chronic migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab significantly improved functioning and reduced disability in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine and two to four migraine preventive treatment category failures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03559257, registration date: 6 June, 2018.

Direct cost and healthcare resource utilization of patients with migraine before treatment initiation with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies by the number of prior preventive migraine medication classes.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared all-cause direct cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among preventive migraine medication (PMM)-naïve patients and patients with up to 3 PMM category switches before initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the IBM Marketscan database. Patients who initiated injectable CGRP mAbs between May 2018 and December 2019 (index period) were included in 4 groups based on the number of prior non-CGRP PMM classes used during the 24-month pre-index period: P0 = none; P1 = one; P2 = two; P3 ≥ three. All-cause direct cost and HCRU for groups were compared without adjustment and after generalized propensity score (GPS) matching. RESULTS: Of the 23,288 patients included (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 45.4 ± 12.0 years), 85.6% were females, and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0.69 ± 1.2. P3 group had the highest average annual unadjusted total healthcare costs per patient ($50,274±$76,629); the highest costs attributed to procedure/imaging-related expenses ($20,105±$36,401) and pharmacy ($11,633±$29,763). P0 group had the lowest cost ($25,288±$41,427). Pairwise comparison of GPS matched costs showed significantly greater average annual direct costs per patient in the P3 group vs. P0 (p = .003), P1 (p = .014), and P2 (p = .021) groups. GPS matched HCRU also increased with the number of prior PMM classes used. Anti-epileptics (48.9%) were the most commonly used PMM class, with triptans (75.2%) being the most common acute medication class. CONCLUSIONS: Total direct healthcare cost and HCRU increased significantly with increasing use of PMM classes with the greatest cost difference existing between the P0 and the P3 groups.

Medications used for the prevention of migraine (PMM) are underused as they might cause adverse effects, intolerance, or may lack efficacy. This leads to the discontinuation of the current treatment and switching to other treatments. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a new class of drugs for the prevention of migraine. Since 2018, four CGRP mAbs have been approved for use in the prevention of migraine. It is known that patients who use more preventive migraine treatments incur greater total direct (caused by a number of medical visits or increased healthcare resource utilization, surgery, drugs, equipment, etc.) annual healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with migraine. In the current study, the annual average direct cost and HCRU were compared between patients who had not used preventive medicine and patients who had used 1, 2, or ≥3 preventive medicines for migraine before starting CGRP mAbs. We observed that the healthcare costs and HCRU increased with the use of a higher number of preventive medicines for migraine. Patients who started using injectable CGRP mAbs after at least 3 preventive medicines had the highest healthcare costs and HCRU compared with other groups.

Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine: A Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients' perceptions towards them is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. RESULTS: Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to self-inject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument.

Psychometric validation and meaningful within-patient change of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 electronic patient-reported outcome in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of all three domains of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) to assess the functional impact of migraine in patients with episodic or chronic migraine (CM); and identify meaningful within-patient change thresholds for the Role Function-Restrictive (RFR), Role Function-Preventive (RFP), and Emotional Function (EF) domains. METHODS: Data were drawn from three double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomized Phase 3 clinical studies (episodic migraine [EM]: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2; CM: REGAIN). The psychometric properties of the MSQ v2.1 ePRO domains were demonstrated by evaluating reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), construct validity (convergent and known groups), and responsiveness. Meaningful within-patient change thresholds for domains were estimated using anchor-based approaches, supplemented by empirical cumulative distribution function curves and probability density function plots to enable interpretation of meaningful change over 3 months. The Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement served as anchors. RESULTS: A total of 2,850 patients with either EM (EVOLVE-1: 851; EVOLVE-2: 909) or CM (REGAIN: 1,090) were included. The Cronbach's alpha estimates of internal consistency exceeded the recommended threshold of ≥0.70 for all domains from the three studies, indicating adequate internal consistency. Test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥0.80 for all domains across all three studies, demonstrating almost perfect agreement. Convergent validity was supported by moderate-to-strong correlation (r ≥ 0.30) between all domains of MSQ v2.1 ePRO and studied anchors (Migraine Disability Assessment Score and PGI-S scores) across all three studies. Known group validity was established between all domains and subgroups of patients stratified by baseline PGI-S scores and baseline number of monthly migraine headache days for all three studies. The 3-month meaningful within-patient change thresholds were the same for EM and CM for RFP: 20.00 and EF: 26.67; and for RFR: 25.71. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that all three domains of the MSQ v2.1 ePRO have sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness, and appropriate interpretation standards. Our results suggest that MSQ v2.1 ePRO is a well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument that is suitable for use in clinical studies for evaluating the impact of migraine on patient functioning in episodic and CM.

Trends in Depressed Mood and Suicidal Behaviors Among Female High School Students Who Engaged in Physical Fighting.

The objective of this article is to identify prevalence changes in depressed mood/suicidal behaviors among female high school students reporting physical fighting. This research analyzed the national combined data set of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) cross-sectional surveys from 2001 to 2015. Logistic regression analyzed the time trends. Two multiple logistic regression models were built. A quadratic trend was present with an initial decrease followed by an increase 2009 to 2015 (p < .001). The odds and severity of depressed mood/suicidal behaviors were greater among female youths with four or more fights and for other violent events, which were even greater when accounting for electronic bullying. The odds of depressed mood/suicidal behaviors among female adolescents engaged in physical fighting has been increasing with electronic bullying contributing to polyvictimization.

Functional impairment and disability among patients with migraine: evaluation of galcanezumab in a long-term, open-label study.

PURPOSE: Migraine can negatively impact patient functioning and quality of life. Here, we report the effects of galcanezumab (GMB), a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in migraine. METHODS: CGAJ was a Phase III, randomized, open-label study (12-month open-label and 4-month post-treatment follow-up) in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. Patients aged 18-65 years with diagnosis of migraine (≥ 4 migraine headache days per month) as defined by International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-3 beta guidelines were included in the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 with subcutaneous GMB 120 mg (with a loading dose of 240 mg) or GMB 240 mg given once monthly for 12 months. Changes from baseline in PRO measures such as Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were randomized to each galcanezumab dose group. Mean (SD) baseline MSQ total scores were 53.85 (20.34) [GMB 120 mg] and 53.69 (18.79) [GMB 240 mg]. For MIDAS, mean (SD) total scores were 45.77 (42.06) [GMB 120 mg] and 53.96 (61.24) [GMB 240 mg]. Within-group mean improvement from baseline on MSQ and MIDAS total scores and all individual item/domain scores were statistically significant for both GMB dose groups, at all-time points during the treatment phase (p < 0.001). For MSQ domain scores, greatest improvement was observed in the Role function-restrictive (RF-R) domain (overall least squares (LS) mean change ± SE: 31.55 ± 1.20 [GMB 120 mg] and 33.40 ± 1.16 [GMB 240 mg]). For MIDAS, the overall LS mean change ± SE from baseline across the entire 12-month treatment phase in total scores were: -33.58 ± 2.11 (GMB 120 mg) and -32.67 ± 2.04 (GMB 240 mg). CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was associated with statistically significant changes from baseline in the PRO measures across the entire 12-month treatment period. These results indicate improved health-related quality of life and decreased disability among patients treated with galcanezumab.

Migraine Headache Day Response Rates and the Implications to Patient Functioning: An Evaluation of 3 Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Galcanezumab in Patients With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories. BACKGROUND: Migraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients. METHODS: Analyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Because migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.

A real-world analysis of patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine by preventive treatment eligibility status in the US and Europe.

BACKGROUND: Migraine has a severe impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) affecting physical, emotional, and social aspects of daily living of an individual. Preventive treatment has been demonstrated to improve HRQoL by reducing the frequency of migraine headache days. METHODS: The study used data from 2017 Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Program, which is a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their consulting patients with migraine in the United States (US) and five European countries (EU [Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain]). Objectives were to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the following two subgroups and by region (US and EU): (i) patients who are eligible for migraine preventive treatment (≥4 migraine headache days/month), and (ii) patients who are non-eligible for preventive treatment (< 4 migraine headache days/month). Patient-reported outcome measures that were assessed included the following: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Version 2.1, Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels version, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. RESULTS: In total, 5462 patients (US = 1373; EU = 4089) were included in the study (preventive eligible: US = 584; EU = 1942; preventive non-eligible: US = 789; EU = 2147). In the US and EU, preventive eligible patients were significantly more likely to have worse disability as measured by MIDAS than non-eligible patients; preventive eligible patients also had significantly greater functional impairment, worse health utility, and overall greater work impairment (p < 0.0001). Among patients who were preventive eligible, a larger proportion of patients in the US reported that migraine forced them to reduce the number of hours worked as compared with the EU population (29.0% vs 24.7%). CONCLUSION: Patients who were preventive eligible (≥4 migraine headache days/month) demonstrated greater burden of disease across multiple PRO measures; trends were similar across the US and the five EU countries.

Predicting initiation of preventive migraine medications: exploratory study in a large U.S. medical claims database.

Objective: Despite guidelines that identify potential patients eligible for preventive migraine medications, their underutilization leaves patients at risk of acute medication overuse, disease progression, and higher healthcare resource utilization and disability. This exploratory, retrospective, observational study aimed to identify which factors predict preventive migraine medication initiation. Demographics and initiation of acute medication use were hypothesized to be predictive of initiation of preventive migraine medication.Methods: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan1 U.S. Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database (2011-2013) was used to identify adults newly diagnosed with migraine. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups: initiated a preventive migraine medication (antidepressants, anti-epileptics, beta-blockers, or neurotoxins) within 1 year of migraine diagnosis and did not initiate a preventive migraine medication. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with preventive migraine medication initiation.Results: Study population included 147,923 patients: 43,660 preventive migraine medication initiators and 104,263 non-preventive migraine medication patients. Best-fit model for predicting preventive migraine medication initiation included: female gender (odds ratio = 1.181 [95% CI = 1.144,1.218]; measured at date of first migraine diagnosis); headache diagnosis prior to migraine diagnosis (odds ratio = 1.538 [95% CI = 1.498,1.579]; measured 1-year before first migraine diagnosis); and sleep disorder (odds ratio = 1.206 [95% CI = 1.161,1.252]), headache/migraine-specific Emergency Department (ED) visit (odds ratio = 1.224 [95% CI = 1.168,1.283]), neurologist visit (odds ratio = 1.502 [95% CI = 1.459,1.547]), and acute medication refills with <90-day gap (odds ratio = 1.509 [95% CI = 1.470,1.549]) each measured at 1-year before first preventive migraine medication.Conclusions: In addition to consistent acute medication refills, specific comorbidity diagnoses, headache/migraine-specific ED utilization, and neurologist care are predictive of preventive migraine medication initiation in the 1-year post-incident migraine diagnosis.

Content validity of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 electronic patient-reported outcome.

PURPOSE: A concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability study was undertaken to: 1) ascertain the migraine experience with a particular focus on the impact on roles and daily functioning; 2) determine the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 electronic patient-reported outcome Role Function-Restrictive (MSQ v2.1 ePRO RFR) domain items, and the appropriateness and understanding of the recall period, response options, and instructions; and 3) assess the usability on an electronic tablet device. METHODS: Eleven US English-speaking people with episodic or chronic migraine were recruited to participate in one-on-one interviews, encompassing methods appropriate for concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants (seven episodic and four chronic) had a mean age of 34.8 years, and nine were female. Through spontaneous mention or probing, the concepts of the MSQ v2.1 ePRO RFR domain items were described and endorsed by all participants as day-to-day functioning restrictions; except for item 5 (ability to concentrate), which was endorsed by 10 of 11 participants. Cognitive interviewing confirmed the MSQ v2.1 ePRO instructions were clear, meaningful, and important to assess as daily functioning impacts experienced as a result of migraine. Overall impressions of the ePRO device were favorable, and no participants reported any difficulties with use. CONCLUSIONS: The MSQ v2.1 ePRO RFR domain is content-valid and appropriate for inclusion in future studies designed to measure the functional impact of episodic or chronic migraine on the performance of day-to-day activities.

Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab: Effects on patient functioning and disability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes from baseline in patient-reported outcomes for measures of functioning and disability among patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab or placebo. METHODS: Patients with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days) were treated with either galcanezumab (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine [EVOLVE]-1: 120 mg n = 210, 240 mg n = 208; EVOLVE-2: 120 mg n = 226, 240 mg n = 220) or placebo (EVOLVE-1 n = 425; EVOLVE-2 n = 450) during 6 months of treatment. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the effect of migraine on patient functioning (physical and emotional) in 3 domains, and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability associated with missed or reduced productivity at work or home and social events. Both were collected at baseline and during the treatment period (MSQv2.1 = monthly; MIDAS = months 3 and 6 only). RESULTS: Differences in MSQv2.1 total score least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (month 4-6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) were superior to placebo (EVOLVE-1 = 7.3 and 6.7 [both p < 0.001]; EVOLVE-2 = 8.5 and 7.3 [both p < 0.001]). Differences were similar for all domain scores (p < 0.001 for both galcanezumab doses compared with placebo), were observed as early as month 1, and were sustained for 6 months for most domains. Differences of MIDAS LS mean change from baseline (month 6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) compared with placebo were: EVOLVE-1 = -6.3 (p < 0.001) and -5.2 (p = 0.002); EVOLVE-2 = -9.2 and -8.2 (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning and decreased disability compared with patients who received placebo. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) given once monthly improved functioning and reduced disability.

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of galcanezumab in chronic migraine has been demonstrated in a pivotal Phase 3 study. Here, we assess efficacy in patients who have failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior migraine preventives for efficacy and/or safety reasons, and in those who never failed. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: REGAIN (NCT02614261) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with chronic migraine. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg/240 mg once monthly during a double-blind treatment period lasting three months. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients who failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior preventives and who never failed previously. Outcomes assessed were change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days, proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% response (reduction in monthly migraine headache days), change in number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use and change in patient functioning per Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RF-R) domain score. RESULTS: Treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significant improvements (p < 0.01) in overall reduction (Months 1-3) from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with prior failures (LS mean change [SE]: ≥2 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: -5.35 (0.71); galcanezumab 240 mg: -2.77 (0.66); placebo: -1.01 (0.54); ≥1 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: -5.53 (0.60), galcanezumab 240 mg: -3.53 (0.59); placebo: -2.02 (0.49). Similarly, significant results were seen with galcanezumab versus placebo for ≥50% and ≥75% response rates, reductions in acute medication use and improvements in MSQ RF-R domain score. In the subgroup with no prior preventive failures, results were statistically significant for the 240 mg galcanezumab group versus placebo on all outcome measures, and for the 120 mg group on the reduction in migraine headache days with acute medication use. There was also a higher placebo response observed in the patients with no prior preventive failures. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab is consistently efficacious versus placebo in reducing monthly migraine headache days and several other key outcomes in patients with chronic migraine who have failed ≥2 or ≥1 preventives previously. In the subgroup with no prior failures, greater numerical differences were seen with galcanezumab, but statistical separation from placebo varied by dose and outcome. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NUMBER: NCT02614261.